Talk:Falun Gong/Archive10b

message: Yesterday I made edits "01:10, 4 June 2006 Fnhddzs (→Origins - add info. for the biography) ". But they were deleted without reasonable bases.
I cannot find the original of biography now. But according to my memory, your edits on that biography have inaccuracy. I also looked up Penny's paper. I could not even find "numerous masters" there. I could not find things like "very embodiment of Truth, Compassion, Forbearance" either even in Penny's paper. It is not in print any more. I don't think it is appropriate to put it here. Fnhddzs 17:19, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: I reinsert my edits on origins 

message: We don't have agreement on what the intro should be yet. I've just reverted a bunch of edits that weren't discussed here first. CovenantD 17:42, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Don't make major edits to the intro

message: Samuel and I have engaged in numerous reverts over this paragraph. I'm glad that the NY Times content has been accepted, but there is still more that is in dispute. Here are the two versions.
Mine:
:There being no membership or formal organization in Falun Gong, the exact number of practitioners is not known. A figure of 70 million was quoted in two NY Times articles, both published on April 27, 1999, before the crackdown began. According to the articles, this figure was the estimate of Chinese government. [2][3] On Thursday, August 24, 2000, the Chinese government presented a figure of 2.1 million. [4] Falun Gong websites state a figure of 100 million practitioners worldwide including over 70 million in China.[5]
and Samuel's:
:The Chinese government presented a figure of 2.1 million. [2] Falun Gong websites state a figure of 100 million practitioners worldwide including over 70 million in China.[3] A figure of 70 million was quoted in two NY Times articles in April 1999 [4][5] The exact number of practitioners is not known.
Differences:
:Mine mentions why the numbers are of dispute and states it first. The NY Times' statements are before the others and, rather than giving a specific date, it states that they were published before the crackdown. It mentions that the Chinese government's statement was given after the crackdown. Mine also mentions the source of the NY Times figure. 
Can we come to a consensus on which version is preferable? Mcconn 17:56, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I made a change in bold based on what you said. What do you think? Also, by saying "mine" I'm referring to the version I prefer. I'm not saying I wrote it. Mcconn 18:13, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Um, I need to look at the references. I just realized that I haven't actually confirmed the information being presented, so caught up in style and checking reliability of sources. I also want to confirm the dates that are used. CovenantD 18:28, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

text: * This sentence is a POV "There being no membership or formal organization in Falun Gong."  Taking out this unimportant sentence also shortens the article "According to the articles, this figure was the estimate of Chinese government."   --Samuel Luo 18:22, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's why I originally had a  tag on it. :-) The first sentence of that paragraph needs to say what the figures are talking about. CovenantD 18:28, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

text: What's POV about it? I think it's entirely relevant to state why we can quote exact figures. The reason we can't is because there are no members or formal organization to keep track of them. I don't think we need to cite something that doesn't exist unless there are others who say that it does exist. This statement is pretty undisputed. Mcconn 18:39, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

text: *Support CovenantD 18:30, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Paragraph on numbers (3rd intro para)

message: The folowing statements talk about the bio itself rather than Li and the Falun Gong.  It serves no purpose here.  Can I take it out?  
In Li Hongzhi’s Canadian lectures held on 23 May 1999 in Toronto, a question was asked to Mr. Li: "I want to recommend to a newspaper that they publish the Master’s biography. Is this appropriate?" and he answered:
No. I don’t want to speak about my own situation. Nobody should. Because everybody wanted to find out about me there was a very, very simple biography in Zhuan falun. Now I had asked them to take it out. What I tell you about is the Law, everyone should study this Law. Have no interest in my circumstances! Just study the Law and that will lead you to consummation.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Samuel Luo (talk • contribs) 
:It addresses the issue of the legitimacy of the bio. IF the legitimacy of the bio is in dispute then that should be noted somewhere and this becomes relevant. IF the legitimacy of the bio is not in doubt then there's no need for it. That's my take on it anyway. CovenantD 19:39, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, you can't take it out. Your reasoning demonstrates a POV which, I assume, is meant to support Li's decision to pull his authorized biography from subsequent editions of Zhuan Falun. If this were a Falun Gong web page, it would be understandable that you wouldn't want to report the content of this biography.  However, this is an on-line encyclopedia, and as such relevant information which is verifiable...and this early biography is certainly verifiable...needs to be reported.  Frankly, how can you even suggest that an early authorized biography of the founder of Falun Gong isn't relevant to a report on its origins? --Tomananda 19:51, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Tomananda, please assume good faith. CovenantD 20:05, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually I do.  I assume good faith, but also POV for all of us.  The intent in my post above was to point out that even though we all have our POV's, the Wikipedia standard is not to allow the suppression of information in edits merely because of one editor's POV.--Tomananda 20:38, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Ooops, I see my post was a total non-sequitor, since I am referring to the biography itself (as reported in the second paragraph) and not the related Li quote.  My post was meant to appear above.  Sorry about that.  --Tomananda 21:32, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

text: * Tomananda did a good job in tracking down Li's bio.  Since the legitimacy of the bio is no longer in question, I am deleting those statements in question here.  It makes the paper read better. --Samuel Luo 01:22, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: origin

message: I have removed some abusive messages on this talk page from Archaos2.  See here and here.--MrFishGo Fish 12:58, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Also here.--MrFishGo Fish 13:00, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: And from a bunch of IP addresses too. I've semi-protected this talk page. If the article page and/or subpages and/or talk pages of subpages and/or user pages gets vandalised repeatedly, get someone to semi-protect those as well. (I can't after 9 AM PST, that is UTC -800.) -- Миборовский U|T|C|M|E|Remember 6/4! 15:36, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Removed abusive messages

message: There being no concept of organization of membership in Falun Gong, the exact number of practitioners is not known. Falun Gong websites state a figure of 100 million practitioners worldwide including over 70 million in China. After the supression began, the Chinese government presented a figure of 2.1 million. A figure of 70 million was quoted in two NY Times articles before the crackdown began.[29][30] According to the articles, this figure was the estimate of Chinese government.
Dilip rajeev 19:24, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: my suggestion

message: There should be a statement that the true number of practitioners is not known. All three sets of numbers should be presented, in chronological order.
:*Support CovenantD 18:30, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: *SupportDilip rajeev 20:32, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

text: *Support Fnhddzs 20:43, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

text: *Support Mcconn 18:25, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

text: *Support --Fire Star 火星 01:05, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

text: I support the straw poll proposal as well. --Tomananda 22:19, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Straw poll

message: Let's talk about the new date, July 1999, and the reference http://www.china-embassy.org/eng/zt/ppflg/t36570.htm that Samuel provided. Dilip, what do you think it wrong with it? CovenantD 17:20, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Adding words like "however" and "main" are not part of what we agreed to. Please don't change the implication. I've reverted to the last version we had consensus on until this is resolved. CovenantD 19:27, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

text: * CovenantD, I remember disagreeing using this statement “On August 24, 2000, a figure of 2.1 million practitioners was presented in the People's Daily.” See  This statement has no consensus among editors.  Also “alleged” was added without consensus as well.    --Samuel Luo 20:42, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

text: I don't have a problem with it. Dilip sent me a message about it, so I reverted until it's settled. I thought I was reverting to the last version we had consensus on. Do you want be to go all the way back to the frozen version? I think what's there at least represents some progress. If Dilip hasn't explained why he has a problem in a day or two, we'll change it to an earlier date. CovenantD 22:57, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Since we're talking about the same number estimate, I think the earliest appearance of that number...coming as it does from the Chinese goverment's own website...is better.  --Tomananda 22:18, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm willing to accept any citation that the two "sides" of this issue can agree on. If it's the July date, fine. I don't read Chinese, but if there's agreement, I'll trust those who do. CovenantD 22:57, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: One last dispute on the numbers

message: What we truly need, although contrary to major Wikipedia principles, is a third party to look into the issue of Falun Gong that has very little to no prior knowledge. This suggestion, being the only solution left in editing this article, is incredibly idealistic in and of itself. Debating about Falun Gong is currently more controversial than debate about the existence of Jesus. People on both sides will never reach a consensus, and as new back-up evidence continues to surface for both sides in this issue, it is really impossble to ever complete this article in any of our sentient lifetimes. Colipon+(T) 23:28, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  3rd Party Intervention 

message: The NY Times figure has disappeared one more time.  I am reverting it to the version Covenant introduced. And deleting Samuel's personal website from the references section.
Dilip rajeev 18:16, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: The 3rd Paragraph

message: I'm going to start revamping the References list based on the guidelines found at Wikipedia:Citing sources. I also want to add a short list of Wikipedia articles for people to read at the top of the this talk page. It would include stuff like Wikipedia:Reliable sources, Wikipedia:Notability, and Wikipedia:Verifiability. CovenantD 00:52, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Due to the instability of the article, there isn't much point in formatting them because they'll just get reverted and then you'll have to do it again. Waste of time really. Edit wars are easier with inline links. Skinnyweed 09:14, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikipedia:Citing sources 

message: User pages of several non-Falun Gong practioner editors, as well as this main article page, have been hit again by apparently pro-Falun Gong vandal(s) today. A few days ago there was a similar incident, user pages and this talk page as well as the main article were all hit.
It goes without saying that vandalism is counterproductive for Wikipedia. As such, in the (hopefully unlikely) scenario that you might know who carried out or was behind these attacks, other editors and I hope you would advise them to stop their vandalism. Thank you. -- Миборовский 05:46, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It was blocked indefinitely. We can revert any change he makes without breaking a sweat, so he ends up wasting much more manhours than we will. Though it would be good if we didn't have to, which is where vandal-hunting bots come in handy... :D -- Миборовский 09:20, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Plea to pro-Falun Gong editors 

message: Fnhddzs 05:57, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It has been removed. Now, if there wasn't that annoyingly (but harmlessly) persistent vandal this would probably not have stayed there as long as it did. ;) -- Миборовский 06:00, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Please do not add junks on the article 

message: Covenant.. Lets carry on with the job of scrutinizing material on the main page and cleaning up the article.
We have reached consensus on the 3rd paragraph of intro. It is hoped that nobody would change it. 
===The first and second paragraphs of the intro===
The second paragraph said Falun Gong was banned for "illegal activities".. somebody again deleted the "alleged" word. I have deleted the phrase which is completely non-factual and and an unnecessary extrapolation.
Dilip rajeev 15:59, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Continuing with the Edits 

message: The second paragraph said Falun Gong was banned for "illegal activities".. somebody again deleted the "alleged" word. I have deleted the phrase which is completely non-factual and and an unnecessary extrapolation.
Dilip rajeev 15:59, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: The first and second paragraphs of the intro

message: As I said, please do NOT delete the edits fromt the same biography! Why you want to hide information ? Fnhddzs 19:21, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know about the others, but I told you to take it to the correct article, History of Falun Gong. Origins deals with how it came into being. History is what happens after it's begining. That's not my opinion, that's the definition. CovenantD 19:44, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

text: For the record, I've read the first English translation of Zhuan Falun which has Mr. Li's biography. According to the related discussion, there are apparently two versions. I'm not sure if the one I read is the same as the one we're using. If it is, then I have no quams with using this information responsibly. If it's included as a section of the book, then it's acknowledged by Mr. Li. Mcconn 15:34, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Origins v History

message: Now that we've had some success on finding agreement on a paragraph of the intro, do you think we should look at the structure of the article again? Many of the daughter articles have been created and editing is going on in them, but we should decide which ones are good and which ones need to be renamed or combined or split. I think it's time, if not now then when we finish the second paragraph. CovenantD 20:34, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's important to look at the other articles too, but I recommend we at least try to finalize what we have agreed to in the introduction section while the topics are fresh in everyones' mind. Could you just post below what you conisider to be the approved text, or did you do that above and maybe I missed it. Also, I'd like to finish the second paragraph first --Tomananda 22:23, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The only one we've agreed on is the 3rd paragraph and that's already in the article. The discussion for the 1st and the 2nd are somewhere above this. I can refactor so that they're at the bottom again if people want. CovenantD 22:41, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Yeah, if you could sort of put it all together so we can see where we're at, that would help at least me and probably others as well.  --Tomananda 05:11, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Article structure