Talk:Academic views on Falun Gong/Archive 3

message: "Dafa disciples just wanted to do their cultivation, and weren’t asking for too much. A handful of people don’t understand us. We will give them time to come to know us, then. You can curse and you can attack, but we won’t treat you the same way."
"Others may treat us badly, but we can not treat them badly. We must not look upon people as enemies."
Li Hongzhi
--Hoerth 21:25, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If Li Hongzhi's statements are upheld by his disciples, why is Olaf's attitude towards these banned users who he considers enemies nothing but hostile?  Why is he rejoicing and unable to control his accusations at a time when self-control is preached by LHZ himself?  Jsw663 20:22, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Quotes

message: I suggest that this article is renamed to "Third-party views on Falun Gong". ✔ Olaf Stephanos ✍ 11:57, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, "Controversies surrounding Falun Gong" would be better. "Third-party views on Falun Gong" for this specific article is too vague, since many other Falun Gong related articles also express the views of third parties. "Surrounding" is better than "about", because the controversies are not limited to Falun Gong per se. ✔ Olaf Stephanos ✍ 15:10, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Renaming the article

message: I will just make some points here about this page in no particular order:
*Can someone please archive the old discussion and only keep what is recent and relevant (i.e., maybe to just the stuff after the ArbCom)
*That section about the CCP and Falun Gong is excellent, especially the translation, but I think it is not really a criticism, and should go on the page about the "suppression" or "crackdown"--whatever it will be called. Perhaps there could be a section outlining this. By the way, I think it is great and rather important, but if that translation is unofficial, can it be used? I doubt it has been altered by the translator, but is there any official way we can find out. Perhaps to use it we need to find it from the Epoch Times in english, or from some journal or other reliable source, translated into english. I don't know if home-made translations cut it.
*Reminder about cutting all original research from this article and moving the relevant sections about homosexuality and the Fa-rectification onto the teachings page and expanding or decreasing them according to WP:Undue weight and their relevance in the teachings as a whole. To be discussed further presumably.
*Renaming the page to "Third party views on Falun Gong"
*Rewriting the introduction to conform to WP:Lead, so essentially it introduces and summarises the content of the article, maybe saying quickly some of the different issues that have been raised about Falun Gong and that there are pro and con voices on some different views, and some academics have different analyses (I think some of that content in the introduction currently is excellent wikipedia material, and should definitely be incorporated elsewhere in the article, or perhaps in other articles.) Rahn's analysis of the conflict between FLG and the CCP could be better placed on the persecution page, perhaps. We might need to discuss this point, as there is an abundance of third party analyses associated with the persecution. This may all be better positioned intelligently on the persecution page, rather than on this page.
*the "Differences between Falun Gong, Buddhism, Qigong and other beliefs" is a good section to highlight how this article could play the role of neutrally presenting different third party views, some neutral, positive and negative. I remember reading some stuff ownby has written about this as well. Probably Porter, Rahn and a swathe of academics have also written something about this. There are also things in the Falun Gong teachings which could be blandly pointed out with links to parts on the teachings page or maybe a “notes” section on the bottom of the article with some mini-compilations of relevant Li Hongzhi quotes that don’t have their own place on the teachings page. 
*The allegations of money-making is probably better placed on this page. So to stop duplication it may be better made into a stub on the Li Hongzhi page, with a quick, both-sided summary, the allegation and defence.
*probably the section about rewards and recognition needs more detailed material which is either neutral, or in defence or support of Falun Gong, in order to evenly balance the presentation on the issue
*the stuff about mixed raced seems completely irrelevant in that section and may be better placed as a stub or not at all on the teachings page. Of course, if there are some third party commentaries on this, criticism or analyses, these should be put here (I am sure there are, it is just that they are not cited here)
*Some academics have said things in response to Rahn about allegations of exclusivity, so this ought to be presented. This section, in order to reflect a representation of a kaleidoscope of third-party opinions rather than just criticism, may better be renamed to something like “Falun Gong and its interactions with society”, or “Falun Gong and society”—or something like that, to express the angle of analysis, support or criticism relevant third parties are engaging in. 
*Perhaps a section on interpretations of Li Hongzhi’s role would serve the job better than the current “Li as a savior or supernatural entity”—in fact, there is a section on the Li Hongzhi page about this, so Chang’s stuff might be better place there. From another perspective, the issue she is raising seems to be more related to whether Falun Gong should be considered a religion or not. There is a wealth of academic writing about this. Along with Chang’s perspective, Porter has written some stuff. Some of this is on the theoretical section on the main page and may be incorporated here. This section could become a more meaningful analysis and surveying of the academic writing on Falun Gong and whether it is a religion or not.
*Last thing. At a later time I will order these according to how they appear on the page, and make subheadings for each section, with a few points under each subheading. This could be used as an ad-hoc type of to-do list, with every editor being welcome to alter, add, or cross out items as they see fit. This could serve as a kind of working draft about the issues that will need to be addressed on this page.--Asdfg12345 18:29, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Some other matters

message: I am going to just organise some of the stuff about. I will make items for action for each section and assume they can be added to etc., and discussion take place. If after proposing something there is no discussion I will assume tacit agreemeent and feel free in changing it. This is like my own to do list for the page and for anyone else who wants to edit, things I think are good to do to improve the article. This can be used commonly and anyone should add to it other good things in line with policy. Let's refer to WP:BETTER, WP:LEAD specifically, as well as WP:NPOV and WP:A of course, plus the others.
===Introduction===
*Rewriting the introduction to conform to WP:Lead, so essentially it introduces and summarises the content of the article, maybe saying quickly some of the different issues that have been raised about Falun Gong and mentioning that there are pro and con voices on some different views, which parts of society they come from etc., and some academics have different analyses--maybe also mentioning the different issues that will be treated in the article that have been raised by the academic community, too. 
 --rewritten to  conform to LEAD, looks more like summary of article now. --Asdfg12345 14:41, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: guide

message: *Rewriting the introduction to conform to WP:Lead, so essentially it introduces and summarises the content of the article, maybe saying quickly some of the different issues that have been raised about Falun Gong and mentioning that there are pro and con voices on some different views, which parts of society they come from etc., and some academics have different analyses--maybe also mentioning the different issues that will be treated in the article that have been raised by the academic community, too. 
 --rewritten to  conform to LEAD, looks more like summary of article now. --Asdfg12345 14:41, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Introduction

message: *Some academics have said things in response to Rahn about allegations of exclusivity, so this ought to be presented. This section, in order to reflect a representation of a kaleidoscope of third-party opinions rather than just criticism, may better be renamed to something like “Falun Gong and its interactions with society”, or “Falun Gong and society”—or something like that, to express the angle of analysis, support or criticism relevant third parties are engaging in.
 -- now in a more neutral context, with much of the unrelated commentary taken out. this may be placed in some other spot. much was straight OR at the end of the actual third party quotes. This blending of personal editor opinion, quotes from Li Hongzhi, and a third party is typical of the kind of editing Tomananda was doing. this has been cleared up. There was, in the end, very little actual third party quotations. If anyone has the 2000 Rahn "Falun Gong:Behind the headlines" please let me know--I could not access it and my university is not subscribed to their cultic studies journal (surprise)--Asdfg12345 14:41, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Allegations of exclusivity and intolerance in Falun Gong ethics

message: *probably the section about rewards and recognition needs more detailed material which is either neutral, or in defence or support of Falun Gong, in order to evenly balance the presentation on the issue--more sensible to simply move this information to the overseas page. The page is specifically for this kind of content. This page should be more about academic findings/analyses on different aspects of Falun Gong. Actual events/disputes/general issues related to Falun Gong outside Mainland China should all go on that article. This obviously belongs there since these are those kind of issues. There are clear sections there for this information and it can all be encorporated on that page.--Asdfg12345 15:02, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Debatable significance of Falun Gong awards and recognitions

message: *The allegations of money-making is probably better placed on this page. So to stop duplication it may be better made into a stub on the Li Hongzhi page, with a quick, both-sided summary, the allegation and defence. --this has been reorganised and some stuff added addressing the claims and issues--Asdfg12345 14:41, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Allegations of making money from Falun Gong

message: *I think all these three should simply be expunged from the page. Having scrappy little stubs like the last two does not seem very professional or encyclopaedic. The issue of the CCP on Falun Gong can be addressed on the persecution page and is more appropriately placed there. I don't know if a homemade translation is acceptable for wikipedia, either. I think that needs to be published in a reliable source first, not just translated directly onto wiki. This kind of thing may be more appropriate on the persecution page somewhere. --expunged. the patent section was a real non-sequitor,  and the other two were odd things, out of context and tacked onto the end of the article, so I just took them out. including the " Falun gong responses to criticism" -- completely OR. I did not notice this thign was back or would have zapped it earlier.--Asdfg12345 14:41, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Chinese authorities and Falun Gong, Patent, and WOIPFG Investigation on a Falun Gong critic

message: Since this article is more or less related to Buddhism, can i suggest putting in the views and comments from Buddhism too? From my understanding, the Buddhism do not agree to FG being part of the Buddhism community, neither do they accept FG teaching as the supreme one. Instead, it appeared in Mahayana sutra that no being is allowed to say in name or above Buddha, who is recognised in Buddhism as the highest stage of enlightenment. 
From what i read in this article, it seems like FG supporters are turning this into a supporting website for their religion/ cult. Yes, you can agree to what your Master said, but can comments from Buddhism be added in too?
:Welcome friend! I think that it is excellent that you are interested in this subject. I took a look at the citation. Here is some of it:
"After the Dharma-Image Age came the Dharma-Ending age. The Orthodox Dharma Age lasted for one thousand years. The DharmaĠImage Age lasted another one thousand years. That is two thousand years in all. The Dharma-Ending age continues for ten thousand years. We are now living in the Dharma-Ending Age. What does the phrase 'Dharma-ending' mean? It means that the Dharma has nearly come to an end and is about to disappear. The 'disappearance' of the Buddhadharma involves disappearance of faith in the Buddha. In the Dharma-Ending Age living beings' faith in the Buddha is not firm. When the Buddha dwelled in the world,peoples' faith was so firm that if you held a person at knife-point and threatened his life saying, 'Renounce your belief in the Buddha or I'll murder you,' he would rather die than surrender his belief. . . . 
In the Dharma-Image Age things were different. If a person believed in the Buddha and someone said, 'If you believe in the Buddha, I'll kill you,' he would say, 'Fine, I won't believe in the Buddha.' People would change their minds because their faith was not firm."
:I am not sure what you make of that. I think the citation in itself was not inaccurate, according to the text above. I kind of support removing it though, since I think it was just tacked on there as a pro FLG thing, to make FLG look more legitimate. It may be appropriate to have some citation of this, though. Perhaps it could be better worded--maybe you have some suggestions?
:I would like to respond to what you have said very briefly. If you would like, this conversation can be continued on my talk page. Falun Dafa just teaches Truthfulness-Compassion-Forbearance. Do not label Falun Dafa a cult. You may understand it to be a religion. I do not understand it to be a religion. The word "cult" has been successfully used by the CCP to demonise and persecute horribly the practice, as a tool of Communist dictatorship state suppression, and has caused untold suffering to thousands of people. I don't know if you have read anything about the persecution. I will post you some links at the end of this comment to check it out. Since you are an anonymous user I cannot leave this note on your talk page, otherwise I would opt for that. It is not strictly appropriate to use this talk page for explaining a matter not directly related to improving the article. By the way, they also persecute, torture to death and severely mistreat practitioners of Tibetan Buddhism, another peaceful spiritual practice whose practitioners are innocent. I urge you to think about whose side you are on and whose cause you are really supporting when you use such labels. Perhaps you are a Buddhist. Then even more should you be more understanding and solemn about something like this. 
:About the article: It does not really have much at all to do with Buddhism. There is a section about the differences between Falun Dafa and other beliefs. Basically the bulk of the content in this section should be sourced to reliable sources, and should just be recounting their analyses, criticisms, or comparisons that they have published between Falun Dafa and whatever other beliefs. One of the other beliefs that scholars have compared Falun Dafa to is Buddhism. This is fine. Perhaps it would be appropriate to quote directly parts of the teachings of Buddhism, Falun Dafa, or whatever else to clarify the actual teaching against the scholar's analysis. Or perhaps this information could be put in a notes section down the bottom, since this page is mainly for third-party sources. Perhaps also, since if you know a thing or two about Buddhism, you would be able to help well in working out what would be an appropriate part of the canon of Buddhist teachings to quote at an appropriate time. But that is really a miniscule part of all this.
:You may like to check out these links. I will just give you three. In particular, the third is extremely grave. Whatever your beliefs, you have nothing to worry about in terms of Falun Gong practitioners. For me, I just want to cultivate my heart, and the only thing I want from other people is that they are against the unjustified, violent and cruel persecution in China happening right now. I am not just opposed to the persecution of Falun Dafa, but all persecution of innocent life, Falun Dafa practitioners, Christians, Muslims or Buddhists: http://www.falundafa.org/; http://www.faluninfo.net/torturemethods2/; http://organharvestinvestigation.net/--Asdfg12345 19:30, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hello, Tomananda. I'm sorry, but after receiving an indefinite ban, you aren't supposed to participate in discussions, either. All currently involved editors, Fire Star included, supported the renaming. We're going to reorganize the content on these pages. Any third-party views on Falun Gong that don't fit anywhere else, positive or negative, will be moved into this article. ✔ Olaf Stephanos ✍ 09:27, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suggestions for the Article 

message: I think some of this has to be rewritten, because the following sentence does not make much sense:
Patsy Rahn states they “are documents routinely obtained by groups from public officials in the US for public relations purposes” and may be used to mislead people in China into believing “that the American government supports Master Li and his Falun Gong practitioners.”
It does not make sense because it refers to municipal awards and recognitions where, the House Concurrent Resolution (I think, or it's the House of Congress?) states unanimously something positive about Falun Gong. So actually the Government does support Falun Gong. --HappyInGeneral 11:31, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Third_party_views_on_Falun_Gong#Debatable_significance_of_Falun_Gong_awards_and_recognitions|Debatable significance of Falun Gong awards and recognitions]] 

message: Also what do they mean about Homophobic teachings? The teachings do not interdict people to be what they want to be, it only states that homosexuality is a sin, but then again it also says that sex outside marriage is also a sin. Which is well I guess pretty normal for any orthodox belief system. IMHO the teachings would be homophobic only if they would ask practitioners to go out and interdict and convert homosexuals, however the teachings do not require that, they only require a code of conduct for practitioners own behavior basically it's only saying that if you understand that something is not good, then try to let it go. --HappyInGeneral 11:36, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Homophobic teachings? 

message: Just an update. I am going through the checklist above and trying to fix up the article. Most of it is done now except the comparison with other teachings section, which might include some other commentators and their views, plus what people have said whether Falun Gong is a religion can be a subsection of this. This section should be broken into subsections for ease of digestibility, and maybe not rely so heavily on just penny, also maybe picking out the salient points in his commentary and presenting those. Also, after looking through the original article I can see the obvious information pieces and comments of Penny that are strangely not included here.--Asdfg12345 15:02, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: currently, as of 21 July 2007

message: Some time ago, I tagged the article . Unfortunately, the huge chunks of block quotes which caused me to tag it are still in the article. So please fellow editors do not be surprised when I will shortly delete the entire mass of block quotes, substitute a  template in the interim. Shortly thereafter, I will attempt to reinsert concise carefully reconsidered and non-POV text extracted therefrom, paying attention to WP:UNDUE, a policy which certainly does not seem to be at all adhered to here within the group of FG articles. Ohconfucius 02:07, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Copyright issues

message: I believe that the article should have sub-sections based on the type of criticism, and not according to the critic who levied criticism. I will work to restructure this accordingly. Ohconfucius 08:58, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Also please note this is not a critic only page, this is third party, and in order to be NPOV, it should always include the favorable views of the third party as well. --HappyInGeneral 09:37, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Structure of the sections

message: I think that Falun Gong faces harsh persecution by the Communist Party and that there are more than 1000 forced labor camps with mainly Falun Gong followers in them is undisputed - even by the National Congress. Therefore 99,99 % of your debattes are related to the accusations of Falun Gong being an "evil cult".  
I don't understand why this issue seems to be causing so much controversy. The implications of "cult" in the context here are very clear: 
an exploiting, capitalistic organisation with a hirachical command structure and a single deityfied leader on top, decieving new recruits by promising them "Heaven on Earth" and than exploiting them financialy or physicly by means of forced labor at the cult's farms or facilities, and using violence and brainwashing to force their cooperation, having satanic and superstitious rituals to harm themselves and others etc.  
Also the Cult's leading elite is said to have close ties to corrupt government officials and other people in power, allowing them to controll and manipulate the world's media with the goal of eventually seizing world-wide power and enslaving humanity. 
Also according to the Encarta such a cult ussually posses a huge arsenal of weapons or even has a private army and uses violence under the pretext of "liberating" people from earthly suffering.
I will not say if Jews can be discribed this way, but the Nazis descriped them that way.
I do not think Wikipedia is the right place to determine if or if not Falun Gong also fits into this criteria. So of course you should mention   IN DETAIL all those accusations including all of their implications, but at the same time you should also make it VERY CLEAR that it is those accusations and those very implications which made the persecution possible to beginn with. 
--Hoerth 13:09, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Evil Cult to be eliminated 

message: I doubt the relevance of the paragraph in the anti-cult section, which is a criticism of the anti-cult movement rather than counter-criticism to anti-FLG allegations.--PCPP 15:15, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Relevance of "CIA theory" 

message: This will need to be severely cleaned up. It seems you have lifted everything from that link. Falun Gong is mentioned only in passing. To frame it the way you have you'll need to dig up something far more substantial. Let me explain.
The first sentence qualifies as original research, because it is a new synthesis: In contrast to Kilgour and Matas's assertions, Dr Heather Kavan, a specialist in world relgions, saw Falun Gong as a "potential terrorist group"
--That article you linked does not say this. Please read it carefully again. It does not say just that. You cannot take two ideas contained in the article then put them together to create a new idea, even if that is inferential. 
The rest of the paragraph you put in does not mention Falun Gong AT ALL. And this follows the form of the article. this is attempting to confuse ideas in the readers mind, since you first mention Falun Gong, then say some other more general things that could easily be taken to be referring to Falun Gong. I don't know if you meant to do this or not. I find it completely unacceptable to use sources like this. You'll need to find Kavan's original work and be far more clear about what she says explicitly about Falun Gong. Wikipedia is definitely not the place for inferences and implications, and what you have inserted is nothing but that.--Asdfg12345 12:01, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Kavan section