Talk:Enlightenment

Seeing as it doesn't even have a wikipedia page, I'm going to delete the Van Morrisson album from here. --Horses In The Sky 16:58, 5 January 2006 (UTC) ğσΞė[reply]

Took out: *Enlightenment (Games Convention), A convention for games; as it doesn't have a wiki page dr.alf 08:30, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

split-up

It may be necessary to split up this page into separate "enlighten" and "enlightened" pages (which redirects to "enlightenment (concept)"), currently. ∞Σɛ_Þ² ^(τ|c) 10:48, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Falun Dafa

Also known as Falun Gong is practiced by around 100 million people. Enlightenment is part of this schools teaching. --HappyInGeneral (talk) 17:00, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have an RS for that claim? --Simon D M (talk) 09:22, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

About which claim? See page Falun Gong there you have the estimation about the number of people who practice, the exact number is unknown because nobody needs to register, still there is a government survey before the crackdown. Also if you go to Teachings_of_Falun_Gong#Enlightenment you will see that Enlightenment is part of the teachings [1] --HappyInGeneral (talk) 12:33, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP is not a RS for WP. The ref for the 100,000 figure cited is self-published material. You also need to consider how many other groups there are with yet more members who are not currently represented in the article. Including Falun Gong would be undue weight. Also check out WP:COI --Simon D M (talk) 13:49, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:COI does not prevent me to edit this page as long as I have the data to back up the claims, because that gets me to the part: "unless you are certain that the interests of Wikipedia remain paramount."

Enlightenment is part of the teachings, see here, I'm pinpointing part of the teaching itself [2], but facets of if can be found in many more teachings see here: [3] as for third part sources and relevance you can always check scholar: [4]
"On public television in Shanghai in 1998, government officials credited it with having between 70 and 100 million followers" http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/A2922644 --HappyInGeneral (talk) 14:06, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Are you telling me that you think that h2g2 is an RS ??????? --Simon D M (talk) 14:14, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"You also need to consider how many other groups there are with yet more members who are not currently represented in the article.", more then 100 million members? I don't know about that, but not too many I would guess, because this is already ~ 1/60 of the earth entire population. Plus it is spread world wide: [5] --HappyInGeneral (talk) 14:06, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Let's establish the figure before doing the math. --Simon D M (talk) 14:14, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- Here is another source: [6] "But paranoia hit when a CCP investigation in the late 1990s estimated that the fast-growing Falun Gong movement had between 70 million and 100 million followers across the country; the CCP itself has only 63 million members"

- A collection of mass media articles on this subject: [7] "The number of his adherents snowballed in China, reaching an estimated 100 million, including top-ranking Politburo members."

- 100 million does not come from thin air, I also read somewhere about the amount of money invested in the persecution which was around 25% of China's PIB ... if I'll find the source I'll post it here. Anyway the mass-media also considers 100 million as being a valid approximation as you can see in the Censur source [8].

- More then the 1998 government survey about the number of practitioners we can't really get, because there is no registration and no membership, if somebody considers that this practice is good he can do it, basically nothing is requested in return. However the practice site's are public and this should be telling: http://www.falundafa.org/eng/contacts/area/index.html --HappyInGeneral (talk) 15:01, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This page from CENSUR says the Chinese state only estimate 2 million. 100 million is an extraordinary claim for which you need extraordinary sources. CENSUR is a better source for NRM related matters than Forbes. --Simon D M (talk) 15:05, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That estimation of 2 million I'm sure is dated after the Persecution of Falun Gong started. The reason for this number can be propaganda. Anyway, how many practitioners do you think Falun Dafa would need for it to be notable enough for this page? --HappyInGeneral (talk) 15:18, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

One more source: [9] "Beijing puts the tally of his followers at 70 million." --HappyInGeneral (talk) 15:25, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Here is another source Major religious groups ranks Falun Dafa 16th with the minimum number of adherents 2.1 million as reported by the Chinese government after the crackdown, and so this number can be very far from the truth and it's not counting (mainly because it can not be counted) people outside China. --HappyInGeneral (talk) 14:38, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm happy to see the figure you are pushing drop back in this discussion from 100 million to 2.1m but I think the numbers issue should be dealt with at: Talk:Falun_Gong#Number_of_followers. Incidentally WP is not a RS for WP. --Simon D M (talk) 17:44, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Simon, do you need any other sources, basically I think we can safely say that the practitioners are somewhere certainly over 2 million. --HappyInGeneral (talk) 12:31, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For the issue of numbers, see Talk:Falun_Gong#Number_of_followers. I don't think a new religious movement/modern qigong cult (albeit the most popular), should have the right to include itself alongside Jainism, Buddhism and Hinduism which have all existed for 2,500 years and whose concepts of Enlightenment have had far-reaching effects through human history. It comes across as spam and degrades WP. Maybe you could create a new section for Enlightenment in NRMs. --Simon D M (talk) 17:39, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In WP what counts as far as I know, but you are free to prove me otherwise, is human knowledge, relevant human knowledge and based on this I do believe that this information belongs here. --HappyInGeneral (talk) 11:09, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information and Wikipedia is not a soapbox. --Simon D M (talk) 12:44, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I know, still I asked you if this information is relevant here, and by now you only told me that the movement is new, so this is why it might not be relevant, which I don't think it's correct. BTW there are 9 points in total in the links you provided, in the 2 wiki policies. Which one of them do you think this info is against? I could not find a single one. --HappyInGeneral (talk) 12:48, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]