Talk:Falun Gong/Archive 20

message: The Mediation Committee is currently discussing whether or not it is
possible for mediation of Falun Gong articles to continue.  We
appreciate your patience and any input you have to offer here.  For the Mediation Committee, Martinp23 20:06, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mediation update 

message: "At the end of the ban, any user may remove this notice." - just looks funny when it's an indef ban. Maybe a new template without the remove-me line. Obscurans 04:43, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Fixed it. --Fire Star 火星 04:47, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Ban template

message: is for the Talk namespace (plus is redundant for a protected page). --h2g2bob (talk) 19:45, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. Cheers. --MZMcBride 20:00, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Misplaced template 

message: I've read this article and discussion here. I find Samuel's website useful so I put it back. I don't plan to stay here long since I don't know enough about this group. I believe Samuel's site provides a balance to this article, thanks. --Yellowtuna 17:09, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi, Samuel. Please remember to take your Risperdal, you are not many persons but only one, OK? ✔ Olaf Stephanos ✍ 17:24, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Hi, Yellowtuna (or Samuel, doesn't matter). This site actually does not present the facts about this group of people correctly - it is only the point of view of its author. There are many other points of view and personal experiences of many other people that suggest a completely different interpretation of the quotes, original research, etc. this site contains. Besides, it has been suggested that this website's author has a strongly biased and incorrect view of the facts about this group (may he one day understand it :)!), which are all arguments against the inclusion of this website. This comment was added by Emanuil Tolev 07:15, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, from what I can see, Sam Luo is highly ranked in Google and shows up in some discussions of FG as a source, so the guy has managed to burn his way into the discussion. It'd be POV to not have his viewpoints referenced somewhere. ArekExcelsior 23:47, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Hello

message: Just quickly to explain what I think about this section. I will copy one more thing in now. This whole page needs to be changed, as I mentioned briefly before. It will need to become more like a third party views, and have criticism balanced by counter-criticism/defence, and all the original research will need to come out. Such original research I am referring to includes parts which do not cite any third party reliable sources at all, but are just compilations of quotes of Li Hongzhi with some commentary. This, in essence is not even really criticism, it is just parts of the teachings that whoever wrote those sections thinks are bad. Those things should go on the Teachings page and be written neutrally, with consideration given to due weight as they fit into the teachings as a whole. I am referring to the part about homosexuality and about the Fa-rectification. These should definitely simply be presentations of the teachings on the teachings page, unless there is a third party reliable source who criticises Falun Gong for these aspects of the teachings. I am sure there must be some, it is just a matter of digging them up and reporting them. 
The stuff from Chang did not seem to be any kind of criticism either. Maybe there was more to it and she wanted to criticise Falun Gong for saying it is not a religion but for nevertheless, according to her, being like a religion or sharing characteristics of a religion (she refers to Li Hongzhi's direct or indirect claims of divinity)... since this was not couched critically in that section I cited that bit and put it above. I guess it does not really belong there either. Having a third-party views transition will help in this situation too, since she has something to say about Falun Gong, like an analysis, and it is neither critical nor positive. Aside from this, there were some other words in this section about Li Honghzhi's quotations. Here is what I think: Li Hongzhi's claims of offering universal salvation, of rectifying the cosmos and saving it from disintegration, of having fashen, and everything else should really appear in different parts of the teachings section, since these are essentially teachings of Falun Gong. Of course if a third party has referred to these in some way then they should be mentioned in this context, as I just said about Chang. Nearly everyone who has written about Falun Gong has something to say about Li Hongzhi's statements in this regard, so there is ample space for this. The key is to get away from the original-research way of presenting this information, as though it were criticism. 
Li Hongzhi's statements about homosexuality go in the criticism section when there is a third party reliable source who criticises them, and the same with Fa-rectification. Otherwise putting them there does not really constitute criticism, but original-research. This information actually belongs in the teachings section and it should accord with NPOV.
I will change the name of it to third party views now and copy a paragraph in about Falun Gong being a cult. There should be a couple of sections here, the one about debateable significance of awards is a good criticism. Of course, these introductory paragraphs should follow the format suggested under WP:LEAD, and should quickly give both sides of the issue. Unlike the current one about the awards where the criticism is given three lines and the defence one, the presentations should be even. Just some thoughts and explanation. I will change the heading and copy in the cult section now. It will need to be adjusted for NPOV becuase now I will just copy the criticism and wait for someone to add in the defence/counter-criticism. This is a prelude to the changes on the criticisms page for now.--Asdfg12345 23:26, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I actually copied both the criticism and defence so it is a bit longer. still needs big improvement, obviously. The arguments from each side need to be pared down and written very succintly, and the section on the criticisms page may need to change to reflect the NPOV "third party views" framing of this information, rather than the former "criticism" framing.--Asdfg12345 23:33, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with Asdfg12345. Original research must be purged. Of course, we won't remove material from verifiable critical sources. When they touch upon subjects that are covered in the teachings, we can either provide a link to a relevant section in the teachings page or quickly summarize what Li has said about these issues. Since Wikipedia is a tertiary source and the third-party views on Falun Gong are not limited to this specific daughter article, we should find a better headline. I propose "Controversies surrounding Falun Gong". As a thematic entity, it is delineated yet extensive. See my post below. ✔ Olaf Stephanos ✍ 15:36, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What Li says about these things could be blandly listed in an expository section on the details of what he teaches and espouses. If we have them in a section on "criticism", then we also should reference a notable critic or critics. I think having it framed the way it is is artefact from an anti-FLG agenda. --Fire Star 火星 07:06, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Criticisms parts 

message: Hello,
the article states, that:
"according to some cult experts, Li demonstrates the classic characteristics of an authoritarian cult leader." - could someone point out which cult expert has this (exact) opinion? I perfectly well know and recognize criticism on Falun Gong, but yay "Encyclopedic content must be verifiable.". Nothing against including a quote from a renonowned religious, or cult expert or scientist, I'd just like to point out that it must be a 'something' from 'someone', like all things on Wikipedia. Emanuil Tolev 10:49, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, people? What's your opinion? I'd try to find such facts (person and quote or another form of statement of opinion). And if there are none, as I suspect (because of the used weasel words and unaccurate expression - what are the "classic characteristics of an authoritarian cult leader"? If the quoted person didn't specify, well, at least who is he, "some cult experts"?) - I'd suggest the deletion of this sentence. I can conduct no research as of now and I'm pointing this out, because another Wikipedian who is currently free may want to do it. I'll try to get to something myself later. Emanuil Tolev 18:43, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Probably another holdover, see my comment just above. --Fire Star 火星 07:08, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Li Hongzhi 

message: I put this article on hold for Wikipedia:Release Version as it is a B-class article that is mid-importance. If this was high importance it would have passed. Getting this up to GA status or higher will make it worthy of inclusion in 0.7. Funpika 00:18, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: A discussion can be found here on this matter. Funpika 00:25, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Since I was leaning on fail myself when I placed it on held nominations and 3 other people want it failed, I will now fail this nomination. Funpika 19:21, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: 0.7 held

message: Splitting the time line section into growth and then "persecution" is factually inaccurate for the reason that the system of cultivation practice has been steadily growing in popularity in countries outside China. Therefore am removing the "growth" subtitle ( the subtitle alone. not the content following). The second subtitle has been changed to "Persecution of Falun Gong in China".
Dilip rajeev 19:32, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Subtitles in The History and Timeline subsection 

message: The following statement doesn't have a source.
"Analysts note the highly politicized nature of the group distinguishes it from most religious groups."
Before reinserting this statement to the article, please provide a source. Thank You. --HappyInGeneral 08:24, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: At first I thought that sentence should be deleted - as religious groups are often political. But I concede that they are much more political than most, perhaps someone could find a source? Or we could simply amend it "It is alleged that some argue that analysts note the highly politicized nature of the group distinguishes it from most religious groups."Aleksi Peltola 17:58, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unattributed statement 

message: Many editors of the past will probably know of my editing on FG-related discussion pages (and to a much more limited extent, the FG-related entries themselves).  I have gone through the ArbCom case (and found not guilty by almost all admins), through bashings by both sides accusing me of bias and being brainwashed, being accused of not being neutral, immoral and every word and insult that can be used.  There is a time, however, when one has to realize as a single person you can't beat organizations with their systematic information control and infinite resources.  This will certainly let various editors who do not support total balancing / neutrality to rejoice; this is another obstacle removed for them.  All I can say is this, from my one year of FG-related involvement - there is much more to what's going on then what the public are being informed of.  Be careful of what you believe because what you read does not tell the complete picture - read opposing sources to realize the extent of bias; read critically to examine what can be verified and what are allegations.
I wish good luck to all those engaged in FG-related editing in the future, and to also inform them that my deactivation from serious editing on these articles were not made entirely voluntarily; see my user page for details.  As a parting favor to me please do not bombard my user talk page with any anonymous spam, or insistence on what is good or bad or true or false.  Thank you for your attention.  Jsw663 15:04, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Time to leave FG editing 

message: Someone here in these pages accused me of engaging in vandalism and sockpupperty. You know who you are, so I will not name and shame you right now. I consider the charges laid against me were a very serious attack of a personal nature, impugning my integrity. No only is is completely lacking in good faith, it goes against everything that I and wikipedia said for. Unless these completely groundless allegations are withdrawn with a full apology within 48 hours, I will come out and name you, and perhaps you will enjoy a spell without wikipedia! ;-) Ohconfucius 01:45, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Demand for an apology

message: For the record, I believe that the following are all sockpuppets of the same user, as all the edits to introduced by them restore the article to identical texts, irrespective of intervening edits. The accounts are used to edit FG or associated articles :
*User:US133
*User:US343
*User:Free1324
*User:US333
*User:G777
*User:Free152
*User:Free141
*User:Free667
*User:Free986
*User:Free555
I have reversed edits made today by Special:Contributions/US133
Ohconfucius 06:37, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Add to above list of sockpuppets:
*User:US543
*User:G751
Ohconfucius 16:10, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Sockpuppets

message: Re: Supppression of Falun Gong. I thought suppression of Falun Gong was the compromised title. Why was the article title changed to persecution of Falun Gong? This adds an unnecessary anti-PRC slant to the article, and a large amount of "evidece" described are from Falun Gong sources. I suggest moving the article to History of Falun Gong, or Falun Gong in the People's Republic of China to make the title more neutral, and add some sections on pre-ban FLG history. See title conflicts on Allegations of state terrorism by the United States, Kent State shootings, No Gun Ri, Tiananmen Square protests of 1989 etc.--PCPP 07:39, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hello PCPP. There was official consensus to change the title. See here: Talk:Persecution_of_Falun_Gong#Suppression_-.3E_Persecution, and just above: Talk:Falun_Gong#Suppression_-.3E_Persecution. Actually, it was originally called Persecution of Falun Gong, until it was changed by Samuel Luo, an anti-Falun Gong activist who is now banned from wikipedia for aggressively promoting his anti-Falun Gong agenda. You may see his sockpuppets vandalise the pages from time to time. You can revert those. Nearly all third-party literature, including United Nations reports, Amnesty International reports, and Human Rights Watch refer to the persecution as a persecution. Edward McMillan Scott even referred to it as a genocide, since the CCP has actually been systematically killing practitioners for their organs for the last 8 or so years. He traveled to China and met with Falun Gong practitioners to talk to them directly about what they have suffered. Later, one of them went missing and was tortured. You may like to read his letter to Gao Zhisheng, a Chinese human rights lawyer. He has been under surveillance and subject to imprisonment by the CCP for some years now for writing to Wen and Hu, telling them to stop the persecution. After that they closed his law firm and started persecuting him too. You can read his open letters to the government, just type that info into google. He met with Falun Gong practitioners as well and they showed him their mutilated genitalia, from CCP torture. I will give you some links that you may like to pursue. You may have some prejudice toward the Epoch Times, but just note that these people don't work for the paper, and they are not practitioners. As far as I know they are both Christian, and have involved themselves in this as a matter of conscience. It is just that the Epoch Times is probably one of the few papers that would publish these things: http://en.epochtimes.com/news/6-6-9/42540.html (do you read Chinese? http://epochtimes.com/gb/6/5/30/n1334284.htm), and Scott also wrote something back: http://en.epochtimes.com/news/6-6-4/42312.html. They are just two regular people, like all the practitioners getting butchered.--Asdfg12345 10:29, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suppression -> Persecution? 

message: The third party views section currently contains only criticism, many of which come from sources that hardly conform to wiki standards. I wish to point out that the section was almost entirely written by the two users currently banned and attempting to vandalize the pages. Further "views" from sources such as "AI", "UN", "USHR" are not present while most of it is some commentary by Benjamin Penny. Another issue I feel I must point out is that while none of the articles carry subtitles in their summaries on the main page, the couple of users managed to keep the subtitles and strong POV material through persistent reverts.
I am attempting to improve the section by examining the validity of the sources used, adding information from "third parties" such as AI, scholars etc and removing the subtitles from the main page.
Dilip rajeev 04:52, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Take it easy. There is no need to make accusations or say things like that. As for the article, I think one thing is that each section of the main page should be the same, follow the same format. I don't know what others think, but I think there should be a section on the main page for each daughter article, and simply use the respective introductions of those daughter articles. They should all conform to WP:LEAD, and would therefore serve a fine summary of the article and prompt the user to read further. This is my proposal. If there aren't any objections soon I might as well go ahead and implement that. It seems the most straightforward and consistent way to go about it, and in line with NPOV I think, not giving too much weight to any one facet. Of course, the main page should also have sections about parts of Falun Gong that are not covered in the daughter articles, like the Theoretical Background and others. For the rest that have daughter articles we should just use the introductions of those articles--what does everyone think?--Asdfg12345 08:09, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Dilip, one reason that the third party page is going to be mostly criticism is that most third party observers (rightly or wrongly) side with the FG. That's most human rights groups, most Westerners, etc. There's a few non-FG but not-pro FG groups: The Law and Order episode on this topic noted that there are plenty of people in Chinese expatriate communities that dislike the FG. Their opinions should be included. Also, highly opinionated or unprofessional peaces (and that page should be citing HRW, AI, UN Rapporteur, established articles from mainstream sources, etc.) can be Wiki-standard if they establish a common thread of people's opinion. ArekExcelsior 23:57, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The "Third party Views"

message: :Kindly allow me make the case clear. A paper on research done by :
:
:Quan-Zhen Li, Ph.D, M.D.
:Microarray Core, Center for Immunology, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, TX.
:
:
:Ping Li, Ph.D.
:Department of Medicine, Section of Nephrology, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, TX.
:
:
:Gabriela E. Garcia, M.D.
:Department of Medicine, Section of Nephrology, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, TX.
:
:
:Richard J. Johnson, M.D.
:Department of Medicine, Section of Nephrology, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, TX.,
:
:published in the peer-reviewed journal "The Journal of Alternative and Complementary Medicine" published by Mary Ann Liebert, Inc. who, I believe, is among the world's leading Publishers in Biotechnology. The following sources were presented in the article:
:1. The entire text of the article, the contents of which are verifiable from both offline as well as online sources.
:2. The Primary source that is the website of  Mary Ann Liebert, Inc
:
:The paper was cited/referenced in:
:1.Antibody therapy (IVIG): evaluation of the use of genomics and proteomics for the study of immunomodulation therapeutics
:C. V. Sapan, H. M. Reisner, R. L. Lundblad
:Vox Sanguinis. 2007, Vol. 92, No. 3: 197
:2.Current awareness on comparative and functional genomics
:Comparative and Functional Genomics. 2005, Vol. 6, No. 7-8: 412
:The above user removed the links to the sources and added and "unreliable" tag and accused me for "POV-pushing"! Please point out which wikipedia policy allows the user to do so and label the sources being presented "POV-pushing".
:"Ohconfucius", in my opinion you are pushing an extremely biased POV here. You removed/"shortened" critical and concise quotes from Amnesty International and US House of Representatives describing the situation in China in favour of self-written POV. While there is much stuff in the article, some soucred from newspaper articles, some even soured directly from the CCP, you have hardly bothered touching them or labelling them "unreliable".
:I see that some people in China are so very strongly influenced by the CCP propoganda that even when concrete information is presented, to them its "unreliable". But I believe in making wikipedia edits we have to follow wikipedia policies. If a particular policy requires the sources to be removed and the tag "unreliable" put on then you may do so. Even when such a cruel persecution is raging and concrete and really shocking evidence emerging on the matter, why do you chose to work so hard to cover all that up? Do you really think there is even a bit of good or truth in the lies being spread by the CCP? WHy do choose to work to cover crimes committed by murderers?
</blockquote>
: So much has been removed up form this article in favour of self-written POV including material such as the Kilgour Matas Report on Organ Harvesting from imprisoned Falun Gong Practitioners, reports from EU Vice President. Edward McMillan-Scott, and several other sources(which I 'll be glad to present). This has been achieved by some users holding a strong POV and was achieved through a series of irrational reverts, and removal of well sourced information. These users routinely label the information they remove "POV" which further adds to the confusion.
:Dilip rajeev 19:19, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Clarifiation

message: Hi all. I'd like to check and verify the Hassan and Singer information. If anyone knows where the information is, please post a link or ref. Realbie 05:05, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Sources to check

message: As I mentioned before a lot of information is being held back from being presented in the pages by a few editors. These people work by trying to create a non-existent confusion..They routinely delete well sourced information and top of that label attempts to restore the information "POV edits". For instance is in the main page, I dont understand why but some users insist on information from Amnetsy International, US Congress etc is being presented under a title "group controversy"! I haven't seen any academic source characterizing the issue of persecution of Falun Gong as "controversial". 
Another instance, there is a user now in the persecution page claiming the topic is too "controversial" and so the entire page must be deleted! Almost all information, for instance, those related to the Tienanmen Sq incident, Kilgour matas report etc has been deleted from that page. Further these users try their best to keep editors engaged in futile discussion by classifying editors as "pro", "anti", then requiring consensus between "pro" and "anti" etc. I believe wikipedia is about objectively presenting information from reliable source. And I feel tackling such disruptive behavior is pretty easy since they are always blatant violations of Wikipedia policies. I request the Moderators/ The Arbitration committee to kindly look into the matter. Thank you.
Dilip rajeev 06:18, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi Dilip. I have had a look through the archives and there does seem to be a few things buried there that could help the article. I'll have a more thorough check before proposing anything though. Realbie 12:58, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I personally would be concerned with references to Tiananmen. Even if that action was unjustified [and just to be clear: I argue stridently that it is - check the arguments between me and Sam in the archives], that doesn't logically or necessarily impugn the Chinese government's actions towards the FG. The only link I could see would be to sort of acknowledge the elephant in the room and state, "External observers and FG advocates compare the crackdown to [link]".... ArekExcelsior 23:55, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Some concerns

message: There seems to be scope for combining the two articles. The 
History of Falun Gong article  contains a lot of duplication. The lead paragraph would be completely redundant, and only three paragraphs need to be copied over to complete a merge. Ohconfucius 01:57, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, sorry I did not see this comment, I'll put the merge tag back on the History of Falun Gong page. --HappyInGeneral 09:51, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Merge proposal

message: I wish to point out that I confused edits of User:G752 with those of User:OhConfucious since his edits were done on the vandalized version. I missed, while going through the edit history, the single edit by User:G752 that caused majority of the changes I mentioned. I sincerely apologize for any inconvenience my coming to an abrupt conclusion may have caused other editors.
Dilip rajeev 08:17, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Clarification

message: I have just proposed the deletion of the article namespace Falun Gong and live organ harvesting. Ohconfucius 05:37, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: AfD involving a FG article

message: I note that there is an edit war raging between PCPP and Dilip Rajeev, and would ask the parties to keep cool. Firstly, I do not see that the edit by the former are all that unreasonable. The former appears to take a fairly neutral stance to presentation of the information sourced. This raging debate and insistence in using the word 'persecution' instead of "crackdown" appears to be severely overblown. There are already plenty of times the word is used, especially in the sister article Persecution of Falun Gong. In any event, I believe that "nationwide crackdown" is the accept terminology for what has been taking place, and "nationwide persecution" just sounds over the top. Ohconfucius 09:02, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: playing it down is as bad as playing it up. We could be calling it a genocide by the dictionary and wikipedia definition and create a lot of conflict on these pages with constant arguments and reversions. persecution serves as an accurate description of the circumstances. take out "nationwide" then if you like, though it does actually span the whole nation. every part of society has been included in this. "stop work" meetings to denounce falun gong, school entrance based on falun gong stance, etc. etc.. it's not an overblown statement to describe it as a "nationwide persecution", but if you want to take out "nationwide" and describe the extent of the persecution in some other way then go for it. oh, sorry, one thing, I think it is okay to alternate between crackdown and persecution sometimes, too. just to keep it interesting, if you know what i mean. but as a whole, for the title for example, it is a persecution. i think just use crackdown and alternative words so things don't get a bit stale. I think pcpp is not editing that badly, even though he is obviously against falun gong for one reason or another, deleting sourced stuff and doing weasely changes that require time to scrutinise and fix, that is really annoying. He hasn't done that too much, though, to be honest, and I don't dislike him.--Asdfg12345 11:26, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

text: *Good, at least we are agreed. In fact, I was a bit clumsy - what you said is the same as what I meant. I never like to see the same word twice when there are alternatives. Ohconfucius 01:47, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Edit war

message: I lodged another complaint against puppets of Samuel Luo yesterday. Ohconfucius 01:49, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Complaint lodged against Samuel Luo

message: I would think that that Falun Gong members' self-immolation at Tianmen square in 2001 (which actually has its own page on Wiki) or Falun Gong hacking Chinese Satellite should be mentioned in this article (probably in the controversies section).
I am also not sure what's up with the Theoretical Background section (I feel like it's lifted from some new age pamphlet) but that section has more to do with QiGong than with only Falun Gong.  Is this section even necessary?  thanks. Hzzz 01:13, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I take it that you mean this "theoretical background" is necessary?  Although I don't claim to be a good editor but I do enjoy reading good articles. If "theoretical background" is "most appropriate" then why don't every entry of this sort, let it be Kung Fu, QiGong, or Yoga, have a "theoretical background " section?  Please keep in mind that wikipedia is an Encyclopedia and not your typical Falun Gong pamphlets which are being handed out at the local Chinatown.  Hzzz 21:18, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As i see it, the therotical background is indeed necessary. Many western people dont know what qigong or cultivation practice is, and in order to define Falun Dafa in an encyclopedic way, we have to locate the reader in the context of qigong.--Andres18 20:27, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Additional news items and Theoretical Background

message: The counter at  is now at 25 million. Someone needs to either continuously update the counter in the article (not possible now due to protection), or change it to "As of [date], the counter stands at..." I also suggest mentioning that the CPC has 70 million registered members, as a means of number comparison. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 01:53, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Party-quitting counter 

message: I think that Falun Gong faces harsh persecution by the Communist Party and that there are more than 1000 forced labor camps with mainly Falun Gong followers in them is undisputed - even by the National Congress.
Therefore 99,99 % of your debattes are related to the accusations of Falun Gong being an "evil cult".  I don't understand why this issue seems to be causing so much controversy. The implications of "cult" in the context here are very clear: an exploiting, capitalistic organisation with a hirachical command structure and a single deityfied leader on top, decieving new recruits by promising them "Heaven on Earth" and than exploiting them financialy or physicly by means of forced labor at the cult's farms or facilities, and using violence and brainwashing to force their cooperation, having satanic and superstitious rituals to harm themselves and others etc.  
Also the Cult's leading elite is said to have close ties to corrupt government officials and other people in power, allowing them to controll and manipulate the world's media with the goal of eventually seizing world-wide power and enslaving humanity. 
Also according to the Encarta such a cult ussually posses a huge arsenal of weapons or even has a private army and uses violence under the pretext of "liberating" people from earthly suffering.
I will not say if Jews can be discribed this way, but the Nazis descriped them that way.
I do not think Wikipedia is the right place to determine if or if not Falun Gong also fits into this criteria. So of course you should mention   IN DETAIL all those accusations including all of their implications, but at the same time you should also make it VERY CLEAR that it is those accusations and those very implications which made the persecution possible to beginn with. 
--Hoerth 13:05, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Don't think it should be removed since that is what PRC thinks and should be noted. Not like saying Falun Gongs are annoying (though there is some truth to that still)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.49.8.234 (talk) 09:46, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Evil Cult to be eliminated 

message: Should some sysop put it there ? Thanx --Chmee2 19:21, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. WODUP 03:08, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Commons cat 

message: should falun gong be added tp Religion in China article? many people think that it is a realigion. it should be mentioned in that article.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.3.227.141 (talk) 20:41, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: should this be added to [[Religion in China]]?

message: to insert  to replace . Ohconfucius 05:05, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This article is only semiprotected. --MZMcBride 03:50, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: New template

message: Just dropping by for a quick perusal here.  How anybody can call the current version of the FG Wikipedia entry in any way 'neutral' or 'balanced', let alone 'independent', is beyond me.  It reads just like the Epoch Times, and we know how "independent" that newspaper is.
I'm here mainly to express disappointment that even previously avowed neutrals and "reformed" FG members who are not doing anything to correct or edit this piece to ensure its independence and balanced stance anymore.  The 'third party' sources all support Falun Gong's positive aspects.  The more radical FG members like Dilip is simply turning the piece into some propaganda puff work, and the arbitrators are doing NOTHING about it.  Well, as the saying goes, all this takes is for good (wo)men to do nothing.  It is indeed regrettable that once some of these editors have shown their true colors once they are no longer restrained that Wikipedia's accountability standards and enforcement agents are more impotent than ever on these FG-related pages.  
Show me a proper criticism section and shut me up, please.  But the current version(s) is/are frankly ridiculous.  Jsw663 10:54, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Complete ABSENCE of balance 

message: Although I do not feel I am under any obligation to put another photo in the place of one which I am removing, I am doing so for the sake of goodwill. It must be remembered that wikipedia is not a soapbox. Ohconfucius 08:51, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Removal of promotional photo

message: The first topic in the sixth talk of "Zhuan Falun" is
"Qigong Psychosis"
http://www.falundafa.org/book/eng/zfl_new_6.html#1
"In the cultivation world there’s this phrase, "qigong psychosis," and it has a pretty big effect on the general public, especially since some people make a huge deal out of it and they’ve caused some people to be afraid of doing qigong. When those folks hear that qigong can lead to psychosis they get too scared to practice. But actually, I’m going to tell you: there’s just no such thing as qigong psychosis. "
The above is one quote from the book "Zhuan Falun". You can find that "Qigong Psychosis" is not part of Falun Gong. So I think that part is not related to research into health impact of Falun Gong. So I took them out.
Below are more quotes from http://www.falundafa.org/book/eng/zfl_new_6.html#1
"A lot of people have this idea that swaying all over the place is doing qigong, when the truth is, if somebody is in that state when he does true qigong it’ll have serious consequences. That’s not doing qigong—that comes from ordinary people’s attachments and pursuits.
"
....
"So now this "qigong psychosis" thing, or "going into fire like a demon," to take the old expression for it really literally, I’d say it’s definitely bunk. "
Please value what the Falun Gong said what it is. I believe the Falun gong books themselves are more self-speaking than some other people's uncounted comments even without reading Falun gong's teaching. Please consider my opinion. Thanks. Fnhddzs 22:45, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Sixth Talk of "Zhuan Falun" 

message: The only time the word "crackdown" is effectively used is when the statement was declared in 1999 by Beijing according to quite a number of sources.  The problem is that it is known internationally as "persecution" and this is en.wikipedia after all.  I feel the edits made by PCPP is trying to reduce the damages done by the Communist party.  Or worse, change the historical significance.  Can we discuss to see if this really is a violation of WP:WTA.  Has there been a similar discussion else where? Benjwong 16:27, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *It's just a question of motive. If one's motive is really because it starts to look repetitive having "persecution" n times, and you change it to different words like "repression", "crackdown", "suppression", "genocide" etc., and that's a sincere wish to make the article more reader-friendly, I think it's fine. Unfortunately, I don't feel that that is what is motivating PCPP. He wants to make out that the persecution is somehow more cuddly than all that awful torture and organ harvesting. I don't actually know what he thinks is going on in China, in those prison cells. He may not have even considered the human element. Anyway, let's just edit in an upright way and there won't be any problems--Asdfg12345 08:40, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: * Where is PCPP? Benjwong 21:54, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Terminology?

message: It is not at all an issue of not wanting criticism. The point is that it's presented neutrally, in context, and alongside other views. Not to mention it being referenced properly, not containing weasel words, etc. There have been a number of issues associated with this.
I may not understand, but I don't see why a particular issue associated with third party views of Falun Gong be given particular prominence above others... I am not sure I understand this. If there is new information about Falun Gong being a cult then it should just be added to the current section, which discusses that issue pretty well. The reason it is called 'Third Party views on Falun Gong' is because that is a neutral title. It used to be called 'Criticism of Falun Gong' -- well should we have a section called 'Praise of Falun Gong' as well? It's obviously more rational to put them together, and have a 'Third Party' section. I think what I am saying is pretty reasonable. We can share ideas on this.
So far on the main page we have not featured particular aspects of daughter articles, but just given the introduction. Obviously we could change that. If some editors felt there were particular aspects that were worth highlighting on the front page that would be fine, and we could do that. The point is that it appear natural, neutral, and encyclopedic. Changing the title of the section, then putting in two huge blocks, with no relation to the context, it just doesn't seem right. If you had made it 'Praise of Falun Gong and Third Party views', and had two blocks saying how great Falun Gong was, I would still revert it. It would be the same. I hope what I am saying makes sense. If the cult stuff is to be featured on the main page it obviously needs to go alongside the anticult stuff. Since the debate is slightly nuanced it seems to make more sense to put it on the third party page where it can be hashed out properly. I don't think it is best to make rash changes and become worked up. This is an encyclopedia, so it appear well thought out, considered, and intelligent. I may not understand your perspective fully though. If there is missing information on any aspect of the articles I think it should be included. But there are always parameters for that, and it has to make sense. What does everyone think?--Asdfg12345 03:43, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh and the "i wont abide" comment is not really accurate of what I think. The point is just to do things normally and neutrally. It should be logical, readable and natural. That's all I meant. Not like I want some conflict or feel so strongly. Sorry to give the wrong impression. I absolutely think if there is more relevant information it should be added to the appropriate section. That expanded analysis of Singer, for example, and if there's a ref for SPLC. --Asdfg12345 03:56, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: thing with the third party/criticism