Talk:Falun Gong/Archive 2

message: Gōng 功 means "achievement, merit, good result." Falungong is the only notable group that uses the word to mean "energy." Every other notable group uses it to condition or categorise another term meaning "energy." They use it as such, IME, to try to sidetrack rebuttal arguments from traditional Taoists, Buddhists and martial artists that Falungong's exercise system doesn't seem to have a mechanism that actually generates much metabolic energy, arguments to put themselves above traditional styles of qigong to their potential adherents. An unsubstantiated argument, at best. I don't want to actually say in the article that their arguments in this regard (among others) are designed to denigrate all other schools to make themselves look better, so instead I simply point out that their use of the term is unique to them. Since they are the only ones who can be demonstrated to use the word in such a sense, "idiosyncratic" is appropriate. Fire Star 04:15, 30 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gong 

message: I have noticed that the images on the main article are being removed and added to, I feel that we should have a vote on what images to include. In my opinion Falun_dafa_protest_lg.jpg is not clear. I also feel that the Master Li image should not be here but should remain on the page about Li Hongzhi. Please add your comments in support or against. - Solar 17:11, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Li's image should go back to his bio. As for the others, they should be clearly illustrative of a given point in the article, technical or political, and not of the "aren't we cool?" genre. Fire Star 17:16, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for including your research Fire Star.  IMHO, Fire Star is right about the images and subsequently removing the headshot, but I do believe all other images in the article are appropriate in their current positions and context. --Mas5353 13:54, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Images 

message: Chinese Defector Tells U.S. Lawmakers of Campaign Against Falun Gong Through Embassies, Consulates
By WILLIAM C. MANNAssociated Press Writer717 words21 July 200508:45 pmAssociated Press Newswires(c) 2005. The Associated Press. All Rights Reserved. 
WASHINGTON (AP) - A defected Chinese diplomat told U.S. lawmakers of a 
global campaign against members of the Falun Gong spiritual group being 
waged by the Communist Party through China's embassies and consulates, 
calling the party a "government terrorist organization." 
Chen Yonglin, drawing on his experience as first secretary in the 
consulate-general in Sydney, Australia, outlined his former government's 
ways of countering Falun Gong adherents through surveillance, extortion, 
heavy-handed diplomatic pressure, propaganda. 
"The war against Falun Gong is one of the main tasks of the Chinese missions 
overseas," Chen told the House of Representatives Foreign Relations human 
rights subcommittee Thursday. 
"The Falun Gong policy of the central (Chinese Communist Party) for the 
overseas missions is `To fight eyeball to eyeball, to attack at will and 
aggressively.'" 
Falun Gong is a set of meditation practices, based on the principles of 
truth, compassion and tolerance. 
Chinese leaders have not specified the source of their animosity toward the 
group but say Falun Gong is an evil, dangerous cult. Practitioners say it is 
apolitical and nonviolent, but in recent months it began waging a campaign 
to persuade members of the Chinese Communist Party to quit, even if they do 
it secretly and anonymously. 
Practitioners contend more that 3 million people have registered on a Web 
site established for the purpose, and 20,000 more are signing each day 
signaling they had severed relations with the party, the Communist Youth 
League or other party organizations. 
Gretchen Birkle of the State Department's Democracy, Human Rights and Labor 
section testified that more than 100,000 practitioners have been detained in 
China, some for merely saying they adhere to the teaching of Falun Gong or 
refusing to criticize its founder and organizer, Li Hongzhi. 
She said punishments include lost jobs, forced study sessions against Falun 
Gong's principles, and imprisonment. The labor camp system still active in 
China is used regularly to punish adherents, she said. 
"It is absolutely horrifying what they do to these people," she said, a 
catch in her throat, after describing pictures of tortured practitioners and 
children orphaned when their parents died in captivity. 
In June 1999, the Chinese Foreign Ministry set up the Office of the Falun 
Gong Issue in Beijing, and the Sydney branch was established in February 
2001, Chen said. The name was changed to the Department of External Security 
Affairs in July 2004, its duties expanded to deal with other restive 
elements among China's numerous ethnic groups that were beginning to agitate 
abroad, he said. 
Chen, who abandoned his post in May and was granted asylum by Australia, 
said Chinese diplomatic posts in the country had more than 1,000 Chinese 
agents and informants "who have played a role in persecuting the Falun Gong. 
The number in the United States should be higher." 
"The party is a government terrorist organization," he said. 
He said the anti-Falun Gong activities he participated in as a political 
officer in Sydney were quite similar to those employed in the United States. 
The first recourse in every country is a large-scale anti-Falun Gong 
propaganda campaign, he said. 
In New South Wales, Sydney's state, "the consul-general preaches the CCP's 
policy on the Falun Gong whenever he hosts or attends any functions." 
He said a Web site at the University of Wollongong, south of Sydney, 
displayed a photo last year of a stall sponsored by Falun Gong. The Chinese 
Students Friendship Association, controlled by the consulate, complained, he 
said, and the photo was removed within hours. 
A confidential report distributed by Chen outlined consulate activities soon 
after the expansion began, describing a plan to "actively respond, take the 
initiative to strike, work to create the inner dispute, to convert some soft 
elements and `disinfect' the existing bad influence." 
It reported that more than half Australia's 3,000 Falun Gong adherents were 
in the Sydney area. "The consulate has put all the Falun Gong key activists 
we know onto an internal monitoring list," it said. Adherents discovered as 
they compiled the list were invited to the embassy "to persuade them to 
separate from the Falun Gong organization," the report said.
Posted by: 128.186.122.139 03:19, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  An Interesting AP Article 

message: I would like to draw our attention again to this section under "Teachings":
I do not think this paragraph is conducive to making an average Wiki reader in understanding the things Falun Gong teaches. My view is that over the past two years, due to constant POV-pushing, this section has been watered down to reflect on making Falun Gong teachings positively and, where possible, use esoteric language to confuse readers. The rest, including all the controversial teachings, were banished to the "Teachings and beliefs of Falun Gong" article, one which we rarely pay attention to. I invite editors for some collaborative effort in improving this area. Colipon+(Talk) 21:27, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, yeah. Personally, considering that most of Falun Gong's teachings derive in large part from qigong, that should probably be mentioned up front, and the third paragraph more or less removed, or placed later in the article. In any event, qigong should not be treated as if it were some sort of secondary matter.  Personally, I think the whole section needs major work. I didn't bring Ownby with me today, but let me check what he says, and maybe a few journal and other articles, and get back with it then. John Carter (talk) 21:39, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, Ownby is a useful resource. As mentioned above, there are other resources that we can use as well, and we should not limit ourselves to Ownby alone. The most useful reference to this section should be Zhuan Falun. Colipon+(Talk) 21:58, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I only mentioned him because I have him. I'm fairly sure some of the journal articles would be useful as well. Having said that, this does raise a question. Do you all think that the Li books deserve their own articles or not. Certainly, Zhuan Falun is the primary text, and most primary texts of religious groups do have their own articles. I think this book has probably, in the various sources, been covered significantly enough to pass notability requirements. Should it be spun out? John Carter (talk) 22:12, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Hooray! yet another article to do battle over... ;-) Yet seriously, it will be somewhat duplicated in the 'Teachings' article. Li's writing is always so esoteric that we need to focus on the review, analysis and interpretation of the work by scholars and the mainstream press. Ohconfucius (talk) 22:54, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

text: Zhuan Falun, for all practical purposes, is the holy creed of Falun Dafa. Therefore I think it definitely is notable enough to have its own article. Colipon+(Talk) 19:19, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Teachings 

message: OhConfucius, regarding this edit, did you copy and paste the content removed to another article? I do believe that this information is quite relevant because it describes the reasons behind Falun Gong's popularity. I think it does still belong here, perhaps needs cutting down, and the bulk of it should be moved to the "History" article. Colipon+(Talk) 13:03, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Question 

message: This article has been in desperate need of references by Sima Nan for a long time.  Kudos for finding them. Simonm223 (talk) 15:46, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Woot for Ohconfucius 

message: 'List of Falun Gong practitioners' was merged into this article. Now that the list has been removed, it would make sense to delete the redirect too, or not? Ohconfucius ¡digame! 03:29, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, since said section was deleted, there's really no need for a redirect any longer since the content is gone. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 05:35, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  List of Falun Gong practitioners 

message: Please don't brake other comments. You can always quote if you want to refer to some section. --HappyInGeneral (talk) 06:34, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Braking coments 

message: Many of these changes deliberately mislead readers or misquote sources. I have little time to get into the details now, but for other interested editors - please read the sources given in that "persecution" section. You will be a stark contrast between the way it is presented in the article and the way it is presented in the source. One of the sources, for example, points out that testimonials from Falun Gong practitioners are almost impossible to verify; another says that the government's campaign targeted people who were actively organizing protests, not those practicing Falun Gong (and this is really no different to other disenfranchised social groups protesting that their houses have been illegally evicted. Falun Gong cannot claim that the government made special policies in this area only as part of a "terror campaign" against its members). In addition, the "torture, electricution" allegations are mostly routed through the Epoch Times. If and when these things are carried out, they are done by local authorities, not some secret-police-like network set up by Luo Gan, which is essentially a story played up by Falun Gong. If you bothered to look even slightly into each of these allegations, it's very easy to why this entire 'persecution' section needs to be re-written, or removed. Colipon+(Talk) 11:29, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Would you please like to quote your sources? Thank you. --HappyInGeneral (talk) 13:16, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

text: This change clearly aims to re-balance the POV in favour of Falun Gong. Such an edit is not in good faith. Apparently, all references to Li Hongzhi had been whitewashed with this single edit. Colipon+(Talk) 09:01, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

text: More so than trying to stick that relationship between He Zuoxiu and Luo Gan into the article? That's a far stretch. Colipon+(Talk) 03:46, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  ASDFG's recent changes 

message: Hey, can get use a consistent reference system between us? I don't mind which we use. Whatever the consensus is. Here are the three forms that are used on the pages now:
#Matthew Gornet, The Breaking Point, Time (magazine)|Time]], 25 June 2001 (later uses of the form )
#  (later uses what form?)
#<ref name=palmer246>Palmer (2007), p. 246. (after the initial full reference has been given)
As I say, while I don't really mind which we adopt, I will just put forth my recommendation for the first. Each has advantages and disadvantages. Here are my reasons. Happy to go with whatever is decided:
*The first is the most widely used already on the pages. We want the refs to be consistent, and we'll have to change many of them if we pick any other style. That's one thing.
*It seems easier to do. If you use the citenews one, you need to copy/paste into those templates, and also copy/paste a template from some other place. Kinda an extra step. If you go with the first one, you can just type it right out usually.
*It keeps things grouped. The last one creates many different entries in the references section, so it's hard to see how often one particular reference is being used in the article, which is important information. We often want to know the page numbers. Could this be put in  style comments where applicable? I'm not sure, actually. 
*Does the citenews template have a way of assigning page numbers for each ref? That would be helpful.
anyway, just some thoughts here. --Asdfg12345 02:50, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: * I can volunteer to do it, I have quite a bit of experience with this. --HappyInGeneral (talk) 10:59, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Housekeeping 

message: At the moment the article treats in one section protests in China, and the persecution. Could someone speak to this? Why? Have most sources made this connection? Would it be adequate to give a broad outline of the persecution, and then Falun Gong practitioners' response? It's unclear why they are chained together atm. Thanks.--Asdfg12345 09:20, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  About the persecution and protests 

message: I hope we can all agree that this sort of stuff is vandalism. I just reverted to the last version by HiG. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 16:38, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vandalism 

message: Something wasn't making sense to me about the structure, so I shuffled things around and renamed some headings. What does everyone think? The subject is so complex that it gets tricky to figure out where things should be properly grouped. Here is some of my reasoning for the changes: 
1) because nearly all that stuff related to mainland China. If we have a section called "History," that's quite open ended. It could include nearly everything on the subject, starting from the beginning to now, with not much left out. If, instead, the history itself is integrated into the article (as in, a section on inside mainland China, and a section on outside mainland China), this seems to make more sense? It's a thought. 
2) I think it makes more sense to have a sub-section called "reception" and include both the positive and negative response Falun Gong received in China. At the very least, for the sake of neutrality, if you had a section about critics, you would have to have one about supporters, which doesn't seem to make much sense. There were both. 
3) It seems quite tricky to untangle all the things that happened in China that led up to the persecution and the ban, and there are many different narratives. If we narrate the events and key perspectives/opinions/interpretations of them, leading up to the ban and persecution, I think that provides some value to the reader. The media attacks and protests move in lockstep up until July 20; it's hard to make a clear cut, so I think it makes sense to call all this "friction" and then explain the ban. 
4) the only other change, as I recall, was to group all the material about Falun Gong outside China in one section, rather than split it over two sections. The "outside China" is closely related to "response to persecution," and the way it was until then broken up seemed kinda arbitrary. 
5) the public debate section now includes more things, and we can give this more subtlety and neutrality. Here though, again, it's unclear whether all this material should be shipped to relevant areas? As in, much of the stuff about organisation etc. is relevant to mainland China. Should that be in the mainland China section? 
Anyway, these are just some ideas and thoughts. Looking forward to figuring it out.--Asdfg12345 00:08, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article structure 

message: I am checking in. How are things going at this article and others in the topic area? What are continuing points of contention, if any? Do any particular discussions or content disagreements need mediation or outside opinions to help form a consensus? What sorts of guidelines or community assistance could help further stabilize the topic area and improve the involved articles? (On the last question, please avoid "ban user X" type answers.) Vassyana (talk) 06:10, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The Falun Gong articles are on probation. After several months of peace and quiet I am discouraged that POV editing has entered the fold once again. I stand fully behind my reverts and all of my edits as a means to protect the integrity of this encyclopedia. I will continue to fight against POV-editing from both the Communist Party side and the Falun Gong side. But it seems as though the majority of POV-pushing continues to be coming from the Falun Gong side, with much the same "gaming-the-system" tactics employed earlier by users who have already been banned. <P>To Vassyana, it would be extremely helpful if there were one or two uninvolved but knowledgeable editors who to monitor the page and will be bold when it comes to reverting POV edits by questionable users and who are familiar with how SPAs on this page game the system. I have little energy left in combatting senseless POV-laden edits and answering to non-productive partisan discussions, and then receiving accusations from users with a clear conflict of interest against me as though I am the one doing the wrong thing. Colipon+(Talk) 18:03, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

text: What is and is not true is very visible in your edits. Ask any uninvolved editor to review your edits and talk page rants, and it will be very clear what is going on. There is no to continue denying that you have a very clear conflict of interest in this subject, and as such should not be editing Falun Gong articles, period. Your disruptive edits have been sparse in the past few months but they are creeping back as of this week. Deny it all you want, but these are plain facts visible to any uninvolved spectator. Colipon+(Talk) 00:42, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Touching base 

message: Substituted at 20:33, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Assessment comment