Talk:Falun Gong/Archive 9

message: All previous discussions have been archived. Shall we start by looking at the article bit by bit?
Does anybody have suggestions to improve the opening paragraphs of the article, the ones that appear above the Table of Contents? CovenantD 04:46, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, it seems pretty good to me. Neutral, brief, and in line with other articles of a similar nature on WP. We shouldn't call FLG a "cult" (as has happened) nor call Li Hongzhi a living god in the intro, (as has happened with only the slightest exaggeration on my part). --Fire Star 火星 18:02, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

text: *I just notice that the intro above is not the sameone on the article.  Let's discuss the existing version instead. --Yueyuen 18:16, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's because dilip, ONCE AGAIN, made changes before there was agreement. I'm getting fucking sick and tired of it. CovenantD 18:27, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've just changed it back to what is in the article. CovenantD 18:36, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

text:  I am sorry if I did something wrong I was trying to introduce the New York times figure. which was actually present in "the article". I wonder which is "the article" you are referring to.Anyway, Covenant, I leave it to you to decide wether saying Falun Gong was banned for illegal activities is correct or not and also wether to include the New York Times figure.Dilip rajeev 19:17, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Should it not be Falun Gong, also known as Falun Dafa, is... for proper grammar? Skinnyweed 18:31, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Yes. CovenantD 18:36, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, that is correct. It is easy enough to change the existing version to the one above. What Dilip and other "pro-FLG" editors have consistently demonstrated IMO is an agenda regarding the uncritical promotion of FLG, as well converting as many other editors to their religion as possible. Until that agenda can be laid aside, their credibility for the purposes of an encyclopaedia article (as opposed to a simple advertisement) is compromised, as far as I am concerned. --Fire Star 火星 18:37, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Sorry for not being clear. "The article," when I use it in this context, is the first three paragraphs of the main Falun Gong article attached to this talk page. Use of NY Times figures is an appropriate, verifiable source, and seems to fit in with the rest of the last paragraph. I'll address the legallity/illegality issue further down this page in it's own section. CovenantD 20:52, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

text: *Ok, I am ready to move forward too.  The term “illegal activities” has been there for a while and editors from both sides seem to have no problem with it.  So I say it should stay.  What do you think? --Samuel Luo 07:07, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm good either way. CovenantD 07:23, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

text: So you acknowledge that it is illegal. This nullifies your first comment. Any other suggestions for edits? I'll give it another 16 hours, then we'll move on. CovenantD 08:30, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

text: *These illegal activities should be spell out.  I propose to add this sentence to the first paragraph: in the core of the Falun Gong belief system is a belief that the morally corrupt humankind is facing annihilation, only Master Li and his Falun Dafa can save the world. --Yueyuen 18:01, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: IF that is a factual statement, I have no problem with it being included. Would others care to comment on this proposed addition? CovenantD 18:46, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Starting over, take Four hundred or so 

message: Personally I'd prefer to see the second sentence of the second article say "alleged illegal activities." I'm not familiar with Chinese legal systems, but based on US perceptions one is presumed innocent until proven guilty. Since Falun Gong hasn't been put on trial, it all seems to be allegations at this point. CovenantD 04:46, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: *Ok, I am ready to move forward too.  The term “illegal activities” has been there for a while and editors from both sides seem to have no problem with it.  So I say it should stay.  What do you think? --Samuel Luo 07:07, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm good either way. CovenantD 07:23, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

text: So you acknowledge that it is illegal. This nullifies your first comment. Any other suggestions for edits? I'll give it another 16 hours, then we'll move on. CovenantD 08:30, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

text: *These illegal activities should be spell out.  I propose to add this sentence to the first paragraph: in the core of the Falun Gong belief system is a belief that the morally corrupt humankind is facing annihilation, only Master Li and his Falun Dafa can save the world. --Yueyuen 18:01, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: IF that is a factual statement, I have no problem with it being included. Would others care to comment on this proposed addition? CovenantD 18:46, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Suggestions for edits

message: Sorry, I promised to devote more time to Wikipedia, but it hasn't worked out so far. I'm working and trying to finish some my studies at the same time. There's one issue I've requested repeatedly: I asked Samuel Luo to provide direct quotes from Li's biography, so that we can put them into quotation marks. He has not replied.
Another thing I find peculiar is that Miborovsky has locked the page, even though he has been involved in editing the article in the past, and he is by no means impartial. I don't know whether this conforms to Wikipedia policies. Shouldn't we always ask for an outsider?
 
---Olaf Stephanos 11:56, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Fnhddzs: Please don't repeat that false claim. You and Dilip most certainly had deleted important material--the entire set of individual subsection summaries for all those subsections which were in the Criticism and controversy page.  You have admitted as such in previous discussion and even offered to allow them to be put back, but now you are again making this false claim.  --Tomananda 18:35, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

text: WP:RFC/User#Use of administrator privileges. -- Миборовский U|T|C|M|E|Chugoku Banzai! 16:31, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

text: I remember seeing that Miborovsky had posted something like a one hour warning before he locked the page, so I don't see what the problem is in terms of timing.  To me, all revert wars are counter-productive regardless of which version happens to exist when the page is frozen.  As to who has the authority to freeze a page...last time it was an administrator we never heard of, and this time it was Miborovsky.  On multiple occassions I have posted a question to this group asking if there was support for asking for formal mediation.  I understand that any one of us can request that action, but I don't want to request mediation on my own.  We talk about abiding by Wikipedia rules, and I do my best to honor them, but one rule of Wikipedia ettiquette is constantly violated, which is that when an editor asks a question, she/he deserves to get an answer.  Why is it that Fire Star has been the only other editor ever to respond to my proposal of seeking mediation?   --Tomananda 18:26, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry. I guess I just keep hoping that if we keep at it, if we act like adults, we can do this. At the moment, however, I'm about ready to call in a babysitter/mediator. And Miborovsky (did I get it right that time?) was responding to a request I made to have the article locked again. CovenantD 18:39, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Covenant, In a sense you have already been acting as our unoffical mediator and I appreciate all your judicious efforts at reaching consensus.  Under normal circumstances your efforts would work. But I am convinced...and I don't want to make this sound like a personal attack...that some of the Falun Gong practitioner/editors on this board will never accept a reasonable reporting of critical views of the Falun Gong no matter how much discussion we have, or how many changes we agree to in terms of use of sourced material, etc.  Keep in mind, Li makes standing up for his Dafa a condition for salvation for his disciples.  --Tomananda 18:50, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is similar to problems we have with articles on such subjective subjects, though. Especially such a well publicized one. If you look through the page histories of articles like Mahavatar Babaji and Suma Ching Hai you'll see similar editing patterns, if not on such a large scale. The Suma Ching Hai article is interesting because she makes almost exactly the same claims about the system she teaches that Li Hongzhi does about his, as well as her insistence that her followers can only progress with her personal intervention, again very like Li. --Fire Star 火星 04:11, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In other words, don't give, have patience, and eventually we'll get there? I'll try to keep that in mind. :-) CovenantD 04:34, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, exactly. You (and others) are doing fine work here. After coming back from my artificially imposed break I've had relatively little to do text-wise as you have all been doing a thorough job on the article, IMO. The stuff I had prepared was already covered when I came back, but I've had a few talk page discussion with some other editors here about how I see such emotional issues. People feel very personally about their schools and teachers. Keeping cool heads and always leading discussion back to the issues is the way forward. --Fire Star 火星 16:13, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

text: *Olaf, I do not remember you asking for Li’s direct quote.  Anyway these quotes are provided in the origin section. --Samuel Luo 04:32, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: They are not direct quotes. Please write here the entire chapters from which they are taken, preferably in English. I don't have the biograpy at my disposal, so maybe you could write all of it to see if there's anything else we could include. Like the names of Li's masters - I heard they're in there, too. Otherwise, please provide a link so that we can check the accuracy of the comments on his biography. --Olaf Stephanos 06:35, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

text: *You are right, I paraphrased his claims, just check again.  Like I pointed out before it was published as an appendix in all Chinese Zhuan Falun published before 1999.  I don’t have the time to translate his statements.  Here is an article which translated many of his statements.   It is funny that you should ask me for it, since you are Li's disciple. --Samuel Luo 07:07, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Direct quotes from Li's biography & Miborovsky protecting the page 

message: We need to move fast with the edits and scrutinize the data on the subpages.
*1. Origins 
*2.  Falun Gong teachings
*:
*:summary
*3. Controversies about the teachings of Falun Gong 
*:
*:summary
*4. Falun Gong Awards and their questionable importance
*:
*:summary
*5. Falun Gong Organization
*6. Chinese Government's "crackdown" 
*:
*:summary
*7. Falun Gong outside of China 
*:
*:summary
*8. References 
*9. External links 
:*9.1 Falun Gong sites 
:*9.2 Critical sites 
:*9.3 Other sites 
This is what was, suggested by covenantD last time. I had introduced a section called Theoretical and epistemological studies. I think the organizational aspects ( The way falun gong is organized ) also fits under the sub-heading "Theoretic and Epistemological studies on Falun Gong". "Origins" is now called history and Timeline. ( To describe better the content in the sub-page).
Dilip rajeev 12:44, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Structure and Outline 

message: Responding to requests from Samuel and Dilip, I propose the following paragraph which aims to summarize, as briefly as possible,  both POV's about the history and legality of the ban in China.  
:Falun Gong has been the focus of international attention since April 25,1999, when 10,000 practitioners assembled in peaceful protest  outside Zhongnanhai, China’s leadership compound.  Prior to that, the Falun Gong had staged protests against it’s media critics all over China. At Tianjin, 7,000 practitioners had protested against an academic article which was critical of the Falun Gong, resulting in the arrest of 45 practitioners. On July 20, 1999 the government banned the Falun Gong for its violation of Chinese laws, citing the unnecessary deaths of 1,404 practitioners, some of whom had abandoned their needed medical treatment in accordance with Li Hongzhi’s teachings and the threat  to social stability caused by the Falun Gong’s many protests.  However, the Falung Gong denies any wrongdoing, pointing to declarations made by several international bodies. In particular, the Falun Gong cites  US House of Representatives Resolution 188 which it helped to write in 2002.  That resolution claims that the CCP itself has violated international laws and its own constitution; and has attempted to eradicate Falun Gong practitioners through organized torture and murder.
We need to remind ourselves that this is just a summary.  Anything longer than this would be inappropriate for this introductory section in my opinion.  --Tomananda 20:03, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: *No, how you know it was held without a permit? I heard it was legal. Premier Zhu,Rongji interviewed with them. Fnhddzs 23:48, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Frankly speaking Zhu Rongji interviewing with protesters says nothing about the protest itself. Illegal protests were held by people after the Presidential Election in Taiwan, officials still came to meet the protesters. Also according to one of the 4.25 Zhongnanhai protesters Zhu Rongji didn't mention or question whether the protest was permitted. --Yenchin 00:10, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

text: You're correct, the House does not have that kind of authority. US House resolutions do not have the force of law.  They are essentially symbolic, and are usually drafted by lobbyists of one sort or another and just presented to legislators for ratification. The fact that something is stated as fact in a US House resolution does not mean it's a fact.  Even when the congress passes actual laws, most congressmen don't read them.  So it's quite easy to get inaccurate statements  slipped into a resolution.  It's part of the brilliance of Li Hongzhi's PR strategy to have figured out how easy these things are to get and then have his followers pursue them all of the country.  Then, the same practitioners get to point to these resolutions as proof of how good Li Hongzhi's teachings are.  Quite cynical, don't you think?  --Tomananda 22:58, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

text: PS: By way of example, check out US House Resolution 29, "Commending Jared & Jerusha Hess and the City of Preston for the Production of the Movie 'Napolean Dynamite'" here:   I have never heard of this film or the city of Preston. I had to read further to find out that Preston is a city in the  rural state of Idaho.  I doubt if more than a handful of the congresspeople who signed this resolution have ever actually seen the film they praised in the resolution.  You get the idea.--Tomananda 23:10, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Um, hello? Since when did the legislative of the US has rights to make "laws" for China? Are you using a Ming sword to behead a Qing official? Definition of resolution. --Yenchin 16:24, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Still interested on how they came to that conclusion. I want the facts. Not some declaration by some people that might or might not have any idea what they are signing. 24.189.163.169 23:38, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I get the point. So it's like those "awards" and "days" they make such a fuss about. Anyway, I took the trouble to look up the original process and text from the Library of Congress. The records of discussion can also be found in there.. It would be another example to put in related FLG topics on Wikipedia. Back on topic, I think the current version is good enough. The fact of persecution or not is irrelevant to the laws China cites. Governments use anti-Sodomy laws to persecute gay and lesbian people, but it doesn't change the fact that people were arrested by these laws. --Yenchin 23:52, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Unfortunately, we can't tell how they came to their conclusions.  The web link which Yenchin provides is missing some information. It lists four "Witness prepared statements" in support of the resolutioin (two dated 6.27/01 and two dated 8/1/01) and states that "some documents may contain partisan views,"  but when you click on those links it doesn't take you to the documents. Perhaps they've been archived?  It would be interesting to see them. I suspect they largely contain claims made by the Falun Gong, such as the claim that the ban is in violation of the Chinese constitution, which never were investigated or verifified by the House committee which dealt with the resolution.  --Tomananda 00:26, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Third Revision of Target Paragraph on the Ban 

message: While we have been discussing structure and sources on this main Talk page, practitioners Dilip and Fnhddzs have attacked the Criticism and controversies page with a series of edits (from 6:28 to 7:17 on 28 May), deleting, among other things, all of the Deng and Fang quotes.  This is an outrageous breach of good faith. Is this the prelude to another revert war?  Should other editors start going into the Falun Gong teachings or Persecution pages and do to these Falun Gong practitioners what they have just done to us?  Or should we exercise restraint and ask for administrative intervention?  I opt for the latter and request that if it is within Wikipedia policy to do so, both Fnhddzs and Dilip receive some kind of sanction.  After all of this discussion, and two previous revert wars brought to us by Fnhddzs and Dilip, to have this happen is truly outrageous.  What is the point of our continuing along this path if such a blatant subversion of our cooperative editing process goes unpunished?   --Tomananda 21:25, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Tell you what, Tomananda. If it happens again, why don't you just revert with a note to take it to the talk page. I think we're getting bogged down too much in the interpersonal comments. I'll back you up in reverting things that haven't been properly discussed. CovenantD 06:01, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

text: OK with me.  Dilip just did the same deletes in the Criticism and controversies section that Fnhddzs did earlier. I did a revert.  What he is doing is deleting all of the Deng and Fang quotes in various sections which were discussed two weeks ago and are being discussed again. Rather than wait for a group decision (and actually, as far as I'm concerened we already decided this one), Dilip has simply done the reverts.  --Tomananda 07:10, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Criticism page 

message: A Wikipedia article about an unreliable newspaper should not — on the grounds of needing to give examples of their published stories — repeat any claims the newspaper has made about third parties, unless the stories have been published by other credible third-party sources.
Fnhddzs 23:42, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Fnhddzs:  I forgot to mention that criticizing your editing practices does not constitute a personal attack.  You and Dilip have a history of doing significant deletions without discussion and have already provoked two revert wars.  It becomes tiring to have to deal with those violations over and over again.  The request is simply to discuss major changes before doing deletions.  --Tomananda 01:36, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Source issue 

message: I located part of the earlier discussion on this topic:
I'm going to be looking for a slightly higher standard for something that appears on a website; I want it to be a reproduction of something presented elsewhere, whether a conference or a newpaper or a book or a lecture or something. Just a personal paper on a website is going to be met with raised eyebrows.I want to point out that there is a blockquote provided by Dilip that I want to have included, that seems to agree with the premise that words and phrases carry different meaning. I think it provides balance to the allegation by essentially saying, "sure, it's different, but that's the way it has to be." CovenantD 04:29, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Repost from Talk Criticism page on the issue of using private web sources 

message: Miborovsky, in the midst of all the above chatter, I have just discovered that Omido exeeded her/his three revert limit between 5:49 and 5:59 on 30 May in the Criticism page. Her/his series of edits were identified as vandalism by Ami Daniel and reverted to an earlier version.  In essence, Omido deleted critical material that has been in the article for a long time, including material from Maria Chang who wrote the book:  Falun Gong: The End of Days. In doing these deletions you can discover in the History that she deleted the following wording at the end of a sentence:  "while commentators generally come to an opposite condlusion.  Maria Chang (2004) writes:"  But evidently she/he missed that a block quote from Maria Chang's book followed. So the effect of that particular edit was to preserve a block quote, but delete the author's reference.  So much for taking care of our sources citations in Wikipedia!  Anyway, I think Omido deserves to get some kind of warning for her/his editing behavior...including, by the way, the accusations she/he made to me in an earlier post.  --Tomananda 09:24, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If it is in a published book, it can be considered a source. The weight given the source is up to the reader. Li Hongzhi is a private person, according to FLG followers, yet we quote his books. --Fire Star 火星 16:29, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Miborovsky: Can you issue a warning to the new practitioner/editor named Omido? 

message: You folks are adding so much on a daily basis that I can't keep up. A lot of it is completely unrelated to the topic at hand, and instead has to do with other articles or accusations of vandalism and bad faith or what sources are good. Try to keep your comments short and direct, please, or you will have to call in somebody who is willing to devote full time to this topic. CovenantD 17:01, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That is still in discussion ON THE APPROPRIATE PAGE. GO THERE TO DISCUSS THOSE EDITS. CovenantD 15:25, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Almost impossible to keep up 

message: At this point in time several personal attacks were posted. These, and the replies, have been removed after a thorough discussion and support from several editors and an admin. To see these attacks, please review the page history. CovenantD 22:44, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Personal attacks 

message: What I want to point out is, this is an introduction to an article on Falun Gong - not why the CCP started to persecute Falun Gong. An introduction to Falun Gong is really not the place discuss, in detail, the events leading to the persecution. There are scholars( for instance, Julie Ching (2001)) who opine that even the protests were orchestrated by Government agencies. We really cant discuss things in detail in the introduction. My suggestion for the introduction is:
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.
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. 
There being no concept of organization of membership in Falun Gong, the exact number of practitioners is not known. Falun Gong websites state a figure of 100 million practitioners worldwide including over 70 million in China. After the supression began, the Chinese government presented a figure of 2.1 million. A figure of 70 million was quoted in two NY Times articles before the crackdown began. According to the articles, this figure was the estimate of Chinese government.
Please point out anything non-factual or irrelevant to the introduction.
Dilip rajeev 16:20, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: My Suggestion

message: Hi. I only now noticed the extreme reversion of several hours work. I don't believe I've ever adopted that approach to editing. The reversions were not even noted as such in the edit summary, so I didn't bother to even check. I didn't actually think, Ohconfucius, that you would actually just do a blanket revert of a whole bunch of changes--talk about assuming good faith, eh? Each edit was done individually, with things added, things removed, things reworded, etc. I don't see how it's fair to just undo all that work in one go. In particular, it's pretty heinous to just delete everything in the cult section except one paragraph, which totally fails to reflect the character of the debate among scholars. This is something that has been hashed out over these pages several times, and we had a giant list at one point, of all the scholars who have weighed in on this, and there were like two on the "yes cult" side, and a stack on the "no cult" and "cult was a propaganda tool" side. But the section here totally fails to reflect that. This seems like really problematic behaviour to me, and I feel it kind of disrupts the idea of working cooperatively and so forth. I'm going to restore the deleted information. The justification is really on the person doing the deleting and so forth, and I'm very happy, and willing, to explain, justify, and back up all my edits. I expect the same of others who are going to edit these pages. I think this is an important point. We can't have people quietly doing big reverts of other peoples' efforts. All this stuff needs to be openly hashed out and argued, if need be. We have wikipedia policies and we have access to the sources, so there shouldn't be much problem.--Asdfg12345 15:12, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Your recent edits, deleting the work of multiple authors, has been tantamount to vandalism.  Please immediately cease and desist.  You do not own the falun gong article set. Simonm223 (talk) 21:41, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  You really need to be more specific. Labeling does not help a bit. Point by point samples can get you a lot further though. --HappyInGeneral (talk) 21:55, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I need do nothing of the sort.  ASDFG goes away.  Several editors improve articles.  He comes back, firebombs all FLG related articles and goes away again leaving all of us to fix the mess.  It's vandalism.  It's a pattern that has repeated several times now.  And I'm not climbing more textwalls to deal with it.  From now on I see pro-flg vandalism it will get two letters from me: RV. Simonm223 (talk) 22:13, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  I hope you do realize that with this attitude you are in breach of Article Probation and seeking consensus. --HappyInGeneral (talk) 23:35, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Praytell, when was not seeking consensus? Asdfg was bold, Simon reverted. Cool. You were the one who re-reverted (if there is such a word) without discussing. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 23:38, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  To have consensus, there is a need of a point by point discussion which Asdfg did make. Reverting without engaging into discussion is not consensus seeking. But you don't need to take my word for it. --HappyInGeneral (talk) 23:51, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

text: * Colipon see Labeling theory. Now, are you or are you not willing to engage in point by point content discussion? Your current behavior is against Wikipedia:No personal attacks, and it is not at all constructive. --HappyInGeneral (talk) 14:07, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: *There is no need to engage in "point by point content discussion" over vandalism.  Furthermore when a user comes in, makes mass changes and gets reverted the burden lies on them to convince consensus to adopt their proposed changes.  The burden does not lie with consensus to justify the reversion.  Finally Labeling theory?!? Does the FLG have a class in claiming to be oppressed or something?  Seriously. Simonm223 (talk) 14:27, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Extreme reversions--explanation requested