Talk:Falun Gong/Archive 3

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

message: as a Buddhist, one thing is certain, that Buddhism has no connection with Falun Gong even though they claimed so. Li, Hongzhi has been abusing buddhistic terminologies or ideologies extensively thorough out his *religion*. 
----
Just a quick query. I know that the chinese government has referred to the falun gong movement has been translated "evil cult", but what were the exact words they used in chinese?
Answer:
The term Jiang Zemin used when the persecution begann means if translated litereraly "heretical religion".
This term has been used by the party ever since,
and when they write anti Falun Gong texts in english
that term becomes "evil Cult", and in German "Boese Sekte" (which is yet another meaning)
But actually I am not so sure myself what they mean by "heretical religion". But as far as I know that term actually originates from the time of the cultural revolution. Back than any religous, spiritual,
or traditional gathering that was not organised by the party itself could be accused of that and it is also still used for Christians, or buddhists
that are outside Party controlled organizations.
Actually Falun Gong was also inside one of those Party orginazations,
namely the "National Qigong Assosciation". But they left it in 1996.
Manuel
::This article is damned biased. it presents opinions and allegations as fact. --Sumple 23:13, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  On reading it all, I take back that comment. It's well balanced. Cheers. --Sumple 23:22, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  evil cult? 

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

message: Have youse read the Chinese version of the Epoch Times? it being "sometimes accused of having a pro-Falun Gong platform" is an extreme and irresponsible understatement imo.
Seriously, the whole paper is about how the Falun Gong members are being alklegedly tortured and killed and sent to Tibet to be locked up.
It is quite obvious that the paper is funded by Falun Gong. --Sumple 22:52, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Epoch Times 

message: The edits so far today have been executed in such a fashion that diffs do not allow the changes made to be easily and transparently discerned. New text has been introduced and text has been removed at the same time as paragraph-moves. On the surface, I have a major problem with the changes in which a large chunk of text has been removed, and which appears to introduce a significant slant in favour of FLG through cherry-picking of sources such as Ownby. Ohconfucius ¡digame! 04:04, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: In my mind, there is no doubt that user asdfg's edits are disruptive. Colipon+(Talk) 04:26, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: "Defending the Fa", or just proselytising, as most FLG practitioners are wont to do. Ohconfucius ¡digame! 04:47, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Seems to me he just blank-reverted something and then tweaked it some how; he changed to link to the Persian site in the process... Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 04:51, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

text: Hmm, changing organization to org and decentralization. Decentralization-the spread of power away from the center to local branches or governments. So now, FLG has local gov'ts? Well that kinda still counts as organization. I'm going to change the name back.--Edward130603 (talk) 15:03, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent radical changes 

message: About these, I don't really care what they are as long as they're informative, descriptive, and neutral. I think there should be some differentiation between how Falun Gong was received in China, both positively and negatively, and then in the narrative of the lead up to the persecution. Calling the one about this "skeptics and opponents" doesn't seem to make sense, at least to me, since there was far more to it than that. They banned publishing of the book, then there were the critical articles, then the protests, etc.--all these things happened. This is related to critics, of course, but the wider issue is really in the context of how it lead up to the crackdown, right? It seems to make a lot more sense to explain this to the reader? The "reception" section would be better named "opponents and skeptics" if we are going to have any section named that. But consider: it's the equivalent of having a section named "Praise and supporters," isn't it? It looks equally silly and unbalanced. I think "Reception" suits the purpose of including all the material about how Falun Gong was received, then having the information about what lead up to the persecution in the "friction" section. Is there anything mistaken in this approach? let's discuss. (note: we need a clearer narrative of the lead up to the persecution etc., and a more streamlined explanation of how Falun Gong was received in mainland China, so that's part of the process)--Asdfg12345 02:22, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: About the sub-headings in lead up to persecution