Jump to content

Talk:Falun Gong/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3→Archive 5

old talk

Some quotes by several "famous" people regarding Falun Gong:

1) Letter from U.S. President George W. Bush to Representative Benjamin A. Gilman:

"The White House Washington

March 13, 2002

The Honorable Benjamin A. Gilman House of Representatives Washington, DC 20515-3220

Dear Representative Gilman:

Thank you for your letter concerning the persecution of the Falun Gong in China.

During my visit to Beijing, I reiterated to China’s leaders that my Administration and the American people remain firmly committed to the defense of human rights around the world, including the freedoms of religion and conscience. The protection of the fundamental freedoms was the central theme of my nationally televised address to the Chinese people.

While in China, senior members of my Administration also expressed concerns about several specific cases of unjustified imprisonment with Chinese authorities, urging that the prisoners be freed immediately. We will continue to press the Chinese authorities to end the crackdown of adherents of non–traditional spiritual movements. We have repeatedly stressed to the Chinese government that there is no justification for its brutal repression of Falun Gong members.

My Administration will continue to work with the Congress to do everything possible to advance the cause of human rights in China.

Sincerely,

George W. Bush"

2)

"HCON 188 EH 107th CONGRESS 2d Session

H. CON. RES. 188

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

Whereas 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;

Whereas 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;

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;

Whereas 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;

Whereas propaganda from state-controlled media in the People's Republic of China has inundated the public in an attempt to breed hatred and discrimination;

Whereas the number of known deaths from torture has reached 422 so far, tens of thousands have been tortured while confined in labor camps, prisons, and mental hospitals, and hundreds of thousands have been forced to attend brainwashing classes;

Whereas 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;

Whereas women in particular have been the target of numerous forms of sexual violence, including rape, sexual assault, and forced abortion;

Whereas the campaign of persecution has been generated by the Government of the People's Republic of China, is carried out by government officials and police at all levels, and has permeated every segment of society and every level of government in the People's Republic of China; and

Whereas several United States citizens and permanent resident aliens have been subjected to arbitrary detention, imprisoned, and tortured in the People's Republic of China: Now, therefore, be it

Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring), That it is the sense of Congress that--

(1) the Government of the People's Republic of China should cease its persecution of Falun Gong practitioners, and its representatives in the United States should cease their harassment of citizens and residents of the United States who practice Falun Gong and cease their attempts to put pressure on officials of State and local governments in the United States to refuse or withdraw support for the Falun Gong and its practitioners;

(2) the United States Government should use every appropriate public and private forum to urge the Government of the People's Republic of China--

(A) to release from detention all Falun Gong practitioners and put an end to the practices of torture and other cruel, inhumane, and degrading treatment against them and other prisoners of conscience; and

(B) to abide by the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights by allowing Falun Gong practitioners to pursue their personal beliefs; and

(3) the United States Government should investigate allegations of illegal activities in the United States of the Government of the People's Republic of China and its representatives and agents, including allegations of unlawful harassment of United States citizens and residents who practice Falun Gong and of officials of State and local governments in the United States who support Falun Gong, and should take appropriate action, including but not limited to enforcement of the immigration laws, against any such representatives or agents who engage in such illegal activities.

Passed the House of Representatives July 24, 2002."

origin: http://usinfo.state.gov/regional/ea/uschina/falun188.htm

3. Quote from T. Kumar, Amnesty International USA's Advocacy Director for Asia and the Pacific: "This movement is not a political movement. This is average citizens of China who are exercising their fundamental rights. They've never done any harm to other people...It's time the Chinese government opened up, take this as an issue that is fundemental to their country at large, and move forward with dignity. In that sense, as a human rights organization, we are demanding and urging the Chinese government to release all the prisoners who are imprisoned for the practice of Falun Gong"

4. Statement by mister Li Hongzhi:

"We are not against the government now, nor will we be in the future. Other people may treat us badly, but we can not treat others badly, nor do we treat people as enemies." Li Hongzhi July 22, 1999 (the day the persecution started)

Falun Gong has been the most beneficial thing to a people stripped of thier moral direction and forced time after time to succomb to violent revolution. Falun Gong stresses non violence and cultivating oneself. In contrast the persecuter, Jiang Zemin's policy is all about ensuring the continued exploitation of the Chinese lower class for the benefit of the few political elite. He is truly, by any and all sane definition(s) of the word- an evil man. ANYTHING said by his party or the government under his control should be first considered a lie and the ultier motives for saying it be examined.--63.204.117.10

NPOV --Jiang

There are also very many people and groups outside of the Chinese govt. who have questions about the public statements and apparent policies of Li Hongzhi. There are links to official Fa Lun Gong sites on the page and they have an opportunity to tell their side of the story, but that can be done without sweeping their critics under the rug. Fire Star 15:00, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC)

This page does a decent, if vague, job of exposing the persecution of Falun Gong practictioners, but doesn't touch on the truly wacky and dangerous practices of many practictioners. A little more research, balance, and meat would be in order.

I fully agree. Someone needs to present the Chinese point of view. 172

Too many rumours/unprovable comments

1. Just for the record, the reference to the 2 billion year old nuclear reactor is proven scientifically, known as The Oklo phenomenon http://www.wonuc.org/nucwaste/oklo.htm, no reason to awe.

and li is so and so light-years old, quarks and neutrinoes are buddhas, science is introduced by aliens and medicine is bad for you...

2. The Cristian Churches banned in China, maltreated tibetans and uighurs, etc will all tell you that the actual Chinese regime has a terrible human rights record and frequently use the excuse of "evil sect", "contra-revolutionaries", etc when brutaly dealing with differently thinking people and needs cover-ups. In the case of Falun Gong, the thuth is no other government besides the Chinese one ever had any problem with Falun Gong. Nor do they classify Falun Gong as sect, more so "evil" sect.

If we talk about the deaths by torture in police custody of the Falun Gong practitioners, the public torture sessions that happened in Tibet, or the mass murdering of the uighurs or the massacre in Tian an men square, pls keep in mind: these people were just thinking different than the chinese authorities, that's all.

3. "Today Falun Gong is no longer influential in mainland China". Ok, but who says that? How can that be proved, since all of the Falun Gong practitioners have to hide or are already inprisoned? The press is controled by the state and nobody can count them anyway. Since the movement is banned, one cannot now. Right?

4. A lot of things seem just inuendos and rumours: "some believers hurt or kill themselves after reading the books by Li Hongzhi". "Some report that Li did not even write the books himself". "Some people also think that Li's purpose of introducing Falun Gong is just to earn money".

One cannot prove these things, there's no evidence and even no cited sources. I think that these have no place in an enciclopedia. They make the whole article look really bad. -[1]

All that we need is an unbiased article. Present opinions otherwise... Colipon 23:14, 5 Nov 2003 (UTC)

No Reports

Several days later, about 10,000 people gathered outside Zhongnanhai, the headquarters of Chinese Communist Party in a peaceful protest. Premier Zhu Rongji had met with them and promised to release the practitioners that were caught illegaly. He then received high and positive complements around the world. It is speculated that this had made Jiang jealous and this is believed that the government's efforts at crushing Falun Gong began after this demonstration.

Can anybody show any confirmed reports regarding this?? Zhu Rongji is widely respected by the Chinese people, but not because of Falun Gong, but his contribution to the country. It is also funny to say that Falun Gong is cracked down because Jiang Zemin is "jealous". After all China now is not in Mao's era, where one can make a decision all by himself. You can say CCP is dicatatorship, but you can never say any one person is a dictator in PRC.--Formulax 04:50, 4 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Changed the article section saying that no one knows why the CCP has singled out Falugong. I don't know of anyone who seriously proposes that it wasn't the direct result of the April 1999 demonstration Roadrunner 04:26, 14 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Roadrunner, sorry to intrude with edits, without having had a chance to discuss further. I felt it were best to correct some factual misstatements regarding the practice. I believe that I kept it as small as necessary. I will explore this wikipedia system further, so I can find out how better to work with you, who seem to be the main contributor recently.

Would it be helpful to interview some of the people involved for this article cluster? For instance, I can review with one of those who talked with Zhu Rongji that day at Zhongnanhai. Ditto with some others of several nationalities who have been injured by police for displaying the words "Falun Gong" on Tiananment Square. Ditto with some others who have deconstructed several PRC media pieces to show malicious intent (such as the so-called "self-immolation" sequence on Tiananmen Square, where one "immolator" is shown being clubbed from behind and an apparent assailant escaping thereafter). Joseph Beckenbach 18:19, 2004 Feb 15 (UTC)

The problem with these sorts of interviews is if they are unpublished then they fall under personal research and are very difficult to verify. If you can add information that is published this would be very useful. (i.e. the deconstructions of the TAM video are very widespread.) Just as a personal note, the trouble with the deconstructions is that while they are convincing to true belivers, they sound very much like conspiracy theories to outsiders. Something akin to right-wing analysis of Ruby Ridge and the Branch Davidians. Roadrunner 18:53, 15 Feb 2004 (UTC)
:: Good points. I will see what I can dig up. Thanks! Joseph Beckenbach 19:04, 2004 Feb 15 (UTC)
But the number is high enough for the Chinese government to justify its efforts in the continuing persecution.

Doesn't follow. If I go into a street corner and loudly proclaim say "Shandong independence", I'm sure that I will get a knock on the door even if no one else believes me. Roadrunner 18:53, 15 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Hmm. Perhaps "But the Chinese government claims the number is high enough to justify continuing its persecution" would be more accurate? I'm not sure whether excising the sentence is more beneficial to understanding the current situation than leaving it in. Joseph Beckenbach 19:04, 2004 Feb 15 (UTC)

On second thought, it would be more accurate to remove. The PRC government claims plenty of other justifications beyond mere numbers. Joseph Beckenbach 19:11, 2004 Feb 15 (UTC)

I cut the statement that gong is "essentialy different from "Qi"". Is there any reason to think that they would be the same?

Gōng (功) means "work" or "technique." The Falungong people have been known to state that their qigong is better than anyone else's, and when challenged on it they say that they don't use qi, they use gong, and that gong is more spiritual than qi. Since the two aren't analogous (it is like saying that station is better for fueling your auto than gas), it does give one the impression that they are talking out of their arse.Fire Star 15:19, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)
I found [2], which I'll try to paraphrase. Markalexander100 02:58, 6 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Ah, good. That goes a long way towards explaining what they mean by that. I will probably present a critique of this theory of theirs as well (it seems a lot of doubletalk to a professional in the field), I'll try to be perfectly NPOV in the article, of course... Fire Star 20:16, 6 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Organization

This article is oddly organized. The "Crackdown" section is just a list of events. Could it either be A) arranged like a timeline, with the first part of each entry being a wiki-formatted date, or B) separated into sub sections, making it easier to read and navigate for a reader? --DropDeadGorgias (talk) 14:40, Sep 16, 2004 (UTC)

Lead section

I removed the following from the lead section because it is not introductory material:

As CNN's Willy Lam reported a Communist Party veteran providing his analysis: "By unleashing a Mao-style movement [against Falun Gong], Jiang is forcing senior cadres to pledge allegiance to his line. This will boost Jiang's authority-and may give him enough momentum to enable him to dictate events at the pivotal 16th Communist Party congress next year."
The Falun Dafa Information Center, a representative organization for Falun Gong, has stated that more than 1,000 deaths have been verified in police or government custody due to the government's crackdown on the practice.

Please add it to the relevant section of the article. --Jiang 03:58, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

claims

In the "Origins and Beliefs" section -

[...] Earth is currently being invaded by aliens.

nowhere in any of Mr. Li's works will you find any mention of an "alien invasion", but there is acknowledgement of the existence of extraterrestrials. I wonder where the author got this from.

[...] Li has declined to name his own teachers or to delineate the actual provenance of Falun Gong when asked directly.

In all of Mr. Li's 9-day seminar/lectures given in China, he mentions the origins during first few sections of the first lecture. Also, in the Chinese edition of the book "Zhuan Falun" (prior 1999, i will try to look up publisher), there is a 20-30 page or so postscript/addendum gives more detailed information.

the whole paragraph looks like a poor paraphrasing job.

In a Time magazine article dated May 10, 1999:

"TIME: Who were your teachers? Li: I do not wish to have their names known. I had masters in two schools. Prior to the Cultural Revolution people enjoyed quite a bit of religious freedom. Chinese were quite used to such things. It was like going to church in the West.

TIME: When did you start teaching? Li: I am more than 40 years old, and I have been practicing qigong for many years. When qigong became popular, I did not come out in the public. I did not want to teach about stopping illnesses or keeping fit.

TIME: What made you finally come out? Li: When these masters asked me to come out. At the time I said that there were too many people practicing qigong, and I said that I did not want to cure illnesses or to help people keep fit. They said, "What you do will be different. These people who are teaching how to cure illnesses and teaching fitness, are paving the road for your coming out."

TIME: Where were these masters? Li: They were in the mountains."

So, the sentence about his reluctance to discuss Falungong's provenance goes back in. Fire Star 21:55, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Falun Gong's stance on homosexuality

http://www.rickross.com/reference/fa_lun_gong/falun249.html

A Chinese battle on U.S. Soil

Homosexuality--Leader spreading idea of perversion

Though Li is often vague about how to become a better person, he is specific on a few points. One is that homosexuality is perverse. The disgusting homosexuality shows the dirty abnormal psychology of the gay who has lost his ability of reasoning at the present time, Li wrote in Volume II of Zhuan Falun, or Turning the Law Wheel, which was translated into English in 1996. It is now posted on Falun Gong's main Web site only in Chinese.

In a 1998 talk in Switzerland, Li said gay people would be eliminated by the gods. Asked in Frankfurt, Germany, that year whether gays could practice Falun Gong, Li answered, to a round of applause, You can cultivate, but you must give up the bad conduct.

Those lectures can be read on www.falundafa.org or ordered from Li's publishing company in Chinese, but they have not been translated into English. Two organization officials said they did not know why. The Mercury News read Li's comments in Chinese.

Li also regards mixed-race or cross-bred people as rootless and deviant, a sign of morally bankrupt times.

In Li's world view, mixed-race people are a plot by the evil extraterrestrials who populate his cosmology, which spills over with accounts of lost civilizations, higher realms and mysteries that science cannot grasp.

By mixing the races of humans, the aliens make humans cast off gods, he said in a lecture in Switzerland.

(But Li says practitioners may marry people of other races -- one of many contradictions in his philosophy.)

Li told followers that aliens came in droves during the Industrial Revolution and that they aim to take over human souls through science, monitoring people by assigning every computer a number.

By embedding their technology and science in human bodies, aliens control their thoughts, Li said.

Photo of Falun Gong activists in NYC

I don't want to jump in the middle of ya'll's debate, but I do feel including this photo I took in NYC would be encyclopedic. Notice I simply put "enacting" and not "reenacting" in the caption to be NPOV. At your leisure, of course! --Alterego 20:58, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Falun Gong activists enacting torture scenes in New York City
==Segregated Heaven?==

Would someone explain what this means? Segregated by what factor? Race?

NPOV

66.65.181.145 has been making some heavy edits, and I seriously question the POV of most of them. --InShaneee 03:57, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)

(I've moved the most recent comments to bottom of the page, where they will be easier to find) I agree. I've reverted them. Such cosmetic changes are going to have to be discussed and consensus reached before they will stand. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, and articles about any religious group or New Age fad, whether it be Falun Gong, Reiki or the Roman Catholic Church should be balanced and NPOV, warts and all. Reporting on the things Li Hongzhi has actually said pertaining to Falun Gong and where it may have come from, even if they make him look like a crackpot, has a place in the article.66.65.181.145 should read Wikipedia is not a soapbox. Fire Star 15:11, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The recent changes by 69.107.121.143 are also quite POV, and have no regard to English grammar or spelling. I'm considering reverting them all. --DropDeadGorgias (talk) 14:47, Mar 1, 2005 (UTC)

Agreed. Reverted. Fire Star 15:32, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Apology... Re: Changes by 203.5.75.11

Hi, I wanted to apologise for making corrections to this article before discussing. I'm not yet sure of the correct protocol, as I'm relatively new to Wiki. At the time I didn't have a user login. I tried to make the corrections objectively, providing more 'meat' while trying to maintain neutral POV.

Please see the reasons for the suggested changes below, I understand if you want to roll any back.

Removed the following links as they were broken:

Replaced the broken link:

with:

Minor correction to:

replaced with:

(to make it clear a U.S. citizen is actually imprisoned in China, not U.S.)

Replaced: On the other hand, there has been several incidents in which China's state-owned television networks were jammed with Falun Gong promotion materials. with: On the other hand, there have been several incidents in which China's state-owned television networks were jammed with reports on the persecution of Falun Gong.

I replaced this because to the best of my knowledge, the cable hacks were about the Chinese government's denying basic human rights to Falun Gong practitioners, not actually promoting the practice per se.

Added: According to WOIPFG reports, eight Falun Gong practitioners were arrested after one of the jamming incidents in Changchun city, including Liu Chengjun, who was allegedly tortured to death after 21 months incarceration in Jilin Prison.

I thought this should be mentioned if you mention the cable hacks... I felt it's fairly important to mention what happened to those people.

Regards

Jason Watson

Greetings Jason. As far as I can see from a cursory look, they seem like good edits. Congratulations and welcome to Wikipedia. Fire Star 02:58, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Purported cult

This material is from the article List of purported cults, which we are paring down to a pure list. Editors here can best evaluate its statements and decide how to integrate it into this article. Thanks, -Willmcw 11:08, Mar 14, 2005 (UTC)

Falun Gong
Falun Gong, or Falun Dafa, is a quasi-spiritual group that practices Qigong with some overtones of Taoism and especially Buddhism. The group became so popular in China (alleged to have at one point upwards of 100 million adherents) that it was repressed and eventually criminalized as a cult by the Chinese Communist Government of the People's Republic of China. It has remained relatively popular regardless, and has gained a sizable following internationally as well. Some see it as harmless exercise, yet the public statements and methods of Falun Gong's founder, Li Hongzhi (now living in the U.S.), seem controversial to many more traditional Qigong schools (schools not necessarily sympathetic to the communists) as well as the Chinese Government.

I suggest considering Falun Gong as part of Buddhism. Sarcelles 11:44, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

According to Falun Gong's teachings and it's representatives, Falun Gong is NOT part of Buddhism or Taosim, but, instead, encompasses Buddhism and Taoism. Also, it is extremely important to note that, according to its own literature, creator, and representatives, Falun Gong is NOT a religion but a spiritual practice. User:Mas5353 04:09, 22 Apr 2005 (EST)

snake oil.

“snake oil” has nothing to do with qi-gong, or anything closely related, and clearly denotes a false connotation – “Snake oil is a term used for fake, fraudulent, and usually ineffective potions and nostrums.”

Nor does it have anything to do with traditional Chinese techniques and practices. It’s not even in the right hemisphere.

It's not implying that qigong is snake oil, the link is merely one of list of contextual references to aid people in researching Falungong's claim that gong is better for you than qi (which, for traditionalists anyway, seems like they are saying something analogous to: station is better for your car than gas). Fire Star 14:19, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Neither 'gong' nor 'qi', however, are even remotely referenced, nor is the practice of snake oil oriental, much less ancient. Neither is the claim "Falungong's claim". Also, it's not analogous to station being better than gas, but more akin to "1" being "more existent" than "0".
I disagree. Since we aren't speaking of mathematics, semantically, my analogy is more accurate. Gong means work or skill, so there is qigong, wugong, etc. in chinese. To say that gong is more effective than qi means, to a professional, that they are engaging in word games to claim some form of exclusive effectiveness in the eyes of the gullible. As it stands, I don't see Falungong practitioners doing much "work" and they demonstrate no perceivable objective "skill," so their claims of exclusivity don't stand on any demonstrable merits other than their verbal claims, which is why the snake oil reference makes sense to me. We aren't saying that Falungong is snake oil, but having the reference there, in with several others, gives the reader the ability to research one possible context for such an unverified statement. Also, you should sign your contributions if you want them to be considered towards consensus. Fire Star 01:01, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Snake oil is not an NPOV term. I think it would be sensible to say the government views their techniques as snake oil, but it is unfair to make a declaration in wikipedia that a given method is snake oil. We do *not* tell "the truth" here, we tell perspectives on what might be truth. Ronabop 12:29, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
"We aren't saying that Falungong is snake oil" by having a link there, as I said. We aren't saying that it is kung fu, either, are we? The link is provided for context, just as cold reading is linked to the John Edward page. We aren't saying the John Edward is cold reading, we are saying that that is one explanation for what he does, whether or not it is true. Falungong's public claims that gong heals better than qi, with no evidence presented for the claim whatever, certainly can be contextualized editorially for people by a link to a description of the snake oil phenomenon. Other New Age disciplines share this feature, Reiki, for example. To be fair, if we get a consensus of other editors wanting it gone, at least two or three more, then I won't object. Fire Star 01:43, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I understand the attempt to place other items with similar context. However, to determine the true position of "snake oil," consider the following example: Have you ever been given a list of words and then been told to identify the word that did not belong in the list? Pretend you had a list of words such as "Falun Gong, gigong, kung fu, alternative medicine, and snake oil." Even to someone who was anti-Falun Gong they would still see Falun Gong as something associated with practice or exercise despite the perceived purpose. I think it's safe to say the same about qigong and kung fu. When you read "alternative medicine" you've ventured away from that frame of thought but then you can see how it might relate because of the claimed healing properties of Falun Gong. I'm afraid that "snake oil" ventures a little too far off however, as it has to do with fake potions and what not. This is just my understanding. 128.186.122.183 20 Apr 2005 (EST)

Vandalism

We're dealing with a dynamic IP vandal right here. So far we've seen him blanking this article on three different IPs. They can all be blocked, sure, but maybe this calls for IP range blocking. If someone could do that, it would be nice. I could, but since range blocking is a little tricy, I'm not sure I should risk it myself. Anyone?--Kaonashi 01:19, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Make that four IP's. Maybe we should try contacting the ISP / doing some requests into the NIC to see if it would be damaging to innocent users or not? -- Natalinasmpf 01:24, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I've protected the main and talk pages for now. Perhaps someone who can do a range block can be contacted at Vandalism in progress before we unprotect these pages? Unfortunately, I have to sign off soon. Cheers, Fire Star 01:28, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Recent changes, April 2005

The spate of recent editing has been productive for the most part, but Wikipedia has to be careful not to imply that Falun Gong actually works to develop subjectives like "moral character" etc. Wikipedia policy is one of (especially) NPOV where we can only report, not support, such claims. Unfortunately, there are no medical tests or even universal agreement on the constitution of either morality or character, for example. Fire Star 12:45, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

There is no mention of selective translation by FLG?

in FLG's website you can find Chinese version of ZhuanFalun part2, but you can't find English version of it. i don;t think you can find ZhuanFalun part2 in any language other than Chinese. you can ask other people do an independent study if you wish.

Chinese version of ZhuanFalun part2: http://www.falundafa.org/book/col_chigb/zfl2.htm

no english version: http://www.falundafa.org/eng/books.htm

no, it's not "Essentials for Further Advancement II" or any other stuff. it's not added into zhuanfalun. i found all other Li's books got translated(some with questionable translations/choice of words), just not ZhuanFalun part2.(note that Chinese version of ZhuanFalun part2 is kind hidden on their website, i think it's interesting that people can't access ZFL2 normally by clicking on their book links, but you still can access it if you google it.)

It is somewhat interesting as to why an English translation is not readily available. Do you really care why any of the books are written, or what their purpose is? If so why do you harp on ZF v2; could there be some significant reason for it's non-English translation? Why should you be allowed to know the truth of the situation if you don't even respect the practice? For the sake of an interesting thought experiment, what if this extended to the universe? Would you really be allowed to know the truth of the universe if you didn't respect it? These are just questions.User:Mas5353
the right questions are what are they hiding from rest of the world and why are they doing it? from my understanding, part2 is more radical and has more school kids mistakes(light year is a unit of time etc) than part1. --Weaponofmd 23:19, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
To answer your question: "What are they hiding from the rest of the world?" The interesting thing about the practice Falun Gong, (as I've gathered from reading Zhuan Falun) is that its purpose is to do the exact opposite of what you mention. They (practitioners) don't want to hide anything; they would like the public to know everything (about the universe). My understanding of why Zhuan Falun 2 is not available is that because its author feels that (at least the English version) is not yet ready for the public. I don't see the since in publishing something that hasn't been properly edited or translated either.User:Mas5353
right, after what? more than ten years of publication and it's not ready for rest of the world? and it's the only thing not available in english? how about use your common sense?--Weaponofmd 18:58, 2005 Apr 23 (UTC)
to answer your "respect" question, let me ask why are you defending them? have you read those book before? i can careless if you want to defend them, i just want to make sure it's worth my time. i saw so many people who never read their books started to defend their religion. i can hardly believe one man with elementry school education can find the ultimate truth of universe. oh well, since wiki is not a place for personal search and i can't find any article to mention this interesting fact. i guess i can let this part to rest.--Weaponofmd 23:19, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
In response to your questions: I would not say that I am defending Falun Gong. I would just say that I am not intentionally and deliberately trying to slander the practice unlike some other posters I see. If anything, I am defending a Wikipedia article and the purpose it is supposed to represent. Perhaps I should return a similar question to you: Why are you trying to "sink" Falun Gong? It appears as if you want the practice destroyed. I can say that I've read all or almost all of the books associated with Falun Gong, so perhaps you view this post as something that is worth your precious time. From the books, I can see that it teaches people to uphold Truthfulness, Compassion, and Forebearance (Zhen-Shan-Ren), and, quite frankly, I don't find those three things to be very offensive. In fact, I think a bit more of that in this world would not be a bad thing. As for other teachings, such as those on the structure of the universe: well, it seems to me that a person has a choice: they can either agree with the structure conveyed by Falun Gong, or they can agree with some other proposed structure (such as that publicly published in scientific journals or religious doctrine). You stated that you "can hardly believe one man with an elementary school education can find the ultimate truth of the universe." To me this implies that you believe either it would take more than one person to do it or they would have to have a Phd or something. Well, I don't know the truth of the universe but I think it's great that it appears you are seeking it. However, if I were seeking the truth of the universe I wouldn't be looking for it through my head, I would be looking for it through my heart. Perhaps you can see why in this situation, education doesn't matter. And last but not least, you called Falun Gong a "religion". According to the books and practitioners, it is NOT a religion but a spritual practice. If you don't know the difference then maybe you should either read the books or study religion in general. --User:Mas5353 03:53, 23 Apr 2005 (EST)
my intention doesn't matter, what matters is if whatever i added are factual and NPOV, apperently, you don't understand this. i'll added whatever i want to as long as it follows the guideline.
they claim it's not a religion, so what? this is a discussion forum, therefore i can post my understanding of their religion.if you go to check a dictionary,how about wikipedia? see religion.FLG is a belief concerning the supernatural, sacred, or divine, and the moral codes, practices and institutions associated with such belief.--Weaponofmd 18:58, 2005 Apr 23 (UTC)
Chapter II(http://www.falundafa.org/book/col_chigb/zfl2.htm) is mainly about the "Limit of modern science, buddism and taoism" and claimed that Falun itself is beyond the limit and contains the truth of buddism and taoism. Selective translation of Falunist can be also found here[3], where the last four Chinese topics can be translated into:"Evolution, a wrong belief", "Falun, a super science by medic point of view", "not a religion, but a great science" and "The moon is hollow and artificial".

i posted last comment about selective translations.

anyway, i want to put one interviews to help people understand the nature of FLG.

Interview with Li Hongzhi http://www.time.com/time/asia/asia/magazine/1999/990510/interview1.html

about Charles Lee's case, which has a link listed under External links.

in http://www.rescuecharles.org/en/detail.php?id=48 they claimed "Nevertheless, Chinese authorities arrested Lee as soon as he arrived in Guangzhou Airport in southern China." but in http://www.rescuecharles.org/en/AppealLetter_English.pdf it's a totally different story.

is it worthy enough to be mentioned on wiki? i donno. but i think if someone list that website on wiki, then other people should be notified about the different stories wrote by FLG.

his appeals detail a previous visit to china, of one which he returned to the US on the 20ish-th of october (look at the time gap ...). his subsequent visit did result in the immediate arrest at the airport AFAIK.

you are right, i didn't read that part careful enough.

can't mention world war three?

funny, he said it and i can't mention it.

yes, i read the whole NPOV thing.

how could it be biased when everything were out from his own mouth? i didn't post any judgemental opinion, only reported what he said.

can you enlighten me on this problem?

alright, lets try this one

Mr. Li claimed that after ten years of spreading Falundafa, "predestinations have been greatly changed", and "The comet catastrophe predestined in history is no more, the third world war has been averted, and the peril in 1999 from the cycle of formation-stasis-degeneration-destruction of Heaven and Earth will never recur."

http://www.falundafa.org/book/eng/jw_74.htm

If you have good citations, then I don't see why it can't be mentioned in the article. We just can't say "Li says X, Y and Z, therefore he is obviously a nut." Let Li's statements say that for him. Fire Star 22:44, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
i DID NOT say he was a nut, if you want, you can check the history, i tried to be as much NPOV as possible. i believe people will judge the informations themselves.--Weaponofmd 23:11, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I'm sorry, I didn't mean to say that you did. I was just saying that as an example. If you have good citations for quoting the guy, I'm all for leaving the quotes in. Fire Star 03:02, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Doesn't seem to matter. This poster has made it clear that his intentions are to slander Falun Gong with his recent post (which has been removed)(also not too surprising given this poster's username). This was done by posting an interpretation of what was said, not by posting the actual quote. I would hope that the poster could reread whatever work they have read and see their own bias bleeding into the interpretation. Regardless, the post was deleted because no reference or citation was left. User:mas5353 03:02, 23 Apr 2005 (EST)
what is your problem? last time i checked, my original intention doesn't matter, the only thing matters is if whatever i edited on wiki's article pages are factual and NPOV!
and what is wrong with my username? you can judge people and read their minds by looking at their usernames? funny!
anyway, sorry for did not cite the source properly.--Weaponofmd 18:47, 2005 Apr 23 (UTC)
Thank you for posting the reference this time. Because you posted the reference I was able to check what you posted against the reference. It turns out that you grossly distorted the reference. Nowhere in the reference did Li Hongzhi state that he was the one that had prevented the actions that you mentioned. So much for you claiming to post things that are factual and npov. User:mas5353 15:45, 23 Apr 2005 EST
after spreading falundafa for ten years.. right, he didn't do it. but thank you anyway, for trying so hard to play with words here, i learned alot. --Weaponofmd 02:07, 2005 Apr 24 (UTC)
I'm glad you chose to edit your above post to not include your casting of the word "moron." I thank you for your thought at least. Since you insist, I've edited your most recent contribution to the article to improve it's English and put it into the context of the sub-section you placed it under. I hope it is to your approval.User:mas5353 20:49, 23 Apr 2005 (EST)
well, please forgive me, i was angry, but i realized you were right to a certain extent.i believe one thing on your new edit is wrong. the "end of the world in 1999" is different from "comet" and "ww3".--Weaponofmd 04:23, 2005 Apr 24 (UTC)
I'm sorry. The only reason I didn't include your deduction on that is because it isn't really clear that that is what he is referring to. In fact, I don't think that anyone could really make sense of that except practitioners. Go figure.User:mas5353 00:56, 24 Apr 2005 (EST)

Pro-Falun Gong Epoch Times

It seems that there has been some debate over The Epoch Times' platform on Falun Gong. The wording surrounding this claim has been altered to be as NPOV as possible (so that it isn't taken necessarily as fact) and links to articles which supposedly support this claim have been added. If anyone finds references to suggest Epoch Times' neutrality on this issue please add links. mas5353 1:52 AM April 21, 2005 (EST)

hmmm, Wall Street Journal's article mentioned The Epoch Times' tax record shows the newspaper's chairman is a top FLG speaker. donno if i can post the whole article due to copyright issue. --Weaponofmd 17:58, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

i'll post 2 paragraphs, check out the rest at your local library or university.

Falun Gong Adds Media Weapons In Struggle With China's Rulers

Susan V. Lawrence. Wall Street Journal. (Eastern edition). New York, N.Y.: Apr 14, 2004. pg. B.2I

"Right now we are labeled a Falun Gong TV station, even though we are not," says NTDTV's President Zhong Lee. NTDTV "really has nothing to do with Falun Gong at all," he adds. Yet tax records show that a top spokesperson for Falun Gong in the U.S., Gail Rachlin, is one of three directors for NTDTV, officially registered as Universal Communications Network.

As for the Epoch Times, Editor in Chief Annette Jun Guo says to call it a Falun Gong media organization would be "completely wrong" and dangerously "misleading" because Falun Gong, she says, has no political goals. Yet tax records show the chairman of the paper's board is another top Falun Gong spokesperson, Kangang Xu.

--Weaponofmd 18:05, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

More on recent edits

Hello everyone. In order to preserve the neutral nature of the article, I've had to change a few small things. Li has said what he said, we shouldn't try to softpedal that. As well, we can't simply say that Falungong goes beyond the teachings of Taoism and Buddhism. We can say that Falungong claims to, but to simply say that it does won't work. Fire Star 20:07, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

You're right, particularly with respect to apologists. However, particularly well chosen words can distort anything, and for an article as controversial as this, I think it deserves a thorough treatment of, especially to maintain a NPOV, putting things into context. As an example, even Fire Star has said that "Falungong goes beyond the teachings of Taoism and Buddhism. (clearly above)" Oh, I'm sorry... did I take an excerpt of your words and take them out of context? I think you see what I mean. Mas5353 16:15, 24 Apr 2005 (EST)
Hello, Li Hongzhi said in the Time magazine interview: "aliens have begun to invade the human mind and its ideology and culture" Italics mine. He used the word invade, so it can stay in the article. I know you are pro-Falungong, and some other editors are anti. I'm neither for nor against it, but we cannot have the article become an advertisement. Fire Star 20:21, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
You're right, I apologize. But the article says that "the Earth has been invaded." I will fix this. Mas5353 16:29 24 Apr 2005 (EST)
You are correct, it is kind of a mixed bag. Perhaps we should use a direct quote? Fire Star 20:34, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Thanks for the suggestion. That's what I was thinking as well. I've also (re)added something to assist the readability of that section plus another example. I think you'll agree that it's better suited than my initial attempt. Mas5353 16:53, 24 Apr 2005 (EST)

Falun Gong presence in major metropolitan areas

This is a very Non-NPOV addition. If you don't rewrite it, I will do so. The other thing is that these protests are not just happening in America but throughout the world. Jingoistic and other emotive terms are inappropriate for an encyclopediac article. --Peacenik 23:28, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

No need to wait for the revision. They can try again. I reverted to Peacenik's version because I could not find any changes in the minor versions immediately after Peacenik's. mas5353 22:30, 27 Apr 2005 (EST)
Whoa, why did you revert the change altogether? If you had issues with the wording of individual sentences, you should have edited them to your liking. I get the feeling that you are strongly trying to control the content of this article, when there are many aspects to this complex topic. "Jingoistic" certainly is appropriate in wikipedia articles, you can find it in articles such as Conservative Party (UK), Spanish-American War and List of patriotic songs. I don't think that it is at all inappropriate to say that New Yorkers are by and large confused by these demonstrations as they are provided with little context in a traditionally non-trustworthy medium, the street performance. I myself live in New York and of the other New Yorkers I've talked to, most are confused by the simplistic message of "Falun Dafa is Good", and have no clue what action is requested of them by these demonstrators. Please understand that we are trying to write an encyclopedic article and must present all the facts around a particular topic. I, for one, have not figured out what the Falun Gong expects New Yorkers to do. If you know, maybe you could add it to this section, and then confused New Yorkers that look the Falun Gong up here could know what course of action they are being recommended to take? You should understand that I have no prior knowledge of the Falun Gong, all that I am trying to convey is that, on average, New Yorkers are a generally cynical lot, and that they may think that the demonstrations are unnecessarily graphic and orchestrated for shock value. In any case, this article would not be complete without an account of the Falun Gong demonstrations in major cities. However, so we can resolve this, I will first post what I intend to post here, and you can edit it as you see fit. --DropDeadGorgias (talk) 03:27, Apr 28, 2005 (UTC)

Falun Gong presence in major metropolitan areas

Falun Gong practitioners enacting torture scenes in New York City

More recently, the Falun Gong have taken on the policy of directly addressing the American public in major metropolitan areas, most notably Manhattan. They have set up several aggressive streetside demonstrations where they re-enact gruesome scenes of government brutality complete with simulated beatings and crying victims while holding up signs with simplistic slogans, such as "Falun Dafa is Good". Despite the sympathy generated, most New Yorkers are confused by the lack of a requested action from them, and the fact that they have chosen to communicate primarily through street pamphleteering, a medium that is traditionally associated with mass-market advertisers in New York.

I know that these reenactments are happening in major cities throughout the world. I am aware of them in Sydney, Melbourne and Toronto. Your point is valid that they are not spelling out any action. I think they are trying to combat the 6-10 campaign that the Chinese government is carrying out, but that they are trying to do this without being overtly political, but that is just my guess. Certainly, I am here, because of the demonstations that they performed outside the Supreme Court in Sydney. Below is my preferred wording, making it more generic. (Some of us don't live in NY ;-))

More recently, the Falun Gong have taken on the policy of directly addressing the public in major metropolitan areas, in many Western countries, most notably Manhattan. They have set up several confronting streetside demonstrations where they re-enact gruesome scenes of government brutality complete with simulated beatings and crying victims while holding up signs with simplistic slogans, such as "Falun Dafa is Good". Despite the sympathy generated, they do not make a clear call to action, leaving members of the public uncertain of what to do. --Peacenik 04:10, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

That looks fine to me. Also, if more involved users, such as mas know what action is being requested of the audience, this might be a great place to mention it. --DropDeadGorgias (talk) 04:36, Apr 28, 2005 (UTC)
I waited for mas to comment, but decided he can edit later if appropriate.

--Peacenik 00:47, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

<smile> You guys are awfully polite and I appreciate it (there was no need for that), but I especially appreciate you going ahead and working with the article in the way you saw best. I find the new edit to be much more appropriate. I do have a concern though with respect to a cited source for that information (particularly with respect to opinions of New Yorkers), otherwise it could just be hearsay. It is interesting for the demonstrations to be done publicly without suggesting a course of action. Is it enough to just make the general public aware of what's going on and then let them decide what to do? I'd find it particularly interesting to see what a person does upon discovering the persecution was going on, and how they felt in their heart. Of course, a person may feel compelled to do even something little, but if it isn't clear what can be done then how are they supposed to do it? Actually, I've been approached by Falun Gong practitioners a few times here in Florida and they have shared information in different ways. In each of the situations, I was informed about some rather unpleasant things happening to pracittioners in China. I was then told that if I wanted to learn more then I could read some flyer that was then given to me. I was told that if I felt compelled or "felt it was a worthy cause" then I could go to some website and sign a petition for some thing or another. I was also told that even if I didn't think it was worth it, then I should at least know "Falun Dafa is good." I believe the website with the petitions was http://fofg.org. There seem to be different ones you can sign.
I think you guys are right and that this would be a good thing to incorporate into the article, but I think it's important that we cite sources/publications. Are the reenactments really gruesome or where they just gruesome to you? Maybe "graphic" is a more npov word. Also, the phrase "... complete with ..." sounds kind of inappropriate. Also, there is a blatant statement of experience by the poster where it says "they do not..." where clearly they do in other places. We also don't know if this is just the poster's experience.
I hope that you can understand my concerns on these. I will try to find some source (perhaps an actual pamphlet) that explains what Falun Gong practitioners do this for or what the suggested course of action is. Perhaps posting the entire pamphlet is a good idea. By the way, if there is an appropriate way of posting a flyer, please let me know. I am going to place what I consider a good revision of the current edit here below. I will allow you to make any changes that you think might be more appropriate given the concerns I've expressed above and my suggestion below. Thank you.
More recently, Falun Gong practitioners have been seen, on the streets in major metropolitan areas, directly informing the public of the persecution of their fellow practitioners in China (and worldwide according to some pamphlets). In many cities of Western countries, (particularly the Manhattan area of New York) several elaborate streetside demonstrations can be seen that re-enact graphic scenes of government brutality. Amidst these public displays are signs with simple slogans, such as "Falun Dafa is Good". and "Bring Jiang to Justice." It is not incredibly clear what the desired effect of demonstrations are, whether it be to create public awareness or motivate individuals to action. Falun Gong practitioners are seen suggesting individuals to, sign petitions against the alleged crimes committed by the CCP, or just, "at least know" that Falun Dafa is Good"
I like your revision. I would remove "incredibly" though. --Peacenik 22:29, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Thanks for the suggestion. It's been added. --Mas5353 02:04, 1 May 2005 (EST)

history lessons

Since the point of view exists and seems notable [4] [5] [6] [7], perhaps this article ought to touch on the history of, e.g., the Taiping Rebellion and the Yellow Turbans. —Charles P. (Mirv) 07:34, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

recent news on FLG , and can we have seperate external links?

1, the lawsuit aginest Jiang ze min in the united states was denied by the court.

No. 04-1070 Title: Wei Ye, et al., Petitioners v. Jiang Zemin, et al.

2,indonesia can be added as a country suspicion toward FLG. http://www.wwrn.org/parse.php?idd=9676&c=12

3,FLG's media started an media campain against Singapore http://www.theepochtimes.com/news/5-5-3/28402.html http://www.theepochtimes.com/news/5-5-10/28633.html

4, li admited/implied FLG is behind "Nine Commentaries on the Chinese Communist Party (jiuping)" in his most recent manhattan meeting speech (2005 april 24th). so, you can safely say that The Epoch Times is a FLG media for a fact. of course, with the tax record as hard evidence. the english version is not out yet, maybe you people have to wait a while for it.

Really? Wait, he admitted/implied? those aren't the same thing... which one are you saying he did? Or did he just say it was a good thing for Falun Dafa and you're all bent on that? I'd like to see that speech. Incidently, if it doesn't show up in the translation are you going to, yet again, proclaim and accuse "selective translation?" I guess there's no way for me to verify anything you say since I don't speak Chinese. It is truly sad what some people are willing to do to slander people who try to assimilate themselves to Truthfulness, Compassion, and Forebearance. I'd have to wonder what you are striving for or assimilating yourself to... Some_IP
it's not my fault that you are ignorant and you don't read chinese. why don;'t you log in with your account name and answer me in this matter? are you afraid of showing people your account name? or you just want to keep a false image of neutrality when you edit something? i admit that i do not like FLG, but i'll try my best to be NPOV, i welcome people to question my NPOV if i ever edit something. --Weaponofmd 07:04, 2005 May 12 (UTC)
I'm glad you're so open to have others check your NPOV. This would seem necessary, however, as based on the history I've seen under this username in Wikipedia, your NPOV gets challenged quite often. --Mas5353 18:55, 2005 May 18 (EST)
like you never being challenged?? keep your ignorance to yourself, thanks.--Weaponofmd 07:29, 2005 May 24 (UTC)
I'm confused. What exactly are you saying that I am "unaware" of? Oh well. At your request, I will try to keep those things that I am ignorant of to myself so that not everyone has to know. --Mas5353 18:00, 2005 May 24 (EST)
sorry, forgot people can edit without log in, oh well. --Weaponofmd 07:22, 2005 May 12 (UTC)
btw,i have a question for other forum viewers. do you people ever question FLG's slow translations? visit http://clearwisdom.net/emh/index.html and look at the right side. compare the time they posted and the time when master Li made those speeches. well, i guess you'll have to wait several months to get this speech translated.--Weaponofmd 07:16, 2005 May 12 (UTC)
I went ahead and checked out what you were referring to. I don't quite understand what you mean; the most recent conference "2005 Manhattan" was on 4/24/05 and the translation was out less than a month later. Also, I wanted to check out what you said on item #4 above. I went ahead and read this conference. Though a lot of it seems like it could only make sense to practitioners, I don't see what you're referring to at all in item #4 above. On an interesting note, as a responsible Wikipedestrian, in reading the resources that are posted, I read Nine Commentaries on the Chinese Communist Party. It's funny how your attitude and words, Weaponofmd, come across so much like they've been poisoned by the Chinese Propaganda Machine proposed in the compiled commentaries. I'm sorry for you. --Mas5353 18:51, 2005 May 18 (EST)
you being poisoned by the western anti-china propaganda machine. how about that? you are really good at lable people. --Weaponofmd 07:29, 2005 May 24 (UTC)
Since you asked: Yeah, the United States is apparently so anti-China that almost everything in my office says "Made in China." Go figure. --Mas5353 18:00, 2005 May 24 (EST)

Who do you think you are? So it's wrong to criticise FLG is it? Yeah anyone who disagrees with FLG is a communist agent. Do you know why so many western politicians support FLG? It's because of the Cold War mentality, and that anything the CCP doesn't like must be good. Many of them are clueless about the conservative cultish nature of FLG and LI's hatred of homosexuals. "Investigator" AnonymousCoward

I've read the discussion above and I don't see anyone saying what you purported to have been said. You also don't have to be a communist agent to be a victim of the CCP's propaganda, great firewall of China, and government controlled television. You only have to live inside China to be brainwashed by human violators. And if you take Mr. Hongzhi's opinions (as they have been expressed) of homosexuality (a sin in most Western religions I mind you) to be hatred, then you have a problem interpreting things my friend. In that sense; OH, SO YOU ARE SAYING THAT WESTERN POLITICIANS ARE STUPID ARE YOU? OH I SEE. After a while, when you watch what Chinese internet agents say online, you can see a pattern in what they say. Usually, it has to do with some crazy interpretation of what has been said so that they can just put their words out in the open. All of this is done in an attempt to sway those readers that don't actually analyze words but only read them. You're pathetic. Try reading Zhuan Falun sometime rather than believing what some atheist "cult investigator" says on their two-bit website. Surprise! Rick Cross doesn't like spirituality. We get the point. --AnotherAnonymousCoward

like pro-FLG links one side and others another side?

What's your purpose in that? I don't really see any pro-FLG links. I just see factual links to justified sources. Some_IP
you have the right to ignore the fact that the links in external links are mostly pro-FLG links.--Weaponofmd 07:04, 2005 May 12 (UTC)
Generally, pro, anti and neutral external links are usually listed together in articles, in alphabetical order to avoid any appearance of favouritism. Fire Star 03:08, 14 May 2005 (UTC)
i can understand that, but i think since there are disagreement on those links, the best way is to seperate them, just like what the chinese wiki did for FLG section. --Weaponofmd 04:46, 2005 May 14 (UTC)

Media Reports

This section has severe grammar issues, but also is very POV. Anyone else want to edit it? I will if noone else does, but haven't got the time right now. --Peacenik 23:11, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

I found it to be this way as well. I have reverted that section. That much information on the newspaper should probaly reside in a new wiki devoted to that topic. Mas5353 15:13, 14 May 2005 (EST)

Falun Gong presence in major metropolitan areas

It seemed that the most recent edit to this was not gramatically or stylistically very good. Furthermore, in the previous information offered, all midwestern cities are encompassed by the phrase "cities in western countries" and is, therefore, not necessary. The only reason that Manhattan was particularly pointed out, I believe, is because Li Hongzhi lives there and there seems to be a significant amount of activity on the streets there. I for one, am a proponent of not singling out any city, but I can understand why some posters felt that that city should be singled out. --Mas5353 15:26, 14 May 2005

Observer's Comments

After reading the whole page, I just want to say the content is not very NPOV. The thing is quite clear to most of chinese people, say 99%(100% of the people around me). People think FLG is right probably because they see the FLG now but not what they used to be. FLG changed a lot after Li Hong Zhi went to USA. He tried to make FLG a right spiritual organization. This maybe works on foreigners, but totally no use for the local people(like me) whom know the truth. I know our government is not perfect, but no government is. Some(not all) of the criticises towards chinese government are right I accept. But the thing you don't know is the good things our government did. You couldn't imagine the changes in China these 20s years. Sadly most foreigner's views about social status of China still stay in 1990s or even 1980s. If you are not a Chinese living in China, don't make too much comments. You know nothing. Chinese people is not stupid. We will stand out arguing and fighting with unrighteous things. So if FLG is right, China would be in chaos now. Are we? of cause NOT.

Do you even know what NPOV means? Of course it's NPOV; otherwise it wouldn't be there. It's unfortunate that you don't find documented facts to be to your liking. Oh, so Falun Gong changed after Mr. Hongzhi went to the U.S. how and why? I suppose the way I approached a government would change as well once they started beating and torturing me. But from what I see, the government uses violence, and Falun Gong practitioners use flyers. One group terrifies and censors it's people, and the other believes has Truthfulness, Compassion, and Forebearance as their core principles. --Random Wikipedian
Yes, you are right I did not know what is NPOV means when I first see this word when reading the discussions. But I DID check the word in Wiki, so I know what it means before I wrote my comments. And what I want to say is I like the Chinese version wiki's content about FLG. Not because it says FLG is bad. In fact it didn't. But it got all opinions from both side, supporter and opponent, and also some neutrally. FLG have an explaination about the analysis of the video in slow montion, the opponent also have(not the orignal comment but another one made according the slow montion video). If you see both you will find it's hard to tell which side is telling the truth. And as you know according the way of wiki doing, it's unlikely chinese version wiki is controlled by government(If so there will be all bad things about FLG on that page). But I DO believe the English FLG page is controlled by some FLG people! And apparently you don't understand what CHANGES I'm talking about. And I can tell you we did not get the truth from the newspaper, since we know lots of things changed after it come to the newspaper in China. But we do get the truth from people around us.--80.235.142.144 04:57, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

And by the way, most people in China don't care about FLG so there is not much anti- comments. But it just keeping annoying us. The mailbox I used to use receive at least one Ad from FLG each day with almost same content but different address(the address just random letter and number which doesn't make any sense). If any people from FLG organization see this, stop spamming please... --80.235.142.144 04:42, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

<sarcasm>Yeah... these comments aren't just complete heresay.</sarcasm> WAKE UP fellow Chinese people! You don't have to believe everything your government tells you, you don't have to bear witness to blood baths every decade, and you have the right to ignore the fact that your government is controlling everything you are allowed to see and listen to. Don't be afraid to look at things pragmatically; it's engrained within our culture. --Random Wikipedian

Be patient According to chat robots apparently developed by FLG activists, you have no right to refuse their "truth". P.S. These annoying chat robots use some techs to send intriguing messages first, and then trap unawared chatters to try to chat with a FLG propaganda machine. I have such messages everyday since 2003. --Skyfiler 06:47, May 25, 2005 (UTC)

That's funny, because in a chatroom the other day, I saw a bot repeating over and over again phrases similar to those things which I've witnessed to be broadcasted on Chinese Media Outlets, slandering Falun Gong, and mentioning the Tiananmen Square self immolation. There was also (clearly) a person in there who was apologizing for the robot, and to not think anything bad of the CCP for doing that, because they did not know any better because they are so closed off from the rest of the world and forced to believe whatever they are told. Have you people not seen the critical analysis of the video in slow motion?[[8]] It clearly shows that it was staged. It's as if we Chinese want to erase from our memories the brutal nature of our Communist Party, the brutal practices and suggestions contained within it's doctrine that teach how to terrify a people and maintain power, and finally, it's as if we want to forget that the rest of world views the government as human rights violators (of course the bloody Tiananmen Square protests of 1989, where our beloved people were ran over by tanks, didn't help). WAKE UP! --Random Wikipedian
I have no interest in your story and CCP's, they're none of my business. I am a mathematician, not a politician. I don't care what your truth is, that is too fay away from my state, and I don't think I must listen to it to make my life going. But I DO ANNOYED by the FLG spams and chat robots, which are comsuming my time. Image how frustrating it is, to find your time wasted, the email with an innocent title is in fact a FLG letter telling me how to pass the Chinese internet firewall to access FLG websites, which make nonsense because I live in the united states; and your chat opponents are only robots, as often as almost EVERYDAY? Aren't you feel guity to waste other's time and energy? You have no right to trap people like this! If you want start your propaganda, begin it with your topic so I can turn it off!--Skyfiler 07:01, May 26, 2005 (UTC)
It's interesting why, since you're so uninterested, you're even on this Falun Gong page in the first place. Something doesn't smell right. You live in the United States eh... then why are you using (UTC) as the time zone? However, if you really are receiving email with instructions for passing the Chinese firewall and you are a mathematician (and especially if you're Chinese!) then why don't you use some deduction or logic and see what's going on here. Isn't that information important for viewing all kinds of information across the world (not just Falun Gong sites) for Chinese people? Aren't they being held captive within their own country and unable to see anything outside their borders that their government doesn't want them to see? Isn't that a serious issue? If you live in the United States, then I hope you enjoy your freedom, because elsewhere, clearly, people are being censored, and others (FG practitioners) are being brainwashed, tortured, imprisoned, and murdered for believing in Truthfulness, Compassion, and Forebearance. You may not care about anybody else's issues, but I would hope that you have enough of a heart for humanity to do something small about this, like visit www.fofg.org and sign a petition for these poor people. --Some_IP
I'v told you I am annoyed almost EVERYDAY by FLG spams and chat robots that I can hardly ignore them and I don't believe them. How do you believe one when you are constantly decieved by one's action? If you want be believable, won't you first be responsible? Is cheating chatters with chat robots believable and responsible? If cheating is your Truthfulness， I will never believe this kind of truth--Skyfiler 01:40, May 28, 2005 (UTC)
Here is one of many articles about how the CCP uses the internet to "guide public opinion." -- Random Wikipedian

Hey folks, talk pages are places to discuss changes to the article. Discussing Falungong itself is off track for that, whether it is complaining about their harassing robotic glassy-eyed cult-like spamming behaviour or prosyletising its healing benefits to the world in the face of CCP oppression, it still doesn't really help the article in any concrete way. Fire Star 06:08, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

I believe you mean proselytizing. I'm so disappointed. :( Also, NPOV please, especially as an administrator. --Fire Star Is Always Right
Editing my comments on a talk page by highlighting them is not quite, but close to, vandalism. It is rude, but somehow I don't think that will matter much to you. ;-) Also, you are assuming I'm male. Another mistake you are making is assuming that my comments betray a POV. I am going to complain about your user name to the proper channels. Cheers. Fire Star 04:23, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

old talk 2

My initial observations of Falun Gong is that it isn't a unified belief, which makes it seem strange when the article says Falun Gong as an organization or group says or does something. By the literature, it would seem that "true" practitioners usually have better things to do than to gather in mass protests on a small planet in one universe regardless of whether or not that is where they come from, unless it humors them. I am a person who intends on learning the exercises, (making progress on the first one- I find it enjoyable, by the way) and exploring the theories of Falun Gong while not subjecting myself to anyone claming to speak for it. User:hackwrench

I was just looking at those pictures in the article with the practitioners sitting peacefully in meditation and the CCP police are arresting them. I also saw these brutal torture methods that the CCP use to ___________ practitioners (what do they do it for again?).

<sarcasm> Man, those practitioners sure had it coming to them! They should have never tried to improve themselves, find inner peace, meditate, cultivate to higher levels, or align themselves with Truthfulness, Compassion, and Forebearance. Best yet, once the practitioners started complaining about the "correction" the CCP was trying to perform on them, they went and tried to reveal it to the rest of the world! What a big bunch of whiners. That is sooooooo political! They are clearly much more interested in politics than they are in trying to stop the torture, brainwashing, and forced slave labor that is enacted upon them. All the torment practitioners received prior to trying to create awareness about the torment itself, was just their future punishment for when they would get political about it. Pshaa! It is an open and shut case; the CCP clearly knows best! </sarcasm> 128.186.122.147 05:25, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Hi,I'm writing this to ask if I can add some content like how Falun Gong promote itself in China(thing like using email, chat bot, Instant Messaging Tools bot - QQ, change TV program to their program and painting 'Falun Gong is Good' on the wall of my back yard). And maybe I can provide some screenshots but unfortunely don't have a picture of my back yard wall cuz I already cleaned it long times ago(spend my half day). But it did quite popular for a period of time a few years ago, if you in China you know. :/ --80.235.142.144 06:47, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
Greetings 80.235.142.144. If you could provide links to news stories or other journalism relating to the activities you mention, we would be happy to include them in the article. We have to be able to verify that they engage in such activities. Fire Star 06:57, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
Experience of use spam[9][10],[11], chat robot[12], Chatroom [13], massive mail[14] and nuisance call[15] to promote Falun Gong. About the source: according to List of words blocked by search engines in Mainland China, minghui.org is The official website of Falun Gong.

Here is a link to the search results for the article I mentioned in the lead section. It apparently now requires that you pay for it to access it since it's in the archives, so I've also copied out the question about the accusation of Falun Gong being a cult. Let me know if you want me to put more of it on the comments page since I have access to the article right now.

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=FA0B14F635550C7B8CDDA10894D1494D81&incamp=archive:search

Question: Falun Gong has been described as a cult. Is that description fair?

Answer: A cult advocates end-of-the-world theories and leads people to do many bad things. I am only teaching people the practice for healing and fitness. Not only that, I am teaching people to have good moral characters. I think this is good and meaningful to society. The Chinese Government accused me of advocating a doomsday and of saying I can delay the end of the world by 30 years. That's really ridiculous. And very often people assume that in order to study the Great Way of Falun they would have to live like a monk and give up everything. Actually, all practitioners are members of society; they do ordinary things just like anyone else. Perhaps more specifically, cults don't tolerate dissent. Do practitioners of Falun Gong have differing opinions? Or do they tend to be of one mind on most things? Normally people who do not like the principles of truthfulness, compassion and tolerance would not be very likely to study Falun Gong. Only the people who like these principles would come to learn. But people come and go as they please, you know; it's voluntary.

Here are some quotes by the cult's founder and guru:

"The change in human society has been quite frightening! People would stop at nothing in doing evil things such as drug abuse and drug dealing. A lot of people have done many bad deeds. Things such as organized crime, homosexuality, and promiscuous sex, etc., none are the standards of being human. How do Buddhas look at these issues? Your government permits them. Laws permit them. Still, it is only the approval by mankind itself. The principles of heaven do not permit them!" (http://www.falundafa.org/book/eng/xnjf1.htm)

"Nowadays some people not only are bent solely on profit, but also stop at nothing in doing evil. They commit all manner of crimes for money, killing and framing innocent people, redeeming lives with money, practising homosexuality, taking drugs among many other things." (http://www.falundafa.org/book/eng/zfl.htm)

"Think about it, isn't man on the brink of danger? Your government permits it, your country permits it, and your nation permits it. Even you approve of it in your mind and consciousness; it is not necessarily good. So look at what is happening in today's society, drug taking, drug trafficking, drug making, trans-sexuality, homosexuality, sexual liberation, underworld, etc. These things emerge in an endless stream. Selfishness and desires have made people wary of each other and without any right mind. Various phenomena of a degenerated human society abound everywhere and in all walks of life, like in so-called modern art, rock and roll, the madness of demonic nature during soccer games, etc. Such phenomena penetrate into every aspect of society. The deterioration of the human heart has reversed human concepts. Good is taken as bad while bad is seen as good. Human concepts have been reversed. Taking money and fame by force, advocating the philosophy of competition, and glorifying the heads of gangsters. You tell me, are they still human beings?

Some people claim how great the Greek culture was, but where did the people go? However, today one can find something from the Greek culture: the culture left from Greeks is definitely something from the final period of the development of the Greek civilization. We found that there was also homosexuality in it, and other things such as promiscuous sex. Besides, life was very extravagant, corrupted, and very degenerated. It can be seen that the human race had already highly deteriorated. Why did it disappear? It was because of its low morality." (http://www.falundafa.org/book/eng/mgjf.htm)

Justification for comments

From article The practice of Falun Gong is currently present in more than 60 countries across the world; government reactions range from open acceptance (United States) to tolerance (Australia) to suspicion (Japan,Indonesia and Singapore) to unconstitutional arrests (France) to persecution(China).

In what way is Falun Gong treated differently in the United States 'open acceptance' to Australia marked as 'tolerance'. Given both countries permit Falun Gong but do not themselves endorse it, isn't Falun Gong treated the same for both? At the least, there should be justification for the distinction. Readyfreddy 23:28, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

You are correct. The "open acceptance" statement seems to be POV pushing a bit. I'll change it. Fire Star 23:32, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
Actually, if anything it's "embracement" in the United States considering the government gave Li Hongzhi awards and honorable citizenship. Not to mention he was a candidate for the Nobel peace price on, I think, on more than one occassion. Some cities in the U.S. even have declared some days of the year to be "Falun Dafa Day." As I have no resources to present at this time, these sorts of things cannot be put in the article but maybe they answer your question. --Mas5353 03:33, 29 May 2005 (EST)

I think calling Jiang Zemin a President is kinda misleading, because a President is someone who is elected by the people. But in China there are no elections... it is only the party itself which made him head of party - and because there are no other parties - it made him head of state. People like Lenin, Stalin, and Mao, had the exact same position as him, and you americans wouldn't call these people President either would you?

And that comparison with how Falun Gong is supposed to be treated differently in different countries... I think it's also kinda missleading. Because whats the difference beetween the US and Countries like Singapour or Indonesia ? Right... the US is not dependend on China, and even hates communism. So is it a coincidents that all those countries that are supposed to be "suspicous" regarding Falun Gong, are neigboors of China? So isn't it still only the Communist Party that wants to "wipe out" Falun Gong?

Before the Communist Party started it's persecution their weren't any incidents in any country. Why should there have been? Those are just people doing those exercises and stuff. It was only after the Communist Party started persecuting them, that they started all those activities to stop the persecution... Now the Communist Party tries to justify their actions and says that Falun Gong is getting political (and in China getting political is a VERY negative term, cause basicly only the party is allowed to "get political")

Now people say "look Falun Gong practitioners are getting involved in politics, even though their principles say that one should not get involved in politics."

But the fact is that with whatever activities they did, their only aim was to stop the persecution.

So that's why I would say that the way the text is right now, one can't really say that it is wrong, but it is definetly very misleading.

And there is another sentence in the article... and this one is simply wrong:

"China's state-run media have produced many reports claiming that some believers hurt or kill themselves after reading the books by Li Hongzhi, although few such reports have been verified by independent parties."

I changed this line. If this really is true, than please someone put it back and name one of theese "independent parties" who verifed those deaths... because as a matter of fact Amnesty International made the following statement:

"As a human rights organization, we were appalled and taken aback when we got reliable information from China that people who practice Falun Gong exercises have been rounded up, tortured and imprisoned without any due process.(...) One thing that surprised us was why the Chinese government is so scared of this movement. This movement is not a political movement. This movement is not there to overthrow the government. As a matter of fact, Gail Rachlin even gave an open invitation to the Chinese government to have a dialogue with them to understand each other so they can move forward. This is primarily average citizens of China who are exercising their fundamental rights. As a human rights organization, we did not document even one single incident where a Falun Gong member has hurt even an average citizen in their practices. They've never done any harm to other people, so why do you round up these people and imprison them?"

T. Kumar Amnesty International's director for asia and the pacific

And here is another quote by the U.N. :

"Statement by International Education Development in the United Nations (and now part of UN’s official records) Sub-Commission on the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights Fifty-third session, Agenda item 6 August, 2001

(...) In our statement under item 3 we described the Falun Gong Practice as we have found it to be. The government, in exercise of the right to reply, attempted to justify its State terrorism against the group by calling it an “evil cult" that has caused deaths and the break-up of families. In our investigation, the only deaths have been at the hands of the Chinese authorities; families have been broken up because family members have been killed by the regime; people have been broken down, not by Falun Gong, but by extreme torture, incarceration in mental hospitals with brutal treatment, hard labour in labour camps and other such practices. As was reported in the International Herald Tribune on August 6, 2001, the regime admits that it has officially sanctioned violence against practitioners in order to wipe out Falun Gong. The regime points to a supposed self-immolation incident in Tiananmen Square on January 23, 2001 as proof that Falun Gong is an "evil cult”. However, we have obtained a video of that incident that in our view proves that this event was staged by the government. We have copies of that video available for distribution. In his most recent report (U.N. Doc. E/CN.4/2001/66), the Commission's Special Rapporteur on Torture attests to tens of thousands detained and tortured practitioners. (Paras. 246-290). The Commission's Special Rapporteurs on Violence against Women and Extrajudicial Executions also attest to these abuses, with similar indications as to numbers. (E/CN.4/2001/73/Add.1, para. 19; E/CN.4/2001/[ ]). We are compiling evidence indicating that at least 50,000 Falun Gong practitioners are detained in prisons, labour camps or mental hospitals, of which thousands are beaten and many tortured to death. Hundreds of thousands (perhaps millions) of practitioners are severely threatened. The UN mechanisms clearly cannot handle this volume of verified cases, nor can the international community easily cope with perhaps millions of asylum seekers -- all of whom would clearly meet asylum criteria. Accordingly, the international community as a whole and the Sub-Commission in particular should address this situation of State terrorism as one of extreme urgency."

Recent Edits (reference to those prior to 05/30/05)

Recent edits to the article seem very thoughtful, though, I think some issues of NPOV were present and I have adjusted them accordingly. One thing, however, is that most of these changes resulted in a transformation of context and/or loss of content (surprising considering that they were done by an administrator). Although the intention was stated as being one thing, the outcome involved more. Please make changes to content in manageable doses and discuss on this "talk" page those which change the context of the article or take away content. --Mas5353 03:51, 30 May 2005

In General

It seems there is some inconsistency throughout the article with respect to the use of the word "Falun Gong." Let's be clear that "Falun Gong" is a practice and that people who practice it are probably best referred to as practitioners or followers. Some uses of "Falun Gong" that I have corrected use the words to refer to everyone that practices it as a group or organization (i.e "Falun Gong denies that..."). Using the words in that context causes ambiguity as it's not clear whether the words are referring to the teachings of Falun Gong, it's creator, or all practitioners. As a result, that sort of use can imply things that are not factual (such as all practitioners believe or think a parituclar thing), I believe, so we should be careful of this. Please comment if you think this sort of simplification isn't a good idea. --Mas5353 00:40, 30 May 2005 (EST)

Consistency is a good thing. There is falungong (the more normative pinyin based romanisation) which is the exercise system, and Falundafa, which is the organisation, and then the writings and public pronouncements of Li. A rewrite to more clearly delineate the three would be very welcome. Fire Star 05:08, 30 May 2005 (UTC)
It is my understanding that Falun Dafa (or Falun Gong) is not an organization and practitioners firmly reject all connotation involved with being one. Furthermore, I gather from the Chinese language that the literal meanings of "Falun Gong" and "Falun Dafa" may be different, though practitioners interchange them freely. Whether this is another idiosyncrasy or something linguistically legal, who knows. The interesting part of this fact (that Falun Dafa is not an organization) is that it is the direct cause as to why nobody knows for sure how many Falun Dafa practitioners there are, causing reliance upon all these surveys and estimates. Does anybody have any idea why certain individuals or groups insist on labeling Falun Gong and it's practitioners as an organization, where practitioners find it so important to maintain that there is none? Forgive and disregard this if it is beyond the intention of this discussion page. --Mas5353 02:15, 30 May 2005 (EST)
My understanding is that falungong is the exercise routine taught by Falundafa followers. I can't recall where, but I have read that some prefer to be labelled as Falundafa instead of falungong. Falungong, however, is how they are best known to the public. It is a good question, I just wish I had a better answer! Fire Star 06:37, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

The Lead

In an attempt at eliminating redundancy some content was removed. However, though well proposed, I believe contextual supporting language (as well as actual information) was lost and have added or reworded some things that I thought to be a good compromise. Comments welcome. --{User:Mas5353|Mas5353]] 00:44, 30 May 2005 (EST)

How about:
"However, the public teachings of Falun Gong discourage political involvement, and practitioners claim to have little interest in politics."? Fire Star 04:57, 30 May 2005 (UTC)
Sounds even more appropriate. If you haven't already put it in, I will Mas5353 01:00, 30 May 2005 (EST)

The lead currently states that "the basis for denial is said to be found in Falun Gong's teachings, which claim that their practice encompasses the entire universe, and that the Buddhist and Taoist schools don't." In reading about Falun Gong and its teachings, had not made the leap between the universality of Falun Gong expressed in its teachings and practitioners' claims that it is not a cult. If such an explanation is to be made in the article, I think it needs to be said what about the teachings' claims to universality keep Falun Gong from being a cult according to practitioners (maybe it would be useful to address the definition of a cult). I understand it to be more significant that the teachings are meant to lead people to be what a practitioner would call "good people"--that is, hardworking, unselfish, etc.--and that they do not lead practitioneres to harm others or themselves, or to cut themselves off from society as cults are generally said to do. On August 8th 1999, soon after the ban in China, an interview with Li Hongzhi was published by the New York Times entitled "Eye of the Storm" in which he responds to a question on this issue. Although it is a few years old now, I think his response is still relevant. --134.173.232.70

I believe you've got a good point, but the description/definition of a cult already resides within its own article. I would think that readers could almost be expected to make their own contrast/comparison between those qualities of a cult and the teachings of Falun Dafa presented here. Whether there is currently sufficient information present to do that is debatable. Perhaps the current written treatment of Falun Dafa's teachings needs attention. Or, perhaps a new section devoted to your topic could be added to this article, that is, an NPOV comparison of Falun Dafa teachings vs the characteristics of a cult. What do others think? With respect to your NYT interview: could you post a link to that article in the references section? Thanks ;) --Mas5353 20:08, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
It seems to me that the information needed to determine whether or not Falun Dafa is a cult can't be found in Falun Dafa's teachings. Cult status depends a great deal on how other people perceive Falun Dafa. In addition the actual practices of Falun Dafa members (practioners?) are very relevent. Given the ambiguity and social nature of the concept of "cult", I doubt that a complete rebuttal could be found in Falun Dafa's teachings.RampagingCarrot 22:17, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I guess to the point I really wanted to make is that this is not in my experience the reasoning Falun Dafa practitioners use to refute claims that Falun Dafa is a cult, which this sentence seems to suggest it is. I emailed the site to a few practitioners I know, and the one who's gotten back to me confirmed this: she said that it was a very good article with the exception of that one sentence, for that reason. The first things they seem to point to the things I mentioned above--that individuals must not be forced or pressured into practicing Falun Dafa, that practitioners are not to cut themselves off from society or disasociate with people because of Dafa, and that they are not to harm themselves or others (quite the contrary!). I would agree that the definition of a cult is pretty ambiguous; I think RampagingCarrot is likely to be right about any sort of complete rebuttal. As far as creating a new section is concerned, I don't necessarily think it's needed, as long as the information given is accurate. I do think that it's important to keep the mention the rebuttal practitioners usually give to this question, though.
I've edited the sentence I mentioned above to express what I was trying to say before. I hope the way I've changed it is acceptable to the rest of you working on this page.
The lead still says "The basis for the denial comes directly from Falun Gong's teachings, in that the practice claims to encompass the entire universe, purporting to include and go beyond Christian, Buddhist and Taoist religions." This first sentence is inaccurate. Practitioners' belief that the practice goes beyond other religions has nothing to do with Falun Gong being a cult or not, and does not support the denial of Falun Gong being a religion, as recognized by all the practitioners I've spoken with on this subject. It is not how these two claims are defended. The denial for being a religion as I understand it comes at least in part from lack of rituals and ceremonies, but not from being above other religions. This was changed before; please do not keep insisting on these inaccuracies.
Li Hongzhi has stated several times in public interviews that his teachings supercede those of other religions, which somewhat deflates the claim that what he teaches isn't related to religion. Falungong practitioners and others can claim that Falundafa isn't a cult, that is fine, but it is also notable that many other groups besides the CCP (especially most members of the "bypassed" religions) have their doubts as to the sincerity of that claim. We aren't here to say that FLG is or isn't a cult; we just have to report on what they do publicly, what Li teaches publicly, and the various notable public reactions to that. Fire Star 22:06, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

Purifying the Body

I'm not exactly sure why the information and distinction concerning "meditation" and "karma" was removed. They seem to be important pieces of information offering distinction to Falun Gong and carrying unique interpretations within the practice. I've put them back in. I've also made a small correction concerning the emphasis of the exercises supported by information found in " Zhuan Falun. --Mas5353 02:49, 30 May 2005 (EST)

Other Beliefs

An edit I've reverted here seems to be done out of an either unresearched or very POV context. Much scientific evidence has been provided, not only in Zhuan Falun but in scientific journals, stating that human beings have certain, once thought to be supernatural, abilities (such as ESP vs brain wave interception). Please read your resources before making edits such as this. It really is a brave new world that we are living in. --Mas5353 03:07, 30 May 2005 (EST)

Falun Gong Presence in Major Metropolitan Areas

I dont' know why the most recent edit to this section (which I reverted) was done without discussion first, as the articles current substance in this section was the outcome of much deliberation on the archived talk page. I'm especially surprised considering it was done by an "administrator." --Mas5353 03:49, 30 May 2005

Gong

Gōng 功 means "achievement, merit, good result." Falungong is the only notable group that uses the word to mean "energy." Every other notable group uses it to condition or categorise another term meaning "energy." They use it as such, IME, to try to sidetrack rebuttal arguments from traditional Taoists, Buddhists and martial artists that Falungong's exercise system doesn't seem to have a mechanism that actually generates much metabolic energy, arguments to put themselves above traditional styles of qigong to their potential adherents. An unsubstantiated argument, at best. I don't want to actually say in the article that their arguments in this regard (among others) are designed to denigrate all other schools to make themselves look better, so instead I simply point out that their use of the term is unique to them. Since they are the only ones who can be demonstrated to use the word in such a sense, "idiosyncratic" is appropriate. Fire Star 04:15, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

功 gōng /merit/achievement/result/service/accomplishment/

功夫 gōng fu /skill/art/kung fu/labor/effort/

功绩 gōng jī /feat/

功课 gōng kè /classwork/

功劳 gōng láo /contribution/meritorious/credit/

功率 gōng lǜ /power(the output of an engine)/

功率恶化 gōng lǜ è huà /power penalty/

功能 gōng néng /function/

功能集 gōng néng jí /function library/

功能群 gōng néng qún /functional group/

功效 gōng xiào /(n) efficacy/

Fire Star 04:23, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

Vancouver Addition to Foreign Views on Falun Gong

I'm placing this here since my comments on the user's page have been ignored. Mas persists in removing information about the Falun Gong protest in Vancouver, Canada. Clearly s/he has no knowledge of this protest, which is now in its fourth year. At any rate, I object strongly to this user's edit summaries (the first of which was something like "Wikipedia is not a blog") and to the unliateral removal of relevant and factual information.

I'm very sorry for the misunderstanding Exploding Boy. I didn't ignore your comments on my User page. I had no idea they were there (as I don't check my User page because it's a page about me, not for messages to me. I only know if you're trying to communicate with me if you leave a message on my Talk page (as you so correctly did in your second attempt) because it notifies me that I have messages available. Please do not get upset and offer a little more forebearance. Thank you. --Mas5353 05:54, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Mas: I've been here longer than you. A simple look at my user page and contributions would have alleviated any concerns that I'm simply adding nonsense. The Vancouver Falun Gong protest is well known. This type of addition does not, strictly speaking, require a citation, since it is easily verifiable (ie: by looking), well known, and the text contains no numbers. I suggest that you err on the side of discussion in future, rather than knee-jerk reversion. Exploding Boy 18:23, Jun 4, 2005 (UTC)

I agree that this is relevant information, there has been a similar protest in London, which I may add to this section, and set-up a subheading entitled something like 'Ongoing protests'. Mas5353 can see by reading the statement at the top of the page that he/she is required to discuss edits in line with Wikipedia policy, especially when there is no clear reason to delete the information in my opinion. Solar 20:17, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I agree with you, but users are also required to post in line with Wikipedia policy. I'm afraid that the addition isn't as well known as the poster suggests (wouldn't it be nice if all citizens of China knew about it), not to mention that this article has been dubbed controversial, so extra care and consideration should be taken (such as citing sources, which should be done anyway) because of its potential influence. I suggest that not adhering to or taking into consideration this sort of principle inhibits "clarifying the truth" and improving the article, as well as ourselves. --Mas5353 05:54, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
From the Vancouver Courier's website: [16] Fire Star 21:24, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Thank you for providing a resource, Fire Star, not only so that Wikipedians are able to check the addition, but to show me how verifiable the addition is. I will add it in. I suggest (to everyone) that it doesn't matter who you are what you have accomplished at Wikipedia, it doesn't make you right. Only resources can substantiate additions. Based on what you've asserted, Exploding Boy, anybody can edit a page with any intentions and nobody should do anything about it, regardless of it's content unless it was first discussed on the discussion page. In whatever time it took to do that, that edit has the potential for polluting the article. That is not right, as the addition is not supported; it is just hearsay. I apologize for any "jerk-like" deletions without discussion first, but I think the reasons I've provided above clealry express my rationale. I did it out of consideration for all beings involved, and in an aim to maintain the integrity of all parties involved. --Mas5353 05:54, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I think that maybe this addition to the article:

"Falun Gong supporters in Vancouver, Canada continue to stage what they claim is the world's longest-running continuous protest against China's treatment of Falung Gong practitioners. The protest, which runs twenty-four hours a day, is located at the entrance to the Chinese Consulate on Granville Street."

might better belong under Falun Gong Presence in Major Metropolitan Areas. What do yall think? --Mas5353

Protests are political statements

I have amended the article to reflect that, while Falungong may not consider what they do in their protests to be political, most of the rest of the world considers such protests to be inherently political posturing, for good or ill. It could probably be worded better, if anyone else would care to have a go at it. Fire Star 20:21, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I'm afraid that that is nothing more than your interpretation. Not even Wikipedia's article on protest asserts such a slippery over-generalization. It seems you want to promote your POV that this is the case. Why not link to protest and let the reader deside if protest should be painted in such a light You can have protests that aren't political and have nothing to do with the government. Sometimes people just want to make people aware of what's going on. Besides, if a government entity is brutally torturing, brainwashing, and forcing slave labor on a group of people, and (not so surprisingly) those people would like this to come to an end, how do you expect them to go about it? How do you expect them to make the world aware of this? Or do you think that this sort of thing should be allowed to happen, Fire Star? As the persecuted group of people is defenseless, and they are forced to protest, can you really call them political? If anything, wasn't it that persecuting government that made it political (as they are a government afterall)? --Mas5353 06:54, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Because of the distortion and slant of your edit, I've moved it below for discussion and reverted the article it to the previous one. Fire Star, lately your edits appear to have more motive and be less NPOV, and as an administrator you have more responsibility to withold this urge. I'm citing this to the Wiki authorities. --Mas5353 06:54, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
The edit:
Since the persecution of the practice in China, the CCP claims that the practice has deviated its focus from engaging in spiritual cultivation to engaging in politics, basing their opinions on political protests by Falun Gong followers and the existence of numerous websites disparate from, yet in support of, Falun Gong (such as Friends of Falun Gong). While the teachings of Falun Gong are said to forbid political involvement, and practitioners claim publicly to have little interest in power or politics, pro-Falun Gong political protests are a fact of life in many major metropolitan centres in the West.
Oh dear. Actually, only the last little bit was mine. FWIW, I am aware that articles are owned by the community at large and not by a single person or group. I meant to introduce some balance to the statement by Falungong that Falungong doesn't have any political agenda. A public protest is political, it is an attempt, by action, publicity, propaganda, etc., to persuade observers to another point of view. Regardless of whether they claim they are forced to protest, they are still reacting in a political way to the political suppression of their movement. That contradicts their public position, at least a little. Perhaps that is a better way to put it. You may certainly report me to whomever you'd like, I'll be happy to discuss things... Fire Star 00:55, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

FLG's political sources

Many people in the Chinese community tend to see FLG as a political group, as shown by the FLG backed newspaper 'Dajiyuan', in which it accused the Chinese Communist Party of being an 'evil Satanist cult'. In the wave of FLG crackdowns, Li Hongzhi allowed his followers to make political statements about the ongoing events, as long as they don't link them to him. Many former FLG practitioners has quit due to the over-politicalization of the group.

recent edit

Removed an reference [17] to the English version of Minghui.org, the official website of Falun Gong because it is not an EpochTimes article, fine. Removed another reference[18] because it has no English translation, fine. But I see no reason to keep the remain paragraph, since these internet promotion metioned there are not massive, not worth to report, and thus not influential enought to "spreading the truth of the universe" (from another removed reference[19]).

People may get so comfortable with spreading the truth that regard sending emails to tens of people at time as usual. --Skyfiler

The "Internet Reading Club" reference that you have mentioned was not removed and is in fact still there. The paragraph was originally edited because there was an implication that all referenced stories were from the Epoch Times, which was not true. Now, the remaining paragraph is honest and clearly portrays and references ways that practitioners clarify the truth of the persecution, which, from reading the paragraph, I see is through email, chat rooms, etc. (you can read the references for the way these methods are undertaken, which, unfortunately for you, mass mailing is not condoned). --Mas5353 22:54, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I am sorry I missed the link. but look at this[20]. That's how some FLG practitioners clarify the truth. I constantly get many messages and emails every day, if I go online. Only to get ride of them that I changed my email address, stoped adding users to my chat contact list and keep denying all request of new chat contact. But I can not stop recieving such requests, even I can tell the sender is FLG chatbot or not by their pattern--Skyfiler
I know it wasn't your intention Skyfiler, but the translation of the article you've linked to is absolutely incomprehendable. <laughs> Check out this excerpt of the translation:
"I told the younger sister the big method younger brother child have laboriously, for said really looks like economical in everyday spending, day and night even is destitute and homeless has is not easy. She said to me, actually, if she and the big method younger brother child speaks the time they can answer no the speech does she also do not have does not want."
I guess the Google translator needs a lot more work for Chinese to English. Sorry! --Mas5353 19:31, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Mixed race people are "defective"

The statement, in question, posted to the article by a Wikipedia administrator, Fire Star, is:

"Li Hongzhi, who has stated that all people of mixed race are 'defective'."

--Mas5353 03:55, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

My source for the statement is the interview with Li featured in the Apologetics Index link in the external links section at the bottom of the article. It seems that he said it.

From the source:
"In Li's view, the races are not to be intermingled. Mixed-race children, he notes, are a symptom of societal decline. A race has its own particular biosphere, and whenever children are born of a mixed-race relationship, they are defective persons. Li contends that heaven itself is segregated. Anybody who does not belong to his race will not be cared for. I do not just say that. It is really true. I am revealing the secret of heaven to you."

Such incredibly controversial statements have to be mentioned in the article. Fire Star 15:39, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

The source itself is not NPOV and is not considered to be a syndicated or respected source or collection of facts or knowledge. The source itself does not even appropriately cite where they claim they got Li Hongzhi's words from and that fact cannot be checked. If you would like to represent the point of view of that source in saying that some people (apologetics of course) believe that, then that is your prerogative. Otherwise you are intentionaly distorting the truth and using substandard and POV sources to push your agenda. Shame on you for using such tactics. You are a disgrace to Wikipedia administrators. --Mas5353 04:27, 16 July 2005 (UTC)
Hey, it's a source, and can be cited, with the proper caveats. So, whether the outside source is POV or not won't matter if Li actually said those things. If Li is demonstrably racist, that is a notable feature of his public career and will go into the article. I'm going to look into it. As for whether I'm a disgrace, that has yet to be determined, but I believe in reporting neutrally, warts and all. Since you've opened the door of disrespect several times (and aren't above the odd threat), I will say, in lieu of actually insulting your methods or credibility (which would be small of me) that curiously your edit history seems almost exclusively devoted to maintaining a pro-Falungong POV. We've had this discussion before, and you've denied it, but the evidence is apparently there. I don't have a problem with that, or with you, but you are going to have to learn to work with me, I'm afraid. I'm not going away. Can't you just feel the Wikilove? Fire Star 13:25, 16 July 2005 (UTC)
To accuse anyone as being "a disgrace to Wikipedia administrators" without good reason and just because of clashes in political ideas is simply shameful. Mandel 08:59, July 17, 2005 (UTC)
I agree with you Mandel. My reasoning follows that a non-disgraceful Wikipedia administrator would only want to include sources in their encyclopedia that were legitimate. When encountered with an illegitimate source with a POV that may be perceived as noteworthy, then that information would be duely included in the article as what it was, a POV. If you are unable to see that source and this fact in conjunction with Fire Star's most recent contribution as something which disgraces Wikipedia, then we might as well let vandals take over our beloved encyclopedia. I still contest as the bottom line that a Wikipedia administrator should know better than to do that and, after having a history of such actions with complaints, cannot declare ignorance. --Mas5353 13:14, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

Hi there, That racism thing isn't a quote nore an interview but only the opinion of that guy. There is no such quote by Li Hongzhi (if there is why don't you directly quote Li Hongzhi's own words?) But now i would like to point out something...

I am a German and a friend of mine is a Holocost survivor and a supporter of Falun Gong and she once said that the reason why the Nazis where able to do what they did was beause people at that time simply thought that "even if jews are indeed getting so terribly persecuted then the Nazis for sure would have a good reason."

Well and then when people heared in the Nazi Propaganda that Jews where suppossed to be trying to slander the German nation, have huge Anti-German forces in other countries behind them, where suppossed to be greedy lunatics who brutaly wound themselves and others etc. they said: "see... I told you that the Nazis weren't doing this for no reason" Even though deep inside they knew that jews weren't like that .

Well of course I am not triyng to compare Falun Gong with Jews, I am just saying that this might also be a very sensitive issue, and you don't want some people here mix up the facts with communist propaganda and then let them get away with the excuse that the article would only be NPOV if it states half of what Falun Gong says and half of what the Communist Party says as fact.

If one where to go according to this logic than the entry about jews would only be NPOV if half of it where to state the Nazis propaganda as fact!

So lets make this clear: even just a tiny litle bit of such propaganda stated as fact in an encyclopedia would be absoltly unaccaptebly to any european. (but of course communist propaganda is not the same as nazi propaganda)

So still in order to prevent the Falun Gong entry from beeing constantly used by some people to state the many rumors about Falun Gong as fact and to thereby manipulate viewers into beliving them to be true ("look after all this is from an independent encyclopedia...") I would suggest that from now on everything in the entry or at least everything stated as fact should either be based on statements from organisations like the U.N., Amnesty International and so on, or at least on personal experience.

I am sure that some will object now and say that that way it would take too long for the article to grow big... but after all I think in time one would finally be able to tell what's true and false, and then it would be more difficult for some people to constantly mess everything up again.

What do you guys think of my proposal? --Some_IP

You're a idiot, as if your friend is a Holocaust survivor. Falun Gong is an evil anti-China cult and how dare you compare FLG to the Holocaust.

Your proposal sounds well-reasoned and appropriate to me. --Mas5353 13:14, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
I have reviewed Fire Star's entry and although the source is not ideal it seems to be in-line with many statements regarding Li Hongzhi's views on inter-racial marriages and by extension inter-racial children. Try this BBC article (who are a respected organization) BBC: Falun Gong. I support Fire Star in his position and believe that name calling and constant harassment by some users is more out of line with Wikipedia policy than a weak source. - Solar 14:09, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
By that token, I offer Fire Star my sincerest apology and hope that he/she will accept it. To those who have forgotten, as it seems to have disappeared in all the muck, I will remind you that the source that was used in this originally disputed post, not to mention the whole reason we're having this conversation in the first place, doesn't even specifically cite where it got the alleged words of Li Hongzhi. We should be more careful to and respectful for Wikipedia articles. --Mas5353 16:26, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

Here is another source which does include the quote that Fire Star seemed to be referring to, it is cited as being from the New York Times:

Li Hongzhi said that: "...interracial children are the spawn of the 'Dharma Ending Period,' a Buddhist phrase that refers to an era of moral degeneration. In an interview last year, he said each race has its own paradise, and he later told followers in Australia that, 'The yellow people, the white people, and the black people have corresponding races in heaven.' As a result, he said, interracial children have no place in heaven without his intervention." [21]

I hope that helps - Solar 17:22, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

As the title of this section states and as Fire Star wrote it, the quote from Fire Star's source claims that Li Hongzhi stated that interracial people are "defective." The fact is that these words were never said by Li Hongzhi. Furthermore, the quotation that you are citing, as well as the other sources cited by the information that currently resides in the article, does not say or mean the same thing as that statement. --Mas5353 03:38, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
I think most would agree from a NPOV that the term 'Dharma ending period' does not imply positive or respectful ideas towards a person identified with it. I think that Religious Tolerance is a respected NPOV organization as is the BBC, so at the very least Li Hongzhi's views on race should be questioned and some definition of his terminology included (which I am happy to add). Mas5353 if you feel that he is not being derogatory you are free to add elements into the article, which explain what he means by his statements on race and how they are positive and inclusive. - Solar 09:39, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
Thank you for the invite, though I'm wondering if you even read what you've linked to. From what I've read, Li Hongzhi says that the entire human race is in the "Dharma Ending Period" and according to your source, Solar, that is the "spiritually degenerate age" where the morality and spirituality of mankind is in decline. As you've remarked, by implication, definitely that "age" is not a positive thing to be associated with. But the coining of the phrase and the assigning of the association has been done by several Eastern religions (such as Buddhism and Taoism). All it takes for a person to decide as to whether we truly are in the "Dharma Ending Period" is for them to look around and observe for themselves the nature of human beings. --Mas5353 15:22, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
Greetings everyone. I have been doing some research, and have come up with a few things. I have found lots of sites quoting the "defective" statement such as this one [22], but none of them seem to give a clear citation back to Li. Also, as Mas5353 points out, most of them are from religious sites arguing against Falungong or Li. What I have found is from this Q&A with Li from a Canadian Falungong site:
http://www.faluncanada.net/library/english/sydney/xini_e.html
from the above:
"Mixed races have lost their roots, as if nobody in the paradise will take care of them. They belong to nowhere, and no places would accept them. Therefore, you find the place where the continents of Europe and Asia meet a desert in the past and a depopulated zone. When the transportation means were not advanced, it was difficult to pass through it. With the progress of modern means, all these are broken through. Thus, races have become increasingly mixed up, which can lead to serious consequences. Of course, I will not go into details. I'm just saying that the higher levels do not recognize such a human race.
Question: Can you say a little more about the interracial children?
Master: I have already talked about such interracial children. I have only mentioned the phenomena in this Dharma-ending period. If you are an interracial child, it is, of course, neither your fault nor your parents' fault. Anyway, it is just such a chaotic situation brought about by mankind, in which such a phenomenon has appeared. The yellow people, the white people, and the black people have the corresponding races in heaven. Then, if one is not from his race or does not belong to his people, he will not take care of him. This is the truth, and it is not that I’m making up something here. What I am telling everyone are heavenly secrets. All interracial children were born in the Dharma-ending period. People are not to be blamed for it, because everyone is drifting in the tide, and nobody knows the truth. This is the way they have come through. If you want to practice cultivation, I can help. As for which paradise you will go to, we will need to look at your situation. I will assimilate more of whichever portion that is better preserved. Anyway, you should concentrate on your cultivation and should not concern yourself with these things. There is nothing to be afraid of now that you have attained the Fa. I did not mention such things when I was teaching the Fa in the past. However, such a matter will be told to man sooner or later."
In my turn, I harbour no ill will towards Mas5353 (or anyone else) and would like to say again that I am interested only in a complete article. If Li has made apparently controversial statements, they should be mentioned as such, without a value judgment but with as much context as is feasible. We have to assume that our readers are intelligent enough to make up their own minds. It would be preferable, IMO, for another editor to include the above info into the article, if they would be so kind, so as to smooth the collegial waters here a bit. Cheers, Fire Star 15:29, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

If we return to the original statement by Fire Star "Li Hongzhi, who has stated that all people of mixed race are 'defective'." we can see that the statement is a fair interpretation of Li Hongzhi's views on people of mixed race based on quotes I and others have found. Although Li Hongzhi may believe all peoples outside of his belief system are part of the defective age or the 'Dharma ending age' (Note: My link above was a general definition not a Li Hongzhi quote) he does single out and use racially based derogatory language. For example the statement "Mixed races have lost their roots, as if nobody in the paradise will take care of them. They belong to nowhere, and no places would accept them." does not apply to all people but only to those of mixed race. Also to state that it is not their fault or they should not be blamed implies that there is indeed something defective about people of mixed race. To conclude as I said it was fair to say Li Hongzhi believes people of mixed race to be 'defective' to what level and how far this view goes is another matter. I propose adding a more in-depth section dealing with this area, as it is clear that it is an important area in terms of how many view Falun Gong. I hope everyone feels that is the best solution and that way we can create a truly NPOV section. - Solar 16:57, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

Well this has only become an "important area in terms of how many view Falun Gong" because after the persecution the communist party has looked through all of Li Hongzhi's writings in order to find something that they could take advantage of to justify their persecution, and so then made some more "fair interpretations" regarding that (-: and spread them (the "fair interpretations" not the original quotes) in all their media.

But ofcourse because of that many people now really have a bad impression of Falun Gong because they think that those fair interpretation would be the contents -and basicly the only contents of Falun Gong. So sure that might now make it worth mentioning... Regarding the way this should be done i agree with what FireStar just said.

Here is another interview with Li Hongzhi: http://www.upholdjustice.org/English.2/G_3.doc he doesn't seem to say anything about the races, but he gives his statement to a lot of similar questions.

Manuel- July 24. 05


Images

I have noticed that the images on the main article are being removed and added to, I feel that we should have a vote on what images to include. In my opinion Falun_dafa_protest_lg.jpg is not clear. I also feel that the Master Li image should not be here but should remain on the page about Li Hongzhi. Please add your comments in support or against. - Solar 17:11, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

Li's image should go back to his bio. As for the others, they should be clearly illustrative of a given point in the article, technical or political, and not of the "aren't we cool?" genre. Fire Star 17:16, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
Thank you for including your research Fire Star. IMHO, Fire Star is right about the images and subsequently removing the headshot, but I do believe all other images in the article are appropriate in their current positions and context. --Mas5353 13:54, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

An Interesting AP Article

Chinese Defector Tells U.S. Lawmakers of Campaign Against Falun Gong Through Embassies, Consulates

By WILLIAM C. MANN
Associated Press Writer
717 words
21 July 2005
08:45 pm
Associated Press Newswires
(c) 2005. The Associated Press. All Rights Reserved.

WASHINGTON (AP) - A defected Chinese diplomat told U.S. lawmakers of a global campaign against members of the Falun Gong spiritual group being waged by the Communist Party through China's embassies and consulates, calling the party a "government terrorist organization."

Chen Yonglin, drawing on his experience as first secretary in the consulate-general in Sydney, Australia, outlined his former government's ways of countering Falun Gong adherents through surveillance, extortion, heavy-handed diplomatic pressure, propaganda.

"The war against Falun Gong is one of the main tasks of the Chinese missions overseas," Chen told the House of Representatives Foreign Relations human rights subcommittee Thursday.

"The Falun Gong policy of the central (Chinese Communist Party) for the overseas missions is `To fight eyeball to eyeball, to attack at will and aggressively.'"

Falun Gong is a set of meditation practices, based on the principles of truth, compassion and tolerance.

Chinese leaders have not specified the source of their animosity toward the group but say Falun Gong is an evil, dangerous cult. Practitioners say it is apolitical and nonviolent, but in recent months it began waging a campaign to persuade members of the Chinese Communist Party to quit, even if they do it secretly and anonymously.

Practitioners contend more that 3 million people have registered on a Web site established for the purpose, and 20,000 more are signing each day signaling they had severed relations with the party, the Communist Youth League or other party organizations.

Gretchen Birkle of the State Department's Democracy, Human Rights and Labor section testified that more than 100,000 practitioners have been detained in China, some for merely saying they adhere to the teaching of Falun Gong or refusing to criticize its founder and organizer, Li Hongzhi.

She said punishments include lost jobs, forced study sessions against Falun Gong's principles, and imprisonment. The labor camp system still active in China is used regularly to punish adherents, she said.

"It is absolutely horrifying what they do to these people," she said, a catch in her throat, after describing pictures of tortured practitioners and children orphaned when their parents died in captivity.

In June 1999, the Chinese Foreign Ministry set up the Office of the Falun Gong Issue in Beijing, and the Sydney branch was established in February 2001, Chen said. The name was changed to the Department of External Security Affairs in July 2004, its duties expanded to deal with other restive elements among China's numerous ethnic groups that were beginning to agitate abroad, he said.

Chen, who abandoned his post in May and was granted asylum by Australia, said Chinese diplomatic posts in the country had more than 1,000 Chinese agents and informants "who have played a role in persecuting the Falun Gong. The number in the United States should be higher."

"The party is a government terrorist organization," he said.

He said the anti-Falun Gong activities he participated in as a political officer in Sydney were quite similar to those employed in the United States.

The first recourse in every country is a large-scale anti-Falun Gong propaganda campaign, he said.

In New South Wales, Sydney's state, "the consul-general preaches the CCP's policy on the Falun Gong whenever he hosts or attends any functions."

He said a Web site at the University of Wollongong, south of Sydney, displayed a photo last year of a stall sponsored by Falun Gong. The Chinese Students Friendship Association, controlled by the consulate, complained, he said, and the photo was removed within hours.

A confidential report distributed by Chen outlined consulate activities soon after the expansion began, describing a plan to "actively respond, take the initiative to strike, work to create the inner dispute, to convert some soft elements and `disinfect' the existing bad influence."

It reported that more than half Australia's 3,000 Falun Gong adherents were in the Sydney area. "The consulate has put all the Falun Gong key activists we know onto an internal monitoring list," it said. Adherents discovered as they compiled the list were invited to the embassy "to persuade them to separate from the Falun Gong organization," the report said.

Posted by: 128.186.122.139 03:19, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

Persecution?

Is there a term we can use that could be a bit more neutral?

I don't know is Crackdown more neutral? (I am German I really don't know) But the term the Party ussually uses is just simply "wipe out" or "eliminate Falun Gong".

Manuel

Teachings

I would like to draw our attention again to this section under "Teachings":


I do not think this paragraph is conducive to making an average Wiki reader in understanding the things Falun Gong teaches. My view is that over the past two years, due to constant POV-pushing, this section has been watered down to reflect on making Falun Gong teachings positively and, where possible, use esoteric language to confuse readers. The rest, including all the controversial teachings, were banished to the "Teachings and beliefs of Falun Gong" article, one which we rarely pay attention to. I invite editors for some collaborative effort in improving this area. Colipon+(Talk) 21:27, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Oh, yeah. Personally, considering that most of Falun Gong's teachings derive in large part from qigong, that should probably be mentioned up front, and the third paragraph more or less removed, or placed later in the article. In any event, qigong should not be treated as if it were some sort of secondary matter. Personally, I think the whole section needs major work. I didn't bring Ownby with me today, but let me check what he says, and maybe a few journal and other articles, and get back with it then. John Carter (talk) 21:39, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
Yes, Ownby is a useful resource. As mentioned above, there are other resources that we can use as well, and we should not limit ourselves to Ownby alone. The most useful reference to this section should be Zhuan Falun. Colipon+(Talk) 21:58, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
I only mentioned him because I have him. I'm fairly sure some of the journal articles would be useful as well. Having said that, this does raise a question. Do you all think that the Li books deserve their own articles or not. Certainly, Zhuan Falun is the primary text, and most primary texts of religious groups do have their own articles. I think this book has probably, in the various sources, been covered significantly enough to pass notability requirements. Should it be spun out? John Carter (talk) 22:12, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
Hooray! yet another article to do battle over... ;-)
Yet seriously, it will be somewhat duplicated in the 'Teachings' article. Li's writing is always so esoteric that we need to focus on the review, analysis and interpretation of the work by scholars and the mainstream press. Ohconfucius (talk) 22:54, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
Zhuan Falun, for all practical purposes, is the holy creed of Falun Dafa. Therefore I think it definitely is notable enough to have its own article. Colipon+(Talk) 19:19, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Question

OhConfucius, regarding this edit, did you copy and paste the content removed to another article? I do believe that this information is quite relevant because it describes the reasons behind Falun Gong's popularity. I think it does still belong here, perhaps needs cutting down, and the bulk of it should be moved to the "History" article. Colipon+(Talk) 13:03, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

  • No, I just plain removed it, as the section seemed unbalanced. I think that got copied to History. I'm tryng to build it from the ground up, preferring to remove too much than to leave too much at this stage. The whole article's structure should change radically since the creation of History. The paragraphs were just opinions. I would like to see it expressed as a general view (if we have sources), or otherwise cite some more views, to give it comprehensive coverage. Lowe was ambiguous, and I thought it could go as a cleanup. We can always put it back at a later stage. Ohconfucius ¡digame! 13:35, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Woot for Ohconfucius

This article has been in desperate need of references by Sima Nan for a long time. Kudos for finding them. Simonm223 (talk) 15:46, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

List of Falun Gong practitioners

'List of Falun Gong practitioners' was merged into this article. Now that the list has been removed, it would make sense to delete the redirect too, or not? Ohconfucius ¡digame! 03:29, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, since said section was deleted, there's really no need for a redirect any longer since the content is gone. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 05:35, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Problems with Ohconfucius recent edits

After Ohconfucius recent edits the article makes the following statements:

"Regional offices diverged in their organizational structures. Each office generally maintained a "propaganda department", logistics department, and "doctrine" committee, or variations of those functions thereof, according to reports in state media."

Great... you have a source for that too? I mean after all you just kinda labeled Falun Gong a big hairy propaganda-organisation but then your sourcing it with an article which doesn't itself state those things but basically only states that the Communist Party ministry of propaganda states it (big surprise).

"Falun Gong was highly centralised, and it maintained "absolute centralisation of thought, healing and money." Power flowed directly to or from the Master 'whose authority was strictly moral and ideological'"

"While it relied on traditional network (in a Qigong sense) for dissemination exercise techniques - a nationwide network of local and regional practising stations, the Falun Dafa Research Society (FDRS) was its national umbrella organisation."

"Articles critical of Falun Gong were also published in major Chinese newspapers. In response, founder Li Hongzhi called on disciples to "defend the Fa" by lobbying media outlets and government officials to censor content critical of Falun Gong."

"Donations and the sale of all materials were centralised through the FDRS, and funds flowed directly to Li Hongzhi."

Those statements are all simply sourced with "Palmer (2007), pg249" So i looked up Palmers book page 249 http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=RXeuibmD2dsC&pg=PA249&lpg=PA250&vq=%22Changchun%22&client=firefox-a (hope the link works, if not use the one in the article). And i even read the previous and the next page, but simply could not find any such statements. Maybe Ohconfucius would like to give an actual source or would care to explain where exactly the present sources actually make such statements? --Hoerth (talk) 12:18, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

That phrase was my contribution, not OhConfucius'. I cite "James Tong: An Organizational Analysis of the Falun Gong: Structure, Communications, Financing* The China Quarterly, No. 171 (Sep., 2002), pp. 636-660", who in turn cited People's Daily's "Li Hongzhi qiren qishi" for that particular statement, which is the citation used by me. There is even a disclaimer that this report is by state media so it should not be taken as impartial. In addition, I even insert phrases like "Chinese media claimed" to ensure that full NPOV treatment. Please assume good faith. Colipon+(Talk) 18:14, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
"Falun Gong was highly centralised, and it maintained "absolute centralisation of thought, healing and money." Power flowed directly to or from the Master 'whose authority was strictly moral and ideological'"
"While it relied on traditional network (in a Qigong sense) for dissemination exercise techniques - a nationwide network of local and regional practising stations, the Falun Dafa Research Society (FDRS) was its national umbrella organisation."
"Donations and the sale of all materials were centralised through the FDRS, and funds flowed directly to Li Hongzhi."
Apologies, I'll have those sorted in due course. They are from real sources, I may have got some pages wrong. Or some sentences may have been moved away from their original cite. Ohconfucius ¡digame! 15:31, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
As you can see i have restored my comment and have posted your response as a response (instead of your editing my comment). I don't understand why you crossed those things out anyway - since they are still in the article and haven't been changed. All you did was mentioning another page of the palmer book and giving another source not accessible. I am getting the impression that you must have wasted a lot of time (i guess it must be many days at least) reading through countless unimportant and little known documents only to eventually find some sentence in which an author quotes from or agrees with the things that the Communist Party propaganda ministry claims about Falun Gong, and then you use it as opportunity to write in all those claims, basically putting them off as fact and then NOT sourcing it with the Communist Party affiliated media (which is the actual and most prominent source of the rumor) but instead sourcing it with some western guy who isn't the actual source at all but simply repeated what the Communist Party said or quoting from it.
And that is precisely the problem i have with you. We all know that the Communist Party is a totalitarian dictatorship allowing no free expression, controlling everything with almost all money flowing directly to the top and that in order to justify all those terrible things they control all the Chinese and many foreign media and spreading a lot of propaganda and then using minorities like Falun Gong as scapegoats and projecting all those methods that they themselves use onto their victims.
They have spread so much propaganda about Falun Gong that it is almost impossible not to have heard it - therefore i am not against mentioning what the Communist Party claims about Falun Gong since it's very likely that people have heard it anyway. But your trying to disguise all the well known propaganda spread by the communist controlled media against Falun Gong as something western scholars spread, when in fact they merely repeated it.
The Communist Party is a much more well known source for all the things your trying to pass off as facts in the article... i could immediately, on the spot give you hundreds of communist party sources for all your claims - while you obviously have to go through a lot of effort finding a westerner repeating it. If you would give the actual and more prominent source - i would have no issue with you. --Hoerth (talk) 11:49, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
Sorry. This response is just unreasonable. Further comments like these can be considered violations of the articles' probation and actions will be taken accordingly. Firstly, you are accusing editors of bad faith editing, which essentially constitutes a personal attack. Secondly, it's great you have these informed views about the Communist Party, but Wikipedia is not a place to advocate for a cause. Here we only stand for writing from a neutral point of view. Colipon+(Talk) 12:28, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
Hoerth would you like to list the primary sources for the rumors? It would help this issue a lot. Thank you! --HappyInGeneral (talk) 12:47, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
simply go to any chinese video or media site and enter 法轮功 (Falun Gong) if you don't get an error (censorship) you usually get at least a couple of hundred if not thousands of results - all slandering Falun Gong and all saying the exact same things you guys are trying to push... this is well known... impossible you could have missed it and weird that you should even ask... all 3 of you should know this only too well... --Hoerth (talk) 13:36, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
What rumours? All the above are direct cites, as my amended references indicate full well. Please refer to WP:V and WP:RS - the primary sources are only of limited relevance. This encyclopaedia is built principally from secondary sources, and that's how it should stay. The sources are perfectly accessible - just go to Google books: that's how I found the stuff - otherwise go to a library. My efforts show there's actually plenty of academic material out there, not just Ownby. There's a lot more work to do on this article I have no time to waste on bad faith complaints from yet another FLGSPA. Ohconfucius ¡digame! 13:20, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
Oh, Hoerth, please don't start the whole POV-pushing thing again. If you feel strongly about Falun Gong in any way, then you are the wrong person to edit this article. Martin Rundkvist (talk) 20:09, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
Actually other than inserting a picture i haven't edited the article since october 2007. Yet i might choose to do so... if i where to do so, pls tell me why would i be "the wrong person"? And why am i not allowed to point out why i feel that Ohconfucius recent edits of the article are POV? --Hoerth (talk) 20:58, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
WP:COI..........umm.....you're straying from the topic. Your disruption on the talk page is counterproductive toward's our goal of improving these articles... Plus, if you really have something you feel that needs to be done about Ohconfucius, please follow the appropriate procedures, instead of bashing him on the talk page...also,FLG sources are are not any more valid than PRC's...--Edward130603 (talk) 22:00, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
Hoerth, "WP:COI" refers to Wikipedia's rules about conflicts of interest. If I am a militant Islamist or a survivor of 9/11, then I am simply not allowed to edit the article about 9/11. Wikipedia's contributors are expected to have a dispassionate attitude. Martin Rundkvist (talk) 07:48, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
Let me get this straight... your telling me that say a Jew wouldn't be allowed to say anything regarding an article about Judaism much less edit it, right? --Hoerth (talk) 09:21, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
Most Jews these days don't have a very passionate relationship to Judaism, so IMHO it wouldn't be a problem in most cases. What we don't want is for someone who LOVES and ADORES Elvis to write about the quality of his final few records. Or for someone with a vested interest in the conflict between FLG and the CCP, like yourself, to write about that issue. Martin Rundkvist (talk) 12:28, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
And that's exactly why i was pointing out that Ohconfucius is such a person as basically all of his edits have clearly been from the POINT OF VIEW of the Chinese Communist Party and he tries to pass this POV off as NPOV --Hoerth (talk) 13:32, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Braking coments

Please don't brake other comments. You can always quote if you want to refer to some section. --HappyInGeneral (talk) 06:34, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

ASDFG's recent changes

Many of these changes deliberately mislead readers or misquote sources. I have little time to get into the details now, but for other interested editors - please read the sources given in that "persecution" section. You will be a stark contrast between the way it is presented in the article and the way it is presented in the source. One of the sources, for example, points out that testimonials from Falun Gong practitioners are almost impossible to verify; another says that the government's campaign targeted people who were actively organizing protests, not those practicing Falun Gong (and this is really no different to other disenfranchised social groups protesting that their houses have been illegally evicted. Falun Gong cannot claim that the government made special policies in this area only as part of a "terror campaign" against its members). In addition, the "torture, electricution" allegations are mostly routed through the Epoch Times. If and when these things are carried out, they are done by local authorities, not some secret-police-like network set up by Luo Gan, which is essentially a story played up by Falun Gong. If you bothered to look even slightly into each of these allegations, it's very easy to why this entire 'persecution' section needs to be re-written, or removed. Colipon+(Talk) 11:29, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Would you please like to quote your sources? Thank you. --HappyInGeneral (talk) 13:16, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Agree with Happy. We might just want to make a rule, to keep things really simple: if you're not going to bring sources, don't worry about diatribes on the talk page. For that reason I'm not going to respond to Colipon's remarks unless he can substantiate them. There is a wealth of sources on this stuff. They'll go in the article.--Asdfg12345 23:55, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

This change clearly aims to re-balance the POV in favour of Falun Gong. Such an edit is not in good faith. Apparently, all references to Li Hongzhi had been whitewashed with this single edit. Colipon+(Talk) 09:01, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Colipon, please address the substance of the article rather than talking about other things. The note I made was asking how it makes sense to mix in comments about Li's teachings with straight up notes about the persecution. They're different things. If we want to address Li's comments, that's fine.But weaving them in when there is no real connection is a kind of original synthesis.--Asdfg12345 23:13, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

More so than trying to stick that relationship between He Zuoxiu and Luo Gan into the article? That's a far stretch. Colipon+(Talk) 03:46, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Commentators have made this connection. If it doesn't come as a quick sentence after introducing He, do you have another suggestion of where it may be better placed? The point is that the readers are aware of what the sources say on this.--Asdfg12345 23:46, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Questions

Hi. I'll put some questions here. Please do your best to answer them, Colipon and Confucius, and whoever else feels responsible. Actually, the first set of questions are just about the changes to my other edits. Then the other questions are general, about how the current points of emphasis in the article can be understood within the context of wikipedia content policies, particularly NPOV and DUE.

By the way, Coipon, I will just take you up on one thing you said, about the secret police network etc. Here's from Tong's Revenge of the Forbidden City:

"As his initial shock turned to anger, Jiang instructed Luo to handle the crisis, convening a meeting of concerned department to work our solutions and to engage the demonstrators in dialogue. Luo then called a meeting with the heads of the Ministry of Pulblic Security, the Ministry of State Security, the Armed Police Headquater, the Central Security Bureau, the Central Committee General Office, and the State Council General Office, as well as related departments..." p. 5

"Perhaps the most significant telltale sign of the imminence of the crackdown was the absence of the top two leaders in the 610 Office that was in charge of suppressing the Falungong. Their public appearances were much less frequent... Likewise, as the public security tsar and the operations head of the 610 Office, Luo Gan had reduced his monthly public appearances..." p. 51

Is there any dispute that the 610 Office is a secret police group tasked with persecuting Falun Gong? I understand the scope of its functions was later increased, but it was certainly set up for the purpose of persecuting Falun Gong practitioners, according to the sources.

About recent edits

  • [23] What misleading impression does the Luo Gan/He Zuoxiu thing gives the reader? (Note that I restored the comment with a reference to Porter.)
  • Gah, too much time has passed already and I forget what other problems I had. I restored some information.

General

  • What's the understanding with making the "organisation" section of the article, since it's mostly about Falun Gong in China before the persecution. Should it be labelled clearly about which time period this corresponds to? By putting it as it is now, it gives the impression about Falun Gong as a whole, rather than in a specific time period in a specific place, which all those sources are talking about. So, it would be good to hear the understanding there. The point would just be to group information in a meaningful way. In particular, is the space that has been given these quite specific details (such as which departments Li tried to register the association with) in accordance with DUE? I had often heard confucius complain about academic sources, but none of this information would have appeared in any of the thousands of articles written about Falun Gong in the press, yet it takes up a lot of space here. Please help me to understand this.

Actually, I think that's it. --Asdfg12345 02:36, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

I just went through and eliminated two very OBVIOUS disrespectful comments abut Falun Gong. I'm not a practitioner, but know several. It is always best to treat other people's beliefs with respect, even if they differ from yours. -- User:Zonetones

Housekeeping

Hey, can get use a consistent reference system between us? I don't mind which we use. Whatever the consensus is. Here are the three forms that are used on the pages now:

  1. <ref name=breakingpoint>Matthew Gornet, [http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,165163,00.html The Breaking Point], Time (magazine)|Time]], 25 June 2001</ref> (later uses of the form <ref name=breakingpoint />)
  2. <ref name=breakingpoint>{{cite news |first=Matthew |last=Gornet |url=http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,165163,00.html |title=The Breaking Point |work=[[Time (magazine)|Time]] |date=25 June 2001}} (later uses what form?)
  3. <ref name=palmer246>Palmer (2007), p. 246.</ref> (after the initial full reference has been given)

As I say, while I don't really mind which we adopt, I will just put forth my recommendation for the first. Each has advantages and disadvantages. Here are my reasons. Happy to go with whatever is decided:

  • The first is the most widely used already on the pages. We want the refs to be consistent, and we'll have to change many of them if we pick any other style. That's one thing.
  • It seems easier to do. If you use the citenews one, you need to copy/paste into those templates, and also copy/paste a template from some other place. Kinda an extra step. If you go with the first one, you can just type it right out usually.
  • It keeps things grouped. The last one creates many different entries in the references section, so it's hard to see how often one particular reference is being used in the article, which is important information. We often want to know the page numbers. Could this be put in <!-- p. 236--> style comments where applicable? I'm not sure, actually.
  • Does the citenews template have a way of assigning page numbers for each ref? That would be helpful.

anyway, just some thoughts here. --Asdfg12345 02:50, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Okay, that would be nice. I didn't click through. I guess it will be a bit time consuming. I'll look at it on a rainy day, but for now, should I plug in new sources with the citation templates, or use the old method them convert them? Hmm.. I don't expect anyone will know. Anyway.--Asdfg12345 09:04, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

About the persecution and protests

At the moment the article treats in one section protests in China, and the persecution. Could someone speak to this? Why? Have most sources made this connection? Would it be adequate to give a broad outline of the persecution, and then Falun Gong practitioners' response? It's unclear why they are chained together atm. Thanks.--Asdfg12345 09:20, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

btw, about my removal from the sentence in the lead: it's problematic because it asserts a disputed interpretation of Falun Gong as a fact. There's no room for bringing these disputes into the lead, so I think what's in there should just reflect the baseline of things we can usefully say about the subject that everyone agrees on. It doesn't need to venture into claims that are more complex, said by only one person, or whatever. On the other hand, if this can be shown to really be a mainstream view, commonly cited, then I'll be happy to go with it. But I have Ownby here saying that Falun Gong was not unique in its protests against what it saw as a concerted government campaign in the 90s; and in other cases where sources talk about Falun Gong practitioners' apparent overzealousness in responding to criticism, it's never discussed in the context of how these people are different from other religious or qigong groups. --Asdfg12345 10:33, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

  • We've had it from many sources, including Ownby, that Falun Gong practitioners' overzealousness in responding to criticism is as good as written into the scriptures, thus is a defining characteristic of practitioners and the movement. I don't think we need to compare with the other movements. It's already noted all the other qigong groups (eg Zhong Gong, the most prominent) got crushed. Ohconfucius ¡digame! 14:17, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, I'm not sure if we could say that so definitively. But whatever the case, I think it's a good idea to expand on this kind of thing and explore the whys and wherefores in the actual article. Trying to make it as part of the lead seems to over-emphasise this perspective. I mean, when people give a brief introduction to this whole topic, which includes Falun Gong, the persecution, etc., is that one of the things that comes up? ("oh, yeah, and they're a really reactive group of people, by the way") Is it really one of the most notable things about the topic, warranting its inclusion in the lead? Just seems kinda forced.--Asdfg12345 15:15, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Vandalism

I hope we can all agree that this sort of stuff is vandalism. I just reverted to the last version by HiG. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 16:38, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

good work.--Asdfg12345 23:26, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Article structure

Something wasn't making sense to me about the structure, so I shuffled things around and renamed some headings. What does everyone think? The subject is so complex that it gets tricky to figure out where things should be properly grouped. Here is some of my reasoning for the changes:

1) because nearly all that stuff related to mainland China. If we have a section called "History," that's quite open ended. It could include nearly everything on the subject, starting from the beginning to now, with not much left out. If, instead, the history itself is integrated into the article (as in, a section on inside mainland China, and a section on outside mainland China), this seems to make more sense? It's a thought.

2) I think it makes more sense to have a sub-section called "reception" and include both the positive and negative response Falun Gong received in China. At the very least, for the sake of neutrality, if you had a section about critics, you would have to have one about supporters, which doesn't seem to make much sense. There were both.

3) It seems quite tricky to untangle all the things that happened in China that led up to the persecution and the ban, and there are many different narratives. If we narrate the events and key perspectives/opinions/interpretations of them, leading up to the ban and persecution, I think that provides some value to the reader. The media attacks and protests move in lockstep up until July 20; it's hard to make a clear cut, so I think it makes sense to call all this "friction" and then explain the ban.

4) the only other change, as I recall, was to group all the material about Falun Gong outside China in one section, rather than split it over two sections. The "outside China" is closely related to "response to persecution," and the way it was until then broken up seemed kinda arbitrary.

5) the public debate section now includes more things, and we can give this more subtlety and neutrality. Here though, again, it's unclear whether all this material should be shipped to relevant areas? As in, much of the stuff about organisation etc. is relevant to mainland China. Should that be in the mainland China section?

Anyway, these are just some ideas and thoughts. Looking forward to figuring it out.--Asdfg12345 00:08, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Another thing is, the issue of the protests and the persecution will have to be resolved. Are these not separate things; the idea of a section called "continued protests and statewide suppression", or a chunk of text which interspersed how the persecution was actually carried out and the results on the people affected, with the protests against that persecution, seems slightly odd. At the very least, the protests are a response to state violence; grouping this together and calling it "response to persecution" in the mainland section could make more sense. Unless I'm missing something? I'd again recommend Ownby as useful to consult here. His "Falun Gong and the Future of China" is the most recent and highest quality scholarly account of this whole phenomenon, so I think much of the way things are framed there would be useful to us. --Asdfg12345 00:17, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Touching base

I am checking in. How are things going at this article and others in the topic area? What are continuing points of contention, if any? Do any particular discussions or content disagreements need mediation or outside opinions to help form a consensus? What sorts of guidelines or community assistance could help further stabilize the topic area and improve the involved articles? (On the last question, please avoid "ban user X" type answers.) Vassyana (talk) 06:10, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm glad Vassyana chipped in here. This is a good opportunity to bring something up. Please take a look at the recent history. Several changes I made were simply reverted by Colipon. It took a while to make those changes, but he just wound them back. His comments on the talk page also accuse me of bad faith editing. I'm not upset about that, but I don't think reverting people and accusing them of bad faith is conducive to the editing environment we want.

Another thing is, I think there are some problems with the current balance of the articles. We're presented with a singular narrative of Falun Gong, rather than a more variegated picture. The reality, and what the sources say, is far more complex than is being made out. For example, there was an organisation in China, but it was disbanded in 1997, and things are highly decentralised now. The only reason there was an organisation in China in the first place is because no group is allowed to do anything without registering--i.e., they were made to register as an organisation. So nearly everything in that section is about pre-1997 China, but by default it purports to describe Falun Gong as a whole. This is just one example of the over simplification. Even in this there are many sources and many different voices, and they have all been deleted. Similarly with Falun Gong's reception in China; all the stuff about awards and approval by the mainstream have been purged, and now it's all about skeptics and critics; in fact, skeptics and critics were on the fringes back then. It was certainly part of how Falun Gong was received, no one disputes that, but the article currently presented a skewed picture, and one not in line with much of the research on the topic.

Another thing is, the History page was made mainly so the persecution page could be deleted. For some reason that wasn't successful, and now those pages are neither fish nor foul and cover similar ground. The History page is also hopelessly one-sided. Anyway, to put a positive spin on it, when we can provide a balanced picture that will be better than either pro-Falun Gong propaganda or (the current) anti-Falun Gong propaganda. Right now, while there are some good developments, the strong-arm tactics, marginalisation of mainstream discourse, elevation of a few sources to control the narrative etc. has gotten a bit out of control. It's basically like, whoever spends more time on the pages controls them. What I'm most worried about is that when I start trying to insert these mainstream views that someone is going to call in the anti-Falun Gong hordes and everything will be wiped again. Something like that happened six months ago, and we had some bizarre conversations about how the word "criticism" didn't really mean "criticism" but instead something else.

Also, the deletions of mainstream views from the pages so far is already quite extensive. For example, Ownby is interspersed with scholars whose interpretation he doesn't support (so it looks like he buys into what they're saying), whereas his analysis in other areas has been deleted. Just some generalisations here.

I'm looking forward to doing good work on these pages, and I'm genuinely interested in working with everyone. I'm just a little concerned about Colipon's willingness to do blanket reverts (I think this kind of thing should only been done rarely, when an editor has obviously done just wacky changes) and make accusations about other editors' intentions. Anyway, I've just started editing again, and it takes some time to warm up. I might have forgotten that you need a thick skin around here. By the way, I plan to edit other articles on aspects of Chinese society and politics, it's just tricky to find the time. --Asdfg12345 09:02, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

I didn't think I had seriously edited the pages for more than six months. Either way. I don't want to sound negative. I'm not blaming anyone. Basically, I think it will be great if we can work collaboratively, play by the rules, and just keep our noses clean. No playing dirty and no backbiting; just the regular tussles about sources, policy, how things should be framed, compromise, negotiation, and so on. We've been doing this for a long time already and know how it goes. The key is just to be reasonable.--Asdfg12345 10:33, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

The Falun Gong articles are on probation. After several months of peace and quiet I am discouraged that POV editing has entered the fold once again. I stand fully behind my reverts and all of my edits as a means to protect the integrity of this encyclopedia. I will continue to fight against POV-editing from both the Communist Party side and the Falun Gong side. But it seems as though the majority of POV-pushing continues to be coming from the Falun Gong side, with much the same "gaming-the-system" tactics employed earlier by users who have already been banned.

To Vassyana, it would be extremely helpful if there were one or two uninvolved but knowledgeable editors who to monitor the page and will be bold when it comes to reverting POV edits by questionable users and who are familiar with how SPAs on this page game the system. I have little energy left in combatting senseless POV-laden edits and answering to non-productive partisan discussions, and then receiving accusations from users with a clear conflict of interest against me as though I am the one doing the wrong thing. Colipon+(Talk) 18:03, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Colipon, not sure what to say. I'm editing in good faith. Happy to engage in dialogue on policy, the sources, etc., and hammer out the best way of presenting things. You're basically saying I'm gaming the system, doing bad faith edits, etc. That's not true. I would prefer just to deal in the nuts and bolts of what's in the sources and what is on these pages.--Asdfg12345 00:20, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

What is and is not true is very visible in your edits. Ask any uninvolved editor to review your edits and talk page rants, and it will be very clear what is going on. There is no to continue denying that you have a very clear conflict of interest in this subject, and as such should not be editing Falun Gong articles, period. Your disruptive edits have been sparse in the past few months but they are creeping back as of this week. Deny it all you want, but these are plain facts visible to any uninvolved spectator. Colipon+(Talk) 00:42, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

I think we should just keep our discussion to the sources, policies, and what's on the pages. If my editing is in violation of wikipedia policies then I'm of course vulnerable to AE measures, or whatever.--Asdfg12345 23:31, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Falun Gong/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

Archive Per assessment, article probation from Arbcom, and =Wikipedia:Release_Version_Nominations/Held_nominations&oldid=136125780#Falun_Gong_.28edit.7Ctalk.7Chistory.7Clinks.7Cwatch.7Clogs.29 this discussion, I will fail this article. Bring up the quality (and try to solve whatever issues got this put on probation from Arbcom if that is possible) if you want to get this passed in the future. Funpika 19:32, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Last edited at 19:32, 5 June 2007 (UTC). Substituted at 20:33, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Archiving

Greetings. The previous talk page was so large that it was getting difficult to navigate, so it has all been stored at /archive1. Fire Star 05:53, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

evil cult?

as a Buddhist, one thing is certain, that Buddhism has no connection with Falun Gong even though they claimed so. Li, Hongzhi has been abusing buddhistic terminologies or ideologies extensively thorough out his *religion*.

Just a quick query. I know that the chinese government has referred to the falun gong movement has been translated "evil cult", but what were the exact words they used in chinese?

Answer: The term Jiang Zemin used when the persecution begann means if translated litereraly "heretical religion". This term has been used by the party ever since, and when they write anti Falun Gong texts in english that term becomes "evil Cult", and in German "Boese Sekte" (which is yet another meaning)

But actually I am not so sure myself what they mean by "heretical religion". But as far as I know that term actually originates from the time of the cultural revolution. Back than any religous, spiritual, or traditional gathering that was not organised by the party itself could be accused of that and it is also still used for Christians, or buddhists that are outside Party controlled organizations.

Actually Falun Gong was also inside one of those Party orginazations, namely the "National Qigong Assosciation". But they left it in 1996.

Manuel

This article is damned biased. it presents opinions and allegations as fact. --Sumple 23:13, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
On reading it all, I take back that comment. It's well balanced. Cheers. --Sumple 23:22, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Chinese, unlike many western languages, cannot be misinterpreted because words are translate, while it should have translated phrases. I can recognize what the words are in Cantonese, and the common interpretation of that phrase is exactly "cult", specifically the negative connotation of "cult" - that said cult is harmful and/or abusive to the believers - is the very denotation of the phrase.

Back a few years ago, when I was tutored on English, my tutor and I were fairly interested in politics. One day he asked me about Falun Gong, which I expressed my suspicion of them being a cult, which he find it odd. Next week, he showed me a leaflet that he had obtained from (supposedly) a practitioner, and we read it together. There are signs in that paper that was quite suspicious. It showed a graph of its members, which exploded in an exponential scale since 1992 (which is when the "head" of Falun Gong) start promoting it. Also suspicious was an exerpt of Li's writing which he mentioned that in one of the Nostradamus' Quatrains, the "prophet" had written something about Mars, which Li wrote that Mars is meant to be Marx. Upon further reading of the exerpt, we conclude that if indeed this is the type of teaching from Falun Gong, and this type of strange growth pattern makes Falun Gong, at best, of dubious quality. Too bad he kept the leaflet. Incidentally, this happened in Vancouver, BC.

Well, I wondered it too. Then again, Mars is the Roman god of war and also a "red planet", so if you want to believe, maybe there is some deeper connection in this. In addition, Nostradamus was a little bit vague when it came to names: for example, he wrote about "Hisler", whom many people have connoted with Hitler.

Anyway, I don't think Falun Gong is a cult; in my opinion the persecution has clearly fascist motives. Falun Gong might have some eccentric beliefs, but I've never heard of any foul play or coercion in their practice. Undoubtedly many people have found it beneficial from the beginning, so why wouldn't they seek to investigate the practice further? All practitioners I know are perfectly sane people, and many of them have improved physically and mentally since they started. One had relatively bad scarring on his face from severe acne, and when he started doing Falun Gong, the scars just started to fill in and disappear little by little... slightly peculiar.

Just my point of view.

Zhen, Shan and Ren

Does anyone have the unicode characters for the three main concepts? They would be a nice addition to the article. Fire Star 17:14, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

Corresponding Chinese characters added. -Broccoli 00:29, August 22, 2005 (UTC)

Another issue

No, but there is another issue I'd like to address.

Fire Star, how come you make biased modifications to the article (e.g. adding words like "controversially" when you surely know it's not such a simple issue, and not only that) without discussing them first? This is even more curious insofar as you revert other people's additions to earlier versions quite readily. It seems as if you had some personal agenda with this page, or am I wrong? Is it just because you maybe prefer another school of practice?

Li Hongzhi has stated that it doesn't really matter if somebody is interracial or not: he will take care of everybody anyway regardless of whether they practice Falun Gong or not, and only the person's attitude towards Fa-rectification is looked at. People of mixed race have a "primordial spirit" that corresponds to its respective race, and it's only that their surface elements don't have correspondence in these so-called paradises. Isn't this what he said? In this context it is, of course, irrelevant whether he's really Buddha Maitreya or not. I just don't see how these words would put people into "defective" positions. ---unsigned comment by 130.232.37.53

It is helpful for us to follow the discussion if you would sign your posts. Li has said a lot of things in his career, many of them at different points seem contradictory. There are several attestations (including direct statements by Li) that Li considers mixed race people to be defective. The version we have is rather mild, considering, and is the result of a consensus of our editors (read the archived discussion). If it wasn't for the evidence of racism (or, if you prefer, xenophobia) Li would seem just another run of the mill New Age guru and Falungong just another run of the mill qigong, nothing special, at least in my opinion. Wikipedia reflects a neutral, informative point of view, and as I've mentioned before we don't want to whitewash or demonise them, so we strive to simply report, warts and all. Li has said what he said, and apologists trying to explain it away won't change what he actually has said, and how weird that seems to a lot of people, hence the "controversial" statement. I hope this helps. Fire Star 04:55, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
I apologize for answering late, and my native language is not English, so I will not spend time polishing this. With all said and done, Li Hongzhi has not stated that people of mixed race are "defective". It is nothing but your (or some other person's) interpretation of his speech. Besides, he's never told practitioners not to marry anybody outside of their own race. This is not racial discrimination: it says nothing about racial inferiority or superiority. He has only stated that there's an issue that he can solve for you. You can't say that's racism, whether you believe his ideas or not. I'm fiercely anti-racist myself, but not everything that is said about racial characteristics is racism in the sense it's generally understood (as racial prejudice).
Anyway, you didn't comment on what I said about your modifications. You tend to revert other people's (sometimes perfectly justified) changes back to previous versions quite readily, yet you seem to have taken a different approach in your own demeanour. I respect your fine contributions to the Wikipedia community, but in my opinion, not all of the criticism you've received is unfounded. (P.S. Sorry for not creating an account this time... I'm also using a different computer, so the actual IP differs from above.) ---130.232.37.53

David Copperfield

I have read in one of Li`s books, where he ammends that there are other masters of chi, that have this gift by nature, like a popular magician who penetrated publicly the chinese wall but covered the scenery with white blankets etc. obviously refering to David Copperfield. I think this an important statement, that people should know to build up their own opinion Thomas h 09:22, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

More Focused Introduction

The article spent the entire first paragraph translating Falun Gong six different ways and talking about how many members it had, without saying what it really was. I took a crack at bringing it down to one set of chinese characters, one number, and one date — and moved the rest into the article body. I think the result is easier to digest and hits the parts that are relevant for most readers. However, I did not spend significant time finding a good place for the material I moved out of the introduction, so if someone can do a better job on that I'd be appreciative. Metaeducation 12:26, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

I just got back from China, and this page was definitely blocked by the great firewall. I thought that should be mentioned in the article so I put it in the intro. 24.22.74.4

Morality

I recently modified the morality entry to be more comprehensive, and I noticed that the changes were discarded in full. I would appreciate commentary on this.

I am attempting to (1) offer a broader picture of the morality espoused by Falun Gong adherents, and the rationale behind it (2) move away from the Judeo-Christion focus on "sin" which is emphasized in the first article, and not in fact this belief system, (3) cover more comprehensively what FG practitioners would consider "wrong," (4) address concepts around miscegenation.

THE PROPOSED TEXT:

Li states that the five exercises and the Falun are not sufficient to ensure a person's physical, mental and spiritual well-being; only by living a morally upright life according to the principles of Zhen-Shan-Ren (Truthfulness, Compassion, and Forbearance) can a Falun Gong practitioner be said to experience increased vitality, health, and peace of mind, according to Li's teachings. This principle is referred to as upgrading xinxing or "heart nature". While Li Hongzhi's teachings form a basis for learning how to apply Zhen-Shan-Ren in a complicated society, practitioners' responsibility for their own interpretation of the teachings, and their resulting decisions and actions, is stressed.

The Falun Gong traditional form of morality (sometimes seen as conservative) is expounded upon in the book Zhuan Falun, and is centered around obtaining virtue (de, or good karma) and avoiding creating karma (bad karma). Karma is seen to be created when doing bad deeds, and virtue is accrued when doing good ones. Thus, "...a practitioner should set high demands on himself, and should not return the same when being hit or abused." Practitioners should not be motivated by self-interest.

Irrespective of a practitioner's predispositions, pursuit of "free love," homosexual acts, drug abuse, among others, are regarded as creating karma, as is the taking of any life.

There has been some controversy in the press around Falun Gong conceptions of miscegenation. In his lectures, Li Hongzhi controversially suggested that different races bear the images of the gods that created them, and that each race of people on earth in the past had their own cosmic paradises, leaving people of mixed race with no paradise to go to. However, at the present time in history, people of mixed race have similar possibilities to anyone else.

In Zhuan Falun it is stressed that all sentient beings should be treated with tolerance and compassion, and that practitioners should not act in an extreme manner.

Well, what is notable about what Li teaches is that he does express his disapproval of homosexuality explicitly and mixed race children implicitly in his public statements. these things are in the public record, and while FLG followers may agree with him fully or indeed be able to rationalise his statements as you do, we still can report them in the article. FLG is a controversial subject and all sides of the issue should be reported. The issue you are bringing up isn't characterised by any Judeo-Christian concept of sin, but rather the notable issue of that Li seems to be intolerant of his concept of "sinners" i.e. homosexuals and mixed race couples. I hope this helps. --Fire Star 15:59, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
While I agree that Wikipedia articles should maintain a neutral, all-encompassing point of view (and it's perfectly all right to exhibit controversial statements), the modifications in question do clarify Li's teachings to a notable degree. Accordingly, they shouldn't have been entirely removed. Instead, the erased quote concerning homosexuality (from Zhuan Falun II) could've been returned; now I get the impression that Fire Star would like to make things more black-and-white than they essentially are. He distinctly wants to highlight the homosexuality and miscegenation issues from a judgemental POV and keep it that way. Fire Star, are you merely trying to keep your point untarnished? --130.232.37.53
How is simply reporting what he said judgmental and POV? I reversed the edits because they seemed like original research in aid of a POV to make Li sound better in light of his many apparently politically incorrect statements. We can't say he is a saint, or a god, or a cult leader. We can say what he has said, and the statements you object to are important information towards an objective view of Li's idiom. If you'll read through the article's edit history and the archived discussion above, you'll see that there is a long history of FLG enthusiasts who want to come here and make this look more like an advertisement than an encyclopaedia article. The reference and external links give plenty of evidence to Li's and Falundafa's party line. We can't say "It's OK that Li said these things because of blah..." as it is no longer reporting, it is apologetics. If we say "Li's followers say he said these things because of blah..." we have to say which followers said those things, it isn't good enough to report your personal understanding of those things. Regards, --Fire Star 20:28, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
Hmmm...I think I understand your way of thinking about this now. What I wrote was based on Li Hongzhi's teachings. The point is, what Li Hongzhi has written about homosexuality is not definitive of the morality of the practice, while the entry as it stands makes it look that way. Perhaps it makes sense to have a section on morality that attempts to broadly explain it, while having another section that covers, "controversial issues / teachings?" -- this is more what that section looks like now. I will go through the process to dig up the appropriate references.
Yeah, that would be fine. We can have contextual information about what he said as long as it is qualified with neutral language and referenced with appropriate citations. "Both sides of the story" so to speak. We like to have as much info as possible in aid of a complete picture but with the many layered (and mostly subjective) controversies surrounding Li, FLG and the Chinese government, it is easier on all sides for us to be especially meticulous and "dry" in our presentation, which is why the present article may seem a bit abrupt in places. Regards, --Fire Star 13:31, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Using "quotes" from dubious sources

What do you mean by doing this, Mibrovsky and Fire Star? Doesn't the neutrality standard apply when you've found a delicious and apparently racist "quote" from Li that you just want to get in, no matter what? When other people have been trying to provide a more comprehensive understanding of the miscegenation and homosexuality issues, the changes have been straightforwardly reverted. Now nothing is done about a quote that can only be found from anti-Falun Gong pages, even though you know utterly well that a lot of these alleged quotes cannot be traced to their origin. There is plenty of propaganda out there. What is your agenda? A neutral, balanced article or simply denigration? ---130.232.37.53

As I have said before, there is a long history here of anon editors doing drive by edits to both make Li and FLG look good or to make them look bad. Neither are acceptable. Your case now seems a little different, so I'm happy to discuss this with you. The article at [25] apparently is a serious article that sources its statements. You may assert otherwise, but the burden of proof is on you, and even then the best you'll be able to do is qualify the listing. The pro FLG links seem dubious to many as well, but they also stay. So, you may dispute it, but you shouldn't remove it. Your statements that the source is "dubious" just aren't enough. We have pro-FLG links and anti-FLG links, people need all sides of the story, if those sides are notable. Li is a controversial figure, he says many things that aren't "politically correct" and he says them publicly. He has alluded to the statements you dispute in other lectures. There are people who think he is a dangerous cult leader, there are others who think he is a simple-minded buffoon, and yet others (including himself) who think he is a living god. That doesn't concern us. What does concern us is what he and others have actually published, info that belongs in this article, at least. If you provide apologetics, as you may in this case, they have to be sourced, we have a policy against original research. We can work on this, but this article is controversial to the point that no one person may edit it by fiat. I hope this helps. --Fire Star 15:03, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
Fire Star has stated our point perfectly so there is no need for me to elaborate further. However, 130.232.37.53's statement, "When other people have been trying to provide a more comprehensive understanding of the miscegenation and homosexuality issues, the changes have been straightforwardly reverted", is... how shall we say... contradictory. (Ludicrous is such a bad word.) I cannot fathom how, by only deleting information on the said issues, one's understanding of them can become more comprehensive. If that were true, I'd be tearing up my AP Chemistry book right now and waiting to get an A on my next test.
-- Миборовский U|T|C|E 23:54, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
I am not referring to deleting anything. This case is an exception. I wholeheartedly agree that the quote concerning homosexuality from Zhuan Falun II is justified in this article, even though I feel the sentence by itself misrepresents the teachings of Falun Gong. However, there have been people who've elaborated on the homosexuality and miscegenation issues with a good, comprehensive understanding about what Li has said in different lectures. Of course, I understand that direct quotes should be provided to anchor these statements in his actual words. No original research - right. I am not against any of the principles of Wikipedia.
However, this gives emphasis to my point. You cannot assert that "Li said...", when you have no tangible proof at all that he's said a certain sentence. You could say, for example, "according to a research paper by Christian Research Institute, Li has said <blah blah>, but this sentence could not be traced back into any of his public lectures or interviews." And maybe you could add something about the raging information war, and how difficult it is for all parties to distinguish between propaganda and facts.
Fire Star: the article in question has nothing to do with a "serious article", and if you've studied in a college or university, you know how silly that sounds. Chances are that somebody's found the quote on a Chinese government website - and even you probably agree that the CCP doesn't always play it fair - and if the author's ambition has been to just validate his favoured viewpoint, maybe he didn't really care about the quality of his primary sources. Nevertheless, the sources ought to be traceable to their root, at least in principle! How is peer review otherwise possible?
This really makes me feel that you're evaluating modifications with a double standard. You're wearing a façade of neutrality, but your heart is weighted, and sometimes it seems you are making editions by fiat. At least you should overtly admit your subjective position. ---130.232.37.53
You have some good points and I am willing to go with a format like: "You could say, for example, "according to a research paper by Christian Research Institute, Li has said <blah blah>" and we should also add a note (or even an entire paragraph if there is a sufficient trail) concerning where they claim their sources come from. More information is good!
The next thing I want to address is wikiquette. I can assure you that I won't be flip, patronising or sneering when it comes to considering anyone but the most disruptive vandal's arguments; and only then to be illustrative, not belittling. The following two quotes are indicative of an approach that isn't going to be productive: "if you've studied in a college or university, you know how silly that sounds", "and even you probably agree that". If we want to work together and move forward (which I believe we can), I'll ask you not to use such figures of speech in future, thank you. --Fire Star 14:36, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Falun_Gong/Archive_1&oldid=1278580590"