Talk:Falun Gong/Archive 8

message: This page has rampant repetition.  Several paragraphs are repeated.  Needs to be unlocked and fixed.
*1. I applaud whoever froze this page.  It was the right thing to do.
*2. Over the weekend, there were a series of incremental edits done by FG practitioners and others which had the effect of massively re-writing and re-organizing the article.  Dilip was part of that effort, but others were as well.
*3. In response to this major attack,  I gathered together all the "critical sections" on the FG as quickly as I could because I could see that through clever systematic editing they would all be gone or obscured by new writing here and there. I also asked for mediation.
*4.  I agree with Dilip that the "Awards and Recognitions"  section was deleted, but it was not deleted by either me or Samuel.  In order to have a basis for an organizational discussion, I ask everyone to check out the version of the article as of Fire Star's 6:12 25 April edit:
*
*You'll see that at that point the Critics and controversial teachings section had 7 sub categories, the last one of which was Questionable significance of Falun Gong awards & recognitions.  You will notice that Fire Star had put in a link in the Awards and recognitions section to the corresponding Critics and controversial teachings section.
*5. In my opinion, the only way we are going to resolve some of these contentious issues is to adopt an approach similar to the splitting of sections on the issue of FG awards and recognitions. 
*6. As an over-all strategy,  I propose that we first try to reach some agreement on structure, by which I mean what sections and sub-sections we will have.  Once we've reached agreement, we should all be bound by that structure.  In other words, no arbitrary deletion of any sections or major re-arrangements without extensive discussion on these pages.
*7. Once we've agreed to an over-all structure (and again I propose that we consider splitting the article) some high level administrator should be prepared to step in again and freeze the article, as was just done.
*What say the rest of you?
--Tomananda 20:21, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Comment It all sounds so complicated, Tomananda! I feel I need to take a breather and do some meditative exercise; but the existing schools and systems are all so alien, so outré! :D Etaonsh 21:02, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Well, I agree that the editing the last few days was crazy. There were more people chiming in than just the regulars, and they were making seemingly random reversions and edits that muddied the already turbulent waters, which is why I requested the protection. We can propose an outline here and discuss towards a consensus of what we want in the main article and the spinoffs. If we can find neutral enough language for the facts in unequivocal public prominence, then I think we can get a good, intellectually interesting article out of this, neither puff-piece advertising or condemnatory. We just want people to know more about FLG, whether that makes them sign up for it or avoid it is up to them. --Fire Star 21:07, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We have to be the fair policemen here. People who can forgo our own biases to forge a consensus. If we do get an outside mediator (which is a possibility) we will add weeks to the process. I'd like to ask people to sign on who are willing to agree to disagree and just argue technical points of the prose in the article, put a pound sign # before your name and it will number you like this:
# --Fire Star 21:57, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Fnhddzs, we should agree on a structure for the article before we start talking about individual sections or photos. Before that, we have to get people to agree to how we're going to discuss it.  CovenantD 22:08, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Starting Over, take two 

message: There is a bias towards Falun Gong which has developed naturally in the article as a result of the fact that most people interested in the subject are involved in it - but this is not NPOV. It isn't sufficient to know FLG philosophy, and the fact that the CCP thinks it's evil - the reader needs to know why it comes to that conclusion. Yes, I know, a child could work it out, once knowing of the basic egalitarian philosophy of  Communism, and having gleaned the ways in which FLG seems to go against that from the Talk page. But it needs to be explained up front. Whole Western parliaments have been deceived by over-simplifications regarding this movement, which would not be any more legal in those countries, in view of its swaggering breach of apolitical limitations, than it is in China.  The vast dimensions of the problem, the worldwide problem of the inability of law enforcement agencies to contain law-breakers, and China's residual Third World backwardness arguably need mention here. None of which is to condone illegal acts by government against individuals involved. Etaonsh 21:54, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We can report the reasons for persecution that others have promulgated, but we can't come to any conclusions ourselves, because of No original research. The communists also suppress other religious organisations, too, so perhaps there is some documentation about that to compare with FLG? --Fire Star 22:00, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Regarding NPOV 

message: * 1. Origins 
* 2.  Falun Gong teachings
:* 2.1 Falun Dafa 
:* 2.2 Falun Gong exercises
:* 2.3 Cultivation practice
*3. Controversial Teachings of Falun Gong 
:*3.1 Falun Gong and healing
:*3.2 Li as a savior or supernatural entity 
:*3.3 Claims to historical influence 
:*3.4 Questionable significance of Falun Gong awards and recognitions 
:*3.5 Ethics 
:*3.6 Falun Gong and sexual orientation 
:*3.7 Difference between Falun Gong and Qi Gong
*4. Faun Gong Organization
:*4.1 Financial and business aspects of the Falun Gong
*5. Government crackdown 
:*5.1 The Tiananmen Square self-immolation incident 
*6. Falun Gong and US—China relations 
:*6.1 Allegations of organ harvesting 
:*6.2 April 2006 state visit protests 
*7. Foreign views on Falun Gong 
:*7.1 Is Falun Gong a cult? 
:*7.2 Falun Gong presence overseas 	
*8. References 
*9. External links 
:*9.1 Falun Gong sites 
:*9.2 Critical sites 
:*9.3 Other sites 
More topics can be added to section 4 and 5. Also, instead of pictures, links should be used, people complainded about the excess use of Falun Gong pictures. What do you guys and ladies think? 
--Samuel Luo 00:42, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  A simpler outline here: 

message: *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 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 
We can decide subsections later, cause I think it's going to be it's own debate -um, discussion :)
If others think that links and summaries are appropriate for other sections, I'll agree to that too. CovenantD 02:02, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Tomananda, I'm gonna go with Controversies about Teachings of Falun Gong, just to keep it focused. I've made the change to my proposed outline above. I think If we throw the word Critics or Criticism in then that might open it up to any form of criticism. The International title still needs some work, also to keep it focused, but I don't have any ideas yet. CovenantD 04:53, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

text: I agree with CovenantD. I think it's a better title, it will contain the same information, yet will be less inviting to senseless criticism. Tomanda, I don't think your proposed #6 is necessary. Falun Gong doesn't have a political agenda, that's your own POV. Maybe your referring to Falun Gong's reaction to the persecution, but this is already contained within Chinese Government Crackdown I believe. I think the proposed outline, as of my post, is good. However, where do awards and recognition go in this? Isn't it sort of the converse of Controversies about Teaching of Falun Gong? If so, then it should be given equal weight on the page, i.e. its own section. If this is agreed then I suggest its place be after or before Falun Gong organization. Also, I suggest using the word persecution rather than crackdown in "Chinese government crackdown". The term "crackdown" refers to the beginning, which was the start of the "persecution". If we are going to talk about the whole thing, referring to things from 1999 to present, then we should use the word "persecution". Mcconn 05:24, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Persecution is a rather loaded word. May I suggest "suppression" instead? -- Миборовский U|T|C|M|E|Chugoku Banzai! 06:17, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We don't need a seperate page for Awards and Recognition yet. At present this section isn't that long. If it becomes much longer than perhaps we can do a summary/seperate page. We also don't need to say "about Falun Gong". I don't think it's correct English and it's fine to just say "Awards and Recognition" Mcconn 08:39, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  A simpler, 'simpler' outline here: 

message: Just so you people know, 71.106.174.113 (trace ip) got 24 hours from me for his grossly uncivil and thoroughly despicable behaviour. Not sure how much use it would be, but it's something. That was WAY over the line. I'm not about to dignify him with showdiff links, I think it'd be best if nobody sees it. Too bad I get get rid of edits completely, it's beyond my level. If you see anyone resembling him or having his edit patterns, notify me (or Fire Star, or any other admin) immediately. -- Миборовский U|T|C|M|E|Chugoku Banzai! 06:08, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh to Samuel Luo, I reverted along with those edits one of yours which was in response to his/hers. Since nothing constructive was said in his/her original edits I think there is no loss. Apologies nevertheless. -- Миборовский U|T|C|M|E|Chugoku Banzai! 06:10, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sockpuppet #1: 164.67.59.37 (trace ip). As I suspected, I'm now on the list albeit with a misspelt name. 24 hours. One was probably done at home (Verizon) and the other at work/school. -- Миборовский U|T|C|M|E|Chugoku Banzai! 23:50, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  71.106.174.113 

message: Hi Everybody,
I agree with most of the changes. What about a seperate page on "The History and Origins of Falun Gong" ?
"Falun Gong Organization" is a title on something non-existant. I will talk about it as a practitioner. There is nothing more to Falun Gong that doing the exercises and cultivation of one's heart-nature ( xinxing) and doing the exercises. There isnt even any need to go to any practice site. I taught myself the exercises using videos on the wesbite and the books and I do the exercises early morning, and study the books. There is not even a practice- group where I live. I intent to point out that is all there is to Falun Gong practice.
The book Falun Gong States:
"When propagating Dafa and teaching the exercises, no Falun Dafa disciple is allowed to collect a fee or accept any gifts. Anyone who violates this rule is no longer a Falun Dafa disciple."
"All local Falun Dafa Assistance Centers are civic organizations for genuine cultivation practice, are only for organizing and assisting cultivation activities, and are neither to be run as economic enterprises nor managed using the methods of administrative organizations. No money or possessions are to be kept. No activities are to be held for healing illnesses. Assistance Centers are to be managed in a loose manner"
"The assistants should cherish Falun Dafa, be enthusiastic to work for it, and be willing to serve others voluntarily. They should take initiative to organize exercise sessions for practitioners"
"The assistants should teach the exercises to others voluntarily. Collecting a fee or accepting gifts is forbidden. Practitioners should not seek fame or profit, but merit and virtue"
Dilip rajeev 14:50, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Dilip, I appreciate your input and your enthusiasm for what you believe in. However, I disagree with you on this one. A decision to forego leaders and membership lists is a form or organization, albeit not a formal one. Even the quote you supplied uses the word organizing. That aspect needs to be covered to some extent. CovenantD 15:04, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Some Suggestions 

message: Since I don't see any opposition to the 'link and summary' idea for this section, maybe somebody can start working on a summary and submit it here for discussion.
Some points to remember as you write this:
* It need to be from a neutral point of view.
* It should summarize the article on Falun Gong teachings, not reproduce it word for word. KEEP IT SHORT!!
* Long blockquotes are inappropriate for a summary.
* There wil be a separate article on Controversies about the teachings of Falun Gong so none of that need be in the summary on Teachings.
-- CovenantD 16:58, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds good. I'll start working on a summary of the teachings right now. It's late where I am though, so if I don't finish it quickly, you may not see it for a few hours. Mcconn 17:08, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: um, no. That disclaimer is part of Wikipedia already - it's not exclusive to this article at all. We start with that sort of thing here and it has to on all 1 million+ articles on Wikipedia. CovenantD 17:37, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Have at it, guys and gals. Just so everybody knows, I'm going to stay out of the substance of the summary and only look at formatting, grammar, size (which looks really good), links and the like. CovenantD 18:17, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Falun Gong teachings summary 

message: *1. Origins 
*2.  Falun Gong teachings
*:
*:summary
*3. Criticism and Controversies about Falun Gong teachings
*:
*:summary
*4. Theoretical background
*5. Falun Gong organization
*6. Falun Gong awards and their controversial importance
*:
*:summary
*7. Falun Gong and the Chinese government 
*:
*:summary
*8. Falun Gong outside of China 
*:
*:summary
*9. References 
*10. External links 
:*10.1 Falun Gong sites 
:*10.2 Critical sites 
:*10.3 Other sites 
:Okay, everybody, before we get too far ahead of ourselves, let's figure out if we've finalized the basic structure for this article. I've looked over everyone's comments again (including my own) and tried to incorporate them. I've fixed the numbering, and I think we can come to agreement on this one. Let's find out.To keep it simple, I'm setting up areas for Support, Oppose, Questions, and Comments.  Shall we give it, say, three days? CovenantD 20:27, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Organization can cover the various interpretations, such as the lack of membership and formal leaders, that sort of thing, as well as other views on the matter. It's not meant to imply that there is a formal structure, just provide a place for that discussion. Olaf, since yours are the first questions, I can edit the above outline to include Theoretical background, which I've done. Sorry I missed that one. I like Disputed much more that Questionable, so that goes in too. :) I won't be able to make changes once the first vote comes in, so ask away. CovenantD 20:43, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "Disputed" implies something whose true meaning is being debated, while "questionable" means the thing in question is found to be objectionable by some. I think "controversial" is the best word here. -- Миборовский U|T|C|M|E|Chugoku Banzai! 22:44, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: So noted. Fnhddzs, as the only person to vote so far, how do you feel about this proposed change? CovenantD 22:51, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  no comments. not an essential issue to me. absent vote on this change. Thanks. Fnhddzs 23:19, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Change made. CovenantD 23:23, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

text: I guess in all the edits you missed my earlier question. What aspects of Falun Gong in China do you think need to be covered that aren't already in another section? I'm not debating you, I'm trying to understand your reasoning, and balance that against the potential for Falun Gong in China to be too broad of a topic. CovenantD 22:51, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Yeah, Falun Gong in China may be too broad. this would be covered in orgins/history, awards and with the government. Fnhddzs 23:12, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vote on a basic structure for the article 

message: Looking for participants in the the discussion of List of religions once classed as cults 
24.87.87.211 14:30, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is anyone interested in the following article nominated for deletion? 

message: I disagee, "71.106.174.113". Covenant is not putting forward his POV or anything. There was some controversy on this before in the talk section and Covenant adopted a title thats least likely to attract dispute - thats all. 
I do think what happens in China meets, beyond any ambiguity, the criteria for a "persecution" or "crackdown". Could we really lie to ourselves on that? No.  In my opinion, the truth matters far more than using objective language to please everybody. I want to remind the editors that the section is on the CCP's crackdown on Falun Gong not "Chinese Government and Falun Gong" but we cant keep arguing endlessy over trivia right now. If the title "CCP's crackdown on Falun Gong" is a POV the whole section is a POV. Eitors are requested to go trhough the pages of Amnesty International on the matter. Even if you just consider US Congress resolution No. 188 or U.N reports on the Persecution of Falun Gong - it is easy to appreaciate that "crackdown" or "Persecution" is obviously not someone's POV( Point of View). It is not my "Point of View" that peoplea re being incarcerated and tortured to death for practicing Falun Gong and striving to be better people. It is certainly not my POV that Chinese goverment has destroyed huge amounts of Falun Gong books, blocked access to webpages on Falun Gong and Officially banned Falun Gong. 
I request Fire Star to lift the ban on the IP considering that it is only human to react emotionally when people come to understand the exent of cruelty involved in the Chinese Government's crackdown. At the same time, I request that 71.106.174.113 be understanding of Fire Star's temporary block on your IP.  We are all working towards a factual article here, your inputs to the effect are most welcome, "71.106.174.113". 
Dilip rajeev 15:58, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I very much agree. "Persecution" is a very negative term, however, we shouldn't avoid it simply for that reason. What the Chinese government has done fully meets the term's definition, which has been acknowledged by many third party sources, as Dilip mentioned. I opt for "persecution" rather than "crackdown" or "suppression" becuase it more clearly describes the reality of what is being discussed. I also want to say that we are all editors putting time and effort into this article. It doesn't matter what our stance on Falun Gong is, we need to do our best to cooperate and respect each other. Mcconn 17:43, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dilip's Reply 

message: Hi CovenantD, could you give us an update on the title of the criticism page? I understand that we have till May 1st to finalize the structure of the article, how much have we accomplished? Sorry, my job kept me very busy last two days and all these postings are pretty hard to follow. Thanks. 
--Samuel Luo 18:19, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The title of the criticism page 

message: Is it correct to understand that once the structure is agreed upon and applied the page will be unlocked? If that's the case, then fine, I'll be glad to be able to edit it again. However, in addition to stucture, much of the edit war was also over content. Will the resolution of these disputes be left for after the page is unlocked? Mcconn 18:28, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Criteria for unlocking the page 

message: * Just raise one observation: Chinese newsreports after the crackdown are totally different with before the crackdown [citation available later]. I have said, in China, after you are claimed as the target (enemy), you are labeled as anything they want and lose human rights. Overnight, a previous vice State Chairman (e.g. Liu Shaoqi) was called anti-revoluntionary and many 'evidence' for his crimed were forged suddenly and published on the newspapers. Therefore, the credibility of all news after the crackdown is weak or zero. Also think about why similar allegations (such as 1400 cases) do not occur in other countries or areas? We know Falun Gong is quite popular in areas out of mainland China -- for example, Taiwan. So I think we should seriously keep this background in mind when citing media reports. Fnhddzs 07:16, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: So? Pot calling the kettle black. As for "hard to get the evidence of tortured people", since you admit it, then how could FLG media obtain reports from multiple prisons from multiple prisoners? Anyone with common sense would point out the stories are over the top and are mere propaganda. Yet I don't see anyone waiving the reports. So why whine over China's propaganda?
--Yenchin 05:54, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Red Herring, this has nothing to do with what's happening to FLG.--Yenchin 05:54, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Yes, we should stick to the article. For the article, our judgement of Xinhua and the CCP's, or Li Hongzhi's, Time magazine's or even the BBC's credibility isn't the issue. The issue is how to report the subject of this article. We can't exclude a source because we ourselves think it is in error or mendacious, or simply because we do not like it. If the source has credibility issues, those should be discussed at the source's pertinent Wikipedia article, which can be footnoted and the article linked to. It would be OK, I'd think, if there is a notable rebuttal to report it, as long as the rebuttal also is from a public source. --Fire Star 04:42, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why Credibility of Chinese media is suspectable 

message: Normally I wouldn't complain about locked pages havin such problems, but the OPENING SENTENCE says "Falun Gong ... is also known as Falun Dafa ... is..." The blockage prevents me from fixing that. elvenscout742 08:33, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Syntax error... 

message: Much as this NPOV editor allows himself considerable leeway for human empathy for the oppressed, 'crackdown' clearly suggests an unreasoningly peremptory oppression (you can almost hear the bones breaking!). Presumably a point came when the Chinese Communist Government felt that Falun Gong's ostensibly merely conceptual mass crypto-fascism risked actual consequences - this, their reality, is not touched upon in the article, and therefore, presumably, dismissed as collective paranoia - and clamped down on the movement, with the crude physical human consequences that aborting such a Leviathan, as it had become, would almost inevitably involve. Please bear in mind that many such 'dissidents' received warnings of the newly illegal status of their de facto cult, and are promoting the falsehood, which has infiltrated Western media (including Wikipedia), that Falun Gong is an entirely apolitical, innocent exercise craze whose following has merely attracted the envy of an irrational, totalitarian government. I prefer 'clampdown' (which is not, as one revert warrior sought to suggest, a 'misspelling' of 'crackdown'!). Etaonsh 22:09, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  'Crackdown,' 'Clampdown' and [[WP:NPOV|NPOV]] 

message: A few days ago, I proposed the above structure for the main Falun Gong article. The following people voted to support that structure.
CovenantD 20:27, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I like "clampdown" myself but our North American friends may not understand it entirely. Another term that may be useful for our purposes is "suppression". --Fire Star 12:58, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: So it's Persecution-3 and Clampdown-2, with Olaf and Miborovsky not expressing a preference that I recall. CovenantD 18:12, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

text: I'm fine with the structure, while, as mentioned, preferring the term "persecution". I agree that research into health benefits should be a seperate section as it doesn't quite fit into any of the other sections. Mcconn 18:44, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Suppression is a legal term, as in "the evidence (or in this case the movement) was suppressed" so I thought it might be useful considering the CCP has outlawed FLG. Repression and persecution seem to have political overtones, but of the two I would prefer persecution. Prosecution is in many cases accurate, but not all, of course. Perhaps "described by FLG adherents as persecution"? --Fire Star 20:18, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Summary of where we are on the structure 

message: hello, I'm kobi, I'm new to wikipedia so excuse me if i make errors here.
I see we start to get the article into shape, but fairness, as usually
understood, like putting in the two sides can't be applied here.
because ever since the persecution started the communist regime started making so many lies. on the first month the newspapers and media were saturated with 347 articles on falun gong, while in the seven years prior to that, no one heard of any trouble and ofcourse people only benefitted from it.<BR>
also, you can't compare it to scientology or others, since falun dafa is not an evil religion or some cult.<BR>
so in context to this article: I think that criticism should belong in the persecution section, the chinese communist government's brainwash of the country or together with censorship of the internet and sources of information.<BR>
I really prefer no criticism at all. this is wikipedia. it's supposed to be factual. have you seen an article about a music band where part of the page is why some people don't like it?!<BR>
okay, thanks for hearing me out. I hope i can help you get into order with this :) Kobi_Lurie
:This comes over to me as plausible hogwash. Of course Wikipedia articles include negative aspects of pop idols, where appropriate!: see Gary Glitter. 'I really prefer no criticism at all.' However poignant, this sounds evocative of the worst excesses of a totalitarian politburo! Etaonsh 09:18, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Totally agree with Etaonosh here.  To say that criticism of the Falun Gong cannot be "factual" is hogwosh.  It is also symtomatic of the totalitarian nature of the Falun Gong.  Total control of message and image, with all kinds of sanctions for people who stray from the Master's approved message.  Unlike Sakyamuni, who allowed his teachings to be modified and adapted to different cultures, Li Hongzhi demands absolute control over his teachings. Those who disobey him are threatened with punishment.  The biggest punsishment is that a practitioner will lose the Master's protection and then be subject to all kinds of bad things happening.  It's not unlike a Mafia protection racket.  --Tomananda 23:16, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

text: I think criticism is welcomed but cannot be groundless. You have to read the Falun Gong books first to have an idea. Otherwise you are critisizing something that does not exist. Don't be lazy. That's my personal point. Fnhddzs 23:57, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  a bit of explanation why this article is problematic 

message: I hope this article can be a fresh start. I like what was written in "Falun Gong teachings summary (Take 2)"<BR>
and think it was written well.<BR>
English is not my first language, so please fix phrasing or grammar errors.<BR>
I translated and used the hebrew falun gong article in wikipedia as basis for this, since I'm from israel.<BR>
I am also a practitioner, I read the books and I know full well what the system teaches.<BR>
so you can trust that this information is reliable and I hope I can help with that.<BR>
okay, here is what I propose: (let's keep it small and simple)<BR><BR>
:Your command of English is excellent, Kobi - it's not what needs fixing. What does need fixing is the need for a history lesson from the nations who liberated Israel from the Nazi concentration camps on the dangers of appeasement of and collaboration with subliminal crypto-nazi content, notably Li's teachings on homosexuality and racial mixing. Your 'attempt to wipe the slate clean' based on the Hebrew Wiki is a major regression and undermines and attempts to overrule many difficult pages of discussion and work here, which presumably you haven't bothered to read? And as a general rule of thumb, is it a good idea to seek correction from a smaller Wikipedia linguistic community, with its smaller intelligence volume, in a matter of universal interest? Etaonsh 10:02, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I REALLY wish you had read the process that we have agreed upon before submitting this huge thing. I find it distracting and very much in the way. I'm really put off from even reading it because it so totally ignores everything we've been doing for the last few days. CovenantD 16:23, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There is a huge problem with the first sentence "Falun Dafa, also known as Falun Gong, is an ancient spiritual system that originated in China, and opened to the public in 1992 by Mr. Li Hongzhi, founder of the practice." Is it ancient or founded by Li? It cannot be both. There is no independent evidence that FLG predates 1992, just Li's undocumented claims. --Fire Star 20:22, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Totally agree with Fire Star.  Although Falun Gong draws on concepts and terms from ancient traditions, it also changes the traditional meanings that dervive from those ancient traditions. This has been well documented.  Therefore the first sentence above is strictly POV.  
Accoring to Falun Gong practioners, the practice and teachings are acient, but according to critics of the Falun Gong, they are new and unique mixture of Buddhist, Tao and even Christian techings, with some extraterristial conspiracy theory thrown in.--Tomananda 23:28, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Fresh Start? 

message: The Hebrew article has a section on The Falun Symbol. What about a seperate section on the Falun Symbol? 
Dilip rajeev 12:56, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Suggestion 

message: Friends,
I dont consider the word "persecution" to be inherenlty POV, that is the only term that could even vaguely describe what is happenning in China right now. The Word "persecution appears atleast 4 times in Resolution 188.
-----
H. Con. Res. 188, Unanimously passed (420-0) by the United Stated Congress States:
"Jiang Zemin's regime has created notorious government `610' offices throughout the People's Republic of China with the special task of overseeing the persecution of Falun Gong members through organized brainwashing, torture, and murder"
Whereas propaganda from state-controlled media in the People's Republic of China has inundated the public in an attempt to breed hatred and discrimination; 
Whereas the number of known deaths from torture has reached 422 so far, tens of thousands have been tortured while confined in labor camps, prisons, and mental hospitals, and hundreds of thousands have been forced to attend brainwashing classes; 
Whereas official measures have been taken to conceal all atrocities, such as the immediate cremation of victims, the blocking of autopsies, and the false labeling of deaths as from suicide or natural causes; 
Whereas women in particular have been the target of numerous forms of sexual violence, including rape, sexual assault, and forced abortion; 
Whereas the campaign of persecution has been generated by the Government of the People's Republic of China, is carried out by government officials and police at all levels, and has permeated every segment of society and every level of government in the People's Republic of China; and 
Whereas several United States citizens and permanent resident aliens have been subjected to arbitrary detention, imprisoned, and tortured in the People's Republic of China: Now, therefore, be it 
Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring), That it is the sense of Congress that--
(1) the Government of the People's Republic of China should cease its persecution of Falun Gong practitioners, and its representatives in the United States should cease their harassment of citizens and residents of the United States who practice Falun Gong and cease their attempts to put pressure on officials of State and local governments in the United States to refuse or withdraw support for the Falun Gong and its practitioners;
(2) the United States Government should use every appropriate public and private forum to urge the Government of the People's Republic of China--
(A) to release from detention all Falun Gong practitioners and put an end to the practices of torture and other cruel, inhumane, and degrading treatment against them and other prisoners of conscience; and
(B) to abide by the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights by allowing Falun Gong practitioners to pursue their personal beliefs; and
(3) the United States Government should investigate allegations of illegal activities in the United States of the Government of the People's Republic of China and its representatives and agents, including allegations of unlawful harassment of United States citizens and residents who practice Falun Gong and of officials of State and local governments in the United States who support Falun Gong, and should take appropriate action, including but not limited to enforcement of the immigration laws, against any such representatives or agents who engage in such illegal activities.
Passed the House of Representatives July 24, 2002. 
107th CONGRESS
2d Session
H. CON. RES. 188
CONCURRENT RESOLUTION
Expressing the sense of Congress that the Government of the People's Republic of China should cease its persecution of Falun Gong practitioners. 
------
According to Amnesty International:
"...Some practitioners have been detained in psychiatric hospitals. Those who have spoken out publicly about the persecution of practitioners since the ban have suffered harsh reprisals."
3Amnesty International Magazine - Jan/Feb 2003
Bernard O'Hear, AI China Coordinator, reports on Escalating state persecution of the Falun Gong
-----
The term has been used widely in Academic Journals too. See, for instance, The article that appeared in The Rutgers Journal of Law and Religion :
http://www-camlaw.rutgers.edu/publications/law-religion/new_devs/RJLR_ND_66.pdf
The term persecution appears in several places in the article. THe title says " persecution of Falun Gong "
Dilip rajeev 14:07, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I object to the alien (to me) US Congress, even when unanimous, as is claimed, being used to decide an issue like this. I also object to academic journals being used in this way, having recently tried to follow a Wiki link  to one on a different topic, and found myself excluded by a subscription fee and examples of a level of content which doesn't seem to merit paying it. I have a long-term bone to pick with Amnesty International over its partiality towards exposing dissent outside its country of birth and allied nations - I emailed them recently on this very topic  and got no answer. And why have you started the same topic in a different place? - to hide/run away from things again? Etaonsh 14:43, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

text: I have met Lord Avebury, and once bought him a drink. But I since found out that his idea of liberalism seems to involve close relations with terrorist organisations - but, as with AI, in other people's countries. No matter how many Euro-sympathisers you cite, it doesn't alter the fact which seems to have emerged from this discussion that FLG has distinct right-wing political leanings which are not understood in an uncomprehending, racist (to the point of not really being interested in such issues) West - even at the highest levels. Etaonsh 18:24, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

text: I am quite prepared to believe in the possibilty that Li Hongzhi is not a racist supremacist, but the fact remains, as a visitor to this website, I found allegations that he cast aspersions on racial interbreeding which were nowhere clearly denied by anyone. Unlike him, I live in a multiracial community where such relationships are common, and accepted as normal. But we are far from perfect, and often lack, as a society, the Confucian virtues of civility and politeness, which often seem to shine out from our oriental visitors and immigrants. In fact, in the midst of this racial harmony, there is also racism, a racism which, I am told, can be particularly vicious towards those of mixed race and in similar relationships, an intolerance which can become violent and which is also directed towards homosexuals. In this context, we positively need disclaimers, and from the founder, Li Hongzhi himself! The sophisticated reader can happily conclude that no real enmity is intended towards interbreeders - it was myself, the non-FLGer, who kindly 'bent over backwards,' as it were, and surmised that Li might be referring to the astrological difficulties in classifying and advising their offspring. The sophisticated reader can, similarly, countenance the existence of an opposition to homosexuality which is based on something other than blinkered, narrow-minded hatred. But what you've got to realise, when addressing the public, e.g., on a website like this, is that the readership is wider than that, and the consequences potentially considerable. Etaonsh 23:07, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Very well stated Etaonsh.  I couldn't agree with you more. I've started a topic below on this very topic.  --Tomananda 23:20, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "persecution" 

message: ' I remember he said something (sorry no citation now): the humans are all on the same level.'(Olaf Stephanos? 06:13, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, I didn't write that. But that's the idea. All the human society is on the same level: this plane is the greatest delusion. That is also the reason why people can enlighten. Of course, the amount of karma and virtue on a person differs, and each individual has a different inborn quality and comprehension. ---Olaf Stephanos 10:31, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  'Master Li' 

message: Falun Gong is in the unfortunate position of being persecuted by the Communist Chinese government and also trying to get support from the Chinese community in America. That's their problem, and Wikipedia can't help them with that. We can only describe their plight.
If FG really does condemn homosexuality, in much the same way as several mainstream Christian denominations do, then they are highly unlikely to get any support from gay rights groups or from the San Francisco city government. The word "homophobic" says it all. Now if they want to launch a PR campaign wherein they try to persuade people that they can be (1) adamantly against homosexuality on moral or spiritual grounds but also (2) not "homophobic", more power to them. But Wikipedia won't be settling that issue for them. The usual definition of "homophobia" includes the idea that any opposition to homosexuality (regardless of grounds) is irrational and hateful. I don't see how FG expects to get support for people who condemn them for crazy, hateful teachings. (But we're not crazy, and we don't hate!) They'll never get much support from that quarter.
Okay, that was probably too much analysis, but the page is protected.
Our only question is how to describe the FG position on homosexuality. I suggest that it's similar to that of some mainline Christian denominations which also condemn it. 
*"Our group says homosexuality is not normal, good, or safe, etc. We're entirely sincere, and we love you.", vs. 
*"Oh, yeah, well our group says your group is nuts! And we're going to use the hate crimes law against you until you shut up or leave town! So there!"
We should describe the dispute fairly, which should result in each side saying, yes, that's exactly how we see the other side. We should not try to come up with a "consensus position" on whether FG is "really homophobic" or "really sincere about loving the sinner, hating the sin", because that is precisely what the dispute is about!
Maybe after we handle the homosexuality aspect, we can move on to the foreign politics, i.e., what goes on in China. I haven't read the whole article yet; I like to go section by section.
Is any of this helping? --Uncle Ed 20:16, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: *Now we are talking about the cause of the revert war we had.  Pro-Falun Gong editors have challenged, rejected and eventually deleted content that confronts the virtuous image of the Falun Gong that they are building.  This content includes quotes like the statement from a SF Supervisor concerning Falun Gong homophobic teachings, creditable sources like the San Francisco Bay Area Reporter, first person accounts from Li’s earliest students, material from the Chinese media and interestingly even Master Li’s own words, like statements from his biography and his poem: the world’s ten evil.  In challenging and rejecting this content pro-Falun Gong editors have questioned the credibility of the sources and when all else has failed, deleted them, therefore provoking a revert war. 
The formula “X says Y about Z” that Uncle Ed is reminding us usually solves the problem, but it won’t help us because pro-Falun Gong editors can not stand “X says Y (critical and truthful content) about Z.”  For example, pro-Falun Gong editors justify their deletion of Li’s earliest students’ statements because they are posted on a private website.  However, at the same time they feel justified to insert statements from Falun Gong’s private websites.  The problem we face here is that pro-Falun Gong editors, who are Falun Gong practitioners, have no tolerance for critical and truthful content—they even delete Li’s own statements.  
--Samuel Luo 21:05, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Not only that, the FLGers revert in a way which is unmistakably and adeptly political, and ignorant with it. More than once I have tried to revert this header [] to something more acceptable, both from the perspective of NPOV and English usage. But the revert warriors keep changing it back, which, as you can see, doesn't reflect the balance evinced in the related discussion beneath. Etaonsh 21:51, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You have not 'reverted' the header, you have taken it upon yourself to substantially change it from the meaning that was originally intended. If you disagree with the header, then start another one. Altering somebody's post to a talk page in order to change the meaning is a big no-no. And your assumptions about people's beliefs and motivations is both incorrect and insulting. Not everybody who disagrees with your positions is involved in Falun Gong. CovenantD 00:05, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Your summary and approach is helpful and if we can get agreement on how to present fair and balanced reporting on the homosexuality issue, perhaps that agreement can carry over to the political stuff as well.  Uncle Ed is correct in saying that we will never get a consensus opinion on how to characterize the Falun Gong cocerning its alleged homophobia.  Because of that, as a gay editor, I have been working to establish separate edits to present the POV that Li's teachings most certainly are homophobic.  As Samuel summarizes above, the problem is that many FG practitioners reject and ultimately delete some of that content, rather than coming up with their own content to add balance.  I'm all in favor of having both "sides" contribute edits..and especially individual sections or sub-sections...which say  "X says Y about Z"  But whenever the Y makes Falun Gong look bad (eg: comments from politicians, critics or even Li himself) the practitioners have deleted that content rather than adding to it. That's been the problem all along.  So Uncle Ed,  anything you can do to get us beyond that point will be much appreciated. --Tomananda 22:04, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

text: A lot of people have done many bad deeds. Things such as organized crime, homosexuality, and promiscuous sex, etc., none are the standards of being human.
This makes the direct point that homosexuality is bad, classing it in with "bad deeds" such as organized crime activity (Mafia stuff). This is standard condemnation in fundamental Christianity, by the way. Nothing new here, even if "present company" is repulsed by the thought!
Now as to whether comdemning homosexuality is "homophobic", that is the most common point of view. I believe it is the the definition of "homophobia" (at least in the Wikipedia article when I last read it). However, some groups which think homosexuality is bad refuse to accept the label of "homophobic". They regard it as an accusation of being irrational, while asserting that they have reasons for opposing homosexuality. They claim not to "hate" homosexuals, but only to object to "homosexual behavior", much as a parent doesn't hate his toddler for trying to stick a pin into his baby brother - but condemns the "needle attack" in no uncertain terms!
So we have a case where Li says homosexuality is bad. I think both sides agree that he said that. There's the quote, and unless FG practioners say it was fabricated, then it stands and its unambiguous. I see no need to google up another one.
But then there's the conclusion that his anti-homosexuality stance is "homophobic". This depends on who applies the label and what they mean by it. Obviously if they just mean that "he opposes homosexuality" then they are correct. But if they also mean that his opposition to homosexuality is (a) irrational or (b) motivated by hatred, then there would indeed seem to be grounds for a dispute. 
Are Hare Krishna's irrational for making vegetarianism a part of their religion? "They're crazy, they won't eat meat!" They have a "reason", even if you and I disagree with it: "That cow might be your sister or your brother" (or some such nonsense like that, based on their somewhat pantheist interpretation of Hinduism). 
They have a reason for not eating meat, although most people disagree with that reason. Li has a reason for opposing homosexuality, although many (if not most) people disagree with his reason. At least it's a reason. So is his opposition unreasonable or irrational? I don't think Wikipedia can say so. But the article can certainly say that the San Francisco City Council or the Mayor or Rick Ross or that Chinese couple's son regards his position as irrational. That's news we can use. We can quote the person who advocates that POV.
Some deal for "hate-filled", "hateful", "inducing hate" or whatever (or "fear-based" which is what a phobia is). 
Summing up, there are 2 questions here:
#Does Li himself (or Falun Gong in general) condemn homosexuality? We show the quotes, and also any denials or retractions.
#Does any particular person or group conclude that Falun Gong (or Li himself) is "homophobic"? We can summarize their reasoning: Li condemned homosexuality in his Sydney speech; and Mr. X (or group Y) considers all condemnation of homosexuality to be irrational or phobic, and that's why they labelled FG "homophobic".
Now can we get the article unprotected and start putting this kind of stuff in the article? --Uncle Ed 23:33, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The homosexuality issue 

message: I'm intrigued by the translation of the Chinese term (rendered above as "eliminate"). The word as I've most often seen it used in English refers to (1) getting rid of something, so we don't have it any more; and also (2) killing or murdering. With emotions running so high, I suspect that the second meaning may be inferred even if the first meaning was meant. But I do not read or write Chinese, so what can we do?
Perhaps Li meant that homosexuality would be eliminated, in the sense that no one would want to be "that way" in some glorious future day. But some people think he meant that, once FG gets enough power they will execute all homosexuals.
The ambiguity is in the word "eliminate", and I don't think any of us contributors are competent to resolve this ambiguity. (I'm dying of curiosity to know what the Chinese version of this article says about this!)
Why don't we just write about the dispute? Say that one side thinks the "elimination" quote indicates intolerance; and that the other side says "Li didn't mean that". We can explain why each side thinks they're right:
* Ima Hugh-Mann, of San Franciscans for Dignity & Rights, objects to Falung Gong because of a statement made by its founder, "In the future, homosexuals will be eliminated." Hugh-mann said that Li's statement indicated an inexcusable degree of intolerance and insensitivity.
* Hy Mind-Dedd, spokesman for Falun Gong's Brooklyn organization, said that Li "loves homosexuals ... he just thinks they need to try something different."
Sorry, but it's one o'clock in the morning where I am, and I couldn't come up with better examples. Are they too silly to be useful? If so, please help me refine them. 
Better yet, please look up the exact quotes used by advocates on both sides of this disputed aspect. Good night all! :-) --Uncle Ed 04:54, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: *Uncle Ed, Li uses the Chinese term "淘汰" which can be translated as eliminate, be sifted out; weed out, die out; fall into disuse and obsolete, in damning his critics.  But he uses the term “消灭” which translates to annihilate, eliminate; abolish; exterminate; eradicate and wipe out, in his Switzerland teaching for gays.  I don’t know why he hates gays so much, but it is scary whenever a self-claimed all-knowing all-powerful master preaching this kind of hatred.  
--Samuel Luo 06:47, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Do I detect the glimmer of a basis for possible agreement between the two sides in this debate?: on the one hand, Falun Gong members don't want to be persecuted, even where criminal; on the other, homosexuals don't wish to be made subject to public second-guessing re your post-mortal destiny? Etaonsh 07:32, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Elimination and intolerance 

message: Dilip rajeev, a Falun Gong practitioner, has, clearly and repeatedly, publicly distanced himself here at Wikipedia from the teachings of 'the Master,' Li Hongzhi, regarding the marginalisation of homosexuals and miscegenation. Perhaps this will now open a new, historic chapter in the development of Falun Gong and its conflict with the government of the People's Republic of China? Etaonsh 10:36, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dilip Rajeev and 'Protestant' Falun Gong 

message: Ed, can you unlock the page long enough to put in place the summary for the Teachings of Falun Gong section, replacing the text that's there now, and then lock it up again? 
The foundation of Falun Gong 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 the "Buddha Law", in its highest manifestation, can be summarized in three words – Zhen 真, Shan 善 and Ren 忍, which translate approximately as 'Truthfulness (or Truth), Benevolence (or Compassion), and Forbearance (or Endurance)'. These are also believed to be the characteristics of the universe. Through adherence to these principles, Falun Dafa is practiced by improving one’s xinxing (心性, heart nature) within daily life. Selfishness, fame, anger, jealousy, and all other mentalities at odds with the characteristics of the universe must be gradually relinquished while maintaining an ordinary life in society. In Falun Gong practice this is called cultivation.  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. Falun Gong also includes cultivation of one's body through slow-moving exercises and meditation. It is emphasized that only through repeated study and application of the teachings of Falun Gong can a person acquire a good understanding of their content. 
::That looks like it's word for word the same as another, unlocked Wikipedia article called something like Teachings of Falun Gong. I see need for such a long paragraph to be in both articles. --Uncle Ed 01:12, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I can edit the article without unlocking it. If no one objects to the above proposal, I will be happy to do so. --Fire Star 19:56, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

text: How about add one word: "Falun Buddha Fa also includes cultivation of the body." Fnhddzs 20:50, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

text: A humble disclaimer, to the effect e.g., that Falun Gong practitioners don't necessarily claim to have always fulfilled the ideals of 'Zhen 真, Shan 善 and Ren 忍' would be most welcome, also. Etaonsh 20:56, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Source for that claim, please. CovenantD 20:59, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: ?(!). Etaonsh 06:34, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If you're going to make a statement like "Falun Gong practitioners don't necessarily claim to have always fulfilled the ideals" then you should be able to provide a source for that statement. I'm gonna challlenge everybody to prove No Original Research, so please don't take it personally. CovenantD 17:37, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

text: *I found this summary inadequate.  No where it mentions Master Li and it does not truly represent what the teachings are really about.  I would like to have the following statement added.  The Falun Dafa teachings are founded by Master Li.  According to Li, the Falun Dafa bears the responsibility and power of saving humankind.  Li states in Zhuan Falun: “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.” 
--Samuel Luo 00:05, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

text: * It is hard for any practitioner to summarize Li's teachings so why not just post your Master's statement?  It nicely states the purpose of the Dafa.  
--Samuel Luo 01:37, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The statement doesn't summarize the teachings which are what the summary is about.
Okay, we have two people who find this summary inadequate or unacceptable. Ed's seems to be the stronger objection, because it duplicates info already available at the Teachings article and because it's too long. Mcconn, would you like to try rewriting it based on that input? Would somebody else care to try to write a summary? CovenantD 17:37, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

text: In response to Ed, some of it is word for word, some isn't. Whether or not it's word for word I believe that it summarizes the core of Falun Dafa's teachings. Of course there are other aspects to the teachings and various claims made by Mr. Li, but I figured the summary should try to just give the essence. Whether it's newer lectures or an older lectures, the bottom line always comes down to cultivating your heart. "Clarifying the facts" has become very important in recent years, as others have pointed out, but it doesn't mean anything more than good blessings if you don't cultivate yourself at the same time. To paraphrase Mr. Li, "If your not cultivating, then forget about anything else." Samuel suggested to mention mention Mr. Li in the summary, but that he is already mentioned as the teacher of the practice in the introduction of the article, so I feel that it's kind of unecessary. Thus I pretty much stand by what I wrote. Perhaps Fnhddz's suggestion about cultivating the body could be incorperated. Rather than repaste the whole thing, I inserted the added comment and altered a couple things, marking in bold. Mcconn 17:55, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Teaching summary 

message: Looking back through the discussions, it seems that there might be agreement to have a breakaway article called Falun Gong and homosexuality that would encompass all perspectives on the topic. I'd like to poll people on whether this is in fact the direction we want to go, with the understanding that article content will be respected and discussed prior to editing. CovenantD 17:47, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, not at this point.  There is not sufficient content to warrent a separate page.  --Tomananda 17:59, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Falun Gong and homosexuality (article title) 

message: I notice that much of the current Teachings article is taken up with the excercises, while there's some parts of the Teachings section that don't appear in the Teachings article. One idea that occurs is to move the Excercises to a separate page and devote the Teachings article to, well, the various teachings. I know somebody mentioned it earlier but it didn't get much response.
Rational: As with most of my suggestions for page splitting, it comes down to size. Right now the Teaching article is at 32k. Adding more to it, which will happen when the section here is reduced to a summary, will push it over that 32k size. If the excercises are separated out, a logical move, that allows more room for the actual teachings of Falun Gong not already there, such as Demons and Enlightenment (maybe even Cultivation of mind and body which seems, to me, like a teaching or belief). CovenantD 18:23, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Totally agree with your here and I have made that point previously.  There is clearly enough content on the exercises to warrent a separate page. --Tomananda 18:39, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: See? I knew somebody mentioned it earlier ;) CovenantD 18:46, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  ''Teachings'' and ''Excercises'' 

message: CovenantD, thanks for all your efforts, but I must remind you that we also need to discuss the Flaun Gong teachings page.  It might work better that pro-Falun Gong editors refrain from editing the Criticism and controversies about Falun Gong page and Anti-Falun Gong editors stay away from the Falun Gong teachings page.  I believe this makes the writing easier and cross links can be added to direct people to the other side. --Samuel Luo 04:41, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Dilip, you totally miss the point.  "Facts" include the opinions of critics on the Falun Gong and that's what you have not shown any willingness to accept.  In our discussions I have repeatedly asked for a committment on the part of practitioners to accept critical commentary. We now have a lot of the critical commentary placed on the other talk page.  We are still working on the first section:  Difference between Falun Gong and Qi Gong.  You've posted many long paragraphs of Master Li's teachings, but that's not an appropriate addition to a section on criticism.  It may be that at this point you don't have any legimate content to add to that section, and that's ok.  Just let it stand for now and we can go on to the next section.  --Tomananda 19:18, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Falun Gong teaching page 

message: Now that I have your attention, I'd like to direct people's attention back to this section on the Teachings summary. I'm going to continue adding comments there to try to keep the discussion in one place. CovenantD 17:48, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Teachings section summary (Take 4) 

message: Is the Epoch Times really a Falun Gong publication?  It's own article doesn't say anything about that.  TastyCakes 23:17, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: *Yes, the Epoch Times is controlled and run by the Falun Gong and practitioners like to deny this fact.  See the following San Francisco Chronicle article.    And Arie Ravid’s statement “I was married to Epoch Times director and Falun Gong is behind it.”--Samuel Luo 00:32, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That article suggests some reporters and board members of the Epoch times practice Falun Gong, but it hardly proves that it's run by them.  "Connections with the group", sure, but run by?  Also a lot of the article is railing against the quality of the sound of hope, not epoch times.  Why are these allegations not mentioned on the epoch times page?  TastyCakes 00:45, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Because we haven't gotten there yet...? CovenantD 00:49, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

text: The epoch times article links to the same page samuel posted above.  It also says it is linked to Falun Gong, and is certainly sympathetic towards it, but not run by it.  TastyCakes 01:01, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Well for now I'm going to change the line where it says Epoch times is a Falun Gong publication to a publication with alleged Falun Gong links. I think that's warranted? TastyCakes 04:10, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Scratch that, forgot it was locked.  TastyCakes 04:12, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

text: I don't know about using Epoch times as a source, although I think it's the best voice opposition to the CCP has.  But it does appear there is not enough evidence to say it is a "Falun Gong publication" as is stated like 10 times in this article as if it is accepted fact.  TastyCakes 04:18, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

text: *TastyCakes your proposed statement “Epoch Times is a publication with alleged Falun Gong links” is inaccurate.  There are many Falun Gong practitioners working in key positions of the Epoch Times.  Levi Browde, a corporate director of the English-language edition of the Epoch Times is a New York spokesman for Falun Gong.  Arie Ravid’s wife Lijuan Ma (马丽娟) worked as the Bay Area Epoch Times director for more than three years.  John Nania editor in chief of Epoch Times is a practitioner.  Cindy Gu, Epoch Times communications director is also a Spokeswoman for Canadian Falun Dafa Information Centre.  This information shows that the Epoch Times is controlled and run by the Falun Gong. 
Even Master Li’s statement reveals that the Epoch Times is controlled by the Falun Gong.  He was asked this question in one of his teachings: “It seems that The Epoch Times newspaper has almost stopped carrying the Nine Commentaries. Should the Chinese- and English-language editions of The Epoch Times give weight to, and carry on with, running the Nine Commentaries?”  Li’s answer was: “The Epoch Times should take this question seriously. It's no different than with New Tang Dynasty Television, which has broadcast it without letting up and kept at it. The Nine Commentaries is saving people. Just concern yourself with doing this; people won't grow tired of it.”   The Nine Commentaries is a series of Epoch Times article attacking the Chinese government and it has been promoted and distributed by Falun Gong practitioners. 
   
The Epoch Times is undeniably a Falun Gong publication; this fact has to be pointed out whenever Epoch Times articles are cited.  --Samuel Luo 07:19, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

text: You have a funny definition of proof. Epoch times has Falun Gong members in it.  How do you prove "undeniably" that it is controlled by it?  I'm not saying you're wrong.  But I don't think it can be treated as established fact here.  I doubt you would be able to insert it as "fact" into the epoch times article without a huge argument, and I think that's a pretty good test of whether it should be here.  TastyCakes 17:12, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

text: *TastyCakes  are you a Falun Gong practitioner?  No one can convince you that the world is round if you don’t want to, but for the general public when practitioners hold key positions in Epoch Times which spread Falun Gong messages, we call the Epoch Times a Falun Gong publication.  I use the word “undeniably” because practitioners like to deny this fact.  Frankly, I don’t understand the rationalization behind all these denials: the Epoch Times has no connection with the Falun Gong and Falun Gong is not an organization.  It seems to me that telling the truth is the last thing practitioners want. --Samuel Luo 20:13, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No I'm not.  I know very little about Falun Gong beyond what I've read on Wikipedia and Epoch times I've only browsed through when I was bored (and it had nothing related to Falun Gong in it).  Like I said before, the CCP may have a case for calling the epoch times nothing but a mouth piece for falun gong, but it hardly seems a waterproof fact.  I agree that they certainly seem biased towards falun gong, and that at least should be mentioned in this article.  But saying they are one and the same strikes of pov, at least at this point in time.  TastyCakes 21:54, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

text: *With Bush in the white house we say the Republicans are running the white house, with many practitioners holding key positions in Epoch Times we say the Falun Gong is running the Epoch Times.  I notice that you again avoided this important fact.  Since you yourself admit that you know “very little about Falun Gong,” perhaps you should learn more about it before making any conclusion here.  --Samuel Luo 22:38, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, and I suppose you should be the one to insert "facts" into this article as you seem very open minded about the issue?  This is why Wikipedia pisses the hell out of me.  Go ahead, make the article read like it was written by the propaganda wing of the CCP.  Apparently noone else cares enough to want to challenge it.  TastyCakes 21:24, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

text: I agree with that. TastyCakes 23:56, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

text: *Now I see why we are disagreeing.  I spend time and energy researching information in order to make an informed conclusion.  But you believe that because the CCP--an authoritarian regime--proclaims the Epoch Times a Falun Gong publication no one is allowed to repeat the same claim here.   --Samuel Luo 04:59, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No I believe that claim shouldn't be stated as fact, when it is disputed. TastyCakes 16:21, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

text: I find it very suspect that this article would draw a more solid conclusion about what the epoch times is than the epoch times article itself.  But if I'm totally off base here, and it really is an undisputed Falun Gong publication, fine.  TastyCakes 17:53, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm just conveying what has been said in other media. If Li has said that Epoch Times "was established by Dafa disciples for validating the Fa," it seems pretty conclusive no matter what the Epoch Times article here on WP says. Obviously at some point that article will have to be looked at. But not today (hopefully). CovenantD 18:08, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

text: TastyCakes: If this article is successful, it will present many facts about Falun Gong practices and teachings which are not easily accesible anywhere else.  It's in the nature of cults to have an internal reality among the group, and a more benign external image for the general public.  In this case, Falun Gong's "internal reality" is not really kept secret...anyone can read through hundreds of pages of Li's lectures and teachings on their own website...but few people, including Western reporters, have the patience to do all that work.  So instead, the Falun Gong promotes a public image of itself which is deceptive, yet accepted as the complete truth by Western media and many politicians. What Covenant has just discovered is a perfect example of this phenomenon.  While practitioners swear up and down that the Epoch Times is not a mouthpiece for the Falun Gong,  their own Master...who is viewed as their God and savior...says otherwise.  How can we not believe the Master?  --Tomananda 19:34, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

text: * Good job CovenantD. Let’s use “established by” instead of run. --Samuel Luo 20:50, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It was based on references you provided, Samuel. To be honest, the first couple hadn't convinced me. One was a SF Chronicle report that indicated practitioners were employed there and the second was nothing more than a letter to the editor. It wasn't until I read the one on the clearwisdom site that reported Li's words that I saw evidence to support your position. I still want to read responses from practitioners before making up my mind on what I think is appropriate for the article. CovenantD 21:38, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

text: *I am amazed that with such facts prsented here practitioners are still arguing and trying to spin people.  Since Li is the leader we realy should use his words .--Samuel Luo 19:29, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

text: I think we can say the newspaper is to help on "saving sentient beings". But that is no contradict to what I had said. It is not a Falun Gong publication. Its views are not views of Falun Gong. I don't think it is for validating Fa. Disciples can validate the Fa by their individual behaviours. The birth of the Epoch Times is to counter the serious censorship  and to expose the news regarding Falun Gong that was not covered in other media since CCP not only threatens China also threatens the world by muffling the world's mouth. An Open Letter to Our Colleagues in the Media When Wang Wenyi interviewed with CNN, the CNN anchor especially told her in advance not to mention the organ harvesting. In the interview, the anchor carefully diverted her topic away from organ harvesting. Friends, organ harvesting is not new to people to be executed in China.  Falun Gong practitioners got the treatment with no exception. If we are numb to this, the next victims could be ourselves or our friends/family. Don't you know patients' marrow are stolen in Shenyang's hospital?  The patients are neither Falun Gong practitoiners nor to be executed. When we gave  such moral declination and bad deeds permission to anybody, we gave permission to apply to ourselves in the ultimate run. Together, let's save our world. Fnhddzs 00:25, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Epoch Times 

message: This article has been protected now for several weeks, which is more than long enough for people to calm down and discuss proposed changes.  I have only skimmed the above discussion, but it looks like a number of specific requested edits have started to pile up.  In keeping with Wikipedia's policy of keeping editing open whenever possible, I've unprotected the page.  Editors who are planning to make substantive changes are admonished take the above discussion into account. -- Beland 01:00, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Why has this article been protected since 25 April? That's simply ridiculously long. What's the big deal about this anyway? Skinnyweed 01:19, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Falun Gong is going to explode into a super edit war once people get their hands on it. Skinnyweed 01:27, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think you just answered your own question. -- Миборовский U|T|C|M|E|Chugoku Banzai! 01:28, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unprotected 

message: Hi, everybody:
The "real world" has kept me incredibly busy during the last couple of weeks, and I haven't had time to even visit Wikipedia. I will try to sort things out and answer some open questions this weekend.
Apparently the article is now unlocked. That's interesting.
Dilip decided to nominate me for an admin while I was away. I thank you for the confidence, but I think my contributions and edits are not currently at the level of an admin - and I couldn't do anything to this article anyway, if that's what you had in mind, because I'm one of the editors.
I'll get back to you soon. ---Olaf Stephanos 20:28, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Welcome back! I've been in the same boat, auto problems and work have conspired to keep me away as well for any but the most cursory visits (such as this one) for the last week and a half. --Fire Star 火星 20:37, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Olaf: Please read the postings above concerning the edits Dilip did yesterday.  You are a level headed and reasonable editor,  but Dilip is not and I am afraid that once again we are on the verge of a major revert war which, once again, has been initiated by the over-zealousness of just one editor: Dilip.  As one of the administrators who happens to be a practitioner, you have evidenced restraint and cooperation throughout this editing process.  So has Fire Star, who is also an administrator.  More recently another administrator has intervened named Beland..who was the one who unfroze the page.  My question to all of you guys is this: isn't there some point at which we have to admit this isn't working and go ahead with requesting formal mediation?  I don't have the years of experience some of you have with Wikipedia policies, but from what I have read in the disupte resolution section, that seems like the obvious next step.  Your thoughts?--Tomananda 20:40, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: A quick note, anyone may request mediation, it doesn't have to be an old timer. The mediators will look things over and decide. Go for it! --Fire Star 火星 20:53, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Olaf returns 

message: Don't use external link function for Wikipedia articles. Use the main tag to link daugher articles. Skinnyweed 21:07, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, but will the  template work with references to a section of an article? Maybe we should split off Falun Gong and homosexuality since it's one of the biggest (and clearest!) hot button issues. --Uncle Ed 21:35, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Most of the links are to subsections within the Criticism page or the Teachings page. Will that work if I just use the internal link function? I'd be happy to go back and make the changes. Concerning the homosexuality thing, the only reason I don't think we need a page is that even though there's a lot of debate, there is not really that much content.  There's much more content, for example, on the Government crackdown and that doesn't have it's own page yet.--Tomananda 21:40, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Thanks, Skinnyweed now I know how to do it.  --Tomananda 22:05, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Linking and linking to daughter articles 

message: Before I restored an earler version the introduction said "Falun Gong is the Biggest cult in China". The version just prior to my restoration. All images, including the animated Gif, details of the persectuion had all been deleted. I restored an earlier version and some users accuse me of "vandalism". All these were content agreed upon, earlier by the editors. What I restored is a version of the page before it was severly vandalized. Please compare the two versions of the page - the one I "vandalized" with the one I restored. Thankyou.
Dilip rajeev 12:31, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Dilip: Your series of edits deleted all 4 subsections of the Critics and controversy section,all links to the Teachings page and the Critisism and controversy page and made massive changes in other sections as well.  I did not delete your pictures, someone else did during the revert war you seem bent on having. I'm ok with restoring some of those pictures in the main page so long as they don't duplicate pictures which appear in the Teachings page. Fire Star has just deleted the sentence you object to about cults in the introduction. Please, let's stop these silly revert wars, use the combined version we now have and build from there and return to the practice of discussing significant changes in this discussion page.--Tomananda 15:53, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Well, except for the deleted pictures on the main page, you will see that the "combined" version includes all of the previous content, except that some of the main page postings have been reduced to a summary, with links to either the Teachings page or the Criticism and controversies page.  In other words, there has not been any deletion of content,  but there has been re-arrangment of where parts of sections reside.  That's the whole idea of splitting the article.  As I mentioned, the net effect of this has been to shorten the main page by 12 Kb.--Tomananda 19:00, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  I request ALL editors to please compare the two versions 

message: The current "combined" version of the main article is 79 Kb, down from the previous 91 Kb.  I am wondering if there is a consensus to shorten it further.  Previously I suggested that there could be a separate page for the Government crackdown section because that seems to be the next biggest section in terms of length.  I don't have any experience on this issue, but I read that the Wikipedia standard is about 32 Kb for each article.  Any thoughts on this?   --Tomananda 18:18, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sure, we'd want the derivative article to be created first.  But is there agreement to create a separate page for this?  If not, then it's a non-issue and we may want to look for other ways to reduce the main page content further.  If there is agreement, then maybe someone could go ahead and create the page and start populating it at this point. --Tomananda 19:03, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Discussion of length in main article 

message: A supplement of my edits:
Bandaging burn wounds is an option , 
-Yenchin 19:05, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: *The new version not only should report statements from Beijing, the Falun Gong and news agencies but most importantly the statements from the survivors.  Currently this section is not big enough to justify a page on its own but if it gets bigger then... --Samuel Luo 03:42, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

text: *Four out of five of them said they were practitioners, and you are picking on the one who did not make a statement because she died instantly.  I don’t believe this lady set herself and her daughter on fire for money or anything else.  --Yueyuen 00:51, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

text: No it is speculation from FLG that the heavy trenchcoat is protective clothing. (Totally neglecting the fact that it was January in Beijing.) The so called "body language" again is a mere claim. --Yenchin 15:09, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Oh, and the Minghui Net article is hearsay from a hearsay. So much for "proof". --Yenchin 15:24, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Tiananmen Square Self Immolation Incident 

message: I want to avoid another edit conflict, and this is a bit of a tangent:
*Paul Vallely and Clifford Coonan, writing in the UK Independent on April 22, 2006, cited a Wall Street Journal article saying ...
That's how I would deal with the second-hand or third-hand source issue. Since we can't quote WSJ directly (at the moment), let's allow the Independent to quote them for us. Okay? --Uncle Ed 17:41, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Why can't we quote it directly? Please see my edit. Mcconn 18:14, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, if that's the best we can do. I followed your "non-web" quote with a "cached-web" quote. No hard feelings? --Uncle Ed 18:26, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sorry to create another section 

message: It’s clear in the article that the house was a gift to Mr Li Hongzhi which he refused to accept. This is clarified by the practitioner who bought the house in this letter (Please see: http://cw83913.zhufa.org/emh/articles/1999/11/3/10767.html ). None of this information reflects any financial or business aspects of Falun Gong. The fact is the wall street journal article says Master Li Hongzhi didnt accept the house, only that the heading was misleading.
To put it the way it is currently presented is blatanlty non-factual. Hence, I am removing it from the article. 
Further, the tiltle "Financial and business aspects" has never been agreed upon by any editor and is something completely fictional. Infact the title was single-handedly introduced by an editor when the pages were vandalized.
Infact this material has already been discussed several times int he talk section. 
Dilip rajeev 18:05, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wall Street Journal Gift House Article 

message: Fnhddzs:  Just when it appears we are making progress and possibly reaching some compromises in the edits, you come along and do a whole series of deletions in the main article.  You delete, among other things, a quote from Maria Chang stating that it is not needed.  Please tell me, since when don't we need to quote from critics if we are reporting their POV's?  My particular style of editing is very succinct.  Unlike the incredibly long and unreadable block quotes you and other practitioners like to post from your Master's teachinhgs, I am very minimal in what I use.  So when you make an absurd comment like: the quote isn't needed, I have to laugh.  Rather than working contructively with the other editors, you are deleting material without justification or discussion.  Please, let's try to cooperate.  --Tomananda 22:57, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: * You are actually making the article longer. Take the organ harvesting section for example you expanded it from 610 to 760 words by adding repeated caiims from Epoch Times.--Samuel Luo 23:21, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Split it up further, perhaps into "government crackdown" as that is, after all, the big draw of it. Skinnyweed 23:27, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I see it is currently in the "crackdown" part. Fnhddzs 23:30, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Fnhddzs:  Please cooperate here.  There are two remaining sections in the criticism page which haven't been summarized yet, and I am now doing that.  But by far the biggest section in the main article that has not been summarized in any way is the section on Government crackdown. Skinnyweed has brought this up, and so did I awhile ago. When you claim you are trying to reduce the size of article, but don't work to split off the Government crackdown section, I have to question you motives. --Tomananda 23:32, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Tomananda. ok. really, feel free to add the two sections of criticism. But please do not just copy and paste. What do you mean by Government crackdown part? I did not understand Skinnyweed means that. I am willing to split off if its has its own article. Fnhddzs 23:35, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Sounds like there's a direction to take, especially if there's already a page for this content.Concerning the Maria Chang quote, I do think it is needed on the home page...or else, I will summarize in my words. But without it, there is not enough of a hook to get the reader to click on the corresponding criticism page.  Concerning your other edits, can you agree to do them one at a time to allow discussion?  --Tomananda 00:04, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

text: PS: By "one at a time"  I don't mean section by section, but rather spaced over time.--Tomananda 00:06, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fnhddzs: Please discuss changes on this page 

message: Don't worry. I just try to delete the redundancy. Sorry about confusion. I really think quotes are too much details. Honestly, some quotes are interesting. If you find some quotes are not on the critism article. please feel free to add them on the critism article. What I happened to find are they were copied exactly the same. But I may be careless. I have no intention to simply delete them! Thanks for understanding! Fnhddzs 01:29, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Samuel, the critism quotes are sitting on the cristism articles 

message: I am spliting the article, and moving data to relevant daughter pages. Kindly help with edits.
Dilip rajeev 12:57, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Splitting the article 

message: Once again you (Dilip rajeev  and Fnhddzs ) are turning this page into a promotional piece for the Falun Gong.  The massive rewrite you did without any consensus removed much verifiable, critical information and removed the summaries of the criticism sections which in effect turned this page from a more balanced piece   for which both pro and con editors had their say to an propaganda for the Falun Gong. 
I urge you guys to respect the work of other editors and stop editing this page like its your property. --Samuel Luo 21:16, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Dilip,  You are the one who is provoking a revert war.  It was never agreed to reduce the entire Cricitism and contovesy section, with all its sub-sections--some of which originally were postioned as a separate main page article -- to just one blurb on the main page.  In fact, the oppososite is true:  we had summarized the individual sections of the Controversy page in the main page and added links to that correspoding section.  Various editors even made changes in those summaries.  Then you come along and delete all that work under the pretext of having gotten consensus agreement.  You have a long history of mis-representing your edits that goes way back in the discussion pages.  I know you have a passion for Falun Gong and think it is all good. Many do not agree with that assessment.  You and the other practitioners must respect the work of editors who are opposed to the Falun Gong.  I have repeatedly shown restraint by not deleting your content.  Yet you do it all the time, and then lie about the justification.  Please explain how you can claim to live by the motto:  "truthfullness, compassion and forebearance" and so blatantly disregard those virtues as an editor. --Tomananda 21:51, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The recent edits of Falun Gong practitioners are despicable 

message: None of the material has been delted.. only moved to appropriate daughter pages. It would be impossible to proceed with edits if we are to have material both here and there..
Dilip rajeev 21:59, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  None of the material has been deleted 

message: Okay, people, that's enough. Revert wars are starting again and people aren't communicating on the talk page. "Communicate" doesn't mean announce you're making a change, it means discussing it, with feedback, before making a change. If this goes on for even another hour I'm going to request full protection again. CovenantD 22:23, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I will protect the page again if revert wars are not stopped immediately. -- Миборовский U|T|C|M|E|Chugoku Banzai! 22:28, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Protected. -- Миборовский U|T|C|M|E|Chugoku Banzai! 00:15, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Everbody is out of control AGAIN 

message: Each subsections of the critism part has appeared twice!!!! Why I cannot delete them! OK. nobody should delete them until everybody take a look how ugly it is! Fnhddzs 22:43, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Everybody look at the page NOW! 

message: Would somebody report dilip for this? I would, but I can never get the format for the complaint right. If you compare his last three edits to his previous edits, you'll see that he's just reverting to whatever was in place the last time. CovenantD 23:01, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Dilip rajeev has been warned and his next violation will result in a block. I've looked over Samuel Luo's edits, he's at 2 of 3. I've not had a chance to check the others. -- Миборовский U|T|C|M|E|Chugoku Banzai! 23:11, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll leave it to you, then, since you're more experienced at spotting these and have the power of an admin. Thanks CovenantD 23:14, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

text: *Since this is a highly controversial issue, I believe there should be an equal amount of information from pro and anti FG editors.  And repeatedly pro-FG editors have manipulated this page making it a FG piece.  --Yueyuen 23:36, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

text: *By deleting and rmoving critical centent you did make it a FG piece.  You did the same thing two days ago.--Yueyuen 23:51, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

text: NOTHING were deleted. Fnhddzs 23:53, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  3RR violation by Dilip 

message: To avoid revert wars, I believe big changes such as moving and deleting sections or massive rewrites should be discussed here first.  Anyone amking big changes without discussing it here first his edits should be reverted. what do you say?    --Samuel Luo 00:06, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: LOL  I just clicked "edit this page" to say the same thing. I'm willing to accept any edit that is backed up by verifiable sources and discussed here first. Anything else is not in keeping with the spirit of good faith, which I think we worked hard to achieve when the page was protected. I don't want to see that break down. CovenantD 00:20, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Unfortunately it already has, so it's back to protection I'm afraid. Peruse this talk page for all your editing needs. -- Миборовский U|T|C|M|E|Chugoku Banzai! 00:21, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  No big changes should be allowed without discussion here 

message: How could Yueyuen asks me to look at my mailbox there is a message from Samuel Luo? Samuel Luo, you are funny. However, it is not decent. You are cheating. Fnhddzs 00:28, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've responded on your talk page. -- Миборовский U|T|C|M|E|Chugoku Banzai! 01:12, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

text: *This is Yueyuen, I am not Samuel and my IP adress is shown below since I am not log in.  Fnhddzs when I asked you to check your mail box I was refering to CovenantD’s following message to you.  
   
STOP REMOVING SECTIONS FROM FALUN GONG!!!!
Your wholesale removal of sections from the article WITHOUT DISCUSSION is pure vandalism. If you feel they are redundant, bring it up on the talk page FIRST! I am sick of this and will report ANYBODY who continues this childish behaviour. CovenantD 22:38, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

text: *I also looked into Dilip rajeev’s mail box and found the following message.  As many editors have complained, both of you guys have edited the article without any consideration of others.    
Dilip rajeev I've asked that you be reported for reverting 3 times today back to your previous edit. CovenantD 23:02, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Samuel Luo is Yueyuen 

message: Just returned from an appointment to find the page frozen.  It's good the page is frozen, but freezing the page is only a temporary solution.  Falun Gong practitioners Dilip Rajeev and Fnddzs were the most active in destroying the previous balance on the home page,  but it was Dilip, especially, who began the attack and constantly lied about his justifications.  One only needs to look at the 18:07 May 24th edit of the main done by Dilip to see how blatantly unbalanced it was.  New pro-Falun Gong sections had been inserted as stand-alone articles (eg: "Research into health benefits"  and "Falun Gong awards and recognitions")  while the title and summary of virtually every critical sub-section had been deleted. What remained of the previous article was just a short puff piece on the Falun Gong. And so many lies were given in the edit summaries it boggles my mind.
It's clear to me that some (I am not saying all) Falun Gong practitioners simply cannot accept balanced reporting in the Falun Gong article.  We have been working for more than 2 months trying to reach editing compromises and every time we seem to be making progress, the results of our work is subverted.  I think this last go-around is particularly telling.  If the edits of Dilip and Fnhddzs had remained,  the main page would have been reduced to a promotional piece for the Falun Gong...not even the pretence of balance. 
Again, I suggest we seek formal mediation.  I know I can request mediation just on my own, but I would like there to be support from at least a few other editors before taking that big step. Does anyone agree with me that it's time to request official mediation from the mediation committee?  --Tomananda 02:04, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The end of another revert war! 

message: State clearly that is protected. Thanks Fnhddzs 02:19, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Please put a Protected mark on the page 

message: I had been constantly requesting other editors to help with the outlines.Its alright with me even if the awards section is DELETED. What is important is that we keep the material in approproiate subsections so that we can work on them. We can only go forward if the material is isolated into daughter pages. I request editors to get the article split with intro paras to each section on the main page.. 
I requested you to write a commentary para for the critical section. I hadnt deleted anything. Ed also requested that the new version be allowed to stay and then you turn around and label me a "vandal". Some even resorted to sockpuppetting (the last edit by "yueyuen") to get the material out... I really dont understand..
Dilip rajeev 03:16, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Please 

message: Fnhddzs (and Dilip): Your edits were not about making the main page clean. You and Dilip clearly intended to leave have left only pro-FG stuff on the main page with your series of edits.  Included in those pro-Falun Gong edits was a new section called  "Research into health benefits".  What an outrageous piece of self-promotion that is!  Clearly aimed at It will have the effect of recruiting new members to your cult (which encourages practitioners to not seek traditional medical help when they are sick), the touted 99.1% cure rate FG is a classic example of the snake oil salesman coming to town. And all those lovely pro-FG pictures, all from the Falun Gong PR shop, presumably. It's all about the branding, right?  And then there's the Awards and recognitions section (another lovely illustration) and it goes on and on. 
When you and Dilip were finished with your editing, what was left on the critical side?  Just a link to the entire Criticism and controversies page!  Of all your changes, that was by far the most outrageous, since the summaries for the sub-sections and the links to those sub-sections had already been written and discussed. You could have at least left that section standing...but no, why should you? If you can get a 99.1% cure rate practicing Falun Gong why not try for a 99.1% rate of pro-Falun Gong propaganda in Wikipedia?
You and Dilip lie about editing all the time, but I guess it doesn't count as lies if it's all done in the service of Master Li and his agenda, right?  Several editors have criticized your editing and asked you to play by the rules, but each time your respond with weasel words.  Please try to be honest about your intentions next time.  --Tomananda 03:36, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The crossed out phrases are not personal attacks.  They are comments on the editing behavior and motitives of Dilip and can be fully substantiated.  I didn't just make up the comment about doing edits which are "clearly aimed at recruiting new members."  That observation is based on a personal e-mail Dilip sent to me some time ago.  He complained to me that if we allow negative comomentary to remain in the Wikipedia article, that would prevent new people from being saved by Li's Dafa.  In other words, don't let the truth interfere with our goals.  And concerning the lies used in edit summaries, they speak for themselves, I can easily provide a long list. --Tomananda 21:24, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Stop the lies 

message: I am only asking you to be honest with your edits. I request you to show atleast a trace of honour and stop resorting to every cheap trick to get editors on your side - every intelligent person can see through it. Everything from the titles you use for your posts make that conspicuous. What I want is a factual article here. None of those things you added in the crictical commentary section are sourced, neither do the so called sources meet wiki standards. (Now, before you make a new allegation let me point out that I havent deleted any of the stuff.)
Those are just personal opinions. 
I can take a million personal opinions, from MDs and PhDs to Researchers and put it in the article. For instance, prominent Cancer researcher says..
"As a Cancer researcher and a practitioner of an ancient mind-body practice (Falun Dafa, also known as Falun Gong), I have observed the total recovery of practitioners from complex diseases such as cancer. " -Tongwen Wang, Ph.D., Molecular Biologist, American Cancer Society Scholar, Cancer Researcher.
I have never tried to include such stuff in the article, neither will I do so in the future. What I have included are results from thorough research, and material from solid sources. And when the facts make the article factual. You dont like it. NPOV is not making the article look good or bad, it is about making the article factual. How could facts make up a POV? Wether you like them or not facts are facts. I invite all editors to go through the pervious version of the article 
Dilip rajeev 17:20, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Dilip's Reply

message: * What was done was very constructive. Since pages are ready to split (thanks to all contributors on the sub pages). I am sorry that there may have been a notice in advance but was not. But actually we carefully moved all contents to new places to make sure the contents were not simply deleted. In the beginning, I noticed you added a cross link in controversies to "Research into health benefits". I thought you were not opposed to it too much. I just think it is a good start to work on the new clean page.
:How can you keep a straight face when saying this?  We had already split the Criticism and controversies page and we had already written short summaries for each of it's subsections for the main article.  You know that is the case.  How can you still speak in such weasel words?--Tomananda 04:25, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Stop personal attack. I said we have to put back the subsections for all if you insist on putting back subsections. We could think about it though. Fnhddzs 06:44, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

text: You're still not responding to the basic point, which is that what remained on the main page was blatantly pro-Falun Gong.  There must be a balance ON THE MAIN PAGE. The way to do that is to allow the sub-sections of the Criticism and controversies page to remain with brief summaries on the main page, with corresponding links.  That is what we had before the revert war.  It is unacceptable to delete the subsections of the criticism page from the main article, since without them there cannot be fair balance.--Tomananda 04:20, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  No lies 

message: I have stated all my reasons in my reply to Tomananda. Anybody could bring up more points on the new page? So we could discuss? For example, what if deleting the awards part as Dilip already said ? Fnhddzs 04:37, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I really agree with this statement and hope the other editors will think it through rationally. Balance isn't about having one cup of criticism for one cup of everything else.Mcconn 17:06, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Constructive topic 

message: Kindly express here your opinion regarding wether it would be better to have a neatly split version or something like we already have. Please dont use more than a paragrpah.
Dilip rajeev 14:04, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the structure of the Dilip's article is better. It looks a lot better and thus is more readable. The structure takes it down to the basics and has break-off pages for everything else. Of course the content can be improved upon. Tomanda, by lengthening the criticism subsection the page will be fairly balanced. I think a lot of the content was very basic facts and the fundamentals of what the reader should know about Falun Dafa. Just because some information isn't criticising it doesn't mean that the information is thus promoting it. Mcconn 17:06, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

text: I did and do support, appreciate and applaud the efforts Dilip and/or other editors have made in the sub pages to make this new look based on our old consensus possible. Fnhddzs 19:48, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

text: I also feel we need split the article. For several reasons- one being making the article look neat and information easily accessible. Another being that if we have the material on two pages we are going to find it really hard to keep track of the changes or to isolate disputed material and scrutinize them.
Dilip rajeev 21:02, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Seems index box is a good idea. Thanks to Yenchin. Fnhddzs 19:11, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

text: You hardly paint yourself as unbiased with statements like that. I suggest you read a bit about how Wikipedia works before you attempt to enter this discussion, especially the bits about NPOV, civility, and personal attacks. CovenantD 22:06, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Like the way people listed are accused of "forcing negative things" and "sabatoge"? On what basis that we "can't do that"? Do I need to point out that ad hominem is a logic fallacy? --Yenchin 10:12, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I thought sabotage is like vandalism. But maybe my English understanding is not accurate. But we need to be serious. Otherwise we may really sin. I think "forcing negative things" is about forging things based on personal thing and lies. For example, we should not call the biochemist, owner of www.xys.org as a critics and cite his article on that website according to wiki policy. Fnhddzs 16:11, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Several people have been warned about the tone of their edits, either here or on their personal talk pages. I speak up when it gets too volatile or when a newbie who hasn't even learned how to sign their comments inserts themselves. If I tried to call everybody on their incivility the talk page would be twice as long as it is now. I'd rather focus on the article, but will wait until the accusations stop flying about and I see some desire to actually work on content. CovenantD 14:03, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Editor Poll 

message: I have no association with FG either pro or anti , but find the critical sites listed on top of pro sites very odd ( in external links ) why is this ? since the article is about FG it is normal to list direct websites first ( don't you think ?)--Scribe5 13:23, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed, the order should be switched. CovenantD 14:05, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Critical links listed above ( external links) official Falun gong sites, very odd 

message: This article appears to be a content fork of the main article, and I haven't seen any consensus basis for its creation.  Just letting everyone here know it exists. Night Gyr 14:51, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fork at [[Theoretical and Epistemological studies on Falun Gong]] 

message: NPOV is not making the article look good or bad. Neither has it got anything to do with "pro" or "anti" stuff. It is about making the article factual.
Every bit of material I had included in my edits were well sourced and from thorough research conducted by reputed researchers.How could facts make up a POV? Whether someone likes them or not facts are facts. I invite all editors to go through the pervious version of the article
Dilip: There has not been a challenge to the content of your recent additions, the challenge is to where you put them, and what you deleted at the same time.  Please stop trying to change the subject.--Tomananda 18:04, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Dilip: Your last series of edits had the effect of drastically changing the structure of the main page and had nothing to do with being "factual". The issue of sources was covered in great depth in the Criticism talk page.  I have summarized what you did above in the 3RR section and have asked you, and other editors, a question.  Please read it and respond.--Tomananda 18:02, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Dilip:  We had all this material on the Criticism page and spent close to 4 weeks discussing issues of sources, etc. Although you often did not participate in the discussion, certain conclusions were reached on sources (see Covenant's proposed standard for inclusion of sources and the subesequent discussion to refresh your memory.)   It's rather outrageous that at this stage you would make this argument to defend your deletions on the main page.  Back when you were sending me personal e-mails asking that I give up my sinful homosexual behavior, you stated you were concerned that my words would prevent people from having the opportunity to cultivate the Dafa.  As a Wikipedia editor is it possible for you to be objective enough to play by the Wikipedia rules, which means allow sourced material to remain in an ariticle even if, in your opinion, it might have the effect of turning away a new Falun Gong recruit?  That to me is the basic question.  As a true believer in Li Hongzhi as savior, and the idea that practitioners during this Fa-rectification period must dedicate themselves to saving all sentient beings, can you put aside those convictions long enough to allow diverergent POV's to remain in this article? Or will you continue to provoke revert wars by doing a series of sneaky edits to conceal things which might work against Falun Gong's recruitment efforts?  --Tomananda 19:25, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Keeping the article factual 

message: : Somebody said we don't want a puff piece of Falun Gong. But why we have to be "thirsty" to get puff pieces of so-called critism? Falun Gong teachings (I only refer to those written by Master Li) have a lot of articles. Only the main book has nine chapters. Why we have to assume that there have to have the equal size of critism stuff especially from personal website from a biochemist? In this sense, it is already inbalanced to the opposite way. I mean, we have already tried to minimize the Falun Gong teachings on the article. Why we cannot try to mimize the puff pieces of "critism"? What is in our mind? Where is the fairness? How balance is balance? Why those individual summaries cannot be deleted? If you put them back, why we not list summaries of all nine chapters of Zhuan Falun? Fnhddzs 19:26, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, we could probably list summaries of all the subsections in the Main article if that made sense.  Balance does not mean that there has to be a 50/50 balance in the material, but it does mean that the critical articles need to be sumarized in the main article.  That can easily be done without going over any space limit, so this whole argument is a diversionary tactic that Dilip has created to bury the material he doesn't like. He's done it before, and now we're doing it again. --Tomananda 19:33, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Don't we already bury the material you don't like also? I like the Falun gong teachings. But I am ok to leave only one summary on the main article. I didn't accuse that people bury the material they don't like. Fnhddzs 19:37, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  What is balance 

message: I'm going to put a thing on NPOV noticeboard. The arguments for not having this information don't make sense to me. There is a context and basis for including such information, and it's not merely random information to disparage the journal. Being a CCP mouthpiece is not even a disparagement if it's an actual fact--I mean, this isn't an expression of opinion. It's just the role it plays in Chinese society, and Ownby points this out. So, I don't see any point trying to remove this info, because it's important to get some background for what is going on here. Falun Gong is being criticised in major Party media. Removing this obscures that fact. So I'm not satisfied with the deletions and am taking it to the NPOV board to get a third opinion. Thanks.--Asdfg12345 14:28, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  About the Beijing TV thing