Jump to content

Talk:Falun Gong/Archive 11

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Talk:Falun Gong

This is the current revision of this page, as edited by MalnadachBot (talk | contribs) at 20:03, 31 January 2023 (Fixed Lint errors. (Task 12)). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this version.

(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Archive 5←Archive 9Archive 10Archive 11Archive 12Archive 13→Archive 15

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

Archived discussion:

Back to the intro

We're still trying to finalize wording on the three paragraphs of the intro. I'm linking to the relevant parts of this talk page - please add your comments there. Let's get this done folks. CovenantD 18:20, 5 June 2006 (UTC)


agree, let's only make changes after reaching agreement here. To show my good faith, I am adding the NY Times figure to the third paragraph. I am sure pro-FG editors woud not have problem with this. --Samuel Luo 19:13, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Don't make major edits to the intro

2nd paragraph of intro

Dilip's suggestion

On July 20, 1999 the People's republic of China began a Nation-wide Supression of Falun Gong. This has been considered a major Human-rights violation world-over. Dilip rajeev 19:22, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

The following verion provides more info:

Falun Gong has been the focus of international controversy since the government of the People's Republic of China began a nationwide suppression of Falun Gong on July 20, 1999 for its illegal activities. The Falun Gong came to the attention of the Chinese government when 10,000 practitioners protested peaceful at Zhongnanhai the compound of Chinese top leaders on April 25, 1999.--Samuel Luo 19:33, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Dilip, your version is a bit skimpy and could be seen as POV because of that.

Samuel, isn't this the version currently in place?

- CovenantD 19:49, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

One thing I want to get settled ASAP is including the word alleged in front of illegal activities. Can we get a show of hands? CovenantD 22:22, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Also, we don't know the CCP's true intentions for the suppression. I think it's actually much more complicated than that. So we should say something like "the Chinese government claims...". So unless this change is made I don't support. Mcconn 18:21, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Unless there are further reports of the trials of those who were arrested at least in the Tianjin Incident, I support the usage o the word. --Yenchin 05:28, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

I support introducing the word "alleged" ASAP. But, in my opinion using the word "illegal" unnecessary...The reader is completely unaware what these alleged illegal activity is. And we also need to mention that the supression is considered a major violation of Human Rights, world over. Dilip rajeev 11:16, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm reposting my above comment (altered version) so that it doesn't get missed. We don't know the CCP's true intentions for the suppression. I think it's actually much more complicated than that. So rather than simply say that it was suppressed for "alleged illegal activities" we should say something like "the Chinese government claims... alleged illegal activities". So unless this change is made I don't support. Mcconn 04:20, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

I would like to point out that the April 25, 1999 is an appeal, instead of a protest. Here is an article from clearwisdom.net (a Falun Gong practitioners' website)[1]

Over the past several years, the Mainland police have spread lies on many occasions that "so many people went to protest, any country would suppress them." Many people have been misled by the media, and believed that Falun Gong practitioners' April 25 "besieging Zhongnanhai" lead to later suppression. In fact, firstly, "April 25" was not besieging the government, but a peaceful appeal, completely conforming to the law and reason. Secondly, Falun Gong practitioners' appeal was peaceful and out of their kindness, it was their trust to the government but not opposing the government. The third point, on the day of "April 25," with direct concern from Premier of State Council, Falun Gong practitioners and Appeals Office leaders had a meeting. They reached a common understanding and reasonably resolved the violent arrest of dozens of innocent Falun Gong practitioners in Tianjin.

Fnhddzs 05:31, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Mcconn's suggestion

I was just about to make this change in the main page since nobody has responded to mine and Fnhddzs' posts, but I changed my mind and decided it to post it here first. If no one responds after a few hours then I'll consider it ok and put it into the main page.

Falun Gong has been the focus of international controversy since the government of the People's Republic of China began a nationwide suppression of Falun Gong on July 20, 1999'. The government claims that it initiated the suppression in reponse to Falun Gong's alleged illegal activities.' Falun Gong came to the attention of the Chinese government when 10,000 practitioners protested peaceful at Zhongnanhai the compound of Chinese top leaders on April 25, 1999.

What do you think? (actually do we have source that verifies this claim?)Mcconn 18:30, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Samuel's suggestion

  • There is no consensus in adding "alleged" to this paragraph but I am not going to take it out yet. I propose using the following to replace the existing version. Finishing this paragraph by mentioning the group’s popularity introduces the next paragraph.

Falun Gong has been the focus of international controversy since the government of the People's Republic of China began a nationwide suppression of Falun Gong on July 20, 1999. The Chinese government claims to have banned the group for its illegal activities. [2] The Falun Gong claims the ban a result of president Jiang Zemin’s personal jealousy of the group’s popularity.[3]

The use of "illegal activites" must be avoided. We also need to mention that the supression has been considered a major human-rights violation. The reader doesnt know what the "alleged illegal activity" is. Dilip rajeev 20:19, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

We should be able to accept Samuel's new wording since it simply reports both POV's and even provides links for people to get more information. We don't need any more than this in the introduction, but can introduce much more in the crack-down section. (By the way, I don't think we ever agreed to the change in title for that page from Crackdown to Persecution.) --Tomananda 22:43, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
We didn't. In fact, I believe we were at the point where several people felt it was inherently POV. (I've been waiting for somebody to bring it up...) CovenantD 22:54, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
OK, but can people at least to agree to one editing principle, which is that when there seems to be irreconcilable differences of opinion on how to report something, that we should try to agree to a "two sentence" strategy such as shown above? One sentence would succintly report one position (with a link) and the other would report the counter position (also with a link.) Unless I am missing something here, that approach should work well. If we agree to the approach in general, then we just need to agree if the wording for each sentence is reasonable and verifiable, such as Samuel has suggested above. --Tomananda 01:07, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
Hmm. Samuel's new wording is good to me except the use of "illegal activites". Definitely not acceptable on that. Fnhddzs 05:47, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

A few things.

  1. The date of the first reference is 22 July, 1999, not 20 July.
  2. In the last sentence, President should be capitalized.
  3. Dilip may be right in saying that the "activities" could be expanded on in a completely NPOV manner, by using the wording from the announcement. Thus the second sentence becomes,
The Chinese government claims to have banned the group for its illegal activities Research Society of Falun Dafa for not been registered according to law, advocating superstition and spreading fallacies, hoodwinking people, inciting and creating disturbances, and jeopardizing social stability.[4]
- CovenantD 14:20, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Regarding why CCP persecutes Falun Gong, it seems to me that Master Li[5] said "why the malevolent CCP wants to persecute Falun Gong" was addressed in "Nine Commentaries on the X Party". So we may refer to these two articles We Are Not “Getting Political”by Master Li and On the Collusion of Jiang Zemin and the Chinese Communist Party to Persecute Falun Gong in "Nine Commentaries". Fnhddzs 20:13, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Hey, folks. How about the 2nd paragraph? I don't agree with the current version. it is not a protest in Zhongnan hai. It was an appeal. Fnhddzs 01:26, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Fnhddz, Samuel had asked you a question just a few posts above. If you answer that, we may have a version that both side agree on. CovenantD 02:34, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, CovenantD. Is the question about using "peaceful activities"? it seems good to me. The Research Society of Falun Dafa quitted from Qiqong Research Association long time before 1999. That was not an issue. Before April 25, 1999, many practitioners in Tianjin were arrested and Tianjin's upper level administration is Beijing since Tianjin does not belong to a province. So in the normal channel, the next step is to go to Beijing to appeal. Everything was legal. The Appeal office is quite close to Zhongnanhai. Practitioners in the beginning just scattered on the side streets. Policemen said why not you folks circled around the wall of the Zhongnanhai? It seemed a trick. Finally Premier Zhu Rongji happened to see practitioners and promised to release the practitioners in Tianjin. Then everything was all right. Then the Xinhua agency published an artile restating China's policy to Qiqong: three-no policy. (No stick-beating, no debation, no report 不打棍子、不争论、不报导). sorry that is just my direct translation. However, things changed later when Jiang, Zemin knew this. On July 22, 1999, a statement was released funnily by China Ministry of Civil Affairs (中国民政部)[6] stating that Falun Gong illegal.

Anyway, on April 25, the appeal was peaceful and fruitful. Things changed later and had nothing to do with that appeal although the later government lies said that justified the ban. Fnhddzs 23:12, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

In Master Li's talk [http://www.falundafa.org/book/eng/jw_88.htm Teaching the Fa at the 2002 Fa Conference in Philadelphia, U.S.A. November 30, 2002] The true reason seems as below:

So what was the goal of this evil persecution? Was it to protect the regime? Not at all, really. Saying that Falun Gong poses a threat to China’s regime is just a huge lie that’s spread by the evil. A lot of people have asked me, and a lot of people have asked my disciples this too: what’s the true reason for this persecution? Just a buffoon’s jealousy. Since it has power it’s able do something like this. That might sound pretty ridiculous, or maybe hard to believe—how could something like this happen to mankind, right? But it really has happened. This persecution has happened, as absurd as it may be, due to that buffoon being driven by its twisted jealousy. That’s exactly the reason. That’s the real cause we see here in human society.

Fnhddzs 23:22, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Dear all: I am still waiting on a solution on this paragraph. It is not in a right shape! Fnhddzs 00:58, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Second paragraph:

  • Falun Gong has been the focus of international controversy since the government of the People's Republic of China began a nationwide suppression of Falun Gong on July 20, 1999. The Chinese government claims to have banned the group for its illegal activities. [7] The Falun Gong claims the ban a result of president Jiang Zemin’s personal jealousy of the group’s popularity.[8]

I support this version. It introduces the ban and and includes claims from both sides. --Samuel Luo 06:16, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Dilip's 2nd suggestion

Falun Gong has been the focus of international controversy since the government of the People's Republic of China began a nationwide suppression of Falun Gong on July 20, 1999, which has been considered a major Human-Rights violation world-over[9][10][11][12][13][14][15][16]. Concerns were triggered when 10,000 practitioners appealed peacefully close to Zhongnanhai the compound of Chinese top leaders on April 25, 1999.

Hi, Folks: Please look at this version. There is no consensus on the current version. It cannot stay there forever. Can we set a deadline? Fnhddzs 06:08, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm in favor of a deadline. I'd say no more than 5 days, so by midnight (UTC) Wednesday? CovenantD 13:11, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
:-D .. i agree to the deadline too..
  • Support. I agree to the version above but I believe that mentioning that this has been considered a major Human-Rights violation, world-over is quite central to the article. I am not sure how to phrase the sentence.Dilip rajeev 18:07, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
  • I've made a change. I would add more citations. I would agree that the deadline of Midnight Wednesday. How about others? Anyway we need a deadline. Fnhddzs 18:44, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Pulling it all together

It looks like everybody agrees on the opening line - "Falun Gong has been the focus of international controversy since the government of the People's Republic of China began a nationwide suppression of Falun Gong on July 20, 1999." That's a good begining. It seems the way to go now is to find out what we don't want.
We have three versions to consider. Each of them contain something the others don't. So let's ask this question; is there anything in any of those versions that I don't want in there? Cause what I'm thinking is, if nobody has strong feelings about keeping something out we could just put it all in. There's nothing that seems to contradict, it just emphasizes different aspects. I want to hear from each of you. CovenantD 06:41, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

I think Samuel's version plus a sentence or slight mentioning of the 4.25 incident (Mconn's or Dilip's) would be fine. I see no reasoning in using "persecution" to justify the omitting of "alleged illegal". The purpose of the article is to lay out all the facts. --Yenchin 13:35, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

The facts of persecution cannot be omitted. Fnhddzs 19:31, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

As well as the facts of China claiming FLG to be illegal. What's the relevance between these two? Appeal to pity fallacy. --Yenchin 20:32, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
Fnhddzs only said "facts of persecution cannot be ommited." Dilip rajeev 18:35, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
The question is what NOT to include. Let's answer that first then address each one in turn otherwise we'll get bogged down. To make it easier, I'm going to reproduce the differences here. CovenantD 19:14, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Differences to consider

Mcconn: The government claims that it initiated the suppression in reponse to Falun Gong's alleged illegal activities.
Samuel: The Chinese government claims to have banned the group for its illegal activities.
Dilip: (the People's Republic of China began a nationwide suppression...,) which has been considered a major Human-Rights violation world-over.

As you can see, Mcconn and Samuel's are almost identical. Dilip wants it mentioned that it's considered a human rights violation. Is this statement in dispute? CovenantD 19:25, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

We can include all three statement. Between samuel's claim and mcconn's alleged I prefer claims. Mcconn's statement does not make sense, would anyone claims to do something for a alleged reason? Dilip's statement can be used to end the paragraph with a little rewrite. The supression of Falun Gong is considered a human rights violation by western human rights groups and politicians. --Kent8888 19:59, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Mcconn: Falun Gong came to the attention of the Chinese government when 10,000 practitioners protested peaceful at Zhongnanhai the compound of Chinese top leaders on April 25, 1999.
Samuel: The Falun Gong claims the ban a result of president Jiang Zemin’s personal jealousy of the group’s popularity.[
Dilip: Concerns were triggered when 10,000 practitioners appealed peacefully close to Zhongnanhai the compound of Chinese top leaders on April 25, 1999.
----

Again, Mcconn and Dilip's versions are almost identical. Samuel wants it mentioned that jealousy may be a factor. Is any of this disputed? CovenantD 19:25, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Samuel's statement comes from a Falun Gong main website. It is the group's official view of the cause of the supression. The protest can be moved to other section. --Kent8888 19:59, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Concur --Yenchin 20:26, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Folks, when can the "illegal activities" be deleted or revised? It is not true. Fnhddzs 05:50, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

As soon as we get enough people to give their comments on the differences. You haven't yet. CovenantD 06:07, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
ok. Fnhddzs 17:22, 13 June 2006 (UTC) But we cannot wait forever. If nobody comes, we have to admit no other opinions during this timeline. It is not a stone. We have the deadline of this Wed. Fnhddzs 18:00, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Origin v History & Timeline

I see that some of the edit warring was over the name of the section. It seems to have settled down now into the compromise of calling the section "Origins" and linking to an article called "History and timeline." I just want to confirm that this is indeed the agreed upon style. CovenantD 19:41, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

It's the original style that existed almost from day one and its the only style that makes sense. The material in the origins section is fundamental to an understanding of the Falun Gong. It is actually more important than a mere listing of chronological events, which is what the recently created History and timeline page does. In fact, there never was consensus to creat a separate page called "History and timeline." I don't really object to it, but it's existence cannot be used to justify the suppression of important information about the origins of Falun Gong. If needed, we can simply have a stand-alone section on "Origins" that doesn't link to "History and timeline."....and by the way, did anyone ever re-write the intro to that page?

--Tomananda 19:56, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

To answer your last question, no, but then again there's been no note and no discussion about it, so you're just being facetious.
Actually another editor...I'm pretty sure it was you...did mention that the intro to that page needed to be written, because it is just a copy of the main page intro, not specific to History and timelines, so I was being sincere and goal-oriented rather than facetious. Maybe I should have actually checked the page before posing it as a question, but I didn't. --Tomananda 20:33, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
Well, I was being a bit facetious at that point. It's in the Research into health benefits of Falun Gong article that I mention it, but you are correct in that it applies to many different articles. Now that you bring it up, I might as well go through all of them and root out the inappropriate duplicates. CovenantD 20:45, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
It's your opinion that it's essential to an understanding. Let's be clear on the difference between fact and opinion. An understanding without knowing the origins is possible, it's just a different understanding. And yes, I realize that's just my opinion. ;-)
Yes, it is just my opinion. I think here you are merely objecting to my style of writing which can be didactic at times. I write with confidence, but when it comes to negotiating postitions I am very flexible. --Tomananda 20:33, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
Objecting to a tanget, maybe. since it doesn't effect it's inclusion or not. Of course info should be included that is relevant, reliable and properly sourced. It's just a matter of where. CovenantD 20:45, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
I'm don't care either way, or even a different way, (I haven't even looked at the differences yet) but I want to make sure that this issue is discussed and decided so we don't get into another edit war over it. CovenantD 20:11, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
Couldn't agree with you more. Anything that prevents another revert war is cool with me! --Tomananda 20:33, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

So the floor is open to suggestions for the naming of the section or sections, and what companion articles should be linked to which. CovenantD 20:45, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Origin section has been there since the beginning of the article. History and timeline should have its own section. --Samuel Luo 19:39, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I'm going to write a one sentence summary for the History and Timeline section and link to the separate page. CovenantD 22:38, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm reativating this thread to prevent another revert war between Fnhdzzs and others.
I think the Origins section should focus on the time before Falun Gong "was introduced to the world" and History and Timeline should focus on the time after it went public. Thoughts? CovenantD 06:05, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

I think that's a correct split. Origins means how did it get started, where did the teachings come from and who else was involved in it's creation other than Li (eg: his teachers).--Tomananda 07:27, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

I disagree to having two such sections. The reason being all we have is some material of questionable authenticity which the publisher removed from Zhuan Falun , on being asked to do so By Li Hongzhi. Biography of Li Hongzhi, belongs to the "Li Hongzhi" article. We can have a paragraph on it and I think it is best merged with History and Timeline. Dilip rajeev 14:10, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Considering Origins existed for quite a while before you erased it and created History and Timeline (with no discussion), I'm not inclined to agree with you Dilip. If anything, the History and Timeline should go away. Most of that stuff will be covered in other topics in the article. Origins is a distinct topic. CovenantD 19:19, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
Anyway, we cannot hide information from the same biography you folks love dearly. Fnhddzs 19:41, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Nobody's trying to hide anything, you have introduced major additions without discussion. Plus you're putting your addition in the wrong place. Origins deals with how it came into being. History is what happens after it's begining. That's not my opinion, that's the definition of those words. CovenantD 19:47, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

It IS about how it came into beings. Falun gong was introduced to the public as a Star Qigong system. Fnhddzs 19:57, 11 June 2006 (UTC) The story about Master's childhood has less relation with Falun Gong. Fnhddzs 19:58, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

No, it is highly related. It was introduced by Li. So his background of course is relevant. We're not talking about whether he was called "Xiao Laizi" over here. It's still on topic. --Yenchin 20:41, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
There is a wiki article on Li Hongzhi. Theory of relativty was introduced by Einstein so an article on Special Relativity discusses Einstein's childhood?

Dilip rajeev 18:27, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

If there were aspects of his childhood that were relevant to relativity, yes. I'm not saying that every bit of his life is important to the "Origins" section. But it appears that some aspects, such as his early training, are. Only those parts should be here, probably with a better link to the article on Li. Information should not be reproduced on both pages. CovenantD 18:41, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

I just realized this discussion is straying (again) from the topic, which is what to put into each section and writing up a summary for History. CovenantD 18:48, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Biography or not, I support the split as proposed. Even if LHZ pulled his ideas out of a hat we still need to say how he got the hat. Everything after he "Honged" is Fa is history of the movement. This is not a hard concept to understand. Scientific workers still have to cite who's work they're based on, how they formed their thought, and so on. --Yenchin 20:36, 12 June 2006 (UTC)


Order of the subtitles

I am concerned about the order in which the subtitles appear. The article being on Falun Gong, the Persecution of Falun Gong adn othe section must appear above the "criticism" section. Especially when the persecution is recieving so much attention world-wide. Dilip rajeev 14:14, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

It's been requested that we finish up the 2nd paragraph of the intro before we look at structure. (In principle, I agree that Criticism should appear further down and be summarized better {Scientology}). CovenantD 19:24, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

From Hoerth

Because this talk page is semiprotected, a new editor asked me to post this here. I do so without endorsing anything s/he says. CovenantD 14:42, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

"Falun Gong practitioners as well as supporters of the Communist Parties crackdown on Falun Gong, each have there own websites on which they each have allready extensivly stated their point of view. So why is there so much conflict, and discussion and no consent? Because each party wants to see the content of their websites in the wikipedia article. And why is that so important to them even though it allready is on their respective sites? Because they think if they are able to get their stuff in the wikipedia article, people will be more likely to belive them if they see their point of view in an "independent encyclopedia entry". So this is the actuall cause of the entire despute. But I think it's pretty stupid, because there is one very simple way to solve this, and make it less interesting for both parties to vandalize the article. I suggest that the first thing we do is to remind the viewers at the top of the article that everbody can edit wikipedia, and that there is no independent staff or team of experts, and that supporters of Falun Gong as well as supporters of the Communist Party ::are frequently changing the article, and therefore on this subject wikipedia might very likely not be NPOV, and is as credible as something writen with chalk on the sidewalk. (Actually as I understand it Wikipeda being like Chalk on the side walk is basicly the reason why Larry Sanger left it :-) Okay, putting it that way might be putting Wikipedia down a bit, but the comparison is not all that wrong, and many people don't realize this. But most importantly it will end those sensless debattes and endless edit-wars. I am sure that if you don't put something like that in the article, you can continue to debate for another 5 years and still won't be able to get to any consent. So this is my suggesion. --Hoerth 12:34, 11 June 2006 (UTC)"

Hoerth: Yet despite what you say there has been some progress over the past 4 months in creating a balanced article. I don't agree with the dichotomy you present between supporters of Falun Gong and supporters of the Chinese government. I am neither.
Li Hongzhi is every bit as totalitatarian as the Chinese government and both want to destroy each other. Having said that, I am really only concerned with presenting the truth of what Li teaches and what his disciples believe, and the harmful aspects of the Falun Gong apart from any political considerations. Because of the practice of Falun Gong western families have been broken up. Husbands and wives have gotten divorces and some practitioners have suffered health consequences because of Li's teaching for practitioners not to seek medical care when they are sick. If it were not for the conflict between Li Hongzhi and the Chinese government, people in the west would have a much better understanding of the Falun Gong.
But because the western media has failed to take a critical look into Falun Gong teachings and practices, the public still thinks about the Falun Gong as just a regular eastern meditation group. That is the PR image Falun Gong promotes of itself...they don't even want to acknowledge that Li Honghzi is a god and savaior who warns that corrupt people, including homosexauls, will be weeded out. So Wikipedia needs to report on more than the politics, the crackdown, and allegations of torture. It needs to also do what the western media has failed to do: give an in-depth report of what the Falun Gong is all about in its own right. --Tomananda 16:40, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Ofcourse Tomananda, these things that you just now stated above is entirely your understanding. You say Li Hongzhi is "totalitatarian", but somebody else may say he is a really compassionate man and his Dafa is really good for people. You say you want to present the "truth" of what he teaches, somebody else can say that the "truth" you are holding on to is your own truth, so you are not presenting them the "truth", but you are trying to make others think like you do. You say alot of families have broken up, 100 million practitioners world-wide as well as alot of private people say that Falun Gong has made their family more harmonius and peaceful. You say practitioners have suffered health consequenses, still there are 100 million practitioners that say that they have been miracously cured from all their diseases. Please tell me, do you still think that your own so called "truth", really can be the truth? If your "truth" really is the Truth, then why are 100 million people who THEMSELF practice Falun Gong disagree with you? How can you, as a third party spectator, who only has a very very shallow understanding of this Dafa, represent the Truth? Maybe you say: "But I read all the Falun Gong books, so I know what I am talking about." Then I would say that Dafa or Dharma has different manifestations and different forms of existence on different levels. If you read the books of Falun Gong with negative thoughts and negative intentions, do you really think you can understand the Dharma of Falun Gong? Do you really think you can understand the truth? I recommend, that you once again read the whole book Zhuan Falun with a clear heart and harmonius mind, without any bad thoughts, and after that you can come with your own opinions. /Omido 17:49, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Okay, this doesn't seem to be about edits to the article. CovenantD 19:09, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

The article edits cannot be separable with understanding what Falun Gong is. Instead, it is essential. Please do not interrupt. Fnhddzs 19:23, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

The "everyone can edit" nature of Wikipedia is quite clear when one is looking up articles over here. Unless there is some new policy there will always be edit discussions/wars on controversal articles.

Omido: Here's a hint for you. Why don't we add a sentence in the "Beliefs and Teachings", as well as on the FLG website links saying that "These should be read in a clear heart and harmonious mind without any bad thoughts to understand. They are the truth." Like the readers are sheep and can't judge for themselves? --Yenchin 21:07, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

3RR violations

Both Samuel and Fnhddzs have now reverted at least 4 times each. I'm requesting that an admin give both of them a short block. CovenantD 20:02, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

  • Fnhddzs’s material was rejected by Tomanada, Firestar, ConventD and I today, yet he continues to insert his material. I reverted him about 4 times but he reverted us at least 7 times. If we are serious about not allowing anyone adding material without a consensus then I am simply trying to enforce this understanding and therefore should not receive the same treatment as Fnhddzs. --Samuel Luo 20:11, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
Niether one of you are talking about it except in the edit summaries as you war back and forth. CovenantD 20:13, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
24 hours each. All of those involved should already have been aware that 3RR is independent of who's right and who's wrong. -- Миборовский 20:16, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Covenant,I think the Origins section fits into the History section.

Further, I think we cant present a partial picture on the mainpage.. I am concerned the biography is presented in a very misleading manner... just keeping a copy of fhndzz's edits on the main page too (temporarily). Dilip rajeev 21:04, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

  • Convent did the right thing to move that material to history of Falun Gong. Dilip as a respect for others you should refrain from reintroducing that material. --Yueyuen 21:28, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

THE WORD ALLEGED SHOULD NOT BE DELETED AND THE PERSON WHO DELETES IT AGAIN SHOULD BE BANNED

The word word alleged has been deleted MANY times now. Despite discussing this on talk page REPEATEDLY a user has been deleting it repeatedly. If this behaviour continues the user should be banned. Dilip rajeev 21:38, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

There has been no consensus to include the word alleged. I think it should be in there, but we're not talking about it enough to justify including it at this point. CovenantD 18:35, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Continuing with edits

I would like to have a majority consensus on something. The article is a terrible mess. No user who sees the page is going to take it seriously. Its time the page is cleaned up.

  • No adding/deleting material to the article till the present material is cleaned up though discussion.
  • Set a deadline of five days to reach consensus on summaries for the sub-pages we have now.
  • Decide if the material on the "Origins" section, pulled from a biography is that relevant to an article on Falun Gong.

Dilip rajeev 21:19, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Vote / Opinion

That depends on what you mean by "take it seriously". I hope you don't mean "advertise Falungong" by that statement. Discussion is going on, and people are working to keep the article neutral. You are going to have be more specific about what you want. --Fire Star 火星 04:05, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

What we want are facts, don't we? But if people could not even agree "persecution" is fact[18][19][20][21][22][23][24][25]. I am afraid I can't flatter people's discern ability. Fnhddzs 18:51, 13 June 2006 (UTC) If people intentionally hide facts out of personal emotion, I would say they are not serious. Fnhddzs 18:53, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Discuss sub-section summaries here

Discuss biography here

I have never seen any falun gong website present the biography as the "origin" of Falun Gong. Master Li Hongzhi has talked about the origin of Falun Gong in the book Falun Gong. Thats the primary source. A biography of Albert Einstein wouldnt be discussed under the relativity article. Dilip rajeev 21:23, 11 June 2006 (UTC) Dilip rajeev 21:19, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree, the biography gives out the wrong picture, it is not even something that is a part of Falun Gong. /Omido 22:10, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Please read this section of the discussion about the biography. CovenantD 22:11, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

yes, I have read it, but it doesn't give a good enough reason to include the biography. All the texts in Falun Gong are available on the website, but not the biography. Why? Because it is not something that is a part of Falun Gong, then how can the biography (which is not a part of Falun Gong) be a part of the Falun Gong wikipedia article? /Omido 13:52, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Are we talking about the origins of Falung Gong or Falun Gong itself here? --Yenchin 14:19, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
Omido, again, a biography need not be in current publication or provided by the topic of discussion to be considered as source material. That is like saying that a movie review could not be included in an article about the movie. Your reason for excluding it is not sufficient. CovenantD 15:24, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

I reverted my edits

I removed the presonal references and left the basic facts of the divorce case. In accordance with the wiki policies, I updated the information to search for the appropriate case reference. BTW, You(FLG) have incoming. It's completely legal and there will be no defense against it.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Cj cawley (talk • contribs)

You have yet to provide evidence of it's notability. Until you do, it's going to be removed every time. Wikipedia is not a place for you to publish your personal information or for you to push your personal gripe against Falun Gong. CovenantD 15:33, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
You can send me your fax number I will will send you back the court papers.

Cj cawley 17:35, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't want to know about your personal life, I want to know what makes your personal life notable enough to be included in an encyclopedia. Has it been the subject of a newpaper article? Has it been reported on TV? What makes it important? You have yet to address that question. CovenantD 18:33, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

What are these divorce cases? I have not heard of it. /Omido 18:26, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough. I was questioned by the State Dept, FBI, etc. for a divorce case? The story was blocked for quite a while with the FLG "activists" trying to shut me up. No such luck on their part.

Cj cawley 20:58, 12 June 2006 (UTC) As for Omido, I filed for divorce from a FLG wife for fraud, adultery & mental cruelty as a result of espionage against the Chinese government. The FLG have been absolutely ruthless in protecting their "good image". My case contradicts them. In the end, it may well bring about their end.

Can you prove anything you say with third party reporting? A single divorce case that has yet to go to hearing is not notable enough. Maybe once there's been a ruling, but not now. Not unless you can SHOW it's been reported elsewhere. Otherwise, it's all original research. CovenantD 21:03, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
That's fair. Once again, send me your fax #. I will dump out a book to you. Also, you can troll through the CCP's various websites to view some of the opposing points of view. As usual, the FLG will not allow any of this information to come to light.

Cj cawley 21:08, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Side note - Who appointed you God to determine what is right & wrong. Typical egomanic. You should join the cult. You would have a grand old time.
Oh yea, :)

Cj cawley 21:10, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Cj, you also need to familiarize your self with the Wikipedia policy about no personal attacks. CovenantD 01:16, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Cawley, I don't understand, you divorced your wife because she practiced Falun Gong? What is it related to espionage for the Chinese Communist Party? /Omido 21:12, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

In a nutshell, yes. It was for mental cruelty as a result of espionage AGAINST the Chinese Government. After all, we do have laws here reguarding "foreign agent" status. Basically, my wife went on a "fact finding" mission in China where she acted as in interpreter for a foreign reporter. This is illegal there. She was going to take my son with her, but I was able to stop that. She did have other help on her trip. Cj cawley 21:16, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

"cj cawley",


The case has been stalled in court for the past several years. The ex even went so far as to get a divorce in Mexico to avoid a trial here. This also failed. Cj cawley 21:17, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

I asked for third party reporting, not a book that you wrote. Check out this bit on sources for why it's not acceptable. In fact, you should read the entire page, then try again. CovenantD 21:20, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Cawley, these things that happend to you are private matters, why are you bringing them up here? /Omido 21:25, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Mr. Cawley, I am sorry about your story. But I would like to point out that spies hurt Falun Gong a lot. Some people pretend they are Falun Gong practitioners. You could see Master Li's recent article on spies. Eliminating the Evil Also the dirty things you mentioned are all opposite to the principle of Falun Gong. Falun Gong teaches not to have ex-marriage relationship. Teaching the Fa at the Conference in Europe May 1998

You may have a wife or a husband. This is the normal way of life for human beings. But you are committing a sin if you have sexual activity with someone who isn’t your husband or your wife. The gods in every upright religion of the East and West have emphasized this point strongly. When normalizing how humans should be, they discussed this very seriously.

Teaching the Fa at the Eastern U.S. Fa Conference March 1999

For you to live as husband and wife is fine, but if you aren’t husband and wife and have sexual relations, then you are doing the filthiest thing. That is something gods absolutely cannot accept—not a single god would accept it. So be very sure to pay attention to this. A person’s course of cultivation is that cultivator’s history. Innumerable, immeasurable, countless gods are watching Dafa disciples’ every thought and every act. As cultivators who are determined to reach Consummation, why can’t you pass this test? I’ll stop here for today.

But practitioners may had mistakes. Just like Havard University students may got 'Fail' in a coursework. That is possible. Individual practitioners could not denote Falun Gong. Anyway I hope you could understand and wish you good luck. Fnhddzs 00:43, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Okay, Fnddzs, this is not the place to be preaching Falun Gong. Let's keep this focused on the article. CovenantD 01:14, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree we should be focused on the article. But I believe my efforts are helping towards this direction. Since I believe such communications could help Mr. Cawley, all of us and the article. I have never wished to persuade other's belief. Fnhddzs 05:55, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't think that you really understand. I come as your potential doom. As for the ex, she used to work directly for Gail Rachlin, serves as a reporter for the epoch times & currently is in your marching band. If that's not the defintion of a cultivator, then I don't know what is. Any one who is a two time adulterer(as in, two times with two different husbands), pro-abortionist(likewise 2x), etc. hardly qualifies as a "cultivator" of anything but evil. I am going to chalk both Fnhddzs & CovenantD as sockbots. I am working on one of my own. This way, it will be easier to keep up with the updates. I would call you by your name(s); however, I don't who what they are. Oh yea, I revert my edits. Since they are facts. Cj cawley 07:27, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

I did not she is not a practitioner. I say if your claims are true (spies or adultery), that was not taught by Falun Gong (and to the opposite), that is her own mistake. With correcting mistakes, one still can continue practicing Falun Gong. Master gives chances to everybody no matter how bad s/he was. Fnhddzs 17:27, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Like I said last time, give me a fax # & I will send you the court papers. They don't exist on the net. Cj cawley 07:30, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

CovenantD, you are right about the personal attacks, my apologies. As for the court case, it will be similar to the ones currently faced by the Catholic Church for sexual abuse. It may very well crack the FLG wide open. I don't know what the reaction from the Chinese Government is going to be. The FLG have done a good job at keeping negative things out of the papers. Cj cawley 07:47, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Apology accepted. And when your case does hit the papers, as you seem certain it will, then you can include it as relevant and notable. Until then, I'm afraid it just doesn't meet the criteria for inclusion. CovenantD 07:50, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
I disagree. Court papers are a matter of public record. If that is not the definition of truth, then I don't know what is. As for the case, the FLG will have to settle and they know it. The amount of damage that will probably result will cripple their organization in China & abroad. To put it bluntly, it would not surprise me if the Chinese capitally punished people. As for the value to the press, the FLG would loose face.

Cj cawley 08:17, 13 June 2006 (UTC)


Mr. Cawley, while I'm sorry for what happened to you, I'm sort of confused on what point do you want to make, what parts of FLG do you want to address, what significance is this case to FLG? There are articles of trials on Wikipedia. But these trials address to various significant issues, such as Evolution vs. Creation, the Separation of Church and State, and so on. So back to the question, what does this case stand for and how is it relevant to FLG? --Yenchin 08:26, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Yenchin, there are other cases where the divorce case ended up in the public venue. There was recently a case where, I believe it was the CEO, of Ernest & Young went to divorce court. As a result of the divorce court, they had to evaluate how much E&Y was worth. Likewise, the Jack Welsh(GE) case ended up in public. He had to disclose what his retirement package was & give some of it back. In my case, I filed for divorce on the grounds of fraud, adulerty and MENTAL CRUELTY AS A RESULT OF ESPIONAGE AGAINST THE CHINESE GOVERNMENT FOR THE FLG. In the case of the ex, she went on a fact finding mission for a U.S. congressman working with an Aussie reporter. A U.S. Dept. of State official helped her burn the documents in the U.S. embassy in Beijing prior to her being arrested by the secret police. The only reason why the Chinese Government believed my story was because they had the arrest record, etc.

According to the ex, she told them "everything". Cj cawley 08:35, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I forgot. At the time, the ex-wife was working directly for Gail Rachlin. She's the head of marketing for the cult. This is one of the few cases that link directly back to someone who is "in a position of authority" for the FLG. The FLG are past master's of the "They is not us" when things go bad and "we is them" when things are perceived as going good.

The Dr. who was arrested for protesting the Bush/Hu visit is another example. She was able to get in with an Epoch times id. Notice how quickly the "newspaper" distanced themselves from her. It would not surprise me if they are shut down after this. Likewise, my ex has a reporter's id. Cj cawley 08:41, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Aha. You are comparing Dr. with your ex. Note that Dr. Wang does not do anything constituting a crime[26]. The reporter who muffled her mouth should be charged. Fnhddzs 17:54, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
CovenantD, Is there one part that you are protesting or the whole thing?

Cj cawley 08:43, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Just a personal observation, in the FLG's search for "enlightenment", there are those who end up destroying everything around them. They become so obsessed that they loose sight & perspective. My case is one good example. There are others in many "religions", etc. You can reference the Jeff Warrens case. The key is obtaining "critical mass". Enough people need to get up & complain before something is done. The alternative? Jim Jones, Heaven's Gate, Waco TX.

"The road to hell is paved with good intentions." Cj cawley 08:48, 13 June 2006 (UTC)


Cawley, I disagree with you. I don't know where you have gotten your understanding from, but it is wrong. In Falun Gong one has to be compassionate and balance their relationship with the envoirement and live a normal life. I could give you a bunch of other reasons, but this is not the place for it. Here we are discussing the article, not individual opinions on Falun Gong, so you should stop doing that. Thank You /Omido 08:56, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Another one who does not use their name. As for my understanding,

I got it from the ex.

As for the article, would you include pieces about the Catholic Church's recent sex scandal's? I would. This case falls into a similar vein. It exposes the "dark side" of the cult.

Cj cawley 09:09, 13 June 2006 (UTC)


Mr. Cawley, please correct me if I'm wrong. From what I gather your case is still in the court. I'd suggest you to cool down and focus your efforts on the case. Eventually the judge will make a decision and the significance of the case will be revealed in a more formal way. I'd also suggest you to take a look at the list of case law lists in Wikipedia and see if there are examples you can use for the article. Or maybe see if you can get the press on a investigative report of your situation. --Yenchin 09:32, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Yenchin, In the interestes of fairness & "case law", most of the FLG cases should also be removed. At least, one case was thrown out of court. What proof did they offer? I gave a website that had the case scheduled. I saw no such information for the pro FLG references. As for your advice, thanks. I am working on it. Cj cawley 12:00, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Friend,

Falun Gong requires practitioners to always consider others before doing things.. and always be compassionate and understanding to others.. not to mention one's own family members. Say I ignore all that and dont treat my family members well.. then, isnt the mistake mine.. The teachings repeatedly point out one must be kind and understanding to all..

"So everything that you do, be it your balancing well your family relationships while you live among ordinary people, balancing well your relationships in society, how you perform at your workplace, how you conduct yourself in society, etc., none of these are things you can just go through the motions on. All of these are part of your cultivation format, and are serious matters."


Dilip rajeev 15:54, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

And what does that have to do with the article? The issue is the notability of the new editor's contributions, not their theological import according to FLG's dogma. Trying to convert new editors to FLG isn't pertinent to this discussion. --Fire Star 火星 16:16, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
Thanks Fire Star.

Dilip, I am making a simple claim. I am divorcing my ex-wife BECAUSE OF HER FLG ACTIVITIES. The court papers will bear the case out. My son is an even better example. If the Catholic Church has acknowledged the activities of pedofile priests, why can't you acknowledge the existance of a "bad" FLG member? I will leave the rest of them out of it for now. As for the divorce, it is a matter of fact, truth, etc. I can provide you whatever information you require. Just expect it to be ignored by the FLG. They are REALLY GOOD AT THAT.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Cj cawley (talk • contribs)

aha. What do you refer to as falun gong activities? Individual behaviors of a Falun Gong practitioner especially when s/he made mistakes are not FLG activities although I did not say she cannot be a practitioner after correcting mistakes (If your claims are true). If you really divorce just because of her belief, then that's your personal flavor. Fnhddzs 17:37, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Okay, it's time to end this conversation. It's taking up too much room, too much time and too much attention that should be focused on the second paragraph. Back to work, folks! :D CovenantD 16:58, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Agreed, hold everyone to the same standard. I am putting my court case back in & taking their "torture" claims out. If I have to provide a reference, then the FLG does too. I gave you mine where's theirs.
CoventD You are alos held to the 3RR rule. I provided 3rd party information & offered more. You kept putting the pro FLG info back without any supporting citations. Sorry, I put mine back once again. Also, I will report you to the admins.
The article has most references provided. If there is a place you need reference, we will try to fix it. but your (cj.) edits are not conforming to wiki article's policy. 1) not notable to put on encyclopedia. 2) not verifiable (death claims are not verifiable.) 3) contents (your personal story) are not related to the article. We have a lot of personal stories about how Falun Gong are benefical (for example, my stomachache is gone, my car flies to the ditch but no harm happens to either car or me, an old pracitioner could cook for her family again while she was ever paralized before cultivation) that could be put if yours could. Fnhddzs 21:37, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Final draft proposal for the 2nd paragraph

This incorporates information from all (Dilip, Mcconn, Samuel, Kent8888) suggestions, reworded so they flow together. I even consulted a professional editor on the wording and grammar. I decided to include in my draft everything because it all seems relevant to the "international controversy." What do you think? Remember, we have less than 18 hours to reach consensus. CovenantD 04:37, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

  • Support. No problem with it. I agree that "Concerns were triggered..." needs to either be reworded or removed unless someone can provide evidence for these so-called "Concerns". --Yenchin 05:50, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
Then ask for a source. CovenantD 14:10, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Reject. I find this version without neutrality. Too much material from pro-FG editors is inserted and the one sentence that intends to introduce the Chinese government’s claims in order to provide a balance in the paragraph has been removed. Please consider including this sentence “The Chinese government claims to have banned the group for its illegal activities.” Also I agree with kent8888 that this sentence—“Concerns were triggered when 10,000 practitioners protested near Zhongnanhai, the compound of China's top leaders, on April 25 of that year”—can be moved to a more appropriate section. Finally, the word “western” should be added to the last sentence. Human rights groups and politicians that have supported the Falun Gong are from the west. --Samuel Luo 06:42, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
That's not true. A ton of support has come from Taiwan. Mcconn 16:36, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
The "one sentence" you refer to was incorporated into the first, "when it banned Falun Gong for its alleged illegal activities." The professional editor I consulted said that "claims to have... for it's alleged" is unclear and redundant from a grammar perspective. I felt the "concerns" sentence was important because it explains WHY the Chinese gov't initiated the crackdown. (It does need some supporting sources though.) I don't know exactly who the human rights groups are or where they are from, which is why I phrased it the way I did. CovenantD 14:10, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
  • By combining the first two sentences you limited the weight of the government’s claim and you pushed that further by excluding the link to the government’s statement. I am not saying that I support the government, what I want is balance. You said that your version included input from everybody but you left out Kent888’s “western.” Why the Chinese government was concerned about the FG is a big subject that warrants it own section, that sentence suits that section better. --Samuel Luo 20:17, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Here is the revised text:

Falun Gong has been the focus of international controversy since the government of the People's Republic of China began a nationwide suppression of Falun Gong on July 20, 1999, when it banned Falun Gong for its illegal activities. Falun Gong claims the ban was a result of President of the People's Republic of China Jiang Zemin’s personal jealousy of the group’s popularity. The suppression of Falun Gong is considered a human rights violation by many western human rights groups and politicians.

  • Support This shorter version is balanced and reads better.--Yueyuen 07:05, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Support I like the shorter version as well. --Tomananda 07:10, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Support This version truely includes everything. --Samuel Luo 07:24, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Reject I want the word "alleged" infront of "illegal activities". Omido 10:20, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Reject Same reason as Omid. Plus, support has also come from the East. I prefer the first version, while changing "protest" to "appeal". Mcconn 16:44, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Reject why we need to talk about persecution reasons in the introduction. Also I disagree not including alleged (the word claims does not work in this context) and disagree that only western considers it is a violation. Does United Nation only represents western countries? If you think "short" is good. I would like an even shorter sentence. "Falun Gong has been the focus of international controversy since the government of the People's Republic of China began a nationwide suppression of Falun Gong on July 20, 1999." Fnhddzs 21:14, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

The Taiwanese government is a strong FG supprter, it gives the FG money and material. And from what we read on the news we all known how corrupt the Taiwanese government is. --Samuel Luo 20:03, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Would everybody be able to support the second version if it included alleged illegal activities? CovenantD 17:14, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes. Omido 18:13, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

No.

Support is not limited to the west. That will have to be removed. Regarding the April 25 appeal, I have no problems with its inclusion and I don't think that I damages the readability. The only reason I could see for not including it is that it may be too complicated to be summarized in the intro paragraph, otherwise it is very relevant to why the persecution began. Mcconn 18:46, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Would everybody be able to support the second version if it included alleged illegal activities and omitted the word western? CovenantD 17:14, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

We are here to present the facts, that means to present what Beijing and FG have claimed and done. No one should manipulate the words to suit his or her own personal view which often if not always lead to edit wars. I believe a simple structure like “A says B about C” works better here. Please take a look of this revised version. --Kent8888 19:55, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

No, "alleged" should not be included. --Samuel Luo 20:03, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

I propose a terse statement, short and sweet and with the virtue of accuracy: "when it banned Falun Gong for its activities" or even "when it outlawed Falun Gong" or "declared Falun Gong to be illegal". We shouldn't get bogged down in the legitimacy of the CCP's actions, one way or the other, just report what they did. --Fire Star 火星 13:36, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

NPOV Version to vote on

Falun Gong has been the focus of international controversy since the government of the People's Republic of China began a nationwide suppression of Falun Gong on July 20, 1999. The Chinese government claims to have banned the group for its illegal activities. The Falun Gong claims the ban was a result of President of the People's Republic of China Jiang Zemin’s personal jealousy of the group’s popularity. The suppression of Falun Gong is considered a human rights violation mainly by western human rights groups and politicians.

“Alleged” is not included because the word “claim” has the same effect. “Western” is needed here because the group mainly receive support from the west. --Kent8888 19:55, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

I support this version. It was proposed some time ago and is about as neutral as we are ever going to get. By having two statements, each one reprsenting the POV of one side or the other, Wikipedia itself remains neutral, but also suggests where the controversy lies so that readers will be inspired to read further. Can we take a stray poll on this version? --Tomananda 21:46, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

The relation between Falun gong and China government should not be put on the introduction. If we really want to report facts, we should also report the facts when China government awarded Falun Gong. Fnhddzs 21:07, 14 June 2006 (UTC) The word claim is in another sentence. "western" is not needed. Are Korea, Hong Kong, Taiwan, Japan western? Fnhddzs 21:18, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

No, all these governments are supportive to Falun Gong. Japanese goverment asked China to release a Falun Gong practitioner who is wife of a Japan citizen. Korea is even better. Hong Kong 500,000 citizens protested the 23 article law which was proposed for limiting Falun Gong. Fnhddzs 15:29, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Frankly speaking I'm skeptical on how much support Taiwan gives to FLG. I've been in Taiwan for 5 years after 1999 and I hardly saw strong support from the government or people. Followers spam discussion boards with activities and most of the ones mentioned are saying that they hold a demonstration at some local area and "a lot of people understand the truth". Big deal. Vice President Annette Lu has attended some activites but there isn't much voice from her. President Chen Shui-Bian at best only replied at his website saying that China should let people investigate the organ harvesting. The KMT isn't better, Mayor Ma Ying-Jeou at best only said that China must tolerate FLG. The Pan-Blue and Pan-Green are busy fighting each other. FLG issues have no place in this Taiwanese political fundie fest. FLG members tried to ask some people in the Legislative Yuan to discuss issues, they recieved nothing but empty promises (and FLG still posted news on the website, so much for "Truth"). As for human rights groups, I have yet to see any group strongly voicing about FLG issues. In Taiwan FLG is just another excercise group holding activities to be ignored and with people who spam or troll the discussion boards. --Yenchin 22:15, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

I think the number of practitioners in Taiwan increases a lot after 1999. According to VOA [27], it increases from several hundreds to an estimated 300,000. According to BBSChinese.com[28], it increases to 5,160,000 as of Dec, 4, 2000. According to http://www.cna.com.tw/[29], it increases to 400,000 as of Dec, 24, 2005. I personally know a Professor in Tai Da (Taiwan University?) is a practitioner. Not to mention the others I don't personally know. Zhang, Qingxi; Ming, Juzheng and so on. As to government, what kind of support you think can be called support? Falun Gong does not ask money. "empty" promises or spiritual support are good, I personally think. Fnhddzs 15:57, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

As for the word "alleged". I'm leaning to not including it. FLG followers didn't care to appeal the case through court. Deal with it. --Yenchin 22:19, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

The entire western v eastern is going to sink this if we're not careful.
Yenchin, your perceptions of Taiwanese support cannot be included because it's "original research." Which version are you talking about with the word "alleged?" It's not in the version just above your comment, so I have no idea which one you mean. CovenantD 22:26, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
Yes. I'm aware, I was trying to point out that there isn't much proof on this so-called "Taiwan supports FLG" but I went into rant mode. As for "alleged" I missed the new version when I was posting. --Yenchin 22:30, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
I've reformated slightly to make the versions easier to find. CovenantD 22:35, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
  • The word western is used by practitioner-editors in “Falun Gong outside China” section. The first sentence in the summary says “The persecution of Falun Gong practitioners has been regarded by most Western governments as a major international human rights issue.” I did not persisted in including the word “however” in the 3rd paragraph even thought it fits there. I hope practitioner-editors can show some compromise. --Samuel Luo 22:39, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for spotting that. But it is new to introduction and has a different meaning to me. I forgot who use western. I deleted it. As to human rights, when I was in Hong Kong in 2000, my friends told me they know there are no human rights in mainland China. They told me some appalling things on the torture/sexual abuse to Falun Gong practitioners which I had not even heard of from minghui(clearwisdom) website at that time. They said they were ready to rescue me any time if I went back to mainland. Anyway my point is that Hong Kong people know clearly what are human rights. Fnhddzs 16:26, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Yenchin does this mean that you support the last version the one without "alleged"? FG claims to have about three hundred thousand members in Taiwan is that true?--Samuel Luo 22:43, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes I support the one labeled "NPOV Version to vote on".
As for the members I really have no idea since I always consider their numbers as inflated. According to this website: [30], there are 957 FLG sites in the Taiwan area (including Pescadores, Kinmen, and Matsu). If there is really 300,000 members that means nearly 300 people per site. Which is quite unlikely. I sometimes do some morning excercise and I've never seen any individual group able gather so much people, including FLG. For an index, most FLG protests held in Taipei at best gather around 10,000. If we assume these FLG members are all from Taipei (which is unlikely). Then a 10,000/2,000,000 ratio at best gives us a number of roughly 100,000 members (That is, using 20,000,000 as the total population). --Yenchin 23:24, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
Well if they can pull a 5 million number (1/4 Taiwan population) in one year[31] there's a lot of faith to leap. --Yenchin 23:53, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Samuel, you can't say they are lying just because Yenshin thinks that 300,000 is a incorrect number. Nobody can say exactly how many practitioners there is, because there are no member lists or membership etc etc. One can only estimate. Personally, I would not be surprised if there were atleast 300,000 practitioners in Taiwan. Omido 14:44, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

This discussion is straying, becoming kind of useless and isn't going to do much for the article. That said, however, I feel obliged to give my two cents. I've been living in Taiwan for about a year now. I rarely go out to the park to do exercises and I know that there are lots of others who don't either. The number of practice sites changes and I'm sure that there are lots that aren't accounted for. I think I heard that the number of practitioners was based on book sales (I'm not sure how it's calculated). It's an estimate based on what we know. I don't know how much concrete action has been done by the gov in terms of support (I'll try to find out), but I do know that for almost every major activity that practitioners hold anywhere on the island at least one member of government will attend to support (and there are a lot of activities). This is a whole lot of support if you asked me. Mcconn 17:30, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
And let's not forget to differenciate between Governments and politicians. One is officlal, the other is individual. CovenantD 17:57, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

A quick answer to some points:

  • [32][33][34]. If the legislators promise to make a statement for FLG, and during the meeting session they don't even care to discuss it and do nothing about it. That's an empty promise. But according to FLG criteria that's support? Is this another "light years" fiasco?
  • Numbers. Steve Hassan [35]has asked about the numbers in North America, and (suprise!) look at the response. Back to Taiwan. 5.16 million growth in 1.5 year means 10,000 per day. Not to mention that Taiwan has a population of 20 million so that means 1/4th. Yet in China, the best FLG could bring up is 1/10th of the population. And even if we take the 5 million and 300,000 numbers for granted that actually means a decline of tenfold. So much for Taiwan supporting FLG "spiritually" huh?

--Yenchin 21:21, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

I've never heard the 5 million number before. This is the first time. Where are you getting this from? Whenever I discuss this with practitioners, and from what I've read in Falun Dafa publications, it's always either 300,000 (or 200,000) or between 200,000 (or 300,000, not sure) and 500,000. Mcconn 17:28, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

About the Persecution section

Finally after careful checking, I found what I mainly disagreed are the new edits in the persecution section summary. I suggest putting the new edits in the history article. Since the new edits tried to describe many details before the persecution. Fnhddzs 05:58, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

CawleySockBot01 is responding. You provided not citations for anything. They are removed in accordance with the "accepted rules". I reinserted my edits about the Chinese Publications. Unlike you, I will provide the references; however, the material is currently being used for the court case. Cj cawley 07:10, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Fnhddzs, the Persecution summary that I placed is nothing more than a paraphrase of the one of the paragraphs of the intro to the Persecution article. CovenantD 13:58, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
All right. Leave it for now. I will look at it further. Fnhddzs 21:03, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Health Claims

CawleySockBot02 responding. You need to have a CONTROL GROUP for the survey. Either that, or we go down the Joe Pescipo route of "I'm from Jersey. You from Jersey?" line of reasoning.—Preceding unsigned comment added by CJ cawley (talk • contribs)

You're mistaking a research study with a survey. CovenantD 15:38, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

???

CawleySocjBot03 responding. You need to include the publications provided by the Chinese in response to the shutdown of the cult. I will work with Sam to put up the summaries of the people who died PRIOR TO THE CULT BEING BANNED.—Preceding unsigned comment added by CJ cawley (talk • contribs)

I'm interested to know how you decided you were going to work with "Sam" when you two haven't even exchanged talk page messages. Seems like you're assuming quite a bit. CovenantD 15:47, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Cawley, Falun Gong is not a cult, it is a cultivation practice within the Buddha-School, that is to say, it is the Mighty Buddha-Fa. I would appreciate it if you would stop calling it a cult. Also, what exactly do you mean with people who died? Do you mean the Communist Party's propaganda about 1,400 people dying because they did not take their medicine? Thank You /Omido 16:42, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

CovenantD Attempting to act as a meditor with these nuts is useless. Please pick a side. It will make you life much easier. You have held me to one standard and the FLG CULT to another.
Omido This is a free country & a free net. You(plural) really have a hard time when people disagree with you. It's the same basic argument that I had with the ex-wife. She failed to see where her freedom ended and others began.

IT'S A CULT....IT'S A CULT.....IT'S A CULT..... Cj cawley 01:11, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

WIKIPEDIA IS NOT A FALUN GONG DISCUSSION FORUM! Please, add new messages pertaining to editing the FLG article at the bottom of this page.
CovenantD They cited a 3rd party website where the cases have not been accepted by the court. I gave you the court website where it is scheduled. I don't mind being fair, just hold everyone to the same standard. Clearly, you are not. Having personal experience with these nuts, their perception of reality is lacking.
A divorce case is not a trial of Falun Gong. It is non-notable. This has been explained to you by many people. The survey you keep removing is cited and relevant. It is not for us to judge the survey, but merely present the survey and the source and let the reader decide. Stop vandalizing the page. CovenantD 01:42, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

2nd paragraph of intro is updated

With no one objecting and the passing of deadline, I updated this paragraph. You can still change it if you don't like it, just don't beat me up or post nasty messages on my talk page. :-) --Kent8888 06:06, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm moving the 1st paragraph discussion to the bottom to make it easier to find and archiving old stuff. CovenantD 06:27, 15 June 2006 (UTC)


talk page protected?

what happened with talk page? Who are established users? I could not type in sections. Fnhddzs 06:38, 15 June 2006 (UTC) All right. seems I can type in this new section. But I could not respond to old sections. I disagree the new vote on the second paragraph. The deadline was for the old vote. Therefore I have made changes. Fnhddzs 06:41, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

If you're going to add citations, please follow the new format that is being used - it adds to proper line to the References section at the bottom. I'll correct the two new ones you've added here, but you're responsible for the ones in the Criticism and controversies article. CovenantD 06:49, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
No, the text (which we all consensed to) refers to the Falun Gong website so I've restored the reference that you deleted. I'm really disappointed that you've aleady made changes to the only paragraph that everybody agreed on. CovenantD 06:53, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
What do you mean by everybody? Fnhddzs 14:47, 15 June 2006 (UTC)Only Tomananda, Samuel Luo, Yenchin and Yueyuen. I did not even know about the new vote. Fnhddzs 14:49, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
CovenantD, ok, maybe I did not understand your question. Which reference you mean? When I saw it, it was in a bad shape. It said something like "Cite error 4; Invalid call; no input specified"[36]. So I added two links. Now I see you recovered the clearwisdom one. I am ok with that. Please do not misunderstand me. Thanks. Fnhddzs 14:54, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
Okay, that's a misunderstanding then. You caught it at a moment when I was formatting the references. This new citation style is a bit more difficult to master :-) Nevermind. CovenantD 15:02, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
good job on the new reference style. I need to pick it up. Fnhddzs 15:19, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
This should help - Wikipedia:Footnotes CovenantD 15:25, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Fnhddzs you are obviously watching these pages. Why didn't you voice your objection earlier? --Samuel Luo 07:06, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

  • I am sorry the vote was very late. I was busy last evening. I did not notice it until I logged in midnight. Fnhddzs 15:00, 15 June 2006 (UTC) Somebody moved my writings (should not discuss the relation with China in introduction) in earlier time after the vote. But I wrote that earlier. When I found the vote, it was posted to the article. I did not respond immediately since I noticed Kent8888 said we CAN revise it. Fnhddzs 15:05, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

I knew someone will reject it. But seriously, is it so intolerable? --Kent8888 07:33, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

More Cj cawley

Please leave some of the FLG claims in. I can use them AGAINST THEM in the court case. We are going to ask the wife to levitate, see through walls, etc. When my kid was little, he asked me how reindeer's fly. Being the smart kid that he is, I explained to him that the reindeer "farts" sooo much that he literally lifts off like a rocket. This only worked until he was about 5. I used the same explanation when his Mom told him that she could levitate, but only in the bathroom.

As for citations, I am working on getting some from China. I contacted the People's Daily for some information.

Where are the guidelines for "deadlines"? I have never heard of it. Cawleybot100 responding Cj cawley 10:57, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

FLG never claims every practitioner can fly or see through walls. Supernormal abilities are mostly locked and NOT pursued. Fnhddzs 15:11, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
I've decided that it's a waste of my time to respond to bots. Let me know when a real person shows up and maybe I'll answer his or her questions. CovenantD 15:02, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
How did this person get let into our semi-protected talk page? I thought only established editors can edit this page. Cawley seems to be providing only vandalism and distractions. Mcconn 18:28, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
"Established users" mean accounts more than 4 days (or is it one week) old. It is to protect the page from vandals like the pro-FLG guy. -- Миборовский 18:49, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
Oh, so you would allow anti-FLG guy? You seem not impartial. Fnhddzs 21:41, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
No, I don't think Mirobrovsky would allow anybody who's being abusive and disruptive the way pro-FLG Vandal is. I don't know if you've seen it, but s/he hits user pages, this talk page and personal talk pages of people who are not FLG practitioners with really nasty personal attacks. Never any practitioners, but even neutral people like me are subject to hir venom. CovenantD 13:45, 16 June 2006 (UTC)


Deaths attributed to Falun Gong

The section stays in. Relevant material will be provided from various Chinese publications. I will scan the book in detailing the deaths of hundreds of people ACCEPT CawleySockBot01

That's great. Since we have consensus, it stays in. In accordance with the wiki policies, references will be provided.

cj cawley I am giving you one last chance to discuss constructively. Otherwise I will block you. -- Миборовский 01:49, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

I am going to revert my court case once again. You asked why it was significant to the FLG cult. Well, "Master" Li was served with a subpoena to appear in court as a witness. I can send you copies of the documents if you like. Cj cawley 00:26, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

CovenantD Why don't you READ WHAT IS WRITTEN BEFORE DELETING IT? Cj cawley 00:55, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

I did. It's the same unencyclopedic thing that you've added day after day after day, only to have it removed by others. Your attitude is working against you here. CovenantD 01:06, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

As for the FLG cases, they cited ONE in the article. Also, it had no relevant information. There were no court records, schedules, documents, etc. In many cases, the court dismissed the case. Cj cawley 00:57, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

It was a news report, the same thing I've been asking you for since day one. The same kind of documentation you seem unable to provide. CovenantD 01:06, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

CoventD A news report is valid? From the FLG newpaper? Seems like circular logic to me. It is that because I said it is.

Like I said, some sources DO NOT EXIST ON THE NET. This does not invalidate them. Join the real world like the rest of us. If you shoot me an e-mail, fax, etc., then I will be more than happy to send them to you.

Citing one case with no references hardly counts up to 60+. That's a joke in the reporting world. Take a look at the NY Times scandal a year or so ago. The guy fabricated his stories.

I revert my changes. 07:21, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Of course not all resources exist on the internet. That doesn't excuse your inability to provide them. At this point you are being more disruptive than anything else and I'm asking Mirobrovsky to block you.
Do not delete sections without discussion. Do not add new sections without discussion. I'm sure that if you want to run Falun Gong into the ground that some editors here will be willing to help you craft your arguments. I'm here to provide a neutral voice in trying to craft a good article. Get over your anger at your wife long enough to get some perspective and stop trying to use this as a soapbox. CovenantD 13:47, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

How to add a new section

(Since a new editor doesn't quite get it, I thought I'd provide an example for them to use)

Proposed text-

The Chinese government has published several books providing detailed information on the hundreds of people who died directly or indirectly as a result of following the Falun Gong "principles". Assuming that both sides are true, then

falun Gong has caused around 3,000 deaths.

China Anti-Cult Association Condemns Falun Gong's Inhumanity [37] Falun Gong Fanatic Murders Uncle [38] Falun Gong Devastates Believers' Lives: Spanish Media [39] Falun Gong Crime Widely Condemned [40] Falun Gong Cult Outlawed [41]

Comments Well, besides the formatting problems, there's a severe lack of information here. Simply providing a list of article titles and links is insufficient. Also, all of these links are to the same source. If there's evidence to support this, I'd like to see more than one source used. "People's Daily" is not exactly known for quality reporting. CovenantD 14:06, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

CovenantD You asked for references, I gave them to you, you threatened to report me, etc. Give it up already. This talk section is clearly partial in both directions. You should not remove references just because you don't like them. Also, you should not include references that aren't. Lastly, a lot of my material exists OFF THE NET. I repeatedly offered to send it to you; however, you wish to remain anonymous. When I get a chance, I WILL REVERT MY EDITS. Also, I WILL ASK THAT YOU BE BLOCKED. Cj cawley 17:08, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

References should be available for review without having to disclose personal information to you. If it isn't then it doesn't meet the qualifications for sources. CovenantD 17:41, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

I provided a host of published sources from the web, yet they were removed. I am reposting them. Also, I will work on getting the offline material scanned in. Cj cawley 22:05, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Your sources do not support your claim of 3000. Fnhddzs 00:09, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
What part of 3rd party source do you not understand? Simply give us the name of the book, journal, newspaper, or whatever it is and let us find it for ourselves. Why do you keep resisting this? CovenantD 01:46, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Also, RESEARCH is NOT THE SAME AS SURVEY. You can't put a SURVEY under a RESEARCH category. It's basic English.Cj cawley 22:08, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Then suggest that the name of the section be changed. Do not simply blank information you disagree with. That is not consensus and it will be reverted every time. CovenantD 01:44, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

There is research and journal publication [42][43]. Fnhddzs 00:06, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Fnhddzs has been blocked for violating 3RR again

I notice that Fnhddzs has been blocked for violating 3RR and since then he revered twice with his Ip address and again with a new use name. Can someone block his Ip address? --Yueyuen 05:34, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Yueyuen, we should be a bit tolerant with the 3RR rule, different people have different understandings, so conflicts and misstakes will happen. Let us be compassionate and forgiving to each other so that we can reach a good agreement on the article. I spoke with Fnhddzs and told him to be less nervous and eager, and to listen more and speak less. Also, I apologize for any inconvinience that we may have caused you. :) /Omido 10:26, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

I have been VERY tolerant with my block. Fnhddzs has been warned and blocked before for 3RR. This time, I warned him no less than 2 times not to use an anon IP address to make further reverts. He did so anyway. Omido, please take your "be compassionate and forgiving" to the vandal that was vandalising this page and our user pages. -- Миборовский 23:32, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
ok. Miborovsky. Since your words were posted days ago at the beginning of the confusion or when you were angry or whatever. It is ok. Please see my talk page. I could not reply here when I was blocked. I won't address this more here. All right, let it pass and go back to work. Thanks. Fnhddzs 00:14, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Changing sub-sections in the main page

Right now, the subsection is like this:

  • 5 Criticism and Controversies
  • 5.1 Differences between Falun Gong, Buddhism, Qigong and other beliefs
  • 5.2 Li as a savior or supernatural entity
  • 5.3 Fa-rectification: Li’s version of the apocalypse?
  • 5.4 Debatable significance of Falun Gong awards and recognitions
  • 5.5 Falun Gong and sexual orientation

I think, it should be just "Criticism and Controversies". In my opinion, it is taking up too much space. /Omido 11:24, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

(I did some slight fomatting on your message - it was showing up in really tiny print in a box.)
I've communicated with Tomananda about this very thing. He indicated that he would work on combining some of the subheadings. I know that he's spent quite a bit of time working on the companion article, so I suggest that we give him another day or two to recover and get to this one. CovenantD 13:39, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Actually, the model Covenant recommended and the one I plan to develop is the Scientology article which has a rather long summary of Crititicism and controversies, with four different sub-sections! Compared to the Scientology main page, the Falun Gong main page is absolutely enemic. There is not a problem of space here, and I suspect the only reason Omido says the subsection links should not appear on the main page is to obscure them. There are also many short summaries of pro-Falun Gong articles with links appearing on the main page, and I don't hear anyone suggesting they be eliminated to "save space." As suggested by Covenant, my plan is to write a whole new intoduction for the Criticism page which will take me quite a few days, as I will introduce some new material. After that is done, I will propose a re-ordering and some consolidation of the Criticism articles in keeping with the new inrotroduction. The goal is wind up with a main page edit that is readable, similar to what we see in Scientology. It needs to be pointed out that the text on the main page of Scientology is not just a repeat of the lead paragraphs of the from the auxialiary articles, but rather independent material. If we follow this approach throughout the Falun Gong article, that means the pro-Falun Gong editors will need to work on writing new edits for the main page summaries as well. Agreed? --Tomananda 21:07, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
You also see that in the Scientology model, the Teachings section has some subheadings. I think that's appropriate and balanced. And yes, I wholeheartedly agree that each summary needs to be just that, a summary of what's in the daughter article and not just a repeat of the first paragraph. I tried to do something like that with History and Timeline (it's still a work in progress). I was planning on introducing the idea section by section. :-) CovenantD 22:05, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Tomananda, you seem to suspect alot of things, I think it is not right to suspect things, because it can slow things down. If you wonder something, then ask me, there is no idea in suspecting things. The reason for me wanting to change the sub-sections of critism and controversies is because they are taking up too much space. This article is about Falun Dafa, what Falun Dafa is about and how it developed. This article is not about what individual critics think of Falun Dafa. Right now, it seems as there are more critics on the main page than actual information about Falun Gong, that is why I think it should be more "compressed". Also, I would appreciate it if you could stop comparing Falun Dafa to Scientology because it is not at all the same things. /Omido 13:07, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

We're not comparing Falun Gong and Scietology, we're comparing the articles - structure, layout, summaries, subsections and daughter articles. Tomananda, I understand your suspicions but since I share Omido's views about the layout (and raised them with you) I think you might be off base here. CovenantD 14:20, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Simply put, they need to be cleaned up. I've started but it needs the attention of people who have added the links. Many of them need to be moved to daughter articles (I've isolated many that should go into Persecution), some of them need to have better descriptions, and some of them need to go away. Please read this style guide for what should and should not be done with them. CovenantD 14:29, 16 June 2006 (UTC)


protect the page

Fnhddzs was blocked yesterday, yet he reverted again by using a public computer. [44] But more importantly he said he has asked friends (other practitioners) to help, presumably, with his reverts. This is what he said: “I had called for friends to join and they came for help. Hehe. It seems it is kind of late but that is what happened.” [45] To avoid a major revert war, I suggest that the article be protected now. Edits can be made after discussion here.

I believe those nasty emails were from Fnhddzs using that public computer. --Samuel Luo 07:15, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

The page is already semi-protected. No new editors will be able to make changes for the first four days they are registered. CovenantD 14:07, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
Samuel. Why you worry so much? Hehe. But I promise without my friends' help, I will also do well. What nasty emails you said? You confuse me again. Please give references instead of doing personal attacks here. Fnhddzs 00:28, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

1st paragraph of intro

Dilip's Suggestion

Falun Gong (Traditional Chinese: 法輪功; Simplified Chinese: 法轮功; Pinyin: Fǎlún Gōng; literally "Practice of the Wheel of Law") is also known as Falun Dafa (Traditional Chinese: 法輪大法; Simplified Chinese: 法轮大法; Pinyin: Fǎlún dàfǎ; lit. "Great Law of the Wheel of Law") is a system of mind and body cultivation introduced by Li Hongzhi in 1992. Central to Falun Gong are the teachings of "Truthfulness, Compassion and Forbearance" and five sets of meditation exercises (four standing, and one sitting meditation).) The system has been growing in popularity world-over with the teachings translated to over 40 languages and practitioners present in over 80 countries. Dilip rajeev 19:21, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Samuel's suggestion

The following version has no POV: Falun Gong (Traditional Chinese: 法輪功; Simplified Chinese: 法轮功; Pinyin: Fǎlún Gōng; Gwoyeu Romatzyh: Faaluen Gong; literally "Practice of the Wheel of Law") is also known as Falun Dafa (Traditional Chinese: 法輪大法; Simplified Chinese: 法轮大法; Pinyin: Fǎlún dàfǎ; lit. "Great Law of the Wheel of Law") is a system of mind and body cultivation introduced by Li Hongzhi in 1992. Falun Gong refers to five sets of meditation exercises (four standing, and one sitting meditation).) Falun Dafa refers to a set of religious dogma which teaches that Li is the one who atones the sins of all sentient beings and provides salvation to humankind.--Samuel Luo 19:35, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Okay, looking at the differences - Samuel, what do you consider POV about the first version? What is said that is opinion?

Dilip, would you disagree with the last sentence of Samuel's version?

- CovenantD 19:47, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

The name Falun Dafa doenst refer to the teachings, It is the name of the cultivation system.Dilip rajeev 20:35, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Dilip: Li says his Dafa (literally translated great law) is judging all people during this period of Fa-rectification. To say that Dafa is "the name of the cultivation system" conceals the fundamental teaching of the Dafa, which is about moral judgment and salvation. If you want, suggest alternative wording for that last sentence, but the wording must not obscure the fundmental teaching of Li Hongzhi, which is that his Dafa is judging people and he (and his Dafa) are the only way to obtain salvation.

Also, just to make this point further, here are two quotes from what Li says about the Dafa:

Dafa is the Fa (Law) of the cosmos, and Dafa has created all beings in the cosmos. “Using at Will” (June 28, 2000 ) in Essentials for Further Advancement II, item 12.
I am telling you now that Dafa belongs to me, Li Hongzhi. It is taught to save you and spoken from my mouth. “Awakening” (May 27, 1996) in Essentials for Further Advancement I

Given these quotes, and many others I can produce from Li himself, it would not be honest to report that Dafa is the name of a cultivation system. --Tomananda 21:13, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

It is important that this paragraph distinguish between Falun Gong and Falun Dafa. The general public doesn't know that the exercises (Falun Gong) are not as important as Li's teachings on salvation (which he alone provides) and morality, which is his "Dafa" or "great law." Li does say he atones for eveyone's sins and is the only one offering salvation to all sentient beings at this time. That is the fundamental message of the Falun Gong. How exactly to word that can be debated, but some version of Samuel's last sentence is essential.--Tomananda 20:19, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

This sentence is a POV in my opinion. "The system has been growing in popularity world-over with the teachings translated to over 40 languages and practitioners present in over 80 countries." --Samuel Luo 20:55, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

It's not only POV, it is a piece of self-promotion that does not belong in an introductory statement. --Tomananda 22:05, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Aha! I get it. It's the bit about the growing popularity world-over, isn't it? How about if that were taken out and it read, "The teachings have been translated into over 40 languages...." I think it is relevant to show the extent of it's reach, in a NPOV and factual way. Citing numbers is the best way to do that, assuming we can find numbers that we agree on. CovenantD 22:15, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
Fine with me.--Tomananda 00:56, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Central to Falun Gong?

Not just the five sets of exercies. The most important (I think) is the teachings. Actually, it is said in the Zhuan Falun Talk One[46]

In intellectual circles there’s always been the question of whether matter is primary or mind is primary. They’ve been talking about this and debating it for a long time. I’m going to tell you, in reality, matter and mind are one and the same.

Fnhddzs 02:10, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

In the book Zhuan Falun, both the terms "Falun Gong" and "Falun Dafa" are used. I could find quotes later.

I am surprised to see this article splits Falun Gong and Falun Dafa. It is not true. Falun Gong is a mind and body double cultivation system. Falun Gong is also called Falun Dafa. In Answers to Commonly Asked Questions on the www.falundafa.org website,

Q: What is Falun Dafa, or Falun Gong? A: Falun Dafa, also known as Falun Gong, is an ancient practice for mind and body, originating in pre-historic China. The practice involves some slow, gentle movements and a meditation. It is easy to learn, enjoyable to practice, and free of charge. A central component of Falun Gong practice is studying the universal principles of truthfulness, benevolence, and tolerance.

Also in falundafa.org website [47], it is also said "Falun Gong (also called Falun Dafa) is an ancient form of qigong, the practice of refining the body and mind through special exercises and meditation. " Fnhddzs 01:59, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Falun Dafa and Falun Gong are used interchangably amongst practitioners. A believe that the name "Falun Gong" was adopted to fit in with or be similar to the names of other qigongs, which all ended with the word "gong" (referring to exercises). "Gong" here does literally refer only to the exercises, which is one reason why most practitioners use "Falun Dafa" more often, but although that's the literal meaning it has basically taken on the same meaning as "Falun Dafa" in use. Mcconn 16:55, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

I think this sentence (“religious dogma which teaches that Li is the one who atones the sins of all sentient beings and provides salvation to humankind”) is included in the introduction because it is simply put and is very grand. However, as grand as the statements may be, they’re not central enough to be included in the introductory paragraph. How does a person practice Falun Dafa? He does the exercises, studies Mr. Li’s teachings (with Zhuan Falun as the core), and diligently tries to improve his moral character and let go attachments by applying the teachings. This is how you practice Falun Dafa and this is what Mr. Li’s teachings are about. That sentence should talk about what Falun Dafa is, not about grand statements made by Mr. Li. In addition, whether Falun Gong is a religion is a matter of opinion and dispute, but no one will deny that it’s spiritual. So “spiritual” is a better term than “religious”. Also whether it is “dogma” is also a matter of opinion and dispute, but they are clearly “teachings”. So “teachings” is better than “dogma”. Here is my suggestion:

Mcconn's suggestion

Falun Gong (Traditional Chinese: 法輪功; Simplified Chinese: 法轮功; Pinyin: Fǎlún Gōng; Gwoyeu Romatzyh: Faaluen Gong; literally "Practice of the Wheel of Law"), also known as Falun Dafa (Traditional Chinese: 法輪大法; Simplified Chinese: 法轮大法; Pinyin: Fǎlún dàfǎ; lit. "Great Law of the Wheel of Law"), is a system of mind and body cultivation introduced by Li Hongzhi in 1992. Central to Falun Gong are five sets of meditation exercises (four standing, and one sitting meditation) and a set of spiritual teachings which lay emphasis on moral improvement according to the principles of Truth, Compassion and Forbearance. Falun Gong is practiced in approximately 80 countries and the teachings have been translated into over 40 languages. Mcconn 18:13, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
Agree with the above suggested by Mcconn. Hi, other editors, please express your opinions on the first paragraph. Thanks. Fnhddzs 02:23, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
AgreeDilip rajeev 18:02, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
Agree Omido 14:47, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
Reject. There should be a slight mention of the difference between the "Dafa" and "Gong" or else some of the Li quotes don't make sense. I would also suggest "Falun Gong is practiced..." changed into "Falun Gong has practitioners..." --Yenchin 21:35, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
What difference? Please give the link. As the matter and mind are one thing[48], the "Dafa" and "Gong" are one thing. Fnhddzs 21:37, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
For starters, take a look at Tomamanda's quote. How could a "Gong" be a "law"? As long as Li keeps on using "Fa" for his reference to some cosmic law then there is a distinction. --Yenchin 21:47, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Reject--Samuel Luo 08:43, 17 June 2006 (UTC) REJECT You left out the references to the aliens, et. al. We don't like that. ______________________________________________________________________________________

Well Aliens does not have anything to do with the Falun Gong teachings, they are not even mentioned in the main book Zhuan Falun, the word "flying saucer" is mentioned two times. Aliens have been mentioned 3-4 times in speeches/articles, but aliens does not have anything to do with the actual practice of Falun Gong. How can aliens be worthy of having anything to do with Buddha? Omido 22:13, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

tomananda's suggestion

Falun Gong (Traditional Chinese: 法輪功; Simplified Chinese: 法轮功; Pinyin: Fǎlún Gōng; Gwoyeu Romatzyh: Faaluen Gong; literally "Practice of the Wheel of Law") is also known as Falun Dafa (Traditional Chinese: 法輪大法; Simplified Chinese: 法轮大法; Pinyin: Fǎlún dàfǎ; lit. "Great Law of the Wheel of Law") is a system of mind and body cultivation introduced by Li Hongzhi in 1992. Falun Gong refers to five sets of meditation exercises (four standing, and one sitting meditation).) Falun Dafa refers to a set of religious dogma which teaches that Li's Dafa is currently judging mankind and that corrupt people will be weeded out in a process called "Fa-rectification." Falun Dafa also includes the idea that Li and his Dafa provide the only means for salvation during our current period of the "last havoc."

Notice that this paragraph avoids the trap of words like central or core teachings, yet quickly summarizes the major points. --Tomananda 21:26, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Support --Samuel Luo 08:42, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Support --Yenchin 15:24, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Strongly Reject It has a typo in the first line. Please delete "is" and add ",". Dogma is POV. Also your summary of teaching is not correct. The central teachings are "True", "Good" and "Endure". It is not the ONLY means. Fnhddzs 00:20, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

I strongly reject that paragraph. /Omid (copied by Fnhddzs 00:31, 18 June 2006 (UTC))

[49] 1 a : something held as an established opinion; especially : a definite authoritative tenet b : a code of such tenets <pedagogical dogma> c : a point of view or tenet put forth as authoritative without adequate grounds 2 : a doctrine or body of doctrines concerning faith or morals formally stated and authoritatively proclaimed by a church

Fits well in the paragraph. --Yenchin 00:43, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

dogma implies some negative thing. It is not NPOV. Teachings are neutral and widely used. Fnhddzs 00:58, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

For record: And solely provided from Li Hongzhi (an authoritative figure). It is more than clear that the word can be applied. My choice maintains as well as my point that it is NPOV. --Yenchin 08:04, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
I think definition (c) rules out the word 'dogma' becuase it puts forth a judgment- without adequate grounds. CovenantD 20:56, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Li's Dafa is judging all mankind and weeding out corrupt people, while...

... practitioners are told they will become gods. Every Falun Gong practitioner knows and accepts these teachings. They must be given weight in Wikipedia

In comments above, some practitioners fail to acknowledge the core teaching of Li Hongzhi. Although Master tells his disciples not to talk about his teachings "at the higher level" to "ordinary people," Wikipedia must report these teachings in it's introduction. If a practitioner/editor is unable to honestly report what Falun Gong teaches, then it will be up to the non-practitoner editors to provide these edits.

To conflate the "Dafa" with Falun Gong exercies would be a gross mis-representation of Falun Gong beliefs. Li Hongzhi uses the words "Dafa" and "Fa-rectification" repeatedly in his speeches and makes protecting and standing up for his Dafa the number one requirement of a Dafa disciple. All practitioners must obey the Master in this regard if they wish to be considered practitioners. It is NOT about the exercises, it is about the Dafa...which is the most important and central teaching.

Here are a few Li quotes to add some sources to what I have said:

  • So when you clarify the truth you absolutely must not speak at too high of a level. Right now when you clarify the truth you only need to talk about the persecution of Dafa disciples, how the evil party has been violating the human rights and the freedom of belief of the Chinese people, how historically the evil party has persecuted the Chinese people and the people of the countries belonging to the wicked Communist bloc, and how it is persecuting Dafa disciples today in the same way. And that's enough. As for high-level cultivation and gods, you shouldn't talk about those things. "Teaching the Fa in San Francisco," 2005 (November 5, 2005)*http://www.clearwisdom.net/emh/articles/2005/12/4/67552.html
  • Why do I tell you to study, read, and memorize Zhuan Falun? It is to guide your cultivation practice! As to those who only do the exercises but do not study the Fa, they are not disciples of Dafa whatsoever. “What is Cultivation Practice?” (September 6, 1996) Essentials for Further Advancement, English Version
  • Most students have, in various ways, stepped forward to validate Dafa . . .On the other hand, those who haven’t stepped forward, have hidden themselves, and have sided in their understanding with the evil beings – how could they still be Dafa disciples? . . . For example, some students were arrested and imprisoned. When they couldn’t endure the severe torture, they wrote repentance statements. . .. .But this is unacceptable. "Teaching the Fa at the Great Lakes Fa Confernece in North America ' (Ann Arbor, December 9, 2000). p. 3.
  • The purpose of spreading Dafa far and wide is to rectify the Fa in the cosmos, and, at the same time, to have Dafa’s disciples in the human world reach Consummation. Dafa is also creating a new humankind, and will likewise bring to humankind a new culture. Essentials for Further Advancement II, item 12
  • No matter how the evil persecutes, what awaits Dafa disciples is still Consummation, and what awaits the evil beings is nothing but eternally paying in Hell for all they have done to interfere with and persecute the Fa-rectification and Dafa disciples. “Look at Things with Righteous Thoughts,” Falun Gong Web Site, March 8, 2002
  • Dafa (Great Law) has only one master, me, and Dafa Itself doesn’t have any “persons in charge.” You’re just people in charge amidst this Fa-rectification form and counter-persecution form. . . .. Everyone is a cultivating disciple. Make sure you keep these things in mind. Fa-Lecture at the Conference in Florida, U.S.A., December 29, 2001, p. 8.
  • Dafa is the Fa (Law) of the cosmos, and Dafa has created all beings in the cosmos. “Using at Will” (June 28, 2000 ) in Essentials for Further Advancement II, item 12.
  • I am telling you now that Dafa belongs to me, Li Hongzhi. It is taught to save you and spoken from my mouth. “Awakening” (May 27, 1996) in Essentials for Further Advancement I

Any summary of Falun Gong teaching which does not report these basic teachings will be dishonest. --Tomananda 23:44, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

What the **** is up with that section header? CovenantD 00:11, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, is it too long? I can shorten it if you like. --Tomananda 00:33, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
LOL That works :-) CovenantD 01:29, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

But, but, but, I am at a higher level. I even have real stories to back mine up. Cj cawley 01:18, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Tomananda, I can guarentee you that no Falun Gong practitioners have anything to hide. Why? Because every genuine Falun Gong practitioner really thinks Falun Gong is good, then why should they try to hide anything? The things Master Li has spoken about, can certainly be presented to the public, there is no problem with that. As long as it is presented in a most neutral way, then I think that no Falun Gong practitioner will object. As I said, we Falun Gong pracitioners have absoloutly nothing to hide and we have no "fear" that people will have bad thoughts. We just want to present the truth (facts) and then people can themself decide what they want to think. Also, when Master Li says that we should not talk in a too "high level", according to my understanding, this means that practitioners should focus on speaking about the persecution and these kind of mundane things to people, and not speak about the Fa (Dharma) to people, why is that? Because the goal of Falun Gong practitioners is not to "recruit" new practitioners, but instead to expose the wicked Communist Party's persecution of Falun Gong to the public. That is why practitioners should not speak about the teachings themself (Dharma/Fa/Dao) but instead clarify the truth about the inhumane and wicked persecution. Also, you say "practitioners are told they will become Gods". Well, what is your definition of a God? In Falun Gong, it is not said that God created the whole universe, such as the west understands God. In Falun Gong, it is said that Buddha is one kind of a God, and Dao is another kind of a God. Yes, in Falun Gong the goal is to reach consummation and become a Buddha or Dao and to return home (paradise). But this has also been the goal of all other cultivation practices such as "Tantrism", "Zenbuddhism", "Taoim", "Christianity", to return to where you orginally came from (paradise) etc etc. Also my friend, it's not that "some practitioners fail to acknowledge the core teaching of Li Hongzhi". All Falun Dafa practitioners does acknowledge all the Fa (Dharma) that has been spoken by Master Li. But, the core teaching of Falun Dafa is Truthfulness-Compassion-Forbearence, and this is the most important. /Omido 11:15, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

You have to be careful not to assign labels like "core teachings". We can report what Li Hongzhi says they are, or what notable critics say they are, but any attempt by a WP editor to define them on the basis of their personal beliefs is too close to original research. Also, that Li has ordered his followers to hide aspects of the teaching is pretty well established above: "you absolutely must not speak at too high of a level" etc., so the pronouncements of FLG followers aren't necessarily reliable as to what Li teaches or doesn't teach. Since Li has ordered his followers to obfuscate his teachings to the public, what we have to go on is mostly is reports of his lectures, and mentioning Li's gag order is an important way to indicate the relative trust our readers may place in the explanatory statements of FLG followers. --Fire Star 火星 14:30, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Fire Star, as I explained above: With "not speak at too high level" doesn't mean that practitioners should hide or conceal any of the teachings. It means, that one should concentrate on exposing the Chinese Communist Party's wicked persecution of Falun Gong, and not to speak about Fa/Dharma to people that does not want to learn. Of course, if someone want's to learn, then there is pretty much no "too high level", because the possibilities are endless. Omido 18:59, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Omido: Li's words are clear, he tells his disciples not to talk about the theachings at too high a level and instead focus on his political agenda of exposing the evil CCP and destroying it over time. That is Li's stated goal and he repeats that message over and over again in all his speeches. But Wikipedia has a different standard. While you might not want to do edits that talk about Li's Dafa judging all mankind and the Fa-rectification (because that is what Li orders), it's clear that this information must be reported in a simple, clear and consise way in the introduction to this article. So again I say: if the practitioners are unwilling or unable to report this information, other editors will do it. That's what is happening right now.--Tomananda 21:36, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Fire Star: You may be correct about the use of "core teachings," but I need to point out that the pro-FG version of the first paragraph uses the wording "Central to ...." and then fails to report what is most central, which is Li's role as savior and his claim that his Dafa is judging mankind. Actually, we can avoid the words "core" and "central: all together. Using an earlier paragraph written by Samuel, I would like to propose the following

for the first paragraph introduction:

Tomananda's 2nd suggestion

Falun Gong (Traditional Chinese: 法輪功; Simplified Chinese: 法轮功; Pinyin: Fǎlún Gōng; Gwoyeu Romatzyh: Faaluen Gong; literally "Practice of the Wheel of Law") is also known as Falun Dafa (Traditional Chinese: 法輪大法; Simplified Chinese: 法轮大法; Pinyin: Fǎlún dàfǎ; lit. "Great Law of the Wheel of Law") is a system of mind and body cultivation introduced by Li Hongzhi in 1992. Falun Gong refers to five sets of meditation exercises (four standing, and one sitting meditation).) Falun Dafa refers to a set of religious dogma which teaches that Li's Dafa is currently judging mankind and that corrupt people will be weeded out in a process called "Fa-rectification." Falun Dafa also includes the idea that Li and his Dafa provide the only means for salvation during our current period of the "last havoc."

Notice that this paragraph avoids the trap of words like central or core teachings, yet quickly summarizes the major points. --Tomananda 21:26, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

I strongly reject that paragraph. Why? Here is why:

1. Master Li Hongzhi has clearly stated that the main book in Falun Dafa is Zhuan Falun and that all the Fa/Dharma that one needs to reach consummation are all included in Zhuan Falun. In Zhuan Falun Master Li does not mention the Fa-Rectification. That is why the central in Falun Gong is Zhuan Falun. Master Li started talking about the Fa-Rectification after the wicked persecution began, so that practitioners could handle things well during the persecution. Before the persecution he just briefly mentioned Fa-Rectification a couple of times.

Absolutely not true. As Li says, practitioners can no longer expect to be "true practitiors" if all they do is individual cultivation. Those are his words. Now the requirment during this Fa-rectication period is for all practitiors to validate the Fa and expose the "evil" CCP, working towards it's elimination by, among other things, getting millions of Communist party members to quit the party. The Epoch Times...the paper Li's disciples founded to validate Li's teachings...actually publishes the results of this campaing. It think the touted number of party members who have quite as a result of Li's campaign is now close to 10 million...isn't that correct? --Tomananda 21:37, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

2. Falun Gong practitioners have nothing to hide, so please remove that notion of your's that have been formed. Everything that Master Li has spoken of can be included in the WP article, as long as it is presented in a neutral way.

3. I gave you several examples on the Talk Page in the Critics Section about why Falun Dafa does not include the idea that Falun Gong is the only means for salvation during the last havoc.

4. Also Tomananda, please do not use your own POV when handling things. You say "Li's words are clear, he tells his disciples not to talk about the theachings at too high a level and instead focus on his political agenda of exposing the evil CCP and destroying it over time." That is entirely your anti-FLG understanding that you have formed.

How can you claim that this is my point of view when all I am doing is reporting your Master's words. --Tomananda 21:37, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

No, it's not like that. Master Li has said that the most important thing is to expose the wicked persecution of Falun Gong to the public, and to let the people see how evil and rotten the CCP is. Also, it is really sad that you are making up lies. Please show me when Master Li has said that the intention of Falun Gong is to destroy CCP.

He doesn't use the word "destroy"...but instead, says (through the Epoch Times and on Falun Gong websites) that the party eventually will be gone (or does he say eliminated..why don't you tell me what his word are for a change?) His goal is to destroy, in a political sense, the CCP. --Tomananda 21:37, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Master Li has said that the Gods will destroy CCP because the CCP has done evil deeds the last 160 years.  :

Yes, Li has said that as well. But if they gods are going to destroy the CCP, why do the practitioners have to devote themselves to "exposing the evil CCP" and lobbying western politicians...and illegally jamming the TV transmissions of the CCP through stations located in Taiwan. Your refusal to speak honestly about Falun Gong's agenda is truly astounding. --Tomananda 21:37, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Master Li has also clearly stated that no Falun Gong pracititioners have any political intention, so why do over and over again come with this "political" arguement? Omido 10:33, 17 June 2006 (UTC) Answer: Because Li's goal of exposing the evil CCP and getting millions of Chines people to quit the party is polical whether Li is willing to admit it or not. Give me a break! --Tomananda 22:28, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

You have to be kidding me! Zhuan Falun was written before the so-called persecution and so to use your logic everything that appears in the Wikipedia page about the persecution must be immediately deleted because it is not part of Zhuan Falun. Li continually speaks of his diciples as "Fa-rectification Dafa disciples" and continually asks you to stand up for the Fa and expose the evil CCP....do you deny that? It is you who is trying to conceal Master Li's teachings by making the absurd argument that only what he wrote before the ban of the Falun Gong can be used in Wikipedia. What absolute nonsense! I made a count of how many times Li used the word "Fa-rectification in a recent speech. I think it came to 24 times, as compared to close to zero for the term xinxing. If that isn't a clear indication of Li's prioritities (and by extension yours) what other measure do you propose to show what is central and what is not in Li's teachings? --Tomananda 21:23, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Ok, here’s the thing. True, clarifying the truth and sending forth righteous thoughts, and talking about the process of Fa-Rectification have become very important and a focus in many new lectures, but actually this is just something for this time period. The fact is, there was Falun Dafa before the persecution started and there will be Falun Dafa after the persecution is over. Right now is a special time so on top of doing normal Falun Dafa cultivation, practitioners have responsibilities related to the Fa-Rectification. Before this happened and after it’s over there weren’t and won’t be these things. You can’t define something by only looking at it’s current state. You have to consider the whole thing. What has been at the constant in Mr. Li’s teachings from day one? You guessed it… Zhen Shan Ren. To say that he no longer talks about cultivating this is absurd. The new lecture is very telling of this. Although, he may not always use the words Zhen Shan Ren, we know when he says “cultivate” he’s referring to cultivation according to these principles. And a lot of importance is placed on this: “Many ordinary people call me Master, but they are not cultivators. In other words, not everyone who calls me Master counts as a cultivator. You must truly cultivate yourself in your everyday life, and truly regard yourself as a cultivator.” Basically, if you don’t cultivate yourself, you’re not really a practitioner. Falun Dafa is first and foremost about cultivating your heart according to Master Li’s teachings, that’s fundamental. Mcconn 01:41, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Tomananda, I am not here to argue with you because it is pointless. Clearly, you are holding on to your own thinking, which makes it very hard for you to be open to anything else. Im just here to make sure that Falun Gong is presented in a neutral way. The way you think and see things are not neutral, that is why I can't accept it. Omido 09:52, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Tom.., there is no political agenda. in my understanding, Russian Communists faded unexpectedlly to people, but it was in forteller's (I forgot his name) prophecy. Exposing CCP's evil nature is to help stop the persecution because it blocks truth etc. Even after CCP fade, Falun Gong will NOT take the power because practioners goal is not to be ordinary people. I can find quotes on the idea of my last sentence. Fnhddzs 19:29, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Deadline for 1st paragraph

Shall we set another deadline? Say, 5 p.m. (UTC) on Sunday? I believe that gives us about 72 hours. CovenantD 16:44, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Let's set the deadline at 11pm on Sunday, wikipedia time. We are going to need a little more time on this paragraph especial when a editor has not been able to voice his opinion. --Kent8888 08:59, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

At this point, I think Monday is even better. We've gotten sidetracked by Cj and whether Falun Gong and Falun Dafa are the same. CovenantD 14:44, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Ok, Let's set the deadline at 11pm on Monday, wikipedia time. --Kent8888 19:32, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Can I assume this is a consensus vote? Fnhddzs 00:43, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Of course. That's why I phrased it as a question at the very begining of this subsection. CovenantD 01:40, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

The score is 49 to O...Fa-rectification leading

Hey, I was too modest in my numbers above. In Master Li's recent speech of February 25, 2006 he used the word Fa-rectification 49 times and never used the term xinxing (one's moral charater) even once! Here's the link: {http://www.falundafa.org/book/eng/jw_139.htm]

For Omido or other Falun Gong practitioner/editors who seek to conceal the relevance of Li's teaching on Fa-rectification, if you cannot write these edits yourselves (for whatever reason), then at least respect the work of other editors. As Master Li says over and over again, all Dafa disciples have a specific role to play in this Fa-rectification process...and that means making as your number one priority for your own salvation the valididating of Li's Fa and exposing what Li says is the "evil" and "wicked" CCP. This is not my POV, it is the POV of your master and it must be given weight in the introduction of this article. --Tomananda 22:01, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

That is your original research. Fnhddzs 00:10, 18 June 2006 (UTC) I have studied Fa years. I think the central teachings are "True", "Good" and "Endure". Fnhddzs 00:22, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

The number of words in an article is hardly called "original research". It's a fact. It would be better to show the trend and let these facts speak for themselves. --Yenchin 00:39, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

There are a lot of teachings. Only one article could not prove this. Fnhddzs 00:44, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Hey, maybe instead of simply doing word searches on articles you could actually read them. You might get a different understanding. In fact, like most new lectures, a lot of the new lecture is devoted to cultivating xinxing, it's just that he doesn't use that word. I won't copy everything related to this into here, but at least here's one paragraph which is quite clear.

Remember, what is for human beings conventional wisdom is inverted. So when you encounter troublesome things as you cultivate, don't regard them all as problems, as interference to your rightful tasks, or as attacks against those tasks, or think, "This thing I'm doing is of utmost importance, that thing I'm doing is of utmost importance..." Many things might not truly be how you see them, in fact. Your true improvement will always be first and foremost, and the consummation of your cultivation is always first and foremost. But you can't think, "Since you've said my cultivation and improvement are the most important, nobody should interfere with it." You'd again be wrong. Doesn't interference provide opportunities to improve oneself? From my perspective, being your master, I think your improvement is the most important, but that doesn't mean that as you improve a smooth path is in store for you. Say you went up to the heavens with a lot of karma and were hauling along a huge load of baggage (audience laughs), how could that be permitted? I have to set up certain tests for you and have you let go of those attachments of yours, have you get rid of all that baggage. As you go through one test after another, you are to continually shed your attachments and human thinking, and you won't be able to carry those things into the various tests [and still pass them]. So when a test arrives, you say, "That's trouble," and some people even go everywhere looking for Master and ask, "Oh my, how am I going to resolve it?" Well, how could I resolve it for you? If I were to resolve it, you couldn't pass that test. If we took away the test, are you supposed to go forward while hauling a load of baggage with you? So I can't take away that test for you. (Master chuckles) Does that make sense? That's why I say that when it comes to cultivation, you must truly grasp what cultivation is, be truly and rationally responsible to your own cultivation, truly handle everything you encounter with righteous thoughts, and have strong righteous thoughts. [50]

Nothing but pure xinxing cultivation here. Mcconn 01:10, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Really? Nothing but xinxing cultivation here? Then how come Li again talks about Fa-rectification in this latest speech and again doesn't mention xinxing? Here what he does say:

Only your attitude towards Fa-rectification today and your understanding of Dafa matter. That's the only thing that counts.

Only your attitude towards Fa-rectification and your understanding of Dafa matter. Well, Mcconn, since those are the words of the Master, doesn't that give importance to Fa-rectification? It's what counts...and since it is what counts, how can we not report it at the begining summary? Are you saying that you don't agree with the master, and that in your opinion it isn't that important? Your refusal to speak honestly about Fa-rectification still amazes me. But then again, that's what Master Li asks of all his disciples, isn't it? How about we quote the Master's own words in that first paragraph? --Tomananda 03:38, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Here's another nice quote from Li from the Essentials:

Most fundamentally, you all still need to establish your great mighty virtue in the process of shattering the old forces’ persecution, and return to your highest positions. So this isn’t a matter of reaching Consummation in ordinary realms, nor is it achievable in ordinary Consummation. It might seem that you have done what you should do for Dafa, when actually, you are doing it for your comprehensive Consummation and return. If during this period you cannot do well with what you should do, this Consummation stage can only be a cultivation process, and it cannot fundamentally be a Fa-rectification disciple’s true and final Consummation. If during the evil’s persecution a Dafa disciple doesn’t do well or slacks off, it’s very possible all his previous efforts will have been for nothing.

In other words, if you can't live up to the challenge of "shattering the old forces's persecution" you can't consider yourself a Fa-rectiication disciple. And what distinguishes a "Fa-rectificatrion disiciple" from an common ordinary disciple? Well, it's what you do to protect the Master's Fa against the evil forces, isn't it? Elsewhere the Master actually says this is you duty as a practitioner. Is there any practitioner/editor on this site who has the decency and honesty to acknowledge that these teachings are important for your salvation and therefore must be reported in the introduction of this article. Mcconn, you've come close to saying this above... --Tomananda 07:36, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Tomananda, As I told you, no Falun Gong practitioner are trying to hide anything, so you should not accuse practitioners for not acknowledging the teachings, please try to be a bit more rational, thank you. Also, I will now clarify the truth to you, as I see it, you are not clear between "Fa-Rectification Cultivation" and "Individual Cultivation", that is why I feel it is necessary that I tell you my own understanding so that you could understand a bit better.

Here I go: Before the persecution of Falun Gong began in 1999, there were only Individual Cultivation. That means, one only had to study the Fa and cultivate one's XinXing and assimilate oneself to Truth-Compassion-Forbearence. This was central to Falun Gong, and to be a Falun Gong practitioner, it was absoloutly necessary that one followed Truth-Compassion-Forbearence when one had problems and conflicts in one's daily life. The book Zhuan Falun contained everything one needed for one's own consummation before the persecution began.

After the persecution began, the time for Fa-Rectification Cultivation began. This means, that not only should practitioners do individual cultivation, but Falun Gong practitioners should also tell the people of the world about the persecution of Falun Gong in order to try to stop the persecution and to save people from the propaganda that CCP has used in China to justify the persecution against Falun Gong. Put in simple words, Fa-Rectification cultivation means: Clarifying the truth about Falun Gong to people and exposing the persecution of Falun Gong by the CCP to people.

As you see, Fa-Rectification Cultivation only appeared after the persecution began, the only reason Fa-Rectification Cultivation appeared was to protect Fa, tell the people in the world that we are being persecuted and to save people from the propaganda that CCP has spread in China to justify their persecution against Falun Gong.

And yes, one is not regarded as a [dilligent] practitioner if one does not do the Three Things that Master has asked us to do: 1. Clarify the truth about the persecution of Falun Gong 2. Study the Fa 3. Send Forth Righteous Thoughts

This is my individual understanding, but I think most pracitioners would more or less agree with me. I would also like to tell you that Master Li or Falun Gong pracitioners does not have any political ambition at all. The reason for Falun Gong pracitioners effort to clarify the truth is to expose the CCP to the people and to stop the persecution, not to get any political power. This is an absolout truth.

Also, I would also like to tell you, that Master Li has said:

"But we are cultivators. Don’t get involved in politics and don’t let the events that occurred a little while ago disrupt you. Calm your minds, resume your normal practice and Fa-study, be diligent and cultivate solidly, and continually improve yourselves." (Essentials for Further Advancement II)

/Omido 10:49, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, Tomanda, if we were making a page about Fa-Rectification period Dafa disciples then what you're saying would be valid to discuss and include. However, we're making a page about Falun Dafa and we should thus only include the basics or fundamentals of the practice in the intro. Look at what I said above about considering the whole picture. Whether it's now or before, if you don't cultivate and apply Mr. Li's teachings in your life, then you're not a practitioner. The basis of being a practitioner is cultivation. Here's a quote from the 2003 Atlanta lecture:

I think when you study the Fa you should just study the Fa, and no one should interfere. That’s because if you don’t cultivate yourself well, you won’t have mighty virtue in anything you do. If you called an ordinary person over and gave him something or gave him some money and asked him to do Dafa work, would he do it? He would, but then that would be an ordinary person doing Dafa work, wouldn’t it? But what would be the point of that? What would be the ultimate goal of that? So Dafa disciples need to cultivate themselves well, and validate Dafa while establishing their mighty virtue. That is what Dafa disciples do, and you know how to do it and how you can do it well. [51]

Zhuan Falun is the basis of Falun Dafa. It's all about cultivating Zhen Shan Ren. And even today it is what practitioners study more than anything else. Here are a couple quotes regarding the importance of Zhuan Falun at this time.

If you want to see words in Zhuan Falun discussing the Fa-rectification things I’m telling you to do today, you’ll never see them. As a cultivating Dafa disciple, a Dafa disciple of the Fa-rectification period, when it comes to what you should do, you can comprehend that from Zhuan Falun and you can grasp it from the Fa’s truths. Not only can you comprehend things to that extent, regarding what to do specifically and how you can do well, as you continue to read the book more you’ll be able to even see the things of the next stage—it can still point those things out to you. And it doesn’t stop there: even at the final step it can point things out to you. No matter how high a level you cultivate to, everything is in there. What a Dafa disciple should do is all in there. But if you look for the words at the surface you won’t be able to uncover them. New York, 2003

New students should primarily study Zhuan Falun and read the other Dafa books as a supplement. When you have the time you can read writings from any period, including Essentials for Further Advancement. But don’t think that time is tight and yet you still have to read everything. That’s not the case. When new students are able to do what Dafa disciples should do, that is really outstanding. Reading Zhuan Falun is the most important. Read the others as a supplement. Read them when you have time, and when you don’t, just read Zhuan Falun. Western US, 2005

I stand by my point that intro should address cultivating Zhen Shan Ren, and the other things, such as Fa-Rectification or certain statments made by Mr. Li, can be mentioned later in the article.Mcconn 11:42, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

The Dafa is taught to save you. Dafa has created all beings in the cosmos

Even when I present your Master's words on the Dafa...which is judging mankind and weeding out corrupt people during this period of Fa-rectificaton...you call that my POV. It is clear to me that you are not capable of doing a serious job as an editor of this Wikipedia article. This is not something I and other editors can compromise on, because it is basic to an understanding of the Falun Gong. To say only that Falun Gong is about being a good person (cultivating you xinxing) would be like saying that Christianity is only about being a good person. Most branches of Christianity teach that Jesus saves. Li Hongzhi teaches that he and his Dafa save. Salvation is a theological concept that is different from ethics. To not report this in an overview of the Falun Gong would be a big lie.

Li saves, the Dafa saves, and all mankind is now being judged by the Dafa and the corrupt people are being weeded out. You know that is a correct summary of the teachings, yet you continual to point the finger at me (because of my supposed POV) rather than permitting your master's teachings..those ar the "higher levels"...to be given proper weight in this article. As one editor who cares about the integretity of this article, I want youi to know that while I am willing to negoiate how this thought is expressed in the introduction, I am not willing to let it be burried in an auxialiary article. It's that important to me...and it is that important to the Master. Just for once, here in this Wikipedia article, there will be truthful reporting on Falun Gong's teachings. --Tomananda 20:04, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

We have stated above again and again what we think. I clearly explained to you the relationship between "Individual Cultivation" and "Fa-Rectification Cultivation". Also, what do you mean with "corrupt" people. People that goes against the Fa-Rectification is the one's that will be weeded out, because they are against their own future. Listen Tomananda, nobody said anything about not including Fa-Rectification Cultivation in the article. Of course we shall tell people in a neutral way what Falun Gong is about. But, you should still understand that central to Falun Gong is and always will be Zhuan Falun, even Master has said this. He said with his own words, that everything is in Zhuan Falun and that the other lectures and speeches are just supplement. /Omido 22:37, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Why don't you ask Master Li what he means by "corrupt people" since those are his words, not mine. And if you want this article to be based only on the old lectures of Master Li in Zhuan Falun...which were written about 15 years ago...we'll have to cut out a great deal of material that practitioner/editors have added. Is that what you are proposing? Of course not, but at the same time you resist reporting the teachings about Dafa judging mankind (is that not true?) and the Fa-recification weeding out corrupt people (is that not true?) and your role as a Dafa disciple while we all experience the great cleansing coming from Master Li's Fa-rectification. I undertand Master Li's words perfectly well, thank you, and I am willing to post them here as many times as needed until there is an acknowledgment of their importance in this Falun Gong ariticle.

--Tomananda 23:42, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

where did you find "corrupt" ? Please give the reference. Fnhddzs 00:07, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I have several quotes with "corrupt" in them, but in retrieving them from my files I find that in at least one of Li's speeches a Chinese word that was orignally transclated to "corrupt" is now translated to "degenerate" instead. Here's the quote (part of a Q & A)

Teacher: People nowadays are indeed degenerate. Gods don’t look after them anymore. No religion is being looked after by gods, since gods see that humankind is too depraved and they no longer regard human beings as human. from: Falun Dafa Lecture at the First Conference in North America. (March 29-30, 1998) Frankly, I would prefer to use the word "degenerate" anyway, since that is the word which appears in this quote:

Once the saved ones have attained the Fa and left, the dregs of humanity and degenerate world that are left behind will be weeded out." (Essential II, item 28) So based on this new discovery, I will subsitute corrupt with the word degenerate. As a matter of transclation, it may be more accurate.--Tomananda 01:20, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Discussion of wording for paragraph one

Here's the rest of the paragraph as proposed above by Tomananda:

Falun Gong refers to five sets of meditation exercises (four standing, and one sitting meditation).) Falun Dafa refers to a set of religious dogma which teaches that Li's Dafa is currently judging mankind and that corrupt people will be weeded out in a process called "Fa-rectification." Falun Dafa also includes the idea that Li and his Dafa provide the only means for salvation during our current period of the "last havoc." --Tomananda 23:53, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

...totally ignoring the other 2, and the purpose of this particular section, which was to only have the consensed bits... CovenantD 23:57, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

I see, you're saying that this section will only have the agreed upond text. But no one has proposed any revisions to what I just posted above. which means we are not getting any where. I will repost those words above this article. --Tomananda 00:10, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

No I don't agree with the rest part proposed by Tomananda.

1. Falun Gong is Falun Dafa.

No they are not the same thing and you know it!
Gong means energy or practice, Dafa means great law. If they have the same meaning, would you accept these translations of Li's statement:

"The Gong is judging all beings" Instead of the correct "The Dafa is judging all beings" "The Gong is the Fa of the cosmos and the Gong has created all beings in the cosmos. If Gong and Dafa do mean the same thing, I'd be happy to go through the entire Wikipedia article and replace "Dafa" wherever it appears with "Gong."

  • I know Gong and Fa are lit. different. But Falun Gong/Falun Dafa is a mind/body double cultivation system. The name of Falun Gong was introduced to follow the qiqong term. When Gong and Fa use together with the word "Falun", that is, when we talk about Falun Gong and Falun Dafa, they are the same thing.

Here are the quotes from Master Li [52]:

Just now I was mainly talking about how our Falun Dafa is unfolding. "Falun Gong" is the term we used at the beginning when we taught the practice in Beijing. As I’ve said, qigong is a term that was coined by modern people. But qigong is actually a type of cultivation practice. What’s popularized among everyday people are just things of qigong’s lowest form, which can only barely change the human body and prepare it for doing cultivation practice. They’re only things of the beginning phase—and those are what’s been taught. Qigong is actually cultivation practice. Our practice is taught directly at high levels. It’s not necessary to talk about those qigong things anymore, because all these years of people popularizing qigong has laid a foundation for people to have an initial understanding of qigong. Right from the start we talk about cultivation at high levels. We should no longer call it "qigong."

Our "Falun Gong"… Of course, you can refer to it this way before people understand what it is. But I think it’s really Falun Cultivation Way, Falun Cultivation, or Falun Cultivation Great Way (Falun Xiulian Dafa). That’s one thing—what to call it. I just thought of another thing, namely, a lot of our students have been quietly doing good deeds. They’ve done a lot of good deeds in society, in other environments, and at their workplaces, and they’ve done that without letting people know their names or seeking any reward for it. There are many examples of this. I know—I’m clearly aware of it without you telling me. Not leaving our names is a good thing. But think about it everyone, in the time since our practice was brought to the public, a phenomenon has sprung up in which peoples’ hearts are turning towards what’s good and their moral standards are elevating. I think the influence of our Falun Dafa has been a part of this coming about. So I think that when some of you have done something good and others ask you, "Could you please tell me your name?" you don’t say anything and don’t leave your name or seek any rewards since what we want is merit and virtue; I think you shouldn’t say nothing. You can say, "I practice Falun Gong," or "I’m a Falun Dafa cultivator." This will help us to have a better influence in society and to spread our Dafa. Wouldn’t it be great if everyone came to seek out the righteous Fa? I think that’d be even better. This is because the impact we’ve had—there are already quite a few people around the country learning the practice—is already huge. People these days even think it’s strange when a person does some good deeds in society. Of course, there are still some people who think: "There are still ‘Lei Fengs’ in this day and age? This person is awesome!" We might as well tell them clearly.

You can see, Falun Gong and Falun Dafa refers to the same thing.

As to the translation you asked me if I accept. If you add "Falun", I would accept it. Sometimes, the "Dafa" is used alone in certain context or for audience of practitioners. It refers to "Falun Dafa". Fnhddzs 02:11, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

2. Not religious dogma. Dogma has negative meaning.

Here you might have a point. The word dogma is technically correct, but it also may have negative connotations. Can you suggest an alternative wording?
::* The existing word "teachings" are good. Fnhddzs 02:13, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

3. Falun Dafa never said it is the only means.

Li has said he is the only one offering salvation at this time. Not even the buddhist monks can offer salvation. I have provided citations above of these quotes and there are more. the Dafa is the judge for who gets saved, is it not? It is judging all human beings, right? If you want to suggest a slightly different wording for the Dafa here, please go ahead. But the Li reference must stand, even if we have to resort to a direct quote. (see below)

Our Falun Dafa is one of the Buddhist system’s 84,000 disciplines. It’s never been passed on to the general public before during this period of civilization, but it did once save people on a large scale in a prehistoric age.

So it is one of many. If you may argue that other cultivation ways may not teach higher level things, that is also wrong. Since there are other ways spread privately. Zhuan Falun: The Eighth Talk

There are some people who say, "But nowadays other practices cultivate among ordinary people, too, don’t they?" Sure, but those are just for the masses to get healthy and fit. The only ones who are teaching true cultivation that leads to high levels are the people who take just one disciple. Nobody’s spreading it publicly. The ones who are truly guiding disciples have taken their disciples off to teach them privately. Over all these years has anybody else taught something like this openly in public? Nobody has. We teach this discipline of ours this way because that’s how we cultivate, and that’s how we get gong. At the same time, our discipline places tens of thousands of things inside you, and they’re all given to your master soul, which makes it possible for the real you to get gong. I’d say that I’ve done something nobody has ever done before, and I’ve opened the gate the widest ever.

Fnhddzs 02:27, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

4. Fa-rectification is not a major teaching. Fnhddzs 00:11, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Really??? Has Li ever said anything like that? You are flat out wrong here, all his teachings focus on Fa-rectification. It is his main theme, but I don't particularly care about using adjectives like main or central. All that is needed is to mention the teaching up front.

Here is a perfect quote from the Master about Dafa saving people:

Why is it that a being needs to be saved by Dafa and me personally? Or, to put it plainly, [think about] what kind of a being is worthy of salvation by the Great Law of the cosmos? For a being who is saved, could it just be about personal Consummation? So what kind of being deserves to be a Disciple of Dafa? Would you say those people who hide in their homes and "study the Fa" do? Or those who only want to gain from Dafa but don't want to give for Dafa? Furthermore, what about those who, while Dafa disciples are being persecuted, don't want to speak up for Dafa and yet still "read the book" at home and try to get things from Dafa--what kind of people are they? You be the judge.

………

Cultivation is the process that enables a human being to ascend to heaven and become a god, so how could it not be hard? “My Version of a ‘Stick Wake-up’” (October 11, 2004)

http://faluncanada.net/library/english/jw/jw041011_e.html

  • I agree that Dafa is to save people. but the term "Fa-rectification" is not mentioned until after 200*(sorry I need to look up carefully about which year)? In the core [53] teaching book, Zhuan Falun [54] it even does not occur! Fnhddzs 02:34, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Revised wording

Here's revised wording, with "corrupt" changed to "degenerate" (to more accurately reflect the Chinese) and the addition of "those who resist the Fa" as a separate category:

Falun Gong refers to five sets of meditation exercises (four standing, and one sitting meditation).) Falun Dafa refers to a set of religious dogma which teaches that Li's Dafa is currently judging mankind and that degenerate people and those who resist the Fa will be weeded out in a process called "Fa-rectification." Falun Dafa also includes the idea that Li and his Dafa provide the only means for salvation during our current period of the "last havoc." --Tomananda 01:37, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
Oh. please. This is too straying away from the Falun Gong's central ideas.
  1. Falun Gong is Falun Dafa. Really....the Gong created the universe and is judging mankind? Give me a break!
  2. Not religious dogma. Dogma has negative meaning.
  3. Falun Dafa never said it is the only means.

Yes Li has...the quote is above.

  1. True, Good and Endure is the major teaching. I think Fa-rectification is not a major teaching since it is not even mentioned at all on the central book "Zhuan Falun".

Fnhddzs 01:52, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

And the Dafa and Fa-reciftication is not? I want you to say on this board that the Dafa and Fa-rectification are not part of Li's major teachings.
Do you refer Dafa to Falun Dafa? I don't understand your question. Yes, I think Fa-rectification is not the central teachings. I did not see this term until 200? ? Fnhddzs 05:51, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Here's a suggestion to solve the Gong and Dafa relationship text: Describe and cite that Li claims that they are the same, then describe and cite where them being the same makes no sense. If Li can't make up his mind we don't have to do so for him. --Yenchin 03:19, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
Li does not claim they are the same, the practitioners do as part of their on-going obfuscation of the higher teachings. Li uses the word Dafa as the higher teachings, the great law, the creator of all beings in the cosmos, and that which is now judging mankind during this period of Fa rectification. The word "Gong" could never be used in any of these ways.--Tomananda 04:05, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
Tomananda, please assume good faith on the part of the editors here. CovenantD 04:39, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Tomananda: I'm sorry I didn't make my idea clear. The quotes cited by Fnhddzs and you both exist, right? By laying out the facts as well as explanation of the characters "Gong" and "Fa" the contradiction is layed under the sun. Li's mutilation of the Chinese language is well known to native speakers, but not quite well known to non-speakers. ("Light years" fiasco, anyone?) --Yenchin 05:07, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
I'm ok with presenting both interpretations, but if you follow the logic some of these editors are using, you'll see there is an attempt to simply suppress some material from the introduction simply on the grounds that it came after the writing of Zhuan Falun. Before we can get to discussing how to present this material, there has to be some acknowledgment that it can be used.
That's how basic this dispute is, and it is very frustrating. I call it obfuscation, because that seems to me the right word. Sorry Covenant if that sounds like not assuming good faith.
Actually, I think the practitioners do have "good faith" but at the same time they are constrained by Master Li to not talk about the teachings "at the higher levels." Fire Star herself called that Master Li's gag rule. Dare I point out here that one of the ways one can distinguish between "a new religous movement" and a "cult" is that a cult typically has an internal reality which is not presented to the outside world. Against this claim, practitioners will say: "We are not hiding anything! It's all there on our website!" Well, yes it is on the website. But as soon as I introduce the material..and in this case we are talking about the most recent material Li has spoken...the response is: "We better not include anything in the introduction that isn't in Zhuan Falun." --Tomananda 06:22, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Ok I understand and agree the point. --Yenchin 06:48, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

  • Some idea could not be expressed by existing language. Light years was well explained. In my understanding, that is because we could not assume light speed is constant. Master also explained once when a question was raised on a cultivation experience sharing conference. Fnhddzs 05:54, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Anyway, I think the terminations of "Falun Gong" or "Falun Dafa" have referred to the same thing. In my understanding, Master Li seemed to prefer the "Falun Dafa" but due to historical reason, "Falun Gong" has been used to refer to the same cultivation system. Fnhddzs 05:57, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

The light years fiasco is more than obvious. Light speed not being constant is irrelevant and a laughable excuse. Not to mention that your "ancient" way of cultivation had hundreds, if not, thousands of years to devlop a proper term. Li's mutilation of Chinese currently hasn't been discussed in the FLG related wiki entries. When I have more time and no one has done it by then I'll make sure to put in a section myself. --Yenchin 06:48, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Addition to 1st sentence

Can I have a small suggestion. I would like add "to the public" after introduced, if you folks do not object to that. Since this is more accurate. Falun Gong is an ancient cultivation school. Fnhddzs 01:49, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Actually, Falun Gong was Li's "adaptation" of ancient Buddhist and Daoist teachings, mixed in with parts of Christianity and space-alien conspiracy stories. Rather than being "an acient cultivation school" Falun Gong is a adaptation which was not finalized until 1989, which makes it fairly recent. You can say that Falun Gong borrows from "the ancient cultivation school" but you can't say it is "an ancient cultivation school." Here a quote from Li's first authorized biography:

Beginning from 1984, Mr. Li devoted his whole body and mind to the adaptation work of Falun Buddha Law. The Law Wheels of the Buddha School, the Yin and Yang of the Tao School, and everything in the ten Directions, all find their reflections in Falun Buddha Law without exception. When Mr. Li set about creating Falun Buddha Law, all his masters came back. The superior space masters of the Buddha School, Tao School, Great Way School and some other schools all participated in the work. Every posture and movement of Falun Dafa were finally fixed after repeated deliberation, evolution, practice and identification under the guidance of his masters. Therefore, what Falun Dafa contains is more than what belongs to Mr. Li or a few cultivation schools. It has assembled all the mystical powers, which are the essence of the whole cosmos. Now, it has found its expression in Mr. Li alone. The design of Falun Dafa was basically finalized in 1989. --Tomananda 04:59, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

But according to Zhuan Falun: The First Talk Our Falun Dafa is one of the Buddhist system’s 84,000 disciplines. It’s never been passed on to the general public before during this period of civilization, but it did once save people on a large scale in a prehistoric age. Also according to my own memory, I remember the public spread of Falun Dafa was made possible by Master Li after he modified it to make it safe in the sense that how much you cultivate, how much you get. The old version was too risky if one could not complete the cultivation. Fnhddzs 05:29, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Here's the complete quote form Zhuan Falun:

Our Falun Dafa is one of 84,000 cultivation ways in the Buddha’s School, which has never been made public during the historical period of this human civilization. However, it was once widely used to provide salvation to mankind during a prehistoric period. I am making it public again in this final period of the Last Havoc. Therefore, it is extremely precious.

I agree with you that here Li is claiming his Falun Dafa is ancient. But as the biograhy I quoted stated, he adapted his Falun Dafa using the ancient material. So if we are really going to strike a NPOV stance, we could report both interpretations and let the reader decide. But frankly I don't really object to adding the word "public" to the sentence as long as there is not any additional claims made as to its alleged "ancient" status. --Tomananda 06:06, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Alternative Wording

Falun Dafa, which is thought to have “created all beings in the cosmos” [1] is now judging mankind and weeding out the degenerate world and people who resist the Fa. [2] [3] Claiming that he is the only one who can save people at this time, [4] Li promises to turn his disciples into gods if they follow the moral requirements of his Dafa and expose what he considers to be the evil regime in China. [5] ,[6] --Tomananda 04:43, 19 June 2006 (UTC)


Discussion

Disagree. Please, since Zhuan Falun is the central book. We'd better not consider things not mentioned by that book as the introduction. Fnhddzs 05:21, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

We cannot be limited to a book written 15 years ago as the only source for the introduction. This is an encylopedia article, not a religious tract. If need be I will finally ask for outside mediation if we cannot reach agreement on this. I have provided many quotes and suggested different versions with different emphasis. You cannot reject all of these out of hand simply because they come from primary sources that are more recent than Zhuan Falun. That makes absolutely no editing sense. --Tomananda 05:56, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
I understand. But we have to use Zhuan Falun. According to [55]

Master Li said

The truth is, no matter how many more scriptures we publish, they are merely supplementary materials to Zhuan Falun. Only Zhuan Falun can truly guide your cultivation. It contains inner meanings that go from the level of ordinary people to incomparable heights. As long as you continue to cultivate, Zhuan Falun will always guide your elevation in cultivation.

We could not use a term occuring almost 10 years after the main book in the introduction. Fnhddzs 06:05, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for making this post because it states very eloquently what I have previously stated. You say: "But we have to use Zhuan Falun" and you say that because you believe that is what Master Li requires. But guess what? I and other editors who are working this article are not part of the "we" you refer to. Our "we" is a community of Wikipedia editors who are not bound by Master Li's rules. Much earlier in these endless posts I stated that if Falun Gong practitioners are unable, for whatever reason, to write edits about the higher level teachings, than fine, other editors will do it. But please, can't you step aside and let us do it without putting up endless arguments that do not in any way relate to Wikipedia standards? The material I am spending endless hours trying to get into the introduction is:

  • Well sourced
  • Verifiable
  • Notable
  • and I might add essential for an understanding of Falun Gong.

Li has said many times that he and his Dafa are the only way for salvation at this time of Fa-rectification. I have provided multiple quotes to support that. And practiotioners have even agreed above that, yes, the Dafa does save. But then we get an argument that even though all this is true, we can't put it in the introduction. Why? You say because it isn't in Zhuan Falun. This is nonsense. If we cannot come to some closure on this I will seek mediation. --Tomananda 06:34, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Tomananda, do you know why I don't want to add your things in the introduction? Because it is too missleading and it makes Falun Gong look bad. If one wants to understand Fa-Rectification Cultivation one needs to read more. It is not that simple as "Dafa is judging all sentient beings and corrupt people are weeded out". It is not that I want to hide Fa-Rectification Cultivation, so please don't come with your accusations. I suggest we make two different sections, one about Individual Cultivation and one about Fa-Rectification Cultivation. I have no problem's presenting everything Master Li has spoken about as long as it is presented in a neutral way, and not in a negative way (which you are trying to do). And I will never agree too anything if I think it shows Falun Gong in a negative meaning, that is why I won't let you put in your own negative POV. Everything HAS to be presented in a neutral way. That is the only way. It has to be presented in the way Master Li has spoken of it, exactly the way Master has spoken of it. Do you think you can represent 2200 words of Master's speeches with one sentence? Not a chance.I will never let you put in your own negative interpetation. Everything WILL stay neutral. /Omido 10:13, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

We will not include misleading information. But neither will we exclude information because it may make Falun Gong look bad. We are responsible for presenting true and factual information. The reader is responsible for how they perceive it.
That said, Tomananda's suggested opening does look to skip over a lot of the intermediate steps and get right to the end result which Li seems to claim. That would be like skipping the Gospels and using the book of Revelations as the central teaching of Christianity. It has a place, but in perspective. I think a better balance can be acheived without losing important points. What are the teachings and instructions for use in this world? Obviously the excercises. Denouncing the Chinese regime seems to be one. What are others? We may end up with a longer paragraph, but that's appropriate for something trying to summarize the highlights of Falun Gong. CovenantD 14:54, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Of course we will not exclude anything that is a part of Falun Gong, but we won't twist anything to make it look bad. I suggest we make two sections, one is "Individual Cultivation", which is about how practitioners cultivated before the persecution began. And one is "Fa-Rectification Cultivation", which is about how practitioners answers the persecution and how they work against it, by clarifying the truth to people to stop the persecution etc. Tomananda just wants to jump to the later one, and he is also showing it in a bad way: "religious dogma". That is his own POV. Yes, practitioners believe in the Fa-Rectification which is too advanced for one to be able to describe it in one sentence. Master has spoken with 2200 words about Fa-Rectification, and Tomananda thinks he can make it into one sentence and put it in the introduction just like that. And when someone does not agree with him he says: "You practitioners are trying to hide the teachings and not speak on a too "highlevel"". Is this the right way of handling things? Why attack others instead of reasoning? /Omido 15:38, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

For the introduction, it is a POV that you think the Falun Gong in one sentence is about Fa-rectification. In my view, if there was no persecution, this word may never have occurred. As i quoted, whether you admit or not, Master Li said Zhuan Falun is the only main book. Fnhddzs 16:26, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

That sounds like one of the major tenets, then, and should be included where Zhuan Falun mentioned at the end of the second paragraph of Teachings. We'll probably end up with about four sentences in the 1st paragraph of the intro. And as I've said elsewhere, I think that 'dogma' has negative connotations and we should avoid using it in the intro as POV. (Dogma was a great movie though.) CovenantD 17:13, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
Omido, it most certainly is possible to summarize the teachings of Falun Gong in a few sentences and I will insist that we do so accurately, honestly and without POV. There's a very complex set of religious teachings called "Christianity" and many branches of that religion. I invite you to check out the Wikipedia article on Christianity and you will see that the introduction offers an over-view in which the belief in Jesus as Christ, and the church's role in offering salvation to mankind is all mentioned. Please understand that I am not suggesting that "Falun Gong" is a religion in the way that Christianity is. But the teachings of both involve a belief in a kind of cosmological/spiritual judgment (for Li it is the Dafa that judges and the process is called Fa-rectification) and salvation.
As I said before, the need to report this up front in the introduction is in my opinion essential for the Wikipedia article. I have suggested all kinds of different ways to summarize the teachings and instead of getting detailed suggestions about alternative wording, all that is posted are blanket rejections. To say that we can't report the basic soteriological (that is concerning salvation) aspects of Falun Dafa in Wikipedia because it will make Falun Gong "look bad" is absurd. Does it make Catholicism "look bad" in Wikipedia because it reports that Jesus is thought of as Christ and savior? And if your answer is yes, then I still say we must report it regardless. Covenant: I understand there is a deadline approaching. Can you take one of the versions I suggested above...and I don't mind deleting the "dogma" reference...and post it for further discussion.
If the practitioner/editors do not agree to some reasonable inclusion of this material in the introduction, I will seek a mediator. It is unreasonable to insist that Falun Gong can be summarized in an encylopedia article without mentioning that the Dafa and Li offer salvation to all sentient beings. According to Li, the Dafa is judging all beings based on their moral behavior, with the result that "the dregs of humanity and the degenerate world" will be "weeded out." If you don't like that long Li quote, then we could simply say "with the result that people who do not behave in accordance with Dafa's stated principles of the universe" will be weeded out" --Tomananda 20:01, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
if following your logic, Tomananda. Seems all people have to practice Falun Gong (behave in accordance with Dafa's stated principles of the universe). But there is NOT such requirement. I said there is a distinction between practicing Falun Gong yourself and not minding other practicing Falun Gong. I think you don't need to worry so much about weeding out. Dafa is to save people whoever s/he is. About the weeding out, if we read carefully, Master Li said that according to the history such as greek history that may happen if Dafa is NOT spread currently. I mean, he just pointed out Dafa's spreading prevent many bad things happen. Just like if somebody told you please run away there is a tiger coming. But the tiger is not his idea. Fnhddzs 20:37, 19 June 2006 (UTC) So according to my understanding, if you don't object to the Fa spreading (don't mind others practicing), you don't need to worry much. Fnhddzs 20:43, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

No, all people will not have to practice Falun Gong, but all people (according to Li) will have to behave in such a way as to avoid elimination in Li's Fa-reciftication. Your reponse is circular and off-point. I have never claimed that according to Li all people have to practice Falun Gong. However, all people have to behave "morally" (as defined by Li, which includes not helping the evil, wicked Communist party) in order to avoid being eliminated in the Fa-rectification. Why do you throw out these spurious arguments. Once again I will summarize the basic teaching:

  • Dafa and Li are the only source of salation for all sentient beings during this period of Fa-rectrification.
  • The word "Dafa" in the above sentence means the Great Law which created all beings in the cosmos and is now judging all beings according to certain criteria.
  • As a result of this judgment, certain people will be eliminated. Those people include "the dregs of humanity and the degenerate world" as well as people who openly resist or criticize Li's Dafa.

Please note that the above summary does not claim that one has to be a Falun Gong practitioner to avoid being eliminated in the Fa-rectification. I have never made that claim, so please stop throwing it up and then arguing against it.

Please also note that in your post above you actually validate part of what I have been saying all along...which is that "Dafa is to save people" and that the Dafa's "spreading" will prevent many bad things from happening.

It's clear that this material must be covered in the introduction and we will continue until we reach agreement on that. Thanks for your thoughts. --Tomananda 20:55, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

if you don't believe me, I have to say we have different views. Anyway, Please do not use Master Li's quotes to support you POV. if you stricly and honestly respect Master Li's quotes, Zhuan Falun is the only main book. Fa-rectification was not even mentioned in Zhuan Falun. Fnhddzs 21:01, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

It was mentioned at least as early as Jan 2, 1995, though. I saw a reference to it when formatting references earlier today. CovenantD 22:04, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Tomananda, something like explaining the "Fa-Rectification Cultivation" can not be explained in a couple of sentences. Of course we can mention it briefly like for example: ""Fa-Rectification Cultivation" appeared after the persecution began and are part of putting a stop to the persecution". But if you want to explain what the Fa-Rectification and Fa-Rectification Cultivation is, then you absoloutly can not do it in a couple of sentences like that. /Omido 17:17, 20 June 2006 (UTC)


Kent888's suggestion

Falun Gong 法輪功 (literally "Practice of the Wheel of Law") is also known as Falun Dafa 法輪大法(literally "Great Law of the Wheel of Law") is a system of mind and body cultivation introduced by Li Hongzhi (surname is Li) in 1992. Falun Gong refers to five sets of meditation exercises (four standing, and one sitting meditation).) Falun Dafa refers to a set of religious teachings that emphasize on moral improvement and salvation. Falun Dafa is introduced by Li this way: “Our Falun Dafa is one of the eighty-four thousand cultivation ways in the Buddha School. During the historical period of this human civilization, it has never been made public. In a prehistoric period, however, it was once widely used to provide salvation to humankind. In this final period of Last Havoc, (the end time) I am making it public again. Therefore, it is extremely precious." [56]

  • English speakers are not going to care about the difference between traditional and simplify Chinese, so I simplified the first sentence. I’ve read the discussion and some of Li’s teachings; he does talk about salvation, Fa-rectification a lot therefore some mention of salvation is definitely needed. I also agree with Fnhddzs that since Zhuan Falun is the group’s main text if we are going to quote Li, it should come from this book. --Kent8888 21:55, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Disagree.

  1. Falun Gong is Falun Dafa.
  2. Not religious teachings.
  3. quotes are not needed in introduction.
  4. Last Havoc is NOT the end time. Fnhddzs 22:19, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
  5. typo again. delete is.
  6. Falun Dafa is NOT introduced that way. It was introduced as a Qigong. Fnhddzs 22:21, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Ok you agree to the first sentence. I check Zhuan Falun, Last Havoc is introduced as something like the end time. I don't have the time, maybe you can look it up for me. A quote from Li is absolutely needed here, who knows the Dafa better than its master? --Kent8888 22:31, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

I can support a slightly modified version of Kent's edit:

Falun Gong 法輪功 (literally "Practice of the Wheel of Law") is also known as Falun Dafa 法輪大法(literally "Great Law of the Wheel of Law") is a system of mind and body cultivation introduced by Li Hongzhi (surname is Li) in 1992. Falun Gong refers to five sets of meditation exercises (four standing, and one sitting meditation).) Falun Dafa refers to a set of religious teachings that emphasize moral improvement and salvation for all mankind. In recent writings Li talks about all beings in the cosmos being judged by his Dafa based on their moral behavior. In Zhuan Falun, the Dafa is introduced this way: “Our Falun Dafa is one of the eighty-four thousand cultivation ways in the Buddha School. During the historical period of this human civilization, it has never been made public. In a prehistoric period, however, it was once widely used to provide salvation to humankind. In this final period of Last Havoc, (the end time) I am making it public again. Therefore, it is extremely precious." [57]

Are we going to vote on this now?

I vote yes for this version. --Tomananda 00:16, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

support --Samuel Luo 00:18, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Guys, we have already passed the deadline for an hour, please voice your opinion. I will pick the version that has no objection in an hour from now. --Kent8888 00:30, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Oppose I can't agree to this one. It was introduced after the deadline. Others won't have had time to see it, nor would they be expecting it. It still contains the "religious" that Fnhddzs objected to, as well as the quotes. It just doesn't strike me as fair. CovenantD 01:12, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

I support this version. And agree to extend the deadline. --Yenchin 01:44, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

24 hours? CovenantD 01:46, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Reject Reason as before. I would give another 72 hours since many editors assume it is done. It is unfair that strecthing the deadline to a just little more time. Please try to avoid playing the rushing vote game again. Fnhddzs 01:48, 20 June 2006 (UTC) I think the saying of Last Havoc is a term already existing in cultivation communities before Falun Gong was made public. Many people including you and me got to know this word by Falun Gong. But this word is not created by Falun Gong. I believe some cultivators in other schools learned about it before. Just like many fortelling people's prophecy about 1999 disaster. In my view, Falun Gong's role or intention is actually to prevent these bad things from happening. The quotes are not the central idea of Falun Gong. Just like I told you a wolf is coming. But I am to help you to avoid it. I did not raise the wolf. Fnhddzs 02:09, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Fnhddzs: So now a quote from your master in the book you wanted us to use, Zhuan Falun, is not ok because you object to the words period of the last havoc? Those words appear in the authorized bible of Falun Gong and you still object to them? You can't be serious. --Tomananda 04:27, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
You know, I did not see that in () on that quotes. Fnhddzs 05:22, 20 June 2006 (UTC) Also I have other reasons of rejection. Please see my comments in detail Fnhddzs 05:22, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Reject Omido 06:46, 20 June 2006 (UTC) Reject Mcconn 14:44, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Kent8888's second suggestion

Ok I just took out “religious.” Fnhddzs, you are the only one who has been objecting to most of the new changes. I have to ask you to provide a justification for excluding your master’s quote. Here is my second suggestion:

Falun Gong 法輪功 (literally "Practice of the Wheel of Law") is also known as Falun Dafa 法輪大法(literally "Great Law of the Wheel of Law") a system of mind and body cultivation introduced by Li Hongzhi (surname is Li) in 1992. Falun Gong refers to five sets of meditation exercises (four standing, and one sitting meditation).) Falun Dafa is introduced by Li this way: “Our Falun Dafa is one of the eighty-four thousand cultivation ways in the Buddha School. During the historical period of this human civilization, it has never been made public. In a prehistoric period, however, it was once widely used to provide salvation to humankind. Falun Gong 法輪功 (literally "Practice of the Wheel of Law") is also known as Falun Dafa 法輪大法(literally "Great Law of the Wheel of Law") is a system of mind and body cultivation introduced by Li Hongzhi (surname is Li) in 1992. Falun Gong refers to five sets of meditation exercises (four standing, and one sitting meditation).) Falun Dafa refers to a set of religious teachings that emphasize on moral improvement and salvation. Falun Dafa is introduced by Li this way: “Our Falun Dafa is one of the eighty-four thousand cultivation ways in the Buddha School. During the historical period of this human civilization, it has never been made public. In a prehistoric period, however, it was once widely used to provide salvation to humankind. In this final period of Last Havoc, (the end time) I am making it public again. Therefore, it is extremely precious." [58] . Therefore, it is extremely precious." [59]

Support--Kent8888 02:18, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Friend, you have not corrected the typo yet. Fnhddzs 03:44, 20 June 2006 (UTC) You know I have always regarded Falun Gong as Falun Dafa. Fnhddzs 03:45, 20 June 2006 (UTC) The End time is a word with confusing meaning. The meaning in cultivation communities are not thought as outsiders. Fnhddzs 03:46, 20 June 2006 (UTC) I am not the only one who will disagree this version. Fnhddzs 03:47, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

All we need is to convince Fnhddzs, let's set the deadline at tomorrow this time. Agree?--Kent8888 03:45, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Tommorrow is too rush. We need time for each editor to take a look. Fnhddzs 03:48, 20 June 2006 (UTC) We need at least another 72 hours. Fnhddzs 03:54, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Ok 72 hours from now. We can all have our own definition of DAfa, but keep this in mind, we are only interested in what Li says. --Kent8888 04:02, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Master Li did not say Falun Gong refers to a different thing from Falun Dafa. Fnhddzs 04:14, 20 June 2006 (UTC) Master Li did not say the end of time. Fnhddzs 04:15, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Master Li did say that "the Dafa is judging all beings". Can the Gong also judge all beings?

He also said "In this final period of the Last Havoc I am making it (the Dafa) public again." Fnhddzs, you are engaging in apologetics here. In the end, this Wikipedia article will report the truth, no matter how many times you try to obscure that truth. --Tomananda 05:26, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Here comes the Tomananda personal attacks again. Omido 06:48, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Assume good faith, Tomananda. I know it's not your first impulse, but look at it this way - If practitioners believe in this so much that it makes them blind to certain things, that is not working in bad faith.CovenantD 18:29, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Tomananda, as I said, if you really and honestly honor Master Li's quotes,

  1. Falun Gong refers to Falun Dafa and
  2. you don't need to put a bracket to add your POV on the the cultivation community term "Last Havoc".
  3. Falun Dafa was introduced as a Qigong.
  4. report the truth by putting all quotes on the article, instead of picking one or two without context, especially putting in the introduction to be used to summarize Falun Gong. Fnhddzs 13:19, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Falun Gong and Falun Dafa are the same thing. What motive would we practitioners possible have to lie about this? You're right that Mr.Li doesn't say that the "gong" is judging all beings, but he doesn't say that "Falun Dafa" is judging all beings either. But we're not just talking about the terms "Dafa" and "Gong", were talking about "Falun Dafa" and "Falun Gong". Despite that they literally refer to different things, in use they mean the same thing. Fnhddzs already gave you the reason why both terms exist. These aren't the only terms in the world that are different but refer to the same thing. I don't know why this is so hard to accept. This argument is really silly to me. Mcconn 14:56, 20 June 2006 (UTC)


Introductory Paragraph, Take Two

Omido, let's focus on the task at hand, which is the introductory edit for the main article and not get distracted by creating new edits on other pages. If we are to assume good faith, we must take seriously the proposals of editors in the introductory section. There have been multiple versions of edits proposed by three different editors above, with many variations, but all have been dismissed out of hand. In order to make progress, here's the most recent version which I posted, combining elements of the Kent888 version and the Samuel version, while also relying on a primary quote from Zhuan Falun, even though it was written 15 years ago. So let's now take this paragraph as a starting point without posting any more blanket dismissals such as "this puts Falun Gong in a negative light." You may feel that reporting the Master's teachings on salvation and the Dafa judging people during this period of Fa-rectification "makes Falun Gong look bad" (a practitioner actually said that above), but that feeling is a personal feeling which can't be used as a justification for suppressing this material on the main page. So here is the proposed praragraph:

Falun Gong 法輪功 (literally "Practice of the Wheel of Law") is also known as Falun Dafa 法輪大法(literally "Great Law of the Wheel of Law") is a system of mind and body cultivation introduced by Li Hongzhi (surname is Li) in 1992. Falun Gong refers to five sets of meditation exercises (four standing, and one sitting meditation).) Falun Dafa refers to a set of religious teachings that emphasize moral improvement and salvation for all mankind. In recent writings Li talks about all beings in the cosmos being judged by his Dafa based on their moral behavior. In Zhuan Falun, the Dafa is introduced this way: “Our Falun Dafa is one of the eighty-four thousand cultivation ways in the Buddha School. During the historical period of this human civilization, it has never been made public. In a prehistoric period, however, it was once widely used to provide salvation to humankind. In this final period of Last Havoc, (the end time) I am making it public again. Therefore, it is extremely precious." [60]

I believe the above is an accurate summary of the key soteriological teachings of Falun Gong which are of equal importance as the moral teachings. When readers come to Wikipedia they must be given a clear statement about the ideas of salvation and judgment in Falun Gong and whether those ideas are considered "negative" or "positive" will be up to the reader to decide. Don't you agree? --Tomananda 18:46, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Support I have nothing to object to in this version, it is better than Kent8888's suggestion. --Samuel Luo 22:14, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Tomananda, the introduction is partally true but it has some flaws. We also have our own introduction that we will post tomorrow, and then we can talk about how to improve things. Now, about the one you have done, this is what I think should be changed:

1. The word religious should be changed, this is POV.

I am ok with deleting the qualifier "religious" before teachings. We could just leave the word

"teachings" or qualify by saying "ethical and soteriological teachings" Please note that for the adjective "soteriological" one can provide an internal link to another Wikipedia article.

2. Moral improvement is a very very shallow way of putting it. Xinxing cultivation is not moral improvement. Xinxing and moral are not the same thing and are totally different.

The introduction should be short and concise, however. The detail should appear in the Teachings article.

3. If we are going to speak about salvation, we should also mention that the Buddha-School has always spoken about: "Salvation for oneself and others, Salvation for all sentient beings" and that the reason Falun Gong speaks about salvation is because it is a part of the Buddha Cultivation School.

The Buddha school may say that, but Li doesn't. Li has repeatedly said that only the Dafa is providing a means for salvation for all sentient beings at this time. If you start explaining terms that appear "in the Buddha school" but do not directly reflect Li's teachings on the Dafa, you will be obscuring the essence of Li's teachings. Please don't do that.

4.About "Li talks about all beings in the cosmos being judged by his Dafa based on their moral behavior". This is according to my understanding not correct. Master Li has said that both Good and Bad beings will be saved during the Fa-Rectification. Then who will not be saved? People that persecutes Dafa, ruins the Fa-Rectification and have negative thoughts against the Fa-Rectification will be eliminated. Why? Because the future will be made up by the Fa-Rectification and when one does not accept the Fa-Rectification, one does not accept their own Future. When one persecutes Dafa, they persecute the principle's behind their own existence, because Zhen Shan Ren is the foundation of all lives.

These two thoughts are not mutually exclusive and are really not that complicated. The first thought has been directly summarized by Li: "The Dafa is judging all beings" A bit more exposition is needed, as I have suggested above. The second thought is salvation, and there are some short and clear Li quotes for that as well. Actually, most of the language to report these ideas already exists in the Criticism section under the title: "Fa-rectification: Li's version of an apocaplypse?" Why not borrow some of that language, since it has already been agreed to by all the editors, rather than trying to develop something from scratch?

5. People will not understand "The Last Havoc". Here is the explanation in Zhuan Falun: "Last Havoc—The community of cultivators holds that the universe has three phases of evolution (The Beginning Havoc, The Middle Havoc, The Last Havoc), and that now is the The Last Havoc’s final period."

The term "Last Havoc" is undersood by millions of people who have some familiarity with comparative religion. It is not really such a difficult term. But as with any technical it can be given a very brief definition in the artilcle itself, together with a link to more detailed information in another article. I other words, keep it simple and comprehensible. --Tomananda 21:04, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

/Omido 19:13, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

  1. Yes, I agree.
  2. Omido, you need to come up with a different way of phrasing it. If moral improvement doesn't work, find something a layperson will understand that does.
  3. Omido, what wording do you suggest?
  4. Again, what wording do you suggest?

- CovenantD 19:38, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Alright, these are my suggestions. We should have: Xinxing improvement (mind/heart-nature improvement, please see Xinxing section) and according to the Buddha School: Offer salvation to all sentient beings.

Master Li has stated that: Before he came to this world to spread the Dharma, he had to choose if he would spread it under the Dao-School or Buddha-School. He choose the Buddha-School because the Buddha School speaks about salvation for all sentient beings, but the Dao-School does not. So people have to understand that Falun Dafa speaks about salvation because it is part of the Buddha-School.

About the "Li talks about all beings in the cosmos being judged by his Dafa based on their moral behavior" thing, well Im not quite sure. Alot of things need to be introduced, because it is not so easy as Tomananda put it. We have to go over this thing alot of times.

Instead of "Last Havoc"?, Well I am not really sure. I don't think this section should be used because of the term "Last Havoc", because people does not know what the "Last Havoc" is. Master has used alot of different way's of introducing Falun Gong, we should be able to find a different quote that is pretty much the same.

Still, Me, Mconn and Fhnz have made our own introduction too that we will introduce. And other editors can give their opinions and suggestions for improvement's too. After that we can hopefully reach a conclusion. /Omido 19:52, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

There is no xinxing section, nor is it a word that is widely used, and thus it shouldn't be in the lead section. Most people won't understand what the Buddha School has to do with it either - you need to be more clear. CovenantD 21:18, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

With all due respect, people do know what Buddha School is if they know something about Buddhism, because Buddhism is also part of the Buddha School. The Buddhs School concept should be used in the introduction if the salvation concept is used. That is my suggestion. /Omido 21:23, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

The Buddha Schol

We're not writing this for the general reader, not those who "know something about Buddhism." Based on that alone, you need different wording or more info. CovenantD 21:33, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
I'm sorry Omido, but it will not work to make the subject of the edit "the Buddha School" Please read the entire section in Criticism on the differences between Falun Dafa and traditioal Buddhism. Here's just one paragraph from that section:
Although Falun Gong is part of the Buddha School, Li states in Zhuan Falun that “it has nothing to do with the original Buddhism or Buddhism in the Dharma-ending period.” [11] Here Penny points out that Li “is drawing a distinction between fojia and fojiao—that is, between, literally, a school of the Buddha (whatever that might mean) and a religion or teaching of the Buddha.” But in Zhuan Falun Li also states that “The Dharma that Sakyamuni professed two thousand years ago was only for everyday people at a very low level; it was taught to those who had just evolved from a primitive society and still possessed very simple minds.” Thus traditional Buddhism is considered inferior to the Dafa. Li goes on to state: “Even monks in temples cannot save themselves in the Dharma-ending period, let alone offer salvation to others.”
There is no compromise on this. We must report the soteriological concepts of Master Li and his Dafa. If we don't, whatever is written will be beside the point and, in fact, inaccurate. Again, it is Maser Li and his Dafa that is offering salvation to mankind during this period of Fa-rectification. It is not the "Buddha school" which is offering salvation, but rather just one of the 84,000 practices that are loosley associated with the Buddha school...and that is Li's Dafa.

--Tomananda 00:34, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Tomananda, I did not say that Falun Dafa has anything to do with Buddhism, because it doesn't. But Falun Dafa and Buddhism are both part of the Buddha-School, and the Buddha-School speaks about salvation for all sentient beings. Master Li has said that the reason for him spreading Falun Gong under the Buddha School and not under the Dao-School is because the Buddha School offers salvation for all sentient beings, but the Dao School does not.

Also, inferior to what?. You can not use a ordinary mindset when judging these things. There is no good and bad, there is only different manifestations on different levels. For example: Falun Dafa would not be so effective if it were spread two thousand years ago, because Falun Dafa uses modern science to speak about Buddha-Fa. And Buddhism from two thousand years ago can't be so effective today. It is because people have different thinking at different time periods. Also, why did I say you are judging things with a ordinary mindset? Because: ".....primitive society and still possessed very simple minds.” This is not a bad thing, why? Because the more simple the minds are the easier it is to understand the Buddha-Fa, and the more complicated the mind is (like today) the more hard it is to understand Buddha-Fa.

If we speak about salvation, we have to include something about the Buddha-School. After all, Falun Dafa is a part of the Buddha-School. /Omido 14:14, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Covenant's suggestion for the second sentence

Although often used interchangably, literally Falun Gong refers to five sets of meditation exercises (four standing and one sitting), while Falun Dafa refers to a set of teachings found primarily in the books Falun Gong and Zhuan Falun that emphasize moral behaviour and salvation for mankind.

This acknowledges the interchangable use of the terms while still noting that there is a literal difference. It refers obliquely to the root of the teachings, the books, without trying to define in the intro what the core teachings are beyond morality and salvation. CovenantD 18:42, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Reject We must quote Li in the intro since we have different interpretation of his teachings. --Samuel Luo 22:16, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Oh, that's just the second sentence. I haven't gotten to the third yet. CovenantD 22:32, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

What is agreed so far

Falun Gong (Traditional Chinese: 法輪功; Simplified Chinese: 法轮功; Pinyin: Fǎlún Gōng; Gwoyeu Romatzyh: Faaluen Gong; literally "Practice of the Wheel of Law"), also known as Falun Dafa (Traditional Chinese: 法輪大法; Simplified Chinese: 法轮大法; Pinyin: Fǎlún dàfǎ; lit. "Great Law of the Wheel of Law") is a system of mind and body cultivation introduced to the public by Li Hongzhi in 1992.

All 3 four proposed versions include this as the first line. CovenantD 20:42, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

No there is a typo. please delete the first "is" and add a comma. Fnhddzs 00:03, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
Ooops. Thank you. Done. CovenantD 00:58, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
What is "Gwoyeu Romatzyh"? Why is it here? Is it the same as Tongyong Pinyin or something else? I seem to remember that it is a defunct romanisation used in Taiwan. If this is correct, then shouldn't be replaced by Tongyong Pinyin, or removed entirely? Would W-G actually be more useful here? --Sumple (Talk) 06:10, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Added "to the public" per discussion above. CovenantD 01:15, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

About second paragraph in Intro.

You could only edit when others agree with you too. My edits of "deeming it to be illegal" are the words from the reference. I think it works best. I already gave reasons on not putting "western". Why you insist on instilling something unnecessary? Fnhddzs 21:46, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

I want to draw attention to this one. Fnhddzs has asked about changing some wording in the 2nd paragraph since he didn't get a chance to see that last proposal before it went up. We owe him the courtesy of an answer. CovenantD 22:27, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
Hi, folks. I request to revise the second paragraph. Please discuss. Thanks. Fnhddzs 00:23, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

I see no point in changing it. --Yenchin 00:32, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. If anything, you should remove "personal jealousy". There are absolutely no references to it anywhere it's POV. Cj cawley 01:29, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Directly from the source material: "Jiang ordered the persecution out of personal jealousy, and a sense that he could not totally control the people's hearts and minds." That's pretty clear and it's in the source. CovenantD 01:37, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
Show me one statement from the CCP that say that.

Cj cawley 07:48, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Check the damn reference for yourself. It's right in the article. CovenantD 13:13, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Two things: 1) I did 2) Some enlightened people who consider demon seed a compliment. I revert my edits. Cj cawley 17:02, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Your reading skills need some improvement then; you're missing the qualifier at the beginning of the sentence, "The Falun Gong claims," which is what the source proves.
This just proves to me once and for all that you're conduct, your very presence here, is counterproductive. I will no longer dignify your comments or your edits with a response other that to revert inappropriate content. CovenantD 17:44, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

We should also talk about the 3rd paragraph; it went up before I had a chance to discuss adding the wrod "however." When a secondary source publishes something that contradicts the original source's claim "however" is needed. --Samuel Luo 18:59, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

CovenantD There is an old saying: "English is the language of liars & thieves." . A "claim" without proof is invalid & misleading like a bad salesman. Cj cawley 23:57, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Please shorten the Critism Section Summary

Critism Summary is Too Long. The critism section has already listed all the subsection as an existing favor already given to this section ONLY. However, it is still expanding. The super long summary is not reasonable. Fnhddzs 00:49, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

No, the Criticism section is not too long. And what's this about a "favor"? Just to remind you, Covenant did ask all of us to begin re-writing all of our summaries so that they wouldn't just be a repeat of the lead paragraph that appears in the auxiailiary article. That's what I have begun to do. --Tomananda 01:40, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
This is the ONLY section which keeps subsection on the main page. It is a favor. Thanks for reminder. I did not know that. But the daughter article does not have that same content anyway. So I moved to that main article. Nothing deleted yet. Fnhddzs 01:45, 19 June 2006 (UTC)'
Covenant's request was for all of us to make the main page read more like the Scientology page, and that's what I am trying to do. The Scientology page does have subsections for Criticism, but the goal is to get all the summaries to read more smoothly. Therefore, I was planning on re-arranging some of the criticism sections, re-writing the summaries and, where possible, consolidate. Tha main article will be a bit longer, but should read better when we are done. The "pro-Falun Gong" sections need to be re-written in the same light. I don't want to be the only editor who is going down this path. --Tomananda 02:23, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Each section here should be a summary of what's found in the daughter article, if there is one. In some cases, like the Teachings, I expect that will lead to the creation of some subsections. In Criticism, I hope to see some consolidation. Eventually I want to see some of them moved around a bit, too. But that's way down the road at the pace we're going. CovenantD 02:29, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

All right. I understand. Feel free to move around. Maybe we will add subsections in teachings or other subsections. Fnhddzs 03:16, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

The criticm page is too long, and it shows too much. That has too change, because it's like you are forcing people to read the criticism. That is not acceptable, just as we are not forcing people to read other things. People should choose what they want to read. /Omido 10:27, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry, Omido, but that's got to be one of the silliest reasons I've seen. If the Criticism section and article are more comprehensive, it's because Tomananda has focused his attention on them. (I am still waiting to see the consolidation of subsections and removal of duplicitive links, but I have faith that it will happen soon.) There has not been that kind of attention from the practioners for the other sections despite my repeated comments that they need new summaries. Perhaps you could work on them. As Fnhddzs has realized, this would bring more balance to the article. CovenantD 14:13, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

What I meant, was that it is not neccesary so have the sub-sections like that. /Omido 15:29, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Now that is something with which I agree. :-) CovenantD 15:35, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
Just so everyone understands, I am going to tackle the Criticism page first, so please don't expect to see major changes on the main page. There are many subsections within the Criticism page that are not summarized on the main page and some of them are just stubs. My intent is to consolidate and re-order sections within the Criticism page first. For example, I don't think it makes sense to have the Homosexuality article appear on the top of the Critisism page, since the summary on the main page assumes a different order (more chronological). Plus sections like "Li as savior or supernatural entitity" and "Claims about preventing catastrophes and cosmic explositions" can be consolidated. This will take some time (at least a week), so please bear with me. Also, some additional writing will be needed on the Criticism page to cover the "early criticism" material, etc. I expect to be able to do some consolidation there as well (eg: combining it with "Differeneces between Falun Gong, Buddhism, Qigong and other beliefs." Also, this will require changing some of the subsection titles to be more generic. --Tomananda 19:16, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Subsections

I'd like to get rid of the links in subsections that lead to subsections in daughter articles. I think that one link from the section to the daughter article is enough. It's a bit... overkill right now. CovenantD 17:24, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

In order to keep the article short subsections of daughter pages created by pro FG editors should be removed from the main page. Pro FG editors have created seven daughter pages while critical FG editors have created only one. The subsections of the criticism page provide a balance appearing on the main page. --Samuel Luo 18:30, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm not convinced that all 7 daughter articles are going to survive. I've been reviewing them and some are very iffy in terms of NPOV, references, balance and duplication. Also, I still need to understand the difference between Teachings and Theoretical and Epistemological Studies as well as how Persecution is different from Outside of China. I'll have answers by the end of the week or I'm putting them up for merger. CovenantD 18:35, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

There really isn't a difference. On the current "teachings" page all they have is ethics (no reporting on Dafa judging, Li saving and the Fa-rectification. They could easily combine Teachings with Theoretical and Epistemological Studies. The same is true for "perscution"..but even that title is POV..and "Outside of China". --Tomananda 08:19, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Besides, each article needs to be balanced. We can't look at the sum total of articles for that - each and every one needs to meet the standards of Wikipedia, independent of each other. CovenantD 18:45, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Samuel, basic factual information about Falun Gong is not "pro-FLG" things. It is actual information about Falun Gong, and this article is about Falun Gong, right? /Omido 19:04, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

CovenantD, I agree with what you are pointing out here, there are so much redundancy on those seven pro FG pages. I refrained from touching them (deleting some of their content) only because I don’t want to provoke any revert war. It will be best if there are only one page for each side and one summary for each page appearing on the main page. --Samuel Luo 19:05, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, Omido, it's about Falun Gong. Samuel, I think there will end up being about 5 daughter articles, based on the amount of distinct material available. Each one will have to be balanced, so there won't automatically be PRO and CON articles aside from the Teachings and Controversies which are inherently POV in their premise. We will still balance those in terms of content, taking care not to give undue weight to any one side. CovenantD 19:30, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

I wonder which sections belong to pro? Which for con? And which are facts? Fnhddzs 20:05, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

currently pro and con editors have their own pages because they just simply can not work together. I agree that no POV shoud be allowed, thereofre conclusions have to be backed by creditble material. The new subsection summaries under Beliefs and teachings section were added without any discussion and consensus for that reason I am removing them again. --Samuel Luo 20:56, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Now you're using a different standard for different sections. If you weren't, you'd have demanded that Tomananda's additions to the Criticism section be removed as well. There was no more discussion about that content than there was about the stuff in Teachings. You can't have it both ways, Samuel. So which is it going to be? They both go, or they both stay and we discuss them? 'Cause I'll pull Tomananda's stuff quicker than you can blink if you insist on this. CovenantD 21:18, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
  • The current setting of the article has been there for a long time now. When pro FG editors created more pages (and summaries for each of them) we simply added some subsection summaries of the criticism page to balance it out. It’s been fair to both sides. I don’t like your tone. Yes, you might be fast but don’t forget you don’t have any authority on this page and you are not even a Wiki mediator. Pro and Con editors should have an equal opportunity to express their point of view. --Samuel Luo 21:42, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

New Teachings summary subsections

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

The teachings and priciples of Falun Gong are captured in two main books written by Li Hongzhi: Falun Gong ( Law Wheel Qi Gong) and Zhuan Falun (Turning the Law Wheel). Falun Gong is an introductory book that discusses qigong, introduces the principles and provides illustrations and explanations of the exercises. Zhuan Falun is the core text of Falun Dafa practice.[7]

Truthfulness, Benevolence and Forbearance

Falun Gong teaches simultaneous cultivation of Truthfulness, Compassion and Endurance. The process of cultivation is said to be one in which the practitioner constantly assimilates to the nature of the Universe - Zhen, Shan, Ren ( Truthfulness, Compassion, Endurance).[citation needed]

Central to Falun Gong is the traditional concept of "cultivation practice" (xiulian) in which the practitioner constantly strives to improve his “xinxing” (mind-nature) by gradually letting go of attachments such as selfishness, hatred, jealousy, greed and all bad thoughts.[citation needed]

Practice

The term practice refers to the exercises. Falun Gong is a mind and body double cultivation system, while emphasizing cultivating mind nature first and cultivating body at the same time. There are five sets of exercises including one set of sitting meditation.

Comments

Tomananda's version

Dafa and the the true nature of the universe

Falun Gong teaches simultaneous cultivation of Truthfulness, Compassion and Endurance. The process of cultivation is said to be one in which the practitioner constantly assimilates to the nature of the Universe - Zhen, Shan, Ren ( Truthfulness, Compassion, Endurance).[citation needed]

Li Hongzhi teaches that his Dafa “great law" created all beings in the cosmos and is currently judging mankind. [2] It is weeding out "the dregs of humanity and the degenerate world" in a process called "Fa-rectification." [3] Claiming to be the only one who is offering salvation to mankind,[4] Li promises to turn his disciples into gods if they follow the moral requirements of his Dafa and expose what he considers to be the evil regime in China. [5] ,[6]

Note: I replaced the second paragraph, which didn't add anything that wasn't already covered in the first paragraph, with the higher teachings and changed the title.

Here's the original second paragraph for comparison:

Central to Falun Gong is the traditional concept of "cultivation practice" (xiulian) in which the practitioner constantly strives to improve his “xinxing” (mind-nature) by gradually letting go of attachments such as selfishness, hatred, jealousy, greed and all bad thoughts.[citation needed]

Notice that all it is talking about is ethics and could just as well appear in the ethics section. Falun Gong is also about more than ethics. We must report the this in a summary of the teachings. --Tomananda 08:11, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Comments

Disagree, why you delete the existing one? Fnhddzs 13:21, 20 June 2006 (UTC) I reposted it. Fnhddzs 13:59, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Samuel removed it. CovenantD 18:08, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Strongly Disagree. Tomananda, you can't speak about the Fa-Rectification in a couple of sentences. Master has spoken about the Fa-Rectification in 2200 words, do you think you can speak about it in 20 words? Not a chance. We can make a whole section about the Fa-Rectification, but not like you have done. Totally unacceptable. /Omido 15:50, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Omido: Maybe you can't but other editors can and will. Your argument is belied by your actions, because you appear perfectly happy with a 3-4 sentence summary of the the pricinples of the universe (the Falun Gong slogan of "Truth, Benevelolence and Forebearance") but when it comes to the Dafa itself, which is judging all beings, naming the process called Fa-rectification, you say it's too complex. By way of example, here's the Wikipedia introduction for Eistein's Theory of General Relativity:

General relativity was developed by Einstein in the years 1911 - 1915. General relativity is a geometrical theory which postulates that the presence of matter "curves" spacetime, and this curvature affects the path of free particles (and even the path of light). It uses the mathematics of differential geometry and tensors in order to describe gravitation without the use of the force of gravity. This theory considers all observers to be equivalent, not only those moving with uniform speed.

You'll notice it is all of 4 sentences and yet summarizes the key points. As I have said before, if you are not willing to do the writing, I will. But it looks like you and other practitioners will continue to throw up road blocks to stall our progress in the hopes this critical issue will go away. As long as you throw up these road blocks, you are failing to work cooperatively with other editors.

Covenant: at some point we need to get out of this closed system of logic that the practitioner/editors are trapped in. Their arguments are getting more and more ludicrous and irrelevant to any reasonable standard for Wikipedia editng. Do you think it's time for us to seek mediation, or do you have another suggestion on how to proceed? As you can see from the above discussion, there have been numerous attempts at compromise and numerous edit proposals made by 3 different editors. In response to all these attemps, all we get is evasive, sometimes preposterous arguments. I do not blame any of the practitioners for this behavior, since it only reflects Li's ability to manipulate the thinking of his disciples. But still we need to move on. --Tomananda 21:18, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

It is sad that you start accusing and doing your personal attacks as soon as somebody does not agree with you. Convenant, is this the correct behaviour? You have seen Tomananda's logic: "If you don't agree with me you are hiding the teachings or you are ruining the article". You should know Tomananda, that the ordinary human emotions does not affect cultivators of the righteous Fa, so I am not affected or offended by your personal attacks, I just feel sorry for you. Still, I will do what I think is righteous and correct.

You say you have given numerous attempts to compromise, I say you have just given your own way of thinking, now it is our turn to give a suggestion. Omido 21:49, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm busy today, but I'll get to this tonight or tomorrow. CovenantD 22:28, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
Omido: You are not to blame for anything and I am not attacking you. I do blame Master Li for the predicament he has created, though. --Tomananda 23:35, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

I will create a good Teaching section that includes alot of things like Individual Cultivation and Fa-Rectification and post it. I will be fair and not "conceal" anything, like you (Tomananda) call it. I will quote alot from the speeches of Master Li, so the sources will be good.

If you want to have negative thoughts about Falun Gong, Master Li and Dafa-Disciples, then that is your choice. I can only give you a little advice, which is that Falun Gong is not what you think it is. It does not matter so much if you believe in Falun Gong or not, or if you believe in the words of Master Li or not. But the truth is, alot of people have really benefited from practicing Falun Gong and alot of family's have been more harmonius. Maybe you think that the teachings of Falun Gong is really strange and that you can't understand them. I would say: Let's look at the effects. The people that practices Falun Gong, usually always have a smile on their face and they will never get sad or mad when somebody hurts them, instead they forgive them. They have a compassionate heart and treats everything with the infininate grace of Buddha. Would you say that is bad? Yes, We will report about the true teachings of Falun Gong, but we will not twist the fact's and we will not hold on to our own way of thinking. We will try to see things through each others eyes, and we will understand each other. Without Truthfulness, Without Compassion and without Forbearence, how can one make progress? The cosmic qualities restricts all /Omido 09:24, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I'm back. I agree that Tomananda has a habit of not assuming good faith, which I've called him on a few times. On the other hand, I see practitioners constantly trying to convince everybody of the goodness of Falun Gong (see Omido's post above for a classic example) and trying to challenge anything that's not completely positive. Neither is very conducive to getting this article in shape. CovenantD 18:20, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

We need to get the Teachings of Falun Gong article in shape before we can summarize it here. CovenantD 18:48, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Covenant: I see you are proposing a different strategy. I am concerned that in creating new material in the Falun Gong teachings section, we still will not wind up with a summary for the introduction which includes the ideas of salvation for all mankind and the Dafa judging all people. Right now, those ideas are reported on the Criticism page but are left out of all the Teaching and related pages. That's my concern, but I am willing to "assume good faith" as long as this material is summarized clearly at the top of the teaching page. What has been happening all along when we reach this kind of impasse is that the practitioner/editors merely retrieve very long block quotes from the master without making any effort to summarize the material in a concise and readable format. If all we get from this exercise is a seies of long Li quotes, without any attempt to write exposition of those quotes, we will be making this article worse rather than better. Isn't there a Wikipedia standard on this? --Tomananda 19:00, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, I'm changing the strategy a bit, because I realized after you said something that the daughter article needs to be done before it can realistically be summarized here. The concepts of salvation and judgment need to be included in the Teachings article if they are of such importance. And no, we won't end up with a long series of quotes. That's not a good way to craft an article, and I want these to at least meet "Good Article" standards. CovenantD 19:27, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Tomananda, I agree with you that "salvation" should be included in the introduction, just not the way you suggest. It's nothing personal against you, it's just that according to my understanding (because I have been reading Master's articles over and over again), that way of putting things is rather shallow and can easily be misinterpeted. /Omido 19:37, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Omido: I wouldn't even use the term "shallow" since that has a negative connotation. A summary, by it's very nature, needs to be general...which means "big idea" words like "salvation" or "judgment" are introduced, with further explanation appearing elsewhere. Keep in mind this is an on-line encylopedia, so every "big word" that is used in the introdcution can be linked to a more detailed section on the Teachings page. --Tomananda 20:48, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Things from the introduction should definetly be linked to other sections which explains things better, this gives people to have a deeper understanding. But, there are two ways of going from here:

1. The introduction should be more superficial and linked to a section where things are explained more in-depth. 2. Things are in-depth right in the introduction, but this is not good.

We should always try to have a neutral approach when explaining Falun Gong. We should not let personal viewpoints affect the article, I am not pointing fingers at anybody, but Tomananda, you have to think abit about this. You have to admit that sometimes you let your own viewpoints and personal feelins/emotions toward's Falun Gong determine your actions. I think this is not the right approach. If I and other Falun Gong practitioners would use personal emotions and viewpoints, then the article would never be finished. We should handle things well and introduce everything in a neutral way. Anyways Tomananda, don't be offended, I did not mean it in a bad way. Take it is a good way to improve yourself. /Omido 21:32, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

So who is engaging in personal attacks now? Omido, this has nothing to do with either your POV or my POV, it has to do with our ability, as editors, to write a brief and simple summary statement about the soteriological teachings of Li's Dafa, which is saving all beings at this time. In fact, Li says it is only his Dafa that can save all sentient beings at this time, does he not? None of this is my POV, it is your Masters. If you wish to rephrase my wording, then please do so and offer a counter suggestion. But to merely accuse me of having "personal emotions" (whatever that means) is not responsive to the editing task at hand. --Tomananda 00:43, 22 June 2006 (UTC)


No Tomananda, he does not say that only his Dafa can save all sentient beings. What he said, was that he is the only one that is openly genuinly teaching the Fa at high levels. This does not mean that only his Dafa can save all sentient beings. He has said that there are monks that do genuine cultivation and that there are still some good Daoist temples (cultivation toward higher levels, saving themselfs). Also, he has given very good examples of people cultivating in mountains in secret, they are also saving themself are they not?

Tomananda, I did not do any personal attacks, I kindly pointed out one of (What I think) your problems. Also, you can't just find a quote that fits your understanding and stick to it (Like the one with "Dafa is judging all sentient beings". There are so many other quotes that describes things differently, and the quote that you are holding on too isn't necessery containing everything that it should contain. /Omido 14:26, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Selection of Master Li quotes on Dafa, salvation and his role

What Li has said about salvation and the Dafa:

  • I am telling you now that Dafa belongs to me, Li Hongzhi. It is taught to save you and spoken from my mouth. “Awakening” (May 27, 1996) in Essentials for Further Advancement I
  • If I cannot save you, nobody else can do it. Zhuan Falun, 2nd edition, p.317.
  • Our Falun Dafa is one of 84,000 cultivation ways in the Buddha’s School, which has never been made public during during the historical period of this human civilization. However, it was once widely used to provide salvation to mankind during a prehistoric period. I am making it public again in this final period of the Last Havoc. Zhuan Falun, 2nd edition, p.37 (Note that the “it” is Falun Dafa, not the Buddha’s School.)
  • Why is it that a being needs to be saved by Dafa and me personally? Or to put it plainly [think about it] what kind of being is worthy of salvation by the Great Law of the cosmos? For a being who is saved, could it just be about personal Consumation? So what kind of being deserves to be a Disciple of Dafa? Would you say those people who hide in their homes and “study the Fa” do? Or those who only want to gain from Dafa but don’t want to give to Dafa? Furthermore, what about those who, while Dafa disciples are being persecuted, don’t want to speak up for Dafa yet still “read the book” at home and try t get things from Dafa—what kind of people are they? You be the judge. from: “My Version of a ‘Stick Wake-up’” (October 11, 2004) http://faluncanada.net/library/english/jw/jw041011_e.html

What Li has said about creation and the Dafa:

  • Dafa is the Fa (Law) of the cosmos, and Dafa has created all beings in the cosmos. “Using at Will” (June 28, 2000 ) in Essentials for Further Advancement II, item 12.

What Li has said about his control over the Dafa:

  • Dafa (Great Law) has only one master, me, and Dafa Itself doesn’t have any “persons in charge.”

Fa-Lecture at the Conference in Florida, U.S.A.,December 29,


New Criticism section summary

In the years prior to the ban, Falun Gong’s main critics came from the Chinese religious community and academics whose concerns about the possible harmful effects of Falun Gong teachings were reported in the media. As early as 1995, Li’s teachings “began to come under criticism for being superstition” [7] and by 1996 the Buddhist Association and Buddhist journals were issuing in-depth critiques of Falun Gong. [8]

In order to understand this early criticism, commentators suggest we need to apply a cultural understanding of China’s history.[7] As context for stories about the Falun Gong ban, Western media have often reported China’s history of quasi-religious movements which turned into violent insurrections. [9],[10] Two often-cited examples are the bloody Taiping rebellion of 1845-1864—led by a person claiming to be the “Son of God”-- and the failed Boxer rebellion led by a secret society which announced in 1899 that “ten calamities” would soon occur, followed by salvation. [11]

Patsy Rahn (2002) describes a paradigm of conflict between Chinese sectarian groups and the rulers they often challenge. According to Rahn, the history of this paradigm goes back to the collapse of the Han dynasty: "The pattern of ruling power keeping a watchful eye on sectarian groups, at times threatened by them, at times raising campaigns against them, began as early as the second century and continued throughout the dynastic period, through the Mao era and into the present.”[7] Although Rahn does not ask us to accept non-critically the strategic choices made by the Chinese government, she does state that within this historical paradigm, the “ruthless and radical responses” made by the Chinese Communist Party against the perceived threat of the Falun Gong can be seen “as appropriate, necessary and acceptable.” According to Rahn, the CCP views the conflict with the Falun Gong as one between “the people and their enemies” for several reasons:

  • 1) the government believes Li’s teachings endanger people, mainly due to the teachings regarding medicine;
  • 2) the government believes Li’s teachings were gaining enough adherents across China and specifically within the CCP to be a potential rival ideologically;
  • 3) because Li moved to the US and has, according to the government’s view, linked up with those in the west who wish to see the fall of the CCP.[7]

In the years since the ban, Falun Gong has gotten increased critical attention from cult experts and some academics, while also garnering support from the mainstream media and civil rights groups because of it’s allegations of persecution by the Chinese Communist Party.

Comments

That is fair. I see that you post both material here for discussion. --Samuel Luo 22:05, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

I'd rather we did it while they were up (I want to give leeway to both sides), but if this is the way we have to go... CovenantD 22:09, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

I object to their summaries becasue they have seven pages and each page has multiple subsections. Do you see why I object? My main concern is the length of the article. --Samuel Luo 22:17, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

I understand where you're coming from, but let's all refresh our memories about ownership of articles. They don't have seven articles, we have about a dozen or so, including Li Hongzhi and the media ones. Persecution (we've got to look at that name) should present both the evidence for and against. Teachings should have both the easy stuff and the stuff that may look bad. I know you look at some of the other pages. Start asking questions on the talk pages. Start asking for citations and references to back up claims. Start pointing out POV wording. Don't go making sweeping deletions without giving people a chance to justify or change their words. I think doing all of that will achieve the results we want. In a lot of ways, I'm just waiting on you guys to start coming up with summaries and challenging this stuff, here and in the daughter articles. I can only do so much without losing my objectivity. CovenantD 00:32, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

The summary is well done, but it seems to have an emphasis on the political aspect. Is this for the main article or the daughter? --Yenchin 02:08, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Not like a summary. too many details. Fnhddzs 03:01, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

I have moved the new Criticism Summary edit to the top of the Criticism page, and moved the Homosexuality section to the end. The content of the summary section and the section that now follows overlaps and I plan to combine them. I will sart working on the consolidating sections in the criticism page shortly. I will write a new summary page after I have finished working on the Criticism page, which is really the only way to approach this task since I need to have the auxialiary article in the right order before I try to summarize it on the main page.--Tomananda 05:46, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

This isn't a bad summary in my opinion. It's a bit long though. Perhaps the third paragraph can be shortened. I also hope you realize that even the summary should be balanced, so some points may be inserted to counter some of the claims. Such as the fact that the Buddhist Association, and likely most Buddhist journals, is a CCP organization. Mcconn 15:29, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

In my opinion, its too long to be a summary and it needs to be balanced too. Dilip rajeev 16:38, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I was in court with the FLG and CCTV

I will review the info when I have a change. Here's the rick ross article: http://www.cultnews.com/index.php/2006/06/19/falun-gong-leader-served-subpoena-scheduled-to-testify-in-new-york-court-this-week/ Of Course, after court, the FLG may well be a moot point. Let's all chant together kum-bi-ya. Cj cawley 00:46, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Nice reference. Now we can get serious. Once others have looked it over, work on some neutral wording for your suggestion, then post it here so we can comments and improve it before it goes up. Otherwise you'll have the same problem you did before. CovenantD 01:07, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

If focusing on the case itself it seems to me the article doesn't mention much besides Li getting called to court. I believe more details and issues will show up after this Thursday. Anyway good luck Mr. Cawley. --Yenchin 02:40, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Best of luck. -- Миборовский 02:47, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
EDIT: It is advised that Mr Cawley refrain from editing anything related to his court case (or even better, anything Falun Gong-related) while his case is in progress... to avoid legal entanglements and such. -- Миборовский 03:12, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Miborovsky Thanks. I did refer the CCTV to wikipedia. Do not be surprised if you start getting more updates from places in China. As for the ex-wife, the truth will come out one way or another. I don't think that the Chinese government will react favorably to it. There are also a few members of the U.S. government who will be in the same boat. Cj cawley 09:34, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Subsections

It was agreed to add subsections to sections [61] other than the critism due to its super fat status. But Samuel Luo deleted it without consensus. Fnhddzs 13:25, 20 June 2006 (UTC) Please respect your fellow editors. Do not eat your words to fool others around. Fnhddzs 13:27, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

The articles that I retreived from the Chinese websites should probably go here. You can add my 2nd book later. Here's a prelude to the intro: In darkest day In blackest night No evil shall escape my sight Let those who worship evil's might Beware the power green lantern's light. - The Green Lantern Cj cawley 15:00, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Persecution of Falun Gong -> Suppression of Falun Gong

This title has been bothering me since the article was split a month ago. We never consensed to this name. In fact, if you look at /Archive8 you'll see that we were going to call it "Chinese Gov't suppression of Falun Gong" because "Persectution" was seen as inherently POV. I've just reread that archive and there seems to be consensus from both side to use Suppression. As such, I'm going to change it to the more NPOV "Suppression of Falun Gong." CovenantD 14:53, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Persecution is true although it starts being tried to be covered up after 2002 or 2001? However, it is a consensus of many governments (U.S., Canada, U.K., Taiwan, Korea, Australia...). And the evidence is not only in mainland China, it already extends to outside China, for example, Dr. Yuan Li got beaten in his own home, car with Falun Gong fliers got burnt, phones got tapped and left messages, etc. The former Chinese diplomat in Australia (Chen, Yonglin)[62] already quitted the CCP and got asylum since he helped to erase the blacklist of practitioners maintained in Chinese Embassy in Australia. The former Chinese mainland 610 (the specialized office for persecuting Falun Gong) policeman (Hao, Fengjun) also escaped from China since he witnessed many persecutions and doesn't want to continue to participate. When he said to others forging a video forcing a practitioner to lie is wrong, he got punished in a closed room. I am sorry if you still think persecution is not a fact. Fnhddzs 16:32, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

It is a good change towards the right direction. I remember that when Uncle Ed was here he suggested this Chinese authorities and Falun Gong . Anyway, supression is a lot better than persection. I was going to raise this question after we are done with the 1st paragraph of intro. --Samuel Luo 19:26, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Covenant, whats happening in China is not a simple "supression". The term "persecution" is used by The HRW, The Amnest International, H. Con Res 188, the EU and The United Nations. Dilip rajeev 16:51, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, Covenant. I noticed that I was ok to using the word "suppression" on "Archive 7". But you know I am not a native English speaker. I may not be very sensitive to some wording. Now I reemphasize my opinion on using the word "persecution". And it is a consensus word used by many organizations in the world. Fnhddzs 17:30, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

There has been doubt expressed about the physical abuse, which is enough to throw the word persecution into a POV assertion of fact. There is no doubt about it being considered illegal, so suppression is factually accurate. CovenantD 18:39, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

There has been doubt expressed about the holocaust, too, but it is a fact, regardless of what David Irving and his buddies say. Denying the inhuman nature of CCP's persecution of Falun Gong is screening crimes against humanity. Ample evidence of torture in China's labor camps is substantiated by many non-partisan studies, including Manfred Nowak's UN report from 2005. And like Dilip pointed out, the term "persecution" is used by Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International and various governmental institutions. In addition, saying that Falun Gong got suppressed because of "illegal" activities requires some kind of reference to what is meant by "illegal" under a Communist dictatorship. Then again, many readers already know that even the students on Tiananmen square got crushed by tanks because they were class enemies engaging in illegal activities... ---Olaf Stephanos 22:36, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Paragraph 1 - Mcconn's version

Here you go:

Falun Gong (Traditional Chinese: 法輪功; Simplified Chinese: 法轮功; Pinyin: Fǎlún Gōng; Gwoyeu Romatzyh: Faaluen Gong; literally "Practice of the Wheel of Law"), also known as Falun Dafa (Traditional Chinese: 法 輪大法; Simplified Chinese: 法轮大法; Pinyin: Fǎlún dàfǎ; lit. "Great Law of the Wheel of Law"), is a system of mind and body cultivation introduced by Li Hongzhi in 1992. Central to Falun Gong are a set of teachings, often referred to as the Dafa (or Great Law), which focus on moral improvement and salvation through adherence to the principles of Truth, Compassion and Forbearance [63] and five sets of meditation exercises (four standing, and one sitting meditation) [64]. In recent years, added emphasis has been placed on the concept of Fa-Rectification. Falun Gong is practiced in approximately 80 countries and the teachings have been translated into over 40 languages.

Reject Let's avoid words like central and the first sentence can be shortened by using Tomananda's verion. I agree with ketn8888 that it is best to quote Li directly. --Samuel Luo 19:19, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

  • This version is very confusing. It fails to inform the reader about the difference between Falun Dafa and Falun Gong. And if they are the same thing why two names? The last sentence needs citation.--Kent8888 03:44, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Comments

The concept of Fa-Rectification is too complicated and foreign to be able to summarize in a sentence and have people reasonably understand it, but I understand others’ desire for it’s inclusion in the paragraph. Therefore I have a compromise. I believe that it’s fair to mention it as I did above while adding a link to a subsection where the concept is explained in more depth. This is fair to both sides in my opinion. Given the short length of the teachings summary, it’s inclusion also has some weight, but if more was said about about it I feel the balance would be off. I linked the term to the section on Fa-Rectfication in the criticism section. I see using this link as a temporary solution until we have something more neutral about Fa-Rectification in the teachings page.

I did not include anything about Falun Dafa being the only means to salvation in this period (which is debatable to begin with). Whether or not this is the case I’d like to share something. Theravada Buddhism regards Shakyamuni as the only Buddha who can save people and that only through practicing their way can one gain enlightenment. However, if you look at the wiki page on Theravada [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theravada) you’ll notice that they don’t mention that in the intro, nor anywhere else on the main page. Then why is this concept mentioned at the beginning of the article on Christianity (ie. about Jesus being the Messiah)? I think it comes down to the fact that Christians put a lot of weight on this. It’s central to their beliefs and they always mention it in their relations with non-Christians and to each other. Unlike Falun Dafa practitioners and Theravada Buddhists, they are very evangelical and put emphasis on this concept of “only Jesus can save you” when trying to convert others or even when trying to encourage one another (i.e. at Church). We don’t have any slogans that say “Master Saves”. We’re not like that. Given that this concept does not play such a major role in Falun Dafa, just as it doesn’t in Theravada (although I did get a few Buddhists, telling me that there is only one Buddha when I was in Sri Lanka), and that it's debatable in the first place, there is no need to give it such weight by mentioning it in the intro.

Ample reason has been given for why the emphasis is in the summary is place on cultivating Zhen Shan Ren, so I’m not going to explain that. Mcconn 15:43, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Regarding linking the term "Fa-Rectification" to the criticism section, I've changed my mind. In the next few days I'll produce a "Fa-Rectification" section in the teachings page. I believe that it will be ready before the final vote on the first paragraph is done, so I'm removing the link to the criticism section that is there now. Mcconn 18:15, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
"www.therewillbealink.com"? I love it CovenantD 19:21, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
Is Fa-Rectification used in any other context than Falun Gong? CovenantD 19:24, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
It's a borrowed Buddhism term (sad-dharma) which originally means "true/correct law". --Yenchin 21:24, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
I've often felt that practitioners are very evangelical in their dealings with others. How many times has a practitioner urged a non-practitioner to just try Falun Gong? Or presented an argument that has nothing to do with editing, but is touting the goodness of Falun Gong? Too often to count... CovenantD 19:29, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
Amen to that. --Fire Star 火星 20:22, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
touting the goodness of Falun Gong. Seriously, I have not met any rational FLG-practicing Wiki editors.
But my POV aside, "Fa" is the Buddhist concept. "Fa-Rectification" is a neologism. --Sumple (Talk) 21:27, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
法 is not only used to translate the Sanskrit word dharma, but it is used in Chinese commonly for "law" or "principle(s)" as in quan fa (Japanese kenpo) "fist principles", one of many generic terms for "martial arts". --Fire Star 火星 07:04, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
Some vandal, no doubt a Falun Gong practitioner, has just posted a bunch of homophobic ranting on my talk page. I sent a request to Miborovsky to handle this. --Tomananda 22:17, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
If possible, I would like to be notified the next time anyone vandalizes your page with anti-homosexual or "pro-Falun Gong" messages. If they are actually a practitioner I can talk to them. I don't know what kind of messages these were, but I can assure you that any Falun Gong practitioner engaged in actual anti-homosexual ranting is totally off the boat. However, I highly doubt that any irrational vandalism is the work of an actual Falun Gong practitioner. Thanks, Mcconn 17:08, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
Actually, I just took a look at what was said and I can totally guarantee you that whoever wrote that is not a practitioner. It's completely nuts. That behavior is the complete opposite of the behavior that comes from Falun Dafa cultivation. Mcconn 17:15, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Samuel, why avoid words like central? There is a central concept to Falun Gong, which is assmilitation to Zhen-Shan-Ren to attain the Dao. Convenant, he was just clarifying the facts to you. Falun Gong practitioners knows the Falun Gong teachings better then anybody else because they study them every single day, not like other people that just glance through it and make a judgement. Therefore, if there is a missunderstanding, the facts have to be clarified. Of course I think that Falun Gong is really really good, but do I tell you it is really really good? No I don't, but I clarify the truh. /Omido 22:31, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

samuel's second suggestion

Falun Gong 法輪功 (literally "Practice of the Wheel of Law") is also known as Falun Dafa 法輪大法(literally "Great Law of the Wheel of Law") a system of mind and body cultivation introduced by Li Hongzhi (surname is Li) in 1992. Falun Gong refers to five sets of meditation exercises (four standing, and one sitting meditation). [65] In Zhuan Falun, the Dafa is introduced this way: “Our Falun Dafa is one of the eighty-four thousand cultivation ways in the Buddha School. During the historical period of this human civilization, it has never been made public. In a prehistoric period, however, it was once widely used to provide salvation to humankind. In this final period of Last Havoc, I am making it public again. Therefore, it is extremely precious." [66] In recent years, added emphasis has been placed on the concept of Fa-Rectification.[67]

This is a version that combines material from almost everyone’s suggestion. No practitioner can sufficiently understand the Master’s teachings therefore we must quote Li’s words. --Samuel Luo 02:16, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Support--Yueyuen 02:29, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Support--Samuel Luo 02:32, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Reject -- At least the typo still exists (the first line). Delete the end time. That does not exist in the quotes. Falun gong refers to both teachings and exercises. Fnhddzs 02:35, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

'Reject -- For reasons Fnhddzs pointed out. Dilip rajeev 06:17, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

I corrected them. If Falun gong and Falun dafa are the same thing then why two names? --Samuel Luo 02:37, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

If you don't mind, I guess you must have a Chinese name. Fnhddzs 02:42, 23 June 2006 (UTC) Also this version used a quote. But I don't think this quote was to "introduce" the Falun Dafa. Fnhddzs 02:46, 23 June 2006 (UTC) Also did we agree on adding "to the public" before "in 1992"?Fnhddzs 02:59, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Support. Also, in his lectures, Li has ordered his followers not to talk about the entire system, it wouldn't be much of a stretch to say that they have been ordered, if not to lie exactly, at least to hide things. So they are necessarily suspect when it comes to describing FLG if they follow Li religiously. We are better off using Li's exact words. --Fire Star 火星 03:03, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Support Although I normally prefer an accurate summary over a direct quote for an introduction, the particular Li quote Samuel has offered is a clear and consise statement from Li himself about "our Falun Dafa." Li's quote seems to cover all the bases: it mentions that the Dafa is one of 84,000 cultivation ways in the Buddha School. I makes the claim that it goes back to pre-history when it provided salvation to humankind. It includes the idea that we are now in a final period of Last Havoc, and that Li himself is now making it public. Given that the practitioners didn't want to have any post-Zhuan Falun quotes, I think this version may be as good as we'll ever get. Also, it mentions the idea of Fa-rectification, but does not define that, allowing for a link to another article (should be the Criticism page) but could also include a second link to a new page to be added to the teachings section. --Tomananda 03:29, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

There is an even earlier quote before on "our Falun Dafa"[68] "Our Falun Dafa is based upon the highest standard of the universe, Zhen, Shan, and Ren, all of which we cultivate simultaneously." Fnhddzs 03:44, 23 June 2006 (UTC) Fa-rectification cannot be given only one reference there. It should be linked to a section. One reference would not explain well the full meaning of Fa-recification. In my understanding, that Fa rectifies the cosmos and that Fa rectifies the human world are two different phases. Fnhddzs 03:48, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Support This version uses Li's quote which clearly defines what the Dafa is. --Kent8888 03:55, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Support Laying out everything for the readers. --Yenchin 04:18, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

1st paragraph of intro is updated

thanks for your support, I have just updated the paragraph in reaching of deadline. --Samuel Luo 04:15, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

You can't. It is a consensus vote[69]. Fnhddzs 04:16, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

We voted to improve the paragraph. You can add material to this version which many are supporting. --Samuel Luo 04:58, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

REJECT Less than two hours passed between the time that this was proposed and it was put into place. That is not consensus, that is sneaking it in. I'm reverting it back. CovenantD 05:06, 23 June 2006 (UTC) (Now that others have had a chance to weigh in, I can withdraw my opinion.) CovenantD 18:45, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

As you can see many have supported this version, at the passing of deadline I updated it to reflect that support. As pointed out, people can still make improvment to the paragraph after discussion here. The new version should stay while discusion continues here. --Samuel Luo 05:17, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

No way! I have never seen such shameless people. Fnhddzs 05:59, 23 June 2006 (UTC) I will report you to vandalism if you insist on cheating. Fnhddzs 06:00, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

  • This is the only version supported by the majority, it therefore should be used. Why don't you start making suggestion to improve it further instead of deletion. Shameless? you guys are the ones who have been making nasty personal attacks, you should point your finger at yourself and your FG friends --Yueyuen 06:21, 23 June 2006 (UTC)


No, according to what we agreed[70], it is consensus vote, NOT a majority vote. Please respect and be honest to yourself and to others. Fnhddzs 06:24, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

That conversation was about the deadline, you miss understood it. --Samuel Luo 07:10, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

You misunderstood it, Samuel, if I assume you did not do this intentionally. Otherwise you think CovenantD misunderstood it[71]? Be honest to yourself. Fnhddzs 07:41, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Ok, Let's wait for others to point out who has miss understood ConventD's words. --Samuel Luo 07:55, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

  • Fnhddzs I have accommodated all your complaints, see the following list:

You said: At least the typo still exists (the first line). Delete the end time. That does not exist in the quotes. These changes you requested have been made.

You said: Also did we agree on adding "to the public" before "in 1992"? This request is also honored.

Your only request I have not responded to is this-- “Falun gong refers to both teachings and exercises.” Please make this statement clear in meaning so I can respond to it. You need to have a good reason to reject, wikipedia is not your own website and we are not going to stop improving the article because you are objecting. --Samuel Luo 06:53, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

I'd like to request that the wiktionary links to the Chinese characters go back in whichever version of the page is finally decided on. They have a way of putting the phraseology Li likes to use into a greater, perhaps even encyclopaedic, context. --Fire Star 火星 07:15, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Reject.' Dilip rajeev 16:26, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Why? It's a good idea to let others know so that further suggestions can incorporate those reasons. CovenantD 18:44, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Reject A couple of reasons for me rejecting. 1. It was night time when the deadline was, so me, dilip and mconn were sleeeping, so we could not give our votes. 2. There should be more emphasis on the cultivation of Zhen-Shan-Ren and Xinxing cultivation, after all, Zhuan Falun is all about Xinxing cultivation and assmilitation to Zhen-Shan-Ren.

/Omido 11:09, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Also, there is a new translation of Zhuan Falun from 2003 which is better, there it says:

"Our Falun Dafa is one of the Buddhist system’s 84,000 disciplines. It’s never been passed on to the general public before during this period of civilization, but it did once save people on a large scale in a prehistoric age. Today I’m spreading it again widely during this final period of the kalpa’s end, so it’s just extremely precious."

If we are going to use a quote, we shall use that one. Still, alot more emphasis has to be put on Xinxing cultivation, in Zhuan Falun, everything is about Xinxing cultivation and follow Truth-Compassion-Forbearence at all times. Master Li has said this himself.

"So what is character? Character includes virtue (which is a type of matter), it includes enduring, it includes awakening to things, it includes giving up things—giving up all the desires and all the attachments that are found in an ordinary person—and you also have to endure hardship, to name just a few things. So it includes a lot of different things. You need to improve every aspect of your character, and only when you do that will you really improve. That’s one of the key factors in improving your potency."

Note: In the new translation, Character = Xinxing.

/Omido 11:35, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Reject (naturally) I agree with Omido about the emphasis being on Zhen Shan Ren and xinxing. Also, I hope someone will replace the quote with the newer translation if it is what's going to be there for the time being. Why do some editors have such a hard time coming to terms with the fact the Zhen Shan Ren are the core principles of Falun Dafa? Or that it is about cultivating oneself by assimilating to these princples? I find it hard to assume good faith while some editors completely ignore the most central concepts of Falun Dafa. Honestly, as part of the introduction I don't think the abovementioned quote will do much to help a person's understanding of Falun Dafa. It can give a general idea of the language Mr. Li uses and the way he speaks about Falun Dafa within the teachings, but it provides no understanding of what Falun Dafa is actually about. Including this is skipping a big step. If you honestly think that including this over information about Zhen Shan Ren will be of more help to the reader's understanding of Falun Dafa, then I really suggest you take some more time to read the actual teachings of Falun Dafa and get a better understanding for what it's about. I am all for including this quote later in the article, I think it could be quite good later on, but I'm against including it in the introduction. Excuse me for my irrationality and evangelicness (I was unaware that trying to provide accurate representations of Falun Dafa from my own experience and understanding for the good of the article and the editors involved is evangelical). Mcconn 16:52, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Protected

The page has been protected on request until the results of the above straw poll on the introduction are complete -- Samir धर्म 07:11, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Removing vandalim is not counted as 3RR. I did not report you on 3RR. Fnhddzs 07:23, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Clearly, so much controversy can only be construed as being a problem. Obviously, there are other parts of FLG that people do not wish to have made public. The Catholic Church scandal is similar in origin. If one truly practices truth, compassion and forebearance, then there is nothing to fear.

In "Oh God", George Burns was asked by a little girl why things are the way they are. George gave one of the best explanations: "The system is built on opposites. There is no up without a down, left without a right, good without evil."

Crushing an opposing point of view is also persecution. It's just of a different persuasion. No less different.

There needs to be a paragraph by paragraph page for each article. Cj cawley 12:41, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

minor copyedit to 1st paragraph requested

To any passing admins: I request that this be substituted for the 1st paragraph. It is the same wording that exists now, but returns the links to Wiktionary that have existed for months and properly formats the references. These are the only changes from the version that is in place. CovenantD 14:49, 23 June 2006 (UTC)


Suggested new clarification of groundrules for consensus

Any new suggestion for content must be available for comment for at least 24 hours and both sides should weigh in before moving to the article. If any new content is contentious, it will be moved to the talk page for discussion. CovenantD 14:57, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Support. However, we need to be first clear about what is "consensus vote". Seems some people's English is too poor to understand it if they are not ruffians. Fnhddzs 15:15, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

No personal attacks, Fnhddzs. CovenantD 15:38, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

CovenantD, I am sorry but this is what I felt. I wish to ask you a question. When you answered my question [72].

Can I assume this is a consensus vote? Fnhddzs 00:43, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Of course. That's why I phrased it as a question at the very begining of this subsection. CovenantD 01:40, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Did you mean it is a consensus vote? Or you mean it is about the deadline? Did I misunderstand you? [73] Thanks. I am afraid I could not flatter there is fairness here. Fnhddzs 15:46, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

I understand you felt that way. Next time, I suggest you type the words but hit 'Cancel' rather than 'Save page.' It works for me :-)
I was referring to the deadline, but it applies to pretty much everything we do, so both you and Samuel are correct. Any edits that don't meet consensus will be reverted, as we've seen time and time again. CovenantD 15:52, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

ok. I hope this non-consensus paragraph will be reverted back soon. Fnhddzs 17:18, 23 June 2006 (UTC) CovenantD, I still don't quite assume I fully understand you. I don't think you were referring to the deadline. What did you mean by "of course"[74] if you were referring to the deadline? Did anyone else except me asked you a question? Only me asked a question. Fnhddzs 18:14, 23 June 2006 (UTC) It is deceptive that you said both Samuel and I are right. Fnhddzs 18:17, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

I prefer the term "diplomatic." If there was a misunderstanding, it's because I thought you were asking about the deadline. CovenantD 18:34, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Fnhddzsgive it up, will you? Do you have to call everybody a liar? --Samuel Luo 18:23, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

ok, Samuel. Either way (however CovenantD thought I asked "consensus vote" which I clearly did), the vote is a consensus vote. Maybe there is a misunderstanding I could not understand. Needless to say, non-consensus vote is not valid. And CovenantD also reverted your non-consensus vote[75]. Thanks to Covenant. Fnhddzs 20:11, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Three people have rejected the paragraph. Me, Fnhddzs and Mconn. Still it is posted on the main page, can this be changed please? /Omido 18:39, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Not at the moment - the page is protected. CovenantD 18:40, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with Covenant's proposed 24 hour rule above, but also think we need to agree, on principle, that when summarizing the Dafa we should not exclude one central concept at the expense of another. Frankly, it's silly to argue that Dafa is about X and not Y, when it is actually about both x and y (plus Z). In acccordance with Wikipedia editing principles, we should allow the inclusion of X,Y and Z concepts in a summary. If you read back in the discussion, you'll see that 3 different editors proposed many different versions above, and none were acceptable to the practitioners. For example, here's one version I proposed which actually leads with the concept of assimilating Zhen, Shan, Ren (to accomodate the practitioners), and then goes on to list the other major concepts. But it was rejected.

Falun Gong teaches simultaneous cultivation of Truthfulness, Compassion and Endurance. The process of cultivation is said to be one in which the practitioner constantly assimilates to the nature of the Universe - Zhen, Shan, Ren ( Truthfulness, Compassion, Endurance).[citation needed]
Li Hongzhi teaches that his Dafa “great law" created all beings in the cosmos and is currently judging mankind. [2] It is weeding out "the dregs of humanity and the degenerate world" in a process called "Fa-rectification." [3] Claiming to be the only one who is offering salvation to mankind,[4] Li promises to turn his disciples into gods if they follow the moral requirements of his Dafa and expose what he considers to be the evil regime in China. [5],[6]

I am not particularly arguing for the above edit, but rather using it as an example of what we should be working towards: a brief summary of the major concepts in one or two short paragraphs. As we coninue this discussion, I ask that everyone assume good faith by proposing additions to the summary, rather than deletions. --Tomananda 19:18, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

  • A 24 hour waiting period is fine. One issue I wish to make clear is this--I was not cheating or trying to sneak something into the page. All I did was following the examples of Kent8888 and ConvetD who updated the article with passing of the deadline. I also hope practitioners can look at their own behaviors before calling others shameless. You guys created pages without any discussion. And the title of the page on the ban was changed from UncleEd’s NPOV suggestion “Chinese authorities and Falun Gong to “persecution of FAlun gong.”

Is it a wiki policy that change can only be made with consensus? I see no such policy and it does not make any sense. It gives a nut case the power to prevent edits. I am also not saying that a majority vote is an enough validation for making changes. I don’t know if you notice that the version I suggested has none of my words. I believe in a situation like this we should refrained from using our own words (POV) but quote the authority, in this case, Li the founder of ... --Samuel Luo 21:26, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm more that able to believe that you were acting in good faith. In the same vein, I hope you're willing to admit that it was only one practitioner who moved the Persecution content and not blame all of them. CovenantD 21:35, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Five pages were created by practitioners without any discussion in addition to the two we agreed on. I couldn’t keep track of who did what but I am sure it was done by more than just one. --Samuel Luo 21:49, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
In answer to your question above, our adherence to consensus is all voluntary. Anyone can make changes at any time, but in a special case like this complex of articles there are consequences to editing outside of consensus, such as the page being locked and people sometimes even being sanctioned for things like 3RR and personal attacks. The discussions towards consensus here are aimed at keeping the page from being a battleground between different editors, by discussing each point and as much as possible following the suggestions of a disinterested editor from the outside, in this case CovenantD. Practically, the fact that there is a group of us trying to follow that consensus makes it harder for anyone to hijack the article when it is unprotected, as the larger group can edit longer in support of the version they've agreed on without violating 3RR. We have extremes here of pro- and anti- editors, and about an equal number in the middle. What we want is an article that is so neutral that a reasonable reader will not be able to discern the personal biases of those who wrote it. --Fire Star 火星 22:01, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

I think the fact of the matter is that when we have decided upon having a consensus vote for a certain section (which we did), then we must abide by our decision unless there is consensus not to :) So in this situation it is breaking the rules to edit the concerned section. Also, I don't get why the page was locked on the version that includes the change that incited the revert war. This isn't the first time this has happened either. Doesn't it make more sense to lock the page on the version that existed before the war (especially when it's only a matter of one paragraph)? Mcconn 07:37, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Mconn, please change the introduction back and re-lock it. /Omido 19:11, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

The locking is ideally done by a 3rd party admin without concern for the current content. It isn't the content itself that directly determines the protection, but the revert warring. If admins see a page being flipped back and forth the way these have been, despite all of the discussion, then the page is going to spend a lot of time locked. That should be an incentive for all sides to actually try talking to each other instead of at each other, because you never know which version of the war will be locked into place, sometimes for weeks. FLG people are going to have to accept sourced criticisms, as well as anti-FLG people can't make unfair or personal characterisations. Li Hongzhi's, erm, eccentric public positions will be reported as well as the CCP's relatively well documented abuses. We need to report the whole thing, warts and all. Otherwise, this will go on for a long, long time. --Fire Star 火星 06:13, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

What are the "central concepts?"

I think this might be easier if we stop working on the wording for a bit and decide what the central concepts are. So I'd like everybody to list what they think the two or three core principles are. No explanation, just a list. We can discuss after everyone's weighed in or 24 hours. And Truthfulness, Compassion and Endurance count as one. CovenantD 20:02, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

1. Individual Cultivation: Truth-Compassion-Forbearence is central, the assamilation of Truth-Compassion-Forbearence and that only by following "Truth-Compassion-Forbearence", one can reach enlightment in Falun Dafa.

2. Fa-Rectification Cultivation: How practitioners always clarify the truth about the evil persecution of Falun Gong to the people of the world. How the past Dharma of the universe will be rectified, and because of this the most wonderful future is waiting for all beings. How everybody that persecuted Dafa will meet retribution, because they persecuted the Buddha-Law.

/Omido 21:56, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

1. The qigong-like exercises Li teaches

2. Li's spiritual and moral teachings (zhen, shan, ren; his other derivations from older Chinese religions; his insistence on inadequacy of those and all other belief systems relative to FLG, "Fa-rectification", xenophobic and homophobic statements, etc.)

3. Li Hongzhi's unique and central rôle in personally formulating and guiding the spiritual progress of FLG practitioners

--Fire Star 火星 22:09, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

  1. Assimilating the Fa (Truthfulness, Compassion and Endurance) Simultaneously
  2. mind and body double cultivation
  3. Fa-Rectification Cultivation: cultivating in the process of resolving persecution.-- Fnhddzs 06:46, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

______

Here are the main points

  • Dafa “great law" is currently judging mankind.
  • It is weeding out "the dregs of humanity and the degenerate world" in a process called "Fa-rectification"
  • Li claims to be the only one who is offering salvation to mankind
  • Li promises to turn his disciples into gods if they follow the moral requirements of his fa (by assimilating Truthfullness, Compassion and Forebearance) and by exposing what he considers to be the evil regime in China. --Tomananda 08:08, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Not much to add here:

  • Claims emphasising on "high level", causing "ordinary people" unable to understand or reason.
  • The Qi-Gong and its seemingly wonderful benefits.
  • Li teaching that he is the savior.
  • Li preaching about the end of days.
  • In a more generous way to say it, anything Li says.
--Yenchin 20:04, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Adding a few more:

  • All human beings are sinners which is why they need the Master’s salvation.
  • The true cause of sicknesses is one’s sin (Li uses the term Karma). And the illnesses of true believers will be cured by the Master. --Samuel Luo 21:51, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

C'mon, Olaf, Dilip, Mcconn, Miborovsky, others. I'm not likely to listen to your objections if you can't simply state what you think the two or three central concepts are. CovenantD 21:46, 25 June 2006 (UTC)


Side Discussions

We must avoid POVs and original research, so instead of making something up in your head maybe you should read your master's words. --Samuel Luo 21:53, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Tomananda, the questions was what is central concepts. Zhuan Falun is Central in Falun Gong. None of those you have stated are listed in Zhuan Falun. /Omido 10:51, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Realy, Omido? Then we better take out all the persecution stuff and the Fa-rectification cultivation stuff as well (see Fnhddzs's list above). Why do you persist in deceiving the public about what your master teaches? I don't believe anything you say about Falun Gong, nor should anyone else. --Tomananda 17:17, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

There is no need for personal attacks. I did not say that we should take out things or deceiving people, those are your words, not mine. I just explained that central to Falun Gong is Truth-Compassion-Forbearence (Zhuan Falun). ConvenantD asked about central concepts, and Zhuan Falun is central. To be honest Tomananda, you don't need to tell me what you think about Falun Gong. Im just here to build an article based on the truth about Falun Gong and not on what others think or believes. /Omido 19:10, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Boys, that's enough. Omido, please don't tell other people what to think. Tomananda, don't stoop to negative personal comments.
I didn't think I had to say that this question should be approached from a NPOV stance, but I guess I should. CovenantD 19:37, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Li does not speak about End of Days, maybe you did not read all lectures/speeches. He speaks about how wonderful the future will be, the whole Fa-Rectification is about saving all beings in the cosmos. That Li is a savior or not is not central to Falun Dafa either. Maybe some people does not understand that Zhuan Falun and Truth-Compassion-Forbearence is and always will be central, even Master Li himself has said this, and everything else is POV. Also ConvenantD, I know you are trying to be neutral, but sometimes you too do some misstakes. For example, look at Tomananda's behaviour, it is chaotic. He always does personal attacks to try to justify his thinking, is this how and editor should be? Im handling his irrational personal attacks and accusations with compassion and tolerence, but he continues with accusations and personal attacks, all of these things are not needed, the most important thing is to build the article based on the truth. I don't care if he attacks me with accusations or if he says bad things about me, to be honest, Im not affected in any way by whatever he says, for me it is just important that the article is done correct. /Omido 20:37, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Omido, for me to point out that you consistently mis-represent or deny what you master teaches is not a personal attack. Other editors, including Fire Star, have made similar comments. Now once again you are misrpresenting the Master's teachings above. Master Li most certainly has referred to "the period of the last havoc," this "dharma-ending period" and other phraseology which can reasonably be called "the end of days." There are many, many quotes from the Master that support this claim. As a reminder, here are but a few:
  • I am telling you now that Dafa belongs to me, Li Hongzhi. It is taught to save you and spoken from my mouth. “Awakening” (May 27, 1996) in Essentials for Further Advancement I
  • If I cannot save you, nobody else can do it. Zhuan Falun, 2nd edition, p.317.
  • Our Falun Dafa is one of 84,000 cultivation ways in the Buddha’s School, which has never been made public during during the historical period of this human civilization. However, it was once widely used to provide salvation to mankind during a prehistoric period. I am making it public again in this final period of the Last Havoc. Zhuan Falun, 2nd edition, p.37 (Note that the “it” is Falun Dafa, not the Buddha’s School.)
  • Why is it that a being needs to be saved by Dafa and me personally? Or to put it plainly [think about it] what kind of being is worthy of salvation by the Great Law of the cosmos? For a being who is saved, could it just be about personal Consumation? So what kind of being deserves to be a Disciple of Dafa? Would you say those people who hide in their homes and “study the Fa” do? Or those who only want to gain from Dafa but don’t want to give to Dafa? Furthermore, what about those who, while Dafa disciples are being persecuted, don’t want to speak up for Dafa yet still “read the book” at home and try t get things from Dafa—what kind of people are they? You be the judge. from: “My Version of a ‘Stick Wake-up’” (October 11, 2004) http://faluncanada.net/library/english/jw/jw041011_e.html --Tomananda 20:46, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm not misrepresenting, it's just that your understanding is very, very shallow. You say he has referred to the "last havoc", Siddharta Gautama (the founder of buddhism) also spoke about the last havoc too right? Siddhart Gautama has said that during the "last havoc", demons are everywhere and that his own Dharma won't ba able to save beings. Master Li has said that everything will exist in the future and the earth will be left for the future too, nothing will be gone and eliminated exept for those who interfered with the Fa-Rectification. I'm not here to argue with you, I'm just here to create a good article. Whatever you want to think and do is up to you, and in the future you yourself will have to take the consuquenses for your actions. /Omido 21:56, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Ah! So you are now agreeing with me that Master Li does teach that we are in the period of the Last Havoc, right? I never claimed that Master Li originated this teaching, only that it is one of his central teachings and as such it should be reported here. So, finally, I think we may be making some progress. Does this mean that you will allow the Zhuan Falun quote to remain?

If the answer is yes, than I thank you for cooperating.If your answer is no, you need to provide some new justification because so far nothing you have said makes the case. --Tomananda 22:06, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Not everyone will have a "wonderful" future according to Master Li...

Master Li paints a pretty scary picture of the future for homosexuals and those who in their hearts do not think his Dafa is good. By my count, that can easily include a billion plus people on this planet. There are hundreds of millions of homosexuals world-wide and the overwhelming majority of Chinese people believe that Li's teachings are harmful and bad. Omido, when you say Li talks about how wonoderful the future will be, you should qualify that statement by saying it will be wonderful only for those who are worthy of being saved by Li and his Dafa. So really it's a mixed future, depending on how your worth is judged by Master Li, isn't it? Or do you think all the unworthy people whom Li castigates will actually consider their future punishments to be "wonderful"? Just asking.

  • No matter how the evil persecutes, what awaits Dafa disciples is still Consummation, and what awaits the evil beings is nothing but eternally paying in Hell for all they have done to interfere with and persecute the Fa-rectification and Dafa disciples. “Look at Things with Righteous Thoughts,” Falun Gong Web Site, March 8, 2002.
  • Once the saved ones have attained the Fa and left, the dregs of humanity and degenerate world that are left behind will be weeded out. Essentials for Further Advancement II, item 28
  • (Speaking of SARS) To put it in human terms, it’s Heaven punishing people. What it’s targeting, we Dafa disciples know full well: it’s targeting those who don’t deserve to be saved, who are impossible to save while Dafa disciples clarify the truth, and who aren’t useful to the evil rotten spirits. This is the first round of cleansing. Heaven is punishing the evil, yet China is still lying to cover up the number of deaths, and I’ll tell you, it’s huge, and it hasn’t peaked yet. People find it scary, but in fact, the truly horrible thing hasn’t begun yet. This isn’t the real, big cleansing when the Fa starts to rectify the human world. It’ll be even more horrifying when that big cleansing arrives, and it’ll target the entire world. When the vicious people go crazy they don’t fear anything, but, when the calamity really descends on them they’ll be stunned. Wait and see, this is going to be an eventful year. A lot is going to happen. Teaching and Explaining the Fa at the Metropolitan New York Fa Conference (April 20, 2003)
  • (Speaking of homosexuals) But the karma that some people have accrued is too much, in which case the fundamental elements of their existence will be implicated and destroyed. Homosexuals not only violate the standards that gods set for mankind, but also damage human society’s moral code. In particular, the impression it gives children will turn future societies into something demonic. That’s the issue. That kind of destruction, however, isn’t just about disappearing after they’re annihilated. That person is annihilated layer after layer at a rate that seems pretty rapid to us, but in fact it’s extremely slow in that time field. Over and over again, one is annihilated in an extremely painful way. It’s terribly frightening. Switzerland Speech, 1998
  • (Speaking of people who don't agree with Li's Fa) Let me tell you, when this Fa-rectification matter is over, humankind will enter the next stage, and those people and beings who in their minds think that the Great Fa of the cosmos isn’t good will be the first weeded out. It’s because no matter how bad some being in the cosmos are, they are even worse, for what they’re against is the Fa of the cosmos. So when we clarify the truth, we’re eliminating people’s evil thoughts towards Dafa. Teaching the Fa at the Great Lakes Fa conference in North America (December 9, 2000 in Ann Arbor), p.1. --Tomananda 21:53, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

...But Li's Dafa disciples have already been spared from Hell

  • I told you early on that I removed the name of every single Dafa disciple from Hell's list. Every ordinary person is listed in that registry. I have removed the names of Dafa disciples from Hell's registry. I had their names removed from Hell. So your names are not there. In other words, you are not in any way beings of the Three Realms, and you are no longer ordinary persons. http://www.clearwisdom.net/emh/articles/2006/4/1/2006_LA_Lecture.html
  • Congratulations Dafa Disciples!!!

Yes, so what are you trying to say? Yes, Master Li has saved all Dafa Disciples from hell, he has done the most compassionate deed. So what are you trying to say? Who are you to criticize the teachings of Dafa? Please proove to me that what Master Li has said is not true, can you do that? No you can't, and everything else is POV. If you say Master Li is fake, does that mean that Master Li is fake? Who are you to say what is true and what isn't true? /Omido 21:59, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

  • I can prove that what Li has said about saving practitioners from hell is not true. I just check the list in heaven and I see no practitioners on it. So I call the guys in hell and they told me that they are expecting Li soon. If Li can not even save himself from hell then how can he save others? If you want the phone number to hell I can give it to you but I am not sure they will answer your call. They are pretty angry at your master for claiming to be doing their job--Samuel Luo 23:42, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
I haven't talked with Hell, but “The jerk store called, they’re running out of you!” Hehe, just kidding. What? Haven't you seen Seinfeld? Take this lightly, it's just a joke, but it also points out the childish nature of the comments above. :-) Mcconn 10:35, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
Omido, it is not "criticism" to simply want to honestly report what the Master's teachings are. However, I certainly could add some critical commentary of my own. My main criticism is that Master Li has set up an incredible "us-versus-them" system of theology in which there are the "saved ones"...and now Li saare ys all the Dafa disciples are saved from Hell merely because they are Dafa disciples...and those who are not worthy of being saved. On top of that, he defines worthy as agreeing with his agenda to eliminate the "evil" Chinese Communist Party by standing up for his Dafa. What this means is that Li's goal of destroying the CCP (frankly, I consider it an attachment) takes presidence over all other worldly goals, like eliminating hunger or finding peaceful solutions to world conflicts. As with so much of the Falun Gong, it all seems to be so incredibly self-serving. Although those are some of my criticial thoughts, I am not even trying to introduce those thoughts into this article. All I really want to do is report the Master's teachings honestly, which you seem opposed to doing. --Tomananda 22:19, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

That explains how much you know. /Omido 22:56, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

This has degenerated into petty bickering. Somebody let me know when you decide to work on the article again. CovenantD 00:01, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

WIKIPEDIA IS NOT A FALUN GONG DISCUSSION FORUM! Please, focus on discussion of issues pertaining to editing the FLG articles.

I must say you dont understand the teachings at all. In your lack of understanding you pull out a few quotes and mis-represent them. Thats not what Falun Dafa teaches. There is so much context and inner meaning that goes behind every sentence in the teachings and they cannot be presented in a way that distorts the context. Say two lines are pulled out from the Bible and mis-represented. Would we be doing justice to the way Jesus Christ revealed? When we pull out two lines we must make clear why those lines were chosen, and whether the context has been made clear.. Dilip rajeev 06:26, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Really, Dilip? What exactly don't I understand in the teachings? Isn't it pretty clear that Li is saving Dafa disciples from Hell, while every ordinary person is listed on Hell's directory? Omido confirmed that as the belief, saying "Yes, Master Li has saved all Dafa Disciples from hell, he has done the most compassionate deed." That seems pretty clear and basic to me. What is not clear is why we have to spend weeks on end getting an acknowlegment from pratitioners that this is, indeed, what Falun Gong teaches and what the practitioners believe. I seems that as we have discussed these teachings, there has been more and more acknowlegment from the practitioners that this is what is believed, so I think Wikipedia is doing a good thing.
If the beliefs can be acknowledged in discussion, then they can be reported in the introduction, right? As to your analogy to Christianity, I don't see your point. Sentences are pulled from the Bible all the time and proudly proclaimed by Christians. And some Christian denominations in the United States proudly display big signs outside their churches that say "Jesus Saves." Millions of Christians believe that Jesus saves and I don't have a problem with that. What I have a problem with is the incredible dishonesty of the Falun Gong. I wish I could say it more softly, but I can't. You want millions of Americans to support you in your fight against the Chinese Government, but every time I hear one of your PR-driven stories, like the one about the alleged organ harvesting in Sujian, I think to myself: if you cannot even be honest about your fundamental beliefs, how can you be honest about what is happening in China?
For your own information, I was raised a Christian and I was taught to love my neighbor as myself. Christian ethics are very positive and loving for all human beings. But there is another, equally important part of Christianity which has to do with the role Jesus plays in offering salvation to mankind. Li makes the same kind of claim. It seems obvious to me that these teachings must be reported in Wikipedia and maybe now that we have reached this understanding we can proceed with the editing. --Tomananda 08:24, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

That line of thinking is clearly wrong. How can you say arbitrary quotes can represent Christianity? Sadly, almost nothing in life, and especially a complex belief system with thousands of years of history, can be understood so simply. You do dishonor to the entire Christian tradition. You should not hijack a belief system and say it represents something unless you are able to back it up. It seems clear that you are doing the same with the Falun Gong teachings too. ~~—Preceding unsigned comment added by User:Whitemanners (talk • contribs)

Tomananda, of course we will report on the teachings on Falun Gong, but we won't just take two quotes and misrepresent them. You think the whole article will end up like the "Critism and Contreversies" article? Not a chance. Also, you should know that alot have to be changed in the Critism and Contreversies article too, but we will get to that. /Omido 10:56, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Tomananda, Falun Dafa teachings are very profound.. Through cultivation practice one can achieve perfection or consummation but that doesnt come from "belief" alone. Falun Dafa teaches compassion for all sentient beings. Christianity also teaches compassion. The christian teachings also point out there are things or behaviours we must give up to assimilate to a higher natrue.. Is it right to label it as "elitism"? .. Jesus Christ in his compassion pointed out the flaws within us which we must give up to progress in cultivation.. it is not "intolerance" or anything.. For a cultivator there is only compassion.. compassion for all sentient beings Dilip rajeev 12:08, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

You guys saying that unbelievers aren't qualified to edit the article because we can't possibly understand how wonderful FLG is (or even Christianty is) is arrogantly, patronisingly dismissive and isn't going to fly. I, for one, am certain that I understand Li Hongzhi and FLG very, very well. I have the ears to hear what he is saying, to paraphrase Jesus. Add to that Li Hongzhi ordering his followers to publicly obscure his teachings and the above conversation makes perfect sense. You guys have to give up the attempts at conversion and accept that there are a lot of us who disagree with you no matter what, and that the article is going to reflect that. --Fire Star 火星 14:54, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

The reality is that it is impossible to understand anything well unless lots and lots of time is spent studying it. Above, the gentleman explains his view that it is possible to understand Christianity from reading a few arbitrary passages. I would say he is thoroughly wrong. Falun Gong practitioners- how many works has your Master written? Hundreds? How many pages do all of the works encompass? This is a good question to ask yourselves. Second, are any of these passages conflicting on first glance? Are there places where almost irreconciliable views are given? There has to be, as with any philosophical system there usually is. Third, if the gentleman above claims you FLG people believe such and such, and it is clear you don't, that counts for something. If your understanding of a passage here or there conflicts heavily, it just illustrates that the beliefs need to be analyzed in greater depth. Only a novice would claim that he or she understands Islam, Christianity, Judaism, Hinduism, and others, with only a few hours of reading here and there. Christianity dominated European thought for over 1,000 years. How many saints and great works developed throughout that time? There are scholars who spend there entire lives interpreting and researching the New Testament. Yet there is no consensus.

Mr. Tomananda, my apologies if this is not what you are accustomed to hearing. But your claim is utterly wrong. Do you agree with me now, after that long explanation? Whitemanners 18:00, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Actually, your posting and those of other practitioners above support the idea that thought control and information control are at work in Falun Gong. Li tells his disciples to study, read and memorize his bible, the Zhuan Falun, over and over again. He also says you cannot study other religions or cultivation practices, only Falun Gong, so practitioners routinely throw away their other books. The effect of all of this is to get practitioners to internalize the group's doctrine as "The Truth." No alternative belief systems are viewed as legitimate or useful. This kind of cultish indoctrination leads to a closed system of logic in which no outside input is accepted as valid. More and more the practioners, although they live with "ordinary people," become dependent on each other to reinforce this internalized truth. In many cases, practitioners who are married to non-practioners become estranged from their spouses, resulting in divorce and the break-up of families. Everything the group does goes to the benefit of the group or the group leader. There is an "us-versus-them" mentality which the leader inculcates as a control mechanism. Ordinary people, those who do not accept the master's teachings, are demonized in one way or another. Does any of this sound familiar to anyone reading this post? --Tomananda 20:09, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Please, you are changing the topic. We were discussing about Christianity. And philosophy. Thought control? How did you come to that conclusion. What I said is that to understand Christianity, Islam, even Nietzche or Hegel, it is not as simple as you imply. I'm sorry, but it's not. The world is tough, I know. A man who fails to devote countless hours of patience and discipline to studying something usually will not understand it. A body of vast works needs lots of time to study it. Authors/thinkers/prophets are usually contradictory, their works are complicated, and the more writing they have, the more complicated it can be to interpret. Throwing out random quotations does absolutely no good. Do you finally agree with me now? Your interpretations above obviously can't do the FLG group justice. And you really are on shaky foundations. I would also like to request that you stick to the topic at hand.

No, I don't agree with you. Our task as editors is to summarize as succinctly as possible the central concepts of Falun Gong on the main page. By defintion, a summary does not attempt to provide an in-depth understanding of any complex subject. Here's the Wikipedia summary for Christianity:

  • Christianity is a monotheistic[1] religion centered on the stories of the life and teachings of Jesus of Nazareth as recounted in the Gospels.[2]. Christians believe Jesus to be the Messiah, and thus refer to him as Jesus Christ. With an estimated 2.1 billion adherents in 2001, Christianity is the world's largest religion.[3]

Notice that words like "Messiah" and "Christ" are linked. Notice also that the summary does not attempt much detail about Jesus's ethical teachings, but it does touch on the soteriological aspect of Christianity and the special status of Jesus as the perceived Christ. We need a simple summary of Falun Gong that includes the bulleted items that have been posted above.

As to my summary of the cultish aspects of Falun Gong, it was a response to your advocating spending "lot and lots of time" studying Falun Gong in order to "understand" it. Well, that is what Li says as well, and given the endless stream of proslytizing discussion posts we have encountered from practitioners...are you also a practitioner?...your words become suspect.--Tomananda 23:31, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

PS: I wonder if we could ever hope to achieve a level of honesty from the practioners so as to report something like this: "Master Li, who is thought of as a god or living Buddha by his disciples, claims that he and his Dafa are the only source of salvation for mankind during this period of Fa-rectification. He teaches that his Dafa (great law)is currently judging all beings and promises to turn his "Dafa disciples" into Gods if they meet the moral requirments of the Dafa and work to expose what he considers to be the evil Chines Communist regime." Doesn't that summarize a great deal of Falun Gong teahings? Do you want to expand it futher?


"Main" Buddha would probably be a more accurate term, whatever that means --Yenchin 00:42, 26 June 2006 (UTC)


If it's for the sake of a summary, you are still wrong. Obviously, the FLG people contend that you are misrepresenting what is central about their practice. You say it is about such and such, you provide contextual evidence and claim they are hiding their beliefs. But they, or in fact anyone who reads the texts can offer entirely different interpretations. That's the nature of the game. But it doesn't end there. In addition, they claim that it is to be understood in a certain way. This has more validity than your claims. How so? Take the early Christians. It is important what they say because they are the ones inside the movement. The FLG people are also inside the movement. They have more validity. Maybe enough editors out there on the Christianity page feel that summary you provided is good. But, it is also obvious that if I wanted to, or anyone else, we could offer a better summary based on such and such textual evidence. I also noticed that your summary above is very degrading, while the Christianity one is not. Whitemanners 03:43, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Of course Falun Gong practitioners object to the edits I am introducing, but if you read the discussion all the way back for the last 4 months you will see that they have objected to almost every edit I have introduced. Yet my edits have remained because they are accurate representations of Falun Gong teachings and the Falun Gong practitioners know it. Are you a practitioner? The sad reality is that practitioners routinely deceive the public about their beliefs "at the higher levels" because their master demands it. Deception is a common characterstic of a cult. Christianity is not a cult, so Christians are comfortable saying that they believe Jesus saves and that he attoned for the sins of mankind. Falun Gong practitioners believe that Li and his Dafa save, but I challenge you to find a simple statment of that fact anywhere on a Falun Gong website. You won't, because Falun Gong's public image is carefully packaged to the western audience. You might try to claim that my interpretations are inaccurate, but time and again I have posted something, there's been an argument about it, and then comes an ackowledgment of its accuracy. One of the biggest sticking points, in fact, has been my assertion that Falun Gong is about salvation. To me this is a no-brainer because Li uses that word salvation repeatedly. If you read the above thread, you'll see that I introduced a quote from Li about how he has saved all his Dafa disciples from Hell. Here's the response that came from pratitioner Omido:
  • Yes, Master Li has saved all Dafa Disciples from hell, he has done the most compassionate deed.
There are two interesting aspects about Omido's response. First, he acknowledged the validity of what I had introduced in the discussion and, second, he somewhat defensively added that this is a good thing. Omido's defensive response is significant because I never said it was not a good thing that Li Hongzhi and his Dafa are offering salvation to mankind at this time. All I've ever said for these past four months is that I insist Wikipedia honestly report the teachings and practices of Falun Gong. So why the defensiveness? It's because Master Li has indoctrinated his disciples to engage in deception when talking about the Falun Gong to outsiders. It is not the fault of practitioners that they behave in this odd way, it is the fault of the master. And I ask you once again, are you a practitioner? --Tomananda 18:21, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
PS: You accuse me of having written a "degrading" summary of Falun Gong. Here's what I wrote:
  • "Master Li, who is thought of as a god or living Buddha by his disciples, claims that he and his Dafa are the only source of salvation for mankind during this period of Fa-rectification. He teaches that his Dafa (great law)is currently judging all beings and promises to turn his "Dafa disciples" into Gods if they meet the moral requirments of the Dafa and work to expose what he considers to be the evil Chinese Communist regime."

Since you have accused me of "degrading" the Falun Gong, would you kindly tell excactly what is "degrading" in this summary? Yes, it is longer than the one on Christianity, but surely that doesn't make it degrading. A Christian fundamentalist would have no problem summarizing their faith with words like: "Jesus attoned for all our sins on the cross. He was the Son of God and is the only hope for salvation for mankind." For some denominations, I could also add the belief in the second coming and how when Jesus returns the good souls will rise up to heaven to be with God. Are those words "degrading"? For many Christians, they represent the truth. --Tomananda 19:03, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Why dont we concentrate on writing the article instead of what you think about falun gong? isnt this getting extremely out of context? How can you expect to make a neutral article if you dont even let us speak about what we the practitioners think that falun gong is? even from the first paragraph you just want to say that Li has promised all of his students they will be gods some day and that his so called "Dafa" is judging all sentient beings and whatnot. Surely thats what you think, but we dont agree to this. So why dont you let us do our job and you make up your own critics page, criticize all you want and let us work on what we need to work, you think you know so much about falun gong but thats not necessarily true, you just have a point of view about the matter and thats it, dont go thinking all you say is just a fact. In falun gong, master Li only says you can become a higher being due to your effort on cultivation, by trying to be a better person every day, by believing on truth, benevolence, forbearance. Being tolerant, just, benevolent, doesnt this make you a good person? doesnt this take an effort to accomplish? it is degrading to say the master is promising all the students they will be gods and saying all the dafa students are spared from hell. Andres: Here are some of the words from the Master which you say are degrading.--Tomananda 08:14, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

  • I told you early on that I removed the name of every single Dafa disciple from Hell's list. Every ordinary person is listed in that registry. I have removed the names of Dafa disciples from Hell's registry. I had their names removed from Hell. So your names are not there. In other words, you are not in any way beings of the Three Realms, and you are no longer ordinary persons. http://www.clearwisdom.net/emh/articles/2006/4/1/2006_LA_Lecture.html

The fact that someone says he is a practitioner doesnt really make him a practitioner. Andres: Are you suggesting that Master Li might be fooled into removing the names of some of the Dafa discples from the Hell registry? What point are you trying to make here? What master li says is just that bad things will be eliminated and good things will be kept, whats so hard to understand? So then there is no Hell, no consumation, no salvation in Falun Gong teachings? Is that what you're saying...that it's only about the ethics? What nonsense!


the problem is you keep searching the masters readings to try and find a quote, take it out of its context, bring it here and criticize it, thats not good at all. Then, instead of trying to read what the practitioners post, you just try to block everything we do. I think the most appropriate approach is to make one daughter page completely dedicated to critics and let the main page to us, we are the practitioners so we know what it is about. So if the reader wants to know about the critics and controversies of falun gong ( and im sure almost everyone who reads the article will go there because they wanna see the other side of the story ) then they can click on the link to the critics page. One of you said "You guys saying that unbelievers aren't qualified to edit the article because we can't possibly understand how wonderful FLG is (or even Christianty is) is arrogantly, patronisingly dismissive and isn't going to fly. I, for one, am certain that I understand Li Hongzhi and FLG very, very well. I have the ears to hear what he is saying, to paraphrase Jesus. Add to that Li Hongzhi ordering his followers to publicly obscure his teachings and the above conversation makes perfect sense. You guys have to give up the attempts at conversion and accept that there are a lot of us who disagree with you no matter what and the article is going to reflect that. --Fire Star 火星 14:54, 25 June 2006 (UTC)" Fine, do it on the critics part, how can you expect to expose your own point of view everywhere? even from the first or second pargraph or even from the core principles you want to criticize and you also have a critics and controversy subsection, so, where is our part? you dont let US work, where is our opinion? where is our clarification of the critics you made on the subsection for example? you are directly attacking falun gong over there and now you also want to attack it on anything we write?. So we cant do anything because you also wanna criticize it too? you know what? that "isnt gonna fly".

Andres, you are new to this article and may not realize that we have in fact worked together. No, the Falun Gong cannot dictate what goes on the main page. It is a joint effort. But at least we now have confirmation from you that you are a practitioner. From your comment above, it seems that you agree with Omido that Li's own teachings are "degrading". Frankly, I thought that practitioners are supposed to treat all of the Master's teachings with respect, and to call them degrading doesn't seem very respectful to me.
In my proposed edit below, I start with a statement about Master Li being thought of as a god or living Buddha by his disciples. Do you disagree with that? Do you think of Master Li as not being a god or living Buddha? After that statement, I summarize some of Master Li's teachings on the Dafa (it is judging all beings) and go on just to mention Fa-rectification and his promise to turn practitioners into gods. Do you disagree with that? Do you claim master has not said that? Do I need to produce the direct quotes? Do you really think these are my ideas?
  • "Master Li, who is thought of as a god or living Buddha by his disciples, claims that he and his Dafa are the only source of salvation for mankind during this period of Fa-rectification. He teaches that his Dafa (great law)is currently judging all beings and promises to turn his "Dafa disciples" into Gods if they meet the moral requirments of the Dafa and work to expose what he considers to be the evil Chinese Communist regime."
Andres, no mater how much you complain, this Wikipedia article will not be dictated by Falun Gong practitioners. We all will contribute and as Fire Star said "You guys have to give up the attempts at conversion and accept that there are a lot of us who disagree with you no matter what and the article is going to reflect that." So please, instead of all the complaining why don't we work together on this introduction, part of which I have proposed above. --Tomananda 07:49, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
Oh, one more thing: Did you really mean to refer to Li's Dafa as his "so-called" Dafa? Do you have another name for it or are you just joking? --Tomananda 08:03, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Alot has been said here, so I won't respond to everything at this time. Tomanda, whenever you use your own words to describe Falun Gong, your very incorrect and distorted understanding comes through. I'm going to say something about your statement, "Master Li has indoctrinated his disciples to engage in deception when talking about the Falun Gong to outsiders." Master Li has done nothing of the sort. What Mr. Li has told us to do is to talk about the basics and fundamentals of Falun Dafa cultivation when introducing the practice to people. Yes, this means not talking about Fa-rectification. This, in fact, is the same way Mr. Li introduced the practice himself. The fundamental concept of Falun Dafa is cultivating your heart by assimilating to Zhen Shan Ren. So this was the focus of the earlier talks. Gradually, after practitioners could grasp this, he would introduce concepts and truths less central (of course, cultivation still held a central part at the same time). Such truths built on the wisdom and faith that practitioners had already obtained. They would have been very difficult to accept at the beginning, and even more difficult to understand clearly. Moreover, if they were introduced at the beginning they would have taken focus away from the most important thing, ie. cultivation. You don't teach calculus before long division, do you? Therefore, doesn't it make sense that practitioners stick to the basics when talking with people who don't know anything, or know very little, about Falun Gong? It's the same thing and it's only logical. Our Master has guided us with common sense in this instince. This has nothing to do with distorting any truth or decieving people. Would it make sense to talk about the concepts, of which one's own understanding has only been obtained after countless hours of study and that aren't even very central to the practice? Of course not. However, it also depends on the person. Some people indicate that they can understand a bit more, so sometimes one can go a little further with some people when explaining Falun Dafa principles. It's not some kind of rigid rule. I understand that the wikipedia page is different, but at the same time the purpose is the same; to give people an accurate and fair representation of Falun Dafa. Naturally, Fa-Rectification, given it's importance at this time will be mentioned. It's just a matter of how to include and clarify these kinds of things reasonably and responsibly. I have not been gaged and I am not trying to hide anything. Instead, I only wish to depict Falun Dafa accurately and fairly. Mcconn 08:48, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Mcconn: Your description of how Master Li tells the practitioners to start with the basics and slowly introduce the material "at a higher level" is something I am totally aware of. It's by using this method the Falun Gong is able to recruit new members...people who are just interested in learning healthy exercises and wouldn't want to take on a new religion. But as you yourself say, Wikipedia is different. Even though I understand why you want the Wikipedia article to read like a Falun Gong recruitment pamphlet, we cannot allow that to happen. It must read like an enclyclopedia article which is very different. So when you say "we can mention Fa-rectification" your tone of voice suggests that you want to burry that, and the concept of Dafa judging all beings to some obscure portion of the text. Your goal here is to diminish the importance and prominence of the teachings "at a higher level" while my goal is to give them promininence because they are just that important. In fact, as you know, Master Li has stated that if all you did was practice the exercises you wouldn't be considered a cultivator. You must study and defend his Dafa in order to be considered a Dafa disciple, and defending the Dafa now means taking on the Chinese Communist Party. It is a requirment that you do this in order to reach consumation and become a god. Am I wrong in any of this? --Tomananda 18:41, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
Why do you always put words in others' mouths and accuse others? I don't "want the Wikipedia article to read like a Falun Gong recruitment pamphlet". I've never seen one before, perhaps you can show me. I don't want the article to read like a Falun Dafa flyer either. I know very well what an encyclopedia article is and that is what I'm working to help create. I'm not trying to burry information on teachings "at a higher level". I said it clearly in my message above, "It's just a matter of how to include and clarify these kinds of things reasonably and responsibly." They have their place, it's just that we disagree on where this place is. I'm even in the midst of creating a Fa-Rectification section for the teachings page. What you said about the requirements of a being a practitioner and reaching consummation are distorted through your own words and interpretation. By saying "defend his Dafa", do you mean clarify the facts about Dafa? If so, then Yes, this is one of the criterions for a Fa-Rectification period Dafa diciple, but it is only something of our present time and not inherent in Falun Dafa cultivation. It wasn't this way a few years ago and it won't be in the future. Clarifying the truth means exposing the facts about the persecution, which enevitably leads to exposing the deeds of the CCP. Now practitioners are focusing more on exposing the CCP because many Chinese people can't accept the fact that their government can be so evil and lie to them so much. "Take on the CCP"? This is completely your own spin. Here's what Mr. Li has actually said:
"Right now when you clarify the truth you only need to talk about the persecution of Dafa disciples, how the evil party has been violating the human rights and the freedom of belief of the Chinese people, how historically the evil party has persecuted the Chinese people and the people of the countries belonging to the wicked Communist bloc, and how it is persecuting Dafa disciples today in the same way. And that's enough." Mcconn 17:17, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

I deny what you think falun gong is, not what it really is, whatever you think you understand about it isnt necessarily the truth, please read what i write so i dont have to write it again. Ok, you want it to be a joint effort? then take down the critics and controvesy section, its completely partialized to your favor. So you come and say we should do things together but when it comes to your work you dont say anything do you?. Ok, lets do the article together but either you erase the criticism and controversy subsection or you let us answer your critics. And every paragraph that is going to speak good or bad about falun gong should say "Falun gong states.....but the critics say" "The critics state....but falun gong says" This way we can expose the point of view from critics and falun gong at the same time and at the same page. I dont want the readers to think we actually agree with what you think falun gong is, and this way we make it clear where everyone is standing, to me, its the appropriate way to structure the article. And yes, i am a practitioner, it is "confirmed".

--Andres18 12:10, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Andres: The Criticism and controversies section is, by definition, about Criticism and Controversies so that must be the focus of that page. Practioners can, and have, added points to refute some of the criticism, but the page still must focus on the criticism. For a model of this, see the Scientology Criticism page. There are many other pages which the Falun Gong has created and, for the most part, I have not gone into those pages in an attempt to add negative commentary all along. If I did, it would destroy the readability of the article. What we are talking about here is the main page, which clearly must be a joint project. --Tomananda 18:26, 27 June 2006 (UTC)


Arent you contradicting yourself? we are talking about the critics and controversy section on the main page, not any other critics page you may have come up with. you said the main page is supossed to be a joint effort, thats a great idea, so you have two options, either you take it down or you let us expose our point of view on the section. Just look at the main page, does it really seem neutral to you?. Oh, by the way, here is a definition of controversy according to wikipedia, a verifiable source. "A controversy is an opinion or opinions over which parties are actively arguing. Controversies can range from private disputes between two to large scale disagreements." Where do we get to explain what falun gong claims on the critics and "controversy" section, is it really controversial? or is it just you and your friends directly attacking falun gong?. Well maybe you want to keep your section because you think its really cool, well, ok, keep it but then we get to make another section where we clarify your critics, but then the main page would turn into a very looong article wouldnt it? tell me what you think. --Andres18 00:52, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

I think NO.

  1. The criticism section is not going away.
  2. Any editor may make suggestions for edits to any section, but right now we are supposed to be trying to focus on the 1st paragraph. Rather than keeping this farce of a thread going (yeah, I'm convinced that it's not going to go anywhere substantial which is why I archived it hoping it would go away), why don't you contribute to that discussion? There has yet to be any pratitioner that has voted on the question that I've asked below. We're going nowhere fast people, because you'd rather preach at each other than work on the article. CovenantD 01:29, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

I think the biggest problem here is that Tomananda really thinks that his words are Master Li's words. Tomananda, your words are degrading to Falun Dafa, not Master Li's. You are not Master Li and your words are not Master Li's. I totally agree with Andres, you are trying to attack Falun Gong on every section and trying to insert your own POV everywhere. If one want's to understand Falun Gong in-depth then one has to read all speeches and articles several times. You are misrepresenting things to the readers when you are just picking a sentence and changing it a bit and putting your own POV into it. /Omido 14:42, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Allright, lets focus on the first paragraph then, but please remember the critics section is still out there and people keep reading it, and we all know its not a neutral subsection.--Andres18 02:15, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Here's a proposal

Here's a proposal, let the FLG followers directly introduce FLG and quote cite the texts on the main page.

Wait...isn't that already done on Falundafa.org and Minghui.net? --Yenchin 07:10, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Oh, thats a greatly appreciatted proposal but why dont you let us worry about what we are going to say, you talk to your friends and make up something and then we join it and make one paragraph that condenses both the critic but at the same time what falun gong states. For example, "The critics believe Li is a god among all humans and he came to judge humanity, nevertheless, Falun gong practitioners just see master Li as a higher being who has come to aid the morality of mankind by the teaching of this system" There you go, everyone is happy, you said your stuff, we said ours and then we let the rest to the reader. He will decide between what we say and what you say. --Andres18 12:17, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

No. That is not the way that a good article is written, and that kind of unencyclopedic entry will be removed. CovenantD 12:42, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Comments from Andres

Here are comments from Andres. He requested me to put on this discussion page.

Well accepted Firestar's suggestion, here is the link [76] Thanks, Firestar. Fnhddzs 23:11, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

The above, rather lengthy, contribution should probably be replaced by a simple link to the appropriate section of your talk page. --Fire Star 火星 22:49, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Omid's introduction Suggestion

Falun Gong, (simplified Chinese: 法轮功; traditional Chinese: 法輪功; pinyin: Fǎlún Gōng; literally "Practice of the Wheel of Law") also known as Falun Dafa, (simplified Chinese: 法轮大法; traditional Chinese: 法輪大法; pinyin: Fǎlún dàfǎ; lit. "Great Law of the Wheel of Law") is a system of mind and body cultivation within the Buddha-School which was introduced by Li Hongzhi (surname is Li) to the public in 1992. Falun Gong refers to five sets of meditation exercises (four standing, and one sitting meditation).[15] and Xinxing Cultivation (a process in which the practitioner constantly assimilates to the nature of the Universe - Truthfulness, Compassion, Endurance by letting go of various attachments and desires). [16] In Zhuan Falun, Falun Dafa is introduced by Li in this way: “Our Falun Dafa is one of the Buddhist system’s 84,000 disciplines. It’s never been passed on to the general public before during this period of civilization, but it did once save people on a large scale in a prehistoric age. Today I’m spreading it again widely during this final period of the kalpa’s end, so it’s just extremely precious."[17] In recent years, due to the persecution, added emphasis has been placed on the concept of "Fa-Rectification Cultivation" [18]

This is a very good version because it includes everything, Xinxing cultivation, the newer translation of how Li describes Falun Dafa, and the concept of Fa-Rectification Cultivation.

/Omido 11:16, 25 June 2006 (UTC)


Quite good. Dilip rajeev 12:12, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

I want to see the references, especially the one that defines Xinxing cultivation. CovenantD 14:16, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Reject. "...within the Buddha school"? --Yenchin 19:55, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

How about actually reading the teachings? You should know what this means. Go here to read about it: [77] Perhaps we can link this phrase to an explanation in the teachings section.Mcconn 08:55, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Reject The translation of Li’s words is not as accurate as the other version, see my posting below. --Samuel Luo 20:00, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Reject For several reasons: First, I understand that "last havoc" is a literal translation of the Chinese, so that version should be used. Second, the last sentence should reference "Fa-rectification" not "Fa-rectification cultivation" which is the more narrow subject. I suggest wording like this:

  • In recent years, emphasis has been placed on the idea that Li's Dafa is judging all beings in a process called "Fa-rectification." According to Li, people who "do not think it their hearts that the Dafa is good," the "dregs of humanity and degenerate world," and those that fail to condemn the Chinese goverment for it's alleged persecution of the Falun Gong will be "weeded out" in the Fa-rectification. Also included is the idea that only Li and his Dafa can provide a means of salvation for mankind at this point in our history. --Tomananda 20:23, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Actually Fa-rectification is not a recent theme. Li talked about it way before the ban in 1999. See the following teaching he gave in July 5, 1997. --Samuel Luo 21:54, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

  • For a long period of time the sentient beings in Dafa, especially the disciples, have had a misunderstanding of the Fa at various levels regarding xinxing improvement. Whenever a tribulation comes, you do not see it with the side of your original nature but view it completely with your human side. Evil demons then capitalize on this point and inflict endless interference and damage, leaving students in long-term tribulations. As a matter of fact, this results from an inadequate understanding of the Fa by your human side. You have humanly restrained your divine side; in other words, you have restrained the parts that have been successfully cultivated and have prevented them from doing Fa-rectification. How can the uncultivated side restrain your main thoughts or the side that has already attained the Fa? Having humanly fostered the evil demons, you allow them to capitalize on the loopholes in the Fa. When a tribulation arrives, if you, a disciple, can truly maintain an unshakable calm or be determined to meet different requirements at different levels, this should be sufficient for you to pass the test. If it continues endlessly and if there do not exist other problems in your xinxing or conduct, it must be that the evil demons are capitalizing on the weak spots caused by your lack of control. After all, a cultivator is not an ordinary human. So why doesn’t the side of you that is your original nature rectify the Fa? [78]

Forget it Tomananda, we won't use your words to describe the Fa-Rectification in the intro, the Fa-Rectification will have it own section which will explain it in-depth. /Omido 22:18, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Omido: Don't you recognize that these are the Master's words? Here are the sources:

  • The Dafa is judging all beings. (Further Comments on Superstitions" in Essentials II
  • Let me tell you, when this Fa-rectification is over, humankind wil enter the next stage, and those people who in their minds think that the Great Fa of the cosmos isn't good will be the first weeded out." Teaching the Fa at the Great Lakes Fa Conveference in North America (December, 2000)....Oh, and I notice th quote should read "in their minds" rather than "in their hearts"...I will fix that.
  • Once the saved ones have attained the Fa and left, the dregs of humanity and degenerate world that are left behind will be weeded out. Essentails for Further Advancement II, item 28.

And concerning Li and his Dafa offering the only means to salvation, here's one of many quotes:

  • Why is it that a being needs to be saved by Dafa and me personally? etc. "My Version of a 'Stick Wake-up'" October 11, 2004

So when you characterize my edit as using "my words" were you implying that I think like Master Li or what? Once again, I have reported your master's teachings in a clear and consise way and once again you reject it. That is why I and Fire Star have suggested that only a non-practtioner has the objectivity to report these teachings in Wikipedia. If you can find any error in the above paragraph (other than my mistake of using the word "heart" instead of "mind" in one of the quotes) please let me know. --Tomananda 22:37, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Revised sentences:

  • Since the writing of Zhuan Falun, emphasis has been placed on the idea that Li's "Dafa is judging all beings" in a process called "Fa-rectification." [2] According to Li, people "who in their minds think that the Great Fa of the cosmos isn't good," the "dregs of humanity and degenerate world," and those who fail to condemn the Chinese goverment for it's alleged persecution of the Falun Gong will be "weeded out" in the Fa-rectification. Also included is the idea that only Li and his Dafa can provide a means of salvation for mankind at this point in our history.

When we add these words to the main page, I will isert all 4 of the sources I list above. I don't think we will be able to achieve anything more accurate than these sentences. Please stop saying I am "using my words." I am playing the role of editor and drawing heavily on direct quotes from the Master for these edits. If you find anything inaccurate, please let me know. --Tomananda 22:47, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Li’s quote in 1st paragraph of intro

The translation used in samuel’s suggestion (the first version) is better than the one used in Omido’s suggestion. The Chinese original text and two versions of translation are listed below. The highlighted text in the first version shows the accuracy of translation.

我们法轮大法是佛家８万４千法门中的一法门，在我们这一次人类文明历史时期从来没有公开传出过，但是，在史前一个时期广泛度过人。我在末劫最后时期再一次把他洪传出来，所以他是极其珍贵的。

Our Falun Dafa is one of the eighty-four thousand cultivation ways in the Buddha School. During the historical period of this human civilization, it has never been made public. In a prehistoric period, however, it was once widely used to provide salvation to humankind. In this final period of Last Havoc, I am making it public again. Therefore, it is extremely precious.


Our Falun Dafa is one of the Buddhist system’s 84,000 disciplines. It’s never been passed on to the general public before during this period of civilization, but it did once save people on a large scale in a prehistoric age. Today I’m spreading it again widely during this final period of the kalpa’s end, so it’s just extremely precious.

Why should the first version be used? No it is not better, and it is not more accure, if it were better then they would not bother to translate it again right? We will follow the newest translation when making this article.

/Omido 22:16, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

I must say "discpline" is a much better translation of "法门" than "cultivation ways" in this context. --Sumple (Talk) 04:31, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Hongzhi, Li (June 28, 2000) “Using at Will” in Essentials II retrieved June 18, 2006
  2. ^ a b c d Hongzhi, Li (July 13, 1999) “Further Comments on Superstitions” in Essentials II retrieved June 18, 2006
  3. ^ a b c Hongzhi, Li (July 13, 1999) “The Vows of Gods are Being Fulfilled” in Essentials II retrieved June 18, 2006
  4. ^ a b c Hongzhi, Li "Whoever Practices Cultivation will Attain Gong" in Zhuan FalunThird Translation Edition (Updated March, 2000) USA Internet Version retrieved June 14, 2006
  5. ^ a b c Hongzhi, Li (February 15, 2003) Fa-Lecture During the 2003 Lantern Festival at the U.S. West Fa Conference retrieved June 18, 2006
  6. ^ a b c Hongzhi, Li (September 19, 2004) In Fa-Rectification Your Thoughts Have to Be Righteous, Not Human in Essentials II retrieved June 18, 2006
  7. ^ a b c d Rahn, Patsy (2002) “The Chemistry of a Conflict: The Chinese Government and the Falun Gong” in Terrorism and Political Violence, Winter, 2002, Vol 14, No. 4 (London: Frank Cass Publishers) reprinted in Cultic Studies Review, subscription required
  8. ^ Penny, Benjamin, “The Falun Gong, Buddhism and ‘Buddhist qigong’”, Asian Studies Review March 2005, Vol 29, pp.35-46.
  9. ^ Associated Press (July 22, 1999) “Banned sect joins long Chinese history of religious suppression” retrieved June 17, 2006
  10. ^ Engardio, Joel "Spiritual Cultivation" New Times, Los Angeles (March 23-29, 2000) retrieved on June 14, 2006
  11. ^ Chang, Maria Hsia (2004) Falun Gong: The End of Days (New Haven, Connecticut: Yale University Press) ISBN 0-300-10227-5
  12. ^ Falun Dafa.org "The Exercises of Falun Dafa", retrieved June 23, 2006
  13. ^ Hongzhi, Li. "Lecture One:Characteristics of Falun Dafa, Falundafa.org, retreived June 23, 2006
  14. ^ Hongzhi, Li. (December 9, 2001) "Foretelling the Fa’s Rectification of the Human World", retrieved June 23, 2006
  15. ^ Falun Dafa.org "The Exercises of Falun Dafa", retrieved June 23, 2006
  16. ^ Reference for xinxing cultivation.
  17. ^ Hongzhi, Li. "Lecture One:Characteristics of Falun Dafa, Falundafa.org, retreived June 23, 2006
  18. ^ Reference for Fa-Rectification Cultivation.
Comment: It should be Li, Hongzhi not Hongzhi, Li because reference convention is surname first (e.g. "Einstein, Albert").

Stopping blanket reverts

This refers to, after an editor makes a series of changes, another editor reverts them all in one go and says "rv pov-pushing" or something similar. We can't work this way. It destroys morale. The edits are made with some care, but the revert is all just one go? It makes it very hard to get anything done. If anyone else has a better idea for how to resolve this, I would be happy to hear it. Often, the initial edit is already explained in an edit summary. Do we need to do more? What's the best way we can work together in this regard? I just reverted Colipon's revert of a series of edits I did precisely for this reason--no explanation was provided, and those changes were considered and took time. It's hard to resolve disputes when the substance of the dispute is unclear. So, my request is to clarify what the actual problems are, and then we can discuss them.--Asdfg12345 23:46, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

The solution is not to POV-push constantly anything that might make Falun Gong. Also, I see that people keep saying that you have a COI in this topic, but you keep editing the article as if you had no conflict of interest at all.
Your edit was POV pushing just like most if not all of the edits that you keep making in rows. You make a lot of changes in a row and then you complain when you get reverted because you didn't discuss them or because they are whitewashing the subject. You ask that every revert is discussed, but you refuse to take the burden of proof when people tell you why you make those edits. When someone finally discuss the edits in details then you start with WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT and trying to rehash the same arguments again and again like you did at Talk:Falun_Gong#Luo_Gan.
Given the above, of course that you are being reverted. And you will keep being reverted because you are POV-pushing. And if you keep un-reverting the same POV-pushing and keeping your behaviour in this talk then you will eventually get yourself topic-banned from this page. --Enric Naval (talk) 00:19, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
P.D.: You want to know why you are going to be reverted? Fine, here you have: your last revert removed again the "controversial" word and the homosexuality thing from the controversies section. And you moved the part cited to Frank from the start of the "the 'cult' label" in what appears to be yet another try to paint the "cult" label as an invention exclusive of the communist party. This was all POV-pushing against consensus of other editors and it's perfectly correct to revert the same old tired from stuff that keeps being thrown to the article in the hope that it sticks. I hope I was clear in the reasons. --Enric Naval (talk) 00:25, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

To be honest, I'm seeking nothing more than to make the pages conform to wikipedia policies. Our discussion should revolve around how that is or is not being achieved, rather than ad-hominem. Everyone who is bothering to edit the pages has some interest in them. The key thing is that the discussion is transparent, in line with wiki policy and reliable sources. I've tried to be quite proactive in discussion, but I haven't felt like others have come to the table, and instead I've just been dealt personal attacks and no real discussion of the bones of contention on the pages. I wrote several problems with the changes in the edit summaries. Each of those are discrete issues that need to be addressed. Maybe I could put a number in the edit summary each time I edit, then put a note here on the talk page explaining it further. And each edit can then be dealt with separately, on its own merits. This might make things a bit more transparent. Right now several content guidelines are being broken, but I've probably not made clear how that is happening. But I think it's problematic when a series of changes get overridden with a simple and accusatory explanation—it effectively brands someone and shuts down discussion. That's not how we are supposed to do things, as far as I understand it. So.. my next approach will be to number each edit, and we can deal with each edit separately. Why do I make edits all in a row? Because I only have a certain amount of time each day for this. I can't space out edits over the whole day, or be on call 24/7. It's not meant to make trouble for anyone. Believe it or not, I'm editing in good faith, and I want the pages to be neutral and representative of the body of reliable sources on this topic. I seem to have put some noses out of joint, so I'll try to go a bit slower, and make my arguments more clear. Since included in your reverts were two specific issues that I mentioned in my edit summary but got no real response to, maybe you could respond to them here:

  1. It's original research to pull parts from Li's teachings and call them "controversial" without a source. It needs a source to say "so and so is controversial." It's a synthesis otherwise, because that would be a wikipedia editor picking through Li's teachings and deciding which is apparently controversial and which isn't. I contend that what's in that section should include what third parties have said--and not only the negative things, but also the positive things--about Falun Gong's teachings, but should not include our editor's interpretations of those teachings (implicit or explicit).
  2. Secondly, please see the Johnson issue above. You reverted it to include that, so it's a tacit endorsement of how that quote was modified. I raised a concern with how that happened, and said that it should just be what the source said. Please respond to that as well.

Thanks. When I get my other work done I'll come back and make changes one at a time, identifying each edit clearly with a number, and putting a space for discussion for each one. I'm not sure of another way of structuring it. In my question for how we can work better together, you've effectively told me that I shouldn't be editing these pages, and that all my edits will be reverted. Is that what you meant? I'm not sure if that was your meaning. You may have meant, if you perceive my edits as being pro-Falun Gong, then you will consider that POV-pushing, and will revert them? It's a bit unclear. I think this definition fails to take into account the actual policies of WP:NPOV and WP:V. I think it would be better to explain how my changes violate those policies, rather than just your feelings. If the pages did not distort and selectively use sources, were not so biased, presented more than a singular narrative, did not do such a job of selectively paring down fair representations of Falun Gong and promoting negative ones, smothering the mainstream sources on the cult topic in ambiguity--which I do not believe is a reflection of the scholarly consensus on the topic, something which I will show with reference to the actual sources--and so on, then we wouldn't really have these disputes. I just want neutral pages that conform to wikipedia policies, showing a fuller variety of sources and opinions. And I'm really happy to work with other editors on achieving that. At the moment I'm just getting reverted and called names. Doesn't compute.--Asdfg12345 03:13, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

I just checked the COI page. I don't have a conflict of interest. My interests are completely in line with the requirements of wikipedia's content guidelines. That's what we are meant to discuss--how the article, or certain edits, matches that or fails to. If you automatically assume that I'm editing in bad faith.. that will be tough going. Why not just "pretend" then, and go along with discussion, as long as its logical on the surface. All the issues I raise should be totally rational and very empirical concerns to do with sources and guidelines. That's the way I'm trying to discuss things.--Asdfg12345 03:25, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

You may not believe you have a WP:COI but that is just an error in your logic caused by your extreme WP:COI. Your blanket changes are vandalism and should be handled accordingly. Simonm223 (talk) 15:20, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
Making personal accusations that are not related to the topic at hand is wrong according to Wikipedia:No personal attacks. If you think WP:COI is a problem I would suggest you turn to Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard. Best Regards, --HappyInGeneral (talk) 21:49, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Yikes Simon. We're meant to discuss things; talk about policy, look at the sources. It's a very empirical sort of process. anyway, I hope we can work together...--Asdfg12345 23:02, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Falun_Gong/Archive_11&oldid=1136718901"