Talk:Teachings of Falun Gong/Archive 1

message: Samuel, you know that we are talking about creating a stand alone article on the Controversies. Introducing as much as you have here without any discussion is inappropriate. CovenantD 02:40, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Controversial Teachings

message: The block quote the practice section was introduced as it summarizes the purpose of the exercises and the role practice(the exercises) plays in the cultivation system of Falun Gong. Thats central to Falun Gong teaching.
Dilip rajeev 04:20, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: The blockquote in the practice section

message: Why was this article moved from Falun Gong teachings to this new title?  I can't find any discussion of this move or whether there was a consensus regarding the move. Ande B 01:02, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Me neither. You'd think someone could point to a WP policy on this. Ande B 05:56, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh sorry. I misunderstood the question. I have no idea why that name change happened. CovenantD 06:09, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Why the move?

message: Thanks. Fnhddzs 05:52, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed - I should have reverted earlier. CovenantD 06:34, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Please do not delete the images 

message: the first paragraph says nothing about the teachings, a waste of my time. --Yueyuen 01:40, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That should not be construed as support for their version, just the thrust of their version. I'm not expressing an opinion on the wording as it currently stands... yet :-) CovenantD 23:17, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Remember, you only get to have that in one place on the Falun Gong pages, so choose carefully!  :-) CovenantD 06:35, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Intro

message: I'm inclined to give the practitioners a bit of leeway on content here, just like the critics get leeway on the Controversies page. Let's give Dilip a bit of time to figure out where he thinks the paragraph might fit in better. CovenantD 06:39, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: 2nd Paragraph

message: If the two people involved in the revert war don't start talking about it I'm going to ask that the page be locked. CovenantD 16:04, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Demons 

message: The two articles seem to cover the same basic areas under different names. I don't see why they are separated. CovenantD 05:30, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've stricken my comments since they are that of an editor and not a mediator. See below. CovenantD 15:54, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge 

message: Let's start with the assumption that the Theoretical article should be folded into this one unless a compelling reason not to it presented. Please present your opinion, Merge or Don't merge, based only on Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Especically relevant to this are Wikipedia:Content forking, Wikipedia:Article size and Wikipedia:No original research. We'll allow three days for comment. CovenantD 15:48, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Theoretical and Epistemological studies on Falun Gong]] 

message: *Tomananda 23:17, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Merge

message: The content of this section should be merged into the teachings section. The word "epistemology" means the study of how we know.  In Falun Gong, there is no theory of "how we know" beyond Li's sustained assertions that he holds the only truth, or has discovered things by traveling back in time (like the time he visited Jesus' paradise and found there were no asian people there).  The real question that should be asked...but the practitoners will never agree to it....is how does Li know what he claims to know?  They believe in him as the holder of the highest cosmic truths, and he speaks of himself as the teacher to the gods of his Dafa.  The epistemological equation in Falun Gong is very simple:  
*TRUTH = Whatever is spoken from the mouth of Li Hongzhi 
Or as Li so succinctly put it:
*Dafa  is the Fa (Law) of the cosmos, and Dafa has created all beings in the cosmos.  “Using at Will”  (June 28, 2000 )  in Essentials for Further Advancement II,  item 12.
*I am telling you now that Dafa belongs to me, Li Hongzhi.  It is taught to save you and spoken from my mouth.  “Awakening” (May 27, 1996)  in Essentials for Further Advancement I
--Tomananda 23:17, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Reasons to merge

message: This article covers the teachings the primary sources are the main reference. The Epistemological studies see ( Epistemology ) discusses the viewpoints on the teachings, comparison with other systems, etc. The material going under the two titles being quite different.
202.83.33.58 07:33, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Reasons not to merge

message: "Instead of waiting for an official mediator, Samuel Luo and some other editors are again fomenting a crackbrained revert war by introducing slanderous interpretations of the teachings. When will you ever learn? ---Olaf Stephanos 19:22, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Regarding the current version 

message: Yueyen, the version you want to use is a really inaccurate portrayal of the teachings of Falun Dafa. Perhaps some of the aspects from that version could be used in this one. The subheadings of the other version really do not constitute the essence of what Falun Dafa teaches. I think that you want that version because it reflects negatively, rather than because it actually portrays the teachings. I think it would be reasonable to put in a section corresponding to "Depravity of todays people", though discussing those issues in greater context and attempting to discuss the scope of what Falun Dafa is talking about in this regard - the whole universe having deviated from Zhen-Shan-Ren. Even so, those things are a minor part of the teachings of Falun Dafa. If it were to be used, I think the article would have to be quite long to justify it, and include sections on other, different aspects of the teachings. There are some pages on wikipedia that are very long - like the one on Buddhism. If this article was to become quite long, it would make sense to expand and put in all these parts that are not the main focus of the teachings - that would make sense. As you want it now, it is inaccurate, selective, POV and bordering on slanderous. We can work on making quite a long article, as I think that would be a good idea, and then things like what Master Li has said about homosexuality, "depravity of today's people", and so on could all be included. I request that you do not revert this version. I do not have time right now, but I will copy in parts from the other version as a beginning to creating a longer article. Then over the weeks to come I can put it more subsections to talk about other aspects of the teachings. Let me know what you think about this proposal. It would not be good to revert constantly, and the version you want, to become something that actually explains what Falun Dafa is, would have to change too much that its not worth keeping as a base. --Asdfg12345 12:33, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Yueyen, and the reverting between two versions 

message: I have reshuffled and renamed sections. The problem we all have with what you want on the page, Yueyen, is that we think that it is a major misrepresentation of what Falun Dafa teaches, and that it is a deliberate misrepresentation. What I think is that if Falun Dafa is actually a bad thing, and Master Li has been saying bad things, then all you need to do is to present that without any kind of editorial style or slanderous tendencies. Other practitioners: maybe the best idea would be to revise the sections so they corresponds closer with what Falun Dafa teaches, rather than reverting the version. If we just write it properly there will be nothing Yueyen can complain about or revert - or at the very least, it will be too obvious that he is only intent on vandalism, and I think there are channels for dealing with that. I think the ordering of sections is more how it should be, that is, corresponding closer to the primacy of the teachings. Yueyen: please discuss here about what you think, and whether I have understood you wrongly. I do not want to assume you are just up to no good. It is becoming more difficult to do that though, noticing your edits and the comments you leave. You also have not responded to anything I have written to you. Maybe you have been busy. Feel free to respond and explain your ideas about the direction of the page. --Asdfg12345 02:22, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I suggest that you move all your comments to the main page discussion. People are less likely to check this page or take it as seriously. Mcconn 07:01, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  DIALOGUE PLEASE 

message: Please read through the current version. Everything that was written mixed in with negative commentary has been removed and what has replaced it is basically direct quotes. That is the way it should remain. All the content that was in the slanderous versions is also in these, it is just that this time there is no commentary. That is a more accurate way to report the teachings. Those sections you want to stick in are just slander and they do not belong on this page.--Asdfg12345 13:25, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Are you telling me that the great Dafa(law) can be damaged by me writting something here?  I thought the dafa created the universe.
 --Samuel Luo 17:03, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Samuel's Edits 

message: This is actually the version that does not conform to wikipedia, and which violates wikipedia policies of at least NPOV and no original research. The page should be locked on the version which does not violate wikipedia policies. If you are reading this and can rectify this situation, please do so.--Asdfg12345 16:53, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: According to Li, mankind has become so corrupt that the gods no longer take care of human beings.  It's quite obvious that the "corruption" or "depravity" of mankind is a central theme in Falun Gong teachings. It is the condition which explains and justifies Li's concept of Fa-rectification.  No editor should be deleting entire sections, period.  Instead, we should discuss specific edit changes here in discussion.  But we also need to work out a larger strategy for working through all the pages of this article, and that will involve the oversight of the new mediator.  --Tomananda 23:02, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Locked on the wrong version 

message: Some time ago, I tagged the article . Unfortunately, the huge chunks of block quotes which caused me to tag it are still in the article. So please fellow editors do not be surprised when I will shortly delete the entire mass of block quotes, substitute a  template in the interim. Shortly thereafter, I will attempt to reinsert concise carefully reconsidered and non-POV text extracted therefrom, paying attention to WP:UNDUE, a policy which certainly does not seem to be at all adhered to here within the group of FG articles. Ohconfucius 02:06, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Copyright issues

message: The two articles seem to cover very similar precepts under different names. If the copyvio content is deleted in both these articles, the merger can take place without any burden on article size. Ohconfucius 02:27, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Merger proposal

message: Hi, I just learned how to edit on Wikipedia. This page is currently a mess, I am working on a new version which I am going to replace soon. thanks. – — … ° ≈ ≠ ≤ ≥ ± − × ÷ ← → · § Randy1412Randy1412 (talk) 04:51, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think this is excellent, well done. I have made some small changes, and put some Chinese terms in. It needs a WP:Lead section, and I think some minor rearranging, but is definitely a very big improvement. --Asdfg12345 22:54, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Overhaul

message: The  is broken, could somebody please fix it? Thank You. --89.35.149.202 (talk) 07:46, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It's totally weird that that ref is broken. I have looked at it carefully and tried to fix it, it's a complete anomaly.--Asdfg12345 12:17, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  OK, now it's fixed. A reference above it was not closed, and this impacted the next reference definition. --HappyInGeneral (talk) 12:28, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  ref problem 

message: I've tagged this article for a few reasons:
# It is almost devoid of wikilinks which would provide contextual help and help build the web.
# It appears to be written from an advocative, rather then descriptive, tone.
# The introduction is opaque to those who are unfamilar with the subject.
When these issues are addressed, the article should be untagged. Chris Cunningham (talk) 13:50, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: yeah someone just rewrote it. It would help to identify the parts which are advocative rather than descriptive. Specific instances are needed--please help.--Asdfg12345 15:55, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  I think point 1 and partially point 3 is solved. See here: . --HappyInGeneral (talk) 16:24, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  We could still do with more work on point 1, I feel. I don't believe that the intro is clear enough yet. Chris Cunningham (talk) 17:20, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tags 

message: apart from hearing what Chris has to say, which will be useful, some things I can think of:
*a proper, normal introduction according to WP:Lead, and explaining in more secular terms what Falun Gong is.
*making some sections into subsections, since this would categorise the ideas better
*thorough copyedit of language, style, tone
*general attempt to give more background/introduction to some of the concepts
um there are some other issues, and this is a tricky topic. A new editor seems to have written the whole thing anew. It's definitely an improvement, in any case. It may be easy both to allow an article like this to enter the realm of advocation, yet equally easy to mistakenly accuse it of such, simply due to the content itself, even if it were presented in a very neutral way. I think what's here now is a solid basis which can be trimmed up and polished. There are definite improvements. I want to do this sometime soon; we'll see how it looks in a week or so.--Asdfg12345 16:32, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yep, it's rapidly getting better. let's see how things work out. Chris Cunningham (talk) 17:20, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: some notes

message: Dilip, please see WP:LEDE. I think the version you are proposing is unreasonably large. The lede should provide the essential information for the article, not trying to fit everything in. The lede needn't elaborate on the key points. I think another one or two sentences could be put in about xinxing cultivation and the emphasis on morality, but the version you want seems far too long. (You also introduced a grammatical error into the first sentence.)--Asdfg12345 10:29, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: discussion of lede

message: The claim in the article that Buddhist karma is strictly about reward and punishment is incorrect. The Falun Gong claim that all karma is negative, that all karma is the source of suffering, is precisely the same view as in Buddhism. It is a bit confusing, though, as to how this same section conflates this teaching with the Christian doctrine, "you reap what you sow," which is the primitive notion of reward and punishment. So, it's a bit confusing how the article contradicts itself -- that is, David Ownby's own observations are self-contradictory. What exactly is meant by "readily traceable" to the Christian teaching? Did karma originate in Christianity? It doesn't make much sense. ☯  Zenwhat (talk) 00:12, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dubious claim about karma 

message: This is the edit summary: "sorry OC. I do not mean to be argumentative on every point. I do not see how this is promotional. If some uninvolved editors see it as promotional, that is fine, I just don't think it's an issue, and don't want to spend time digging up another image."
more: if you find another reasonable image, please replace it, I would be happy to indulge (what I see as) such trifles. It's just that I think the article requires images to help the reader along, for a number of reasons, and I don't want to spend time looking for and uploading them when the job has already been done. I don't see how this image is promotional. I don't want promotional images in the article. It's a nice capture, that's fine, but it's just too people meditating. Very picturesque, you might say. It's an illustration of the practice. If there's a consensus (from some other than the usual suspects) that this is promotional, we would not want that, because it would undermine the credibility of the article to an extent. As I say, any other reasonable picture will be accepted. My dispute here is very practical. --Asdfg12345 05:42, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: regarding the image

message: I reviewed the FLG reference that pro-FLG users insisted on including as a rebuttal to the NYT article.  I have modified the section accordingly.  All new material is derived directly from the FLG source.  There is no synthesis.  If you want to use the faluninfo.net source I would suggest not trying to delete these recent additions. Simonm223 (talk) 19:02, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: For my use of the word "segregated" to describe "separate but equal" heavens based on race please see: Separate_but_equal.  It was the language employed by the united states to describe racial segregation! Simonm223 (talk) 14:33, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that such euphemisms shouldn't be copied over; thus, I moved it outside the quotation-marks. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 18:52, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I hadn't realized it was within a quote.Simonm223 (talk) 19:06, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  faluninfo.net and the race issue 

message: This article (excluding the final Controversies section) is more than fifty percent (50%) quoted material (4,362 of 8605 words).
--Trelawnie (talk) 14:09, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Quotations is a means for Falun Gong to borrow legitimacy from 'third-parties' when they see that their own legitimacy has been compromised. Basically means, "I didn't say it! Scholar X said it." Colipon+(Talk) 15:47, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Colipon, your bitterness and cynicism is astonishing. --Asdfg12345 23:22, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Excessive Quoted Material

message: The parts changed by PCPP are variations on the theme that was discussed in some depth above. PCPP gives no response to that debate, does not explain how his inclusions are pertinent, why they're notable, etc. He is merely using bad sources to push a point. ✔ Olaf Stephanos ✍ 22:45, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I am thoroughly tired of this. Someone please revert him and add your voice to the RfC, for the sake of the encyclopedia and normal peoples' sanity. It's not even a question, at this stage, whether the content has merit. It's about having the most basic wikiquette of engagement, discussion, etc., none of which PCPP seems capable of. --Asdfg12345 23:18, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, my sanity is not in danger, but as with the Falun Gong edits I do not like this behaviour. There is a lot of discussion about this above, why did PCPP ignore it? The points TheSound raises are entirely legitimate: if these are notable issues, they should be in scholarly sources. Religious groups pushing an anti-homosexual agenda should not be able to hide from public discourse, but that is obviously not the case here. Trying to make something that has appeared in a few local newspapers sound like a significant controversy is tendentious editing. If there are quality sources explaining the significance of Falungong's beliefs on sexuality and providing interpretations, I never found them during the course of my research. Just now I opened to Palmer's exposition of Falungong beliefs, which doesn't soft-pedal, and I couldn't find mention of homosexuality. Like any quasi-fundamentalist belief system, Falungong clearly regards homosexuality as 'immoral'; but that is different from having a public agenda. The low-quality sources brought forth so far do not show how it is a notable part of the Falungong teaching. —Zujine|talk 13:18, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I might add that I believe it should be mentioned somewhere in the article that Falungong regards homosexuality etc. as 'violating the standards of morality', or whatever language they use (I have forgotten). Nobody should try to avoid this point. —Zujine|talk 13:21, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

text: The homosexuality issue is noticeable because they were actually controversy and active protests over the issue, and an attempt by San Francisco legislators to nominate LHZ for a Nobel Peace Prize was rescinded. I agree with the removal of the interracial children and apocalypse issue, however.--PCPP (talk) 14:43, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I will leave it to someone else to repeat the major points, but let's put it this way: it's original research to dig through primary sources and pull out a few select quotes to show a POV. The article on the teachings of Falungong should discuss the teachings roughly in the same way that reliable sources discuss them - roughly. That doesn't include cherrypicking quotes from the primaries to push a point. Secondly, the Bay Area reporter isn't a reliable source on a religious group (as a "San Francisco gay, lesbian and bisexual political newspaper" that "offers commentary on local social, sexual, and economic issues") - just like Orthodox Christian Weekly isn't a reliable source on the 'depravity' of homosexuality. This should be obvious. <P>The bottom line is that no major writers on Falungong have found this worthy of much note at all, and often of zero note. Until that is shown otherwise it will remain a tiny minority view. Pushing the point with partisan sources and cherrypicked quotes from Li's doctrine will not win friends or influence people. —Zujine|talk 15:22, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

text: How so? It's these passages by Li that caused criticism of FLG by the LGBT community, and as demonstrated by the articles, they do have significant social impact. Academic notability is not the only guideline on the inclusion of material, as FLG's views on homosexuality significant press coverage. And you're systematically dismissing The Bay Area Reporter because of LGBT focus, when in fact the article only covered the event and in fact interviewed several FLG practitioners. --PCPP (talk) 16:07, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: You are now admitting to an original synthesis by a combination of cherrypicked quotes with an LGBT source to make a point. You have not responded to one of the key arguments TheSound and Zujine put forward: if this was a notable issue, why was it ignored by Ownby, Palmer, etc.? There's no evidence that it has received "notable press coverage" at all. The homosexuality complaint is just another CCP tactic to smear Falun Gong's reputation. There is also no evidence that there has been a "significant social impact" or anything else showing real notability or significance. Dredging up a fringe newspaper article and combining it with cherrypicked quotes to make a point... I can only sigh. --Asdfg12345 16:33, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

text: Original synthesis? LMAO I simply outlined the controversial passages by Li and the news articles that makes references to them, which in fact caused a significant political dispute. A simple search on Google news archive shows plenty of articles that reference FLG's views on homosexuality . I'm sure the San Francisco LGBT is secretly planted by the Chinese Communist Party. Keep making excuses for your master's words.--PCPP (talk) 17:03, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: A few articles in a local LGBT rag does a "significant political dispute" make. Let's get that straight. Not a single scholar writing on Falun Gong, as far as I am aware, has thought this significant enough to even include in a book. There may be many articles on Falun Gong's views, but when they are blogs and local newspapers they don't count for anything. You have a pattern of using bad sources to push a point. In this case you are violating the rules by cherrypicking Li's quotes. Why don't you find some academic works that prove the point you want to push? It's so obvious that you are doing this in bad faith. The dispute is not notable, get over it please. --Asdfg12345 08:13, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

text: I don't see the terrible significance as claimed for this controversy. Sure it's 'controversial'. Falungong is a controversy magnet, and there are things like this happening all the time: this award is given, that one not given, this parade they are allowed to march in, that one not, this protest they cannot attend, that one they get kicked out of for being 'too political', and so on and so on. Recently there has been a controversy about a fine given to a Falungong follower in Taiwan: . Coverage includes the two major English language newspapers in Taiwan, China Post and Taipei Times. In terms of coverage, that's more significant than a LGBT community publication that arguably has an ax to grind against conservative and moralistic religious groups. That said, I would still mention it. PCPP got it mostly right with his last edit, in my view. I'm just going to rewrite it a bit to make it flow more smoothly. I felt it necessary to point out that on the scale of things, this is obviously not a significant controversy. Homunculus (duihua) 15:21, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

text: While you're at it, would you be interested in trimming the rest of the article? It's just a huge quotefarm glorifying Falun Gong. Colipon+(Talk) 15:44, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: To tell you the truth, I did not even read it carefully. I am more interested in the political aspects of the Falungong issue. But I suppose simply deleting stuff from the page should be easy, if that's all that's required. I will read the article and take you up on that challenge (later, I should add). Homunculus (duihua) 16:28, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: A cleanup would certainly be welcome. But Colipon is extraordinarily cynical and quite bitter about this topic, so I would take the "huge quotefarm glorifying Falun Gong" remark with a grain of salt. Cleaning up redundancy is always to be welcomed. --Asdfg12345 15:51, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Changes by User:PCPP 

message: I check pages listed in :Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of :Teachings of Falun Gong's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.
Reference named "Ownbyworld":
From Li Hongzhi: David Ownby, "The Falun Gong in the New World," European Journal of East Asian Studies, September 2003, Vol. 2 Issue 2, p 306
From Falun Gong: David Ownby, "The Falun Gong in the New World," European Journal of East Asian Studies, Sep2003, Vol. 2 Issue 2, p 306
I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 04:41, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Orphaned references in [[:Teachings of Falun Gong]] 

message: I see in the "Controversies" section, talk about Gabon Republic's uranium ore.
This refers to the Oklo nuclear reactor. 
There isn't much information about it on the net. It doesn't mean though that it doesn't exist.
see: Oklo or Natural_nuclear_fission_reactor 
Scientists call it a "natural" nuclear fission reactor.
It is estimated to be 2 billion years old.
So it's not a controversy, just a difference in understanding: is it Nature who created a nuclear reactor, or is it a civilization of past ages.
 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Brighter hearts (talk • contribs) 15:57, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed a difference in understanding. The Sound and the Fury (talk) 04:54, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  About the Oklo reactor 

message: Regarding today's edits, I found that they lack citations. the article already had a problem of relying excessively on primary sources, and therefore I suggest we not compound the problem. Moreover, the interpretation that the edit gives—that Falungong was initially polytheistic and them became monotheistic—seems novel to me. Can we get a source?—Zujine|talk 01:51, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  New additions - source?  

message: I've modified the latest article on the lord of Buddhas and have removed the un-referenced part. I found no evidence indicating that Falun 
Gong ever changed it's stance from polytheistic to monotheistic. In fact, in FLG texts, these very words were never used, and the issue was seldom discussed. However, there is an umpteen evidence that FLG does believe in a creator.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shivankmehra (talk • contribs) 17:14, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Re: New additions - source?

message: There is a philosophy given on Western medicine being discouraged, since working through an illness is better for Karma, in the Rebirth section. Would this not be better suited in the Science section since Western medicine is based more on science than a Karmic or Spiritual system?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.70.170.48 (talk) 07:48, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Science and Medicine