Talk:Falun Gong/Archive 10

message: As requested at WP:RfPP, I've now unprotected this article as it seems to have been long enough and the discussions here seem to have been productive. I'll keep the article watchlisted and jump in if edit warring begins again. Feel free to contact me or respond here if you agree or do not agree with unprotection, or if you feel that it may be necessary to protect again. AmiDaniel (talk) 03:48, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. Removing sections has not been agreed on. We haven't even agreed on the second paragraph yet. CovenantD 08:19, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

text: As a note on that, User:Dilip rajeev is currently at four reverts (thus already in violation of 3RR). He has been warned, and upon reverting again, he will be blocked. AmiDaniel (talk) 08:26, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: And as another note, while I'm not endorsing either version or any editors' actions here, I do find it quite misleading and dishonest that User:Dilip rajeev marked this edit as minor, as it clearly was not. I'm going to assume good faith and say that this was a mistake on his behalf, but I do find it rather bothersome. AmiDaniel (talk) 08:32, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I am sorry but I myself noticed the m only after I saved it.. It was not intentional.. Also I had mentioend in the edit history what I had done, indicating the edit was not a minor one.. I described the edit as:Added sup-page links and replaced content with intro paras.( except "criticism" section)Dilip rajeev 16:30, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Yet another note from me: User:Tomananda has just reverted for the fourth time and is now also in violation of WP:3RR. They've both been adequately warned, and if either reverts again, s/he will be blocked. AmiDaniel (talk) 08:38, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unprotected 

message: Okay, let's start with the one that was in place when the page was frozen. 
::Falun Gong has been the focus of international controversy since the government of the People's Republic of China began a nationwide suppression of Falun Gong on July 20, 1999 for its illegal activities. The Falun Gong came to the attention of the Chinese government when 10,000 practitioners protested peaceful at Zhongnanhai the compound of Chinese top leaders on April 25, 1999. 
: Here's a suggested modified version which tries to strike a balance between the two POV's, but also adds more detail:
::Falun Gong has been the focus of international attention since April 25,1999, when 10,000 practitioners assembled in a peaceful protest outside Zhongnanhai, China’s leadership compound. Prior to that, the Falun Gong had staged protests against its media critics all over China.  On July 20, 1999 the government banned the Falun Gong for its violation of Chinese laws. However, the Falung Gong denies any wrongdoing, claiming that the Chinese government itself has violated international laws,  while also alleging mistreatment and torture of its followers. --Tomananda 08:50, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I second that.  And let's go in the order of the existing sections.  Dilip wants to add some new main page sections and delete (or move) some others and those changes can be discussed as we go along as well.  I am not saying I reject everything Dilip wants to do, but do insist we fully know what these changes are and agree to them. --Tomananda 08:29, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Dilip, you also use selective, circular arguments to promote your version of things, IMO, so let's not be too ready to point fingers. We all have a personal POV, but it is where it interferes with the article that it gets us into difficulties. It doesn't have to. We have to edit from a broader perspective, one beyond the ends of our own noses. There is room for all pertinent information. People need to accept that their definition of what is pertinent isn't always the same as others' and information that others feel important will be included in the article. In almost any Wikipedia article one has an interest in, information one may not like personally will be eventually included somehow. The only question is, does one want to be relaxed about editorial diversity or controlling? Nobody owns these articles. --Fire Star 火星 12:24, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Dilip:  Your mandacity truly amazes me.  You have consistenly done major revert edits without discussion or honest edit summaries. Right now you are repeating the same dishonest justification for your deletions..plus additions of new sections...as you have previsously. Rather than honestly saying: Look, I think we need some new sections on the main page (eg: your new self-promoting section called Research into health benefits)...you continue to pretend that this is just about splitting the article.  Under that banner, you have slipped in new sections, a new page, and made many significant changes to existing edits, both in terms of content and placement. As Firestar commented awhile ago in an edit summary, I find it increasingly difficult to believe what you say about anything. --Tomananda 21:41, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Hi, Folks. Ok. Can we discuss whether to use the subpages or not? I saw Dilip's last version using the splitted pages are quite neat. Also, the subsections of the critism were kept on the main page. I wonder why it is still reverted. Are we simply not welcoming splitting pages? Fnhddzs 13:23, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Second paragraph 

message: My first suggestion is to not make any changes until we agree on them. Dilip, that means you should put the second paragraph back for now. CovenantD 08:19, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I second that.  And let's go in the order of the existing sections.  Dilip wants to add some new main page sections and delete (or move) some others and those changes can be discussed as we go along as well.  I am not saying I reject everything Dilip wants to do, but do insist we fully know what these changes are and agree to them. --Tomananda 08:29, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Dilip, you also use selective, circular arguments to promote your version of things, IMO, so let's not be too ready to point fingers. We all have a personal POV, but it is where it interferes with the article that it gets us into difficulties. It doesn't have to. We have to edit from a broader perspective, one beyond the ends of our own noses. There is room for all pertinent information. People need to accept that their definition of what is pertinent isn't always the same as others' and information that others feel important will be included in the article. In almost any Wikipedia article one has an interest in, information one may not like personally will be eventually included somehow. The only question is, does one want to be relaxed about editorial diversity or controlling? Nobody owns these articles. --Fire Star 火星 12:24, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Dilip:  Your mandacity truly amazes me.  You have consistenly done major revert edits without discussion or honest edit summaries. Right now you are repeating the same dishonest justification for your deletions..plus additions of new sections...as you have previsously. Rather than honestly saying: Look, I think we need some new sections on the main page (eg: your new self-promoting section called Research into health benefits)...you continue to pretend that this is just about splitting the article.  Under that banner, you have slipped in new sections, a new page, and made many significant changes to existing edits, both in terms of content and placement. As Firestar commented awhile ago in an edit summary, I find it increasingly difficult to believe what you say about anything. --Tomananda 21:41, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Hi, Folks. Ok. Can we discuss whether to use the subpages or not? I saw Dilip's last version using the splitted pages are quite neat. Also, the subsections of the critism were kept on the main page. I wonder why it is still reverted. Are we simply not welcoming splitting pages? Fnhddzs 13:23, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Suggestions for edits

message: I think we actually might be making some progress. It's a kind of "three steps forward, two steps back" kind of progress, but progress nonetheless. I like the shorter version with summaries and links to daughter articles. CovenantD 17:27, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Progress 

message: I see that Dilip has added another sentence to the first paragraph. Is there anything in this that needs to be discussed? Unless there's a dispute about the numbers, it seems like a non-issue to me. CovenantD 17:32, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The system has been growing in popularity world-over with the teachings translated to over 40 languages and practitioners present in over 80 countries.
Unless somebody objects to this sentence being added in the next 24 hours, I'm going to add it and resist any attempts to remove it without discussion. CovenantD 18:21, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  1st paragraph of intro 

message: It's just been pointed out that this paragraph is in contention. Let's discuss. 
:At the beginning, Li introduced himself to the public as a master with the utmost supernatural powers and wisdom. In “A Short Biography of Mr. Li Hongzhi” which appeared as an appendix in the early version of the group’s bible Zhuan Falun, Li claimed to have been trained by numerous Masters in Buddhism and Taoism since the age of four and acquired supernatural powers at age of eight. He could levitate off the ground and become invisible simply by thinking "Nobody can see me.” Two other supernatural powers were his ability to control people’s movements by thoughts and to move himself anywhere he wanted by thought alone. Li also presented himself as the very embodiment of Truthfulness, Compassion and Tolerance and claimed to have discovered the truth of the universe…the origin of humankind and foresaw the development and future of the humankind.
Dilip, you're the one who removed it, so why don't you explain why. Tomananda, you pointed out it had been removed so maybe you could explain why you think it's relevant to the section summary (as opposed to the daughter article on History). Samuel, you just jumped in so you need to explain the same. Also see the relevant portions of this talk page on the intro. CovenantD 18:57, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Covenant, at this point I am more concerned about dealing with Dilip's failure to play by the rules. The paragraph that he deleted was written by another editor, Samuel, so it is up to Samuel to provide the argument for relevance. --Tomananda 21:31, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Second paragraph of Origins section 

message: Either this article or the subarticle needs to be reordered so that they are similar in form. I don't care which one. Tomananda, you seem to have great concern for that section, do you have an opinion? Anybody else? CovenantD 18:29, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Order of topics in Criticism and Controveries section 

message: I've returned the Ethics section to the article for now - there hasn't been agreement on removing it. It's now open for discussion. CovenantD 17:27, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, most of the current Ethics section is critical, so that's why we retitled it to  Allegations of elitism and intolerance in Falun Gong ethics and placed it in the Criticism page. I agree something needs to be written, but that would be a more pro-FG rendering of its system of ethics.  --Tomananda 22:31, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: okay, now I'm confused again. Are you saying that the section that it's this article, the section called Ethics, is the same thing that's on the Criticism page? What's here now is pretty long. CovenantD 22:42, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, it is confusing. The original article appeared in the main section. Then another editor (I think it was Ed Poor) felt it belonged in the Criticism page.  I then did a minor re-write to make it more suitable for Criticism.  The versions are similar, but not the same.  Check out the criticism version here:  Criticism and controversies about Falun Gong#Allegations of elitism and intolerance in Falun Gong ethics  Please note that when I revised the article in the Criticsm page, an editor inserted the lead paragraph from the original version.  But since a criticism page should start with what the criticism is, I've just deleted that first paragraph.  What would work well, then, would be for the pro-FG editors to write a new main page section for Ethics and have that cross-linked to the Criticism page.  Would make for an interesting read I think.  --Tomananda 00:34, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ethics section 

message: I've reordered them into Falun Gong/Critical/Other sites per the suggestion of... somebody... when the page was locked. I hope that's non-controversial. CovenantD 17:44, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links 

message: Where did all of the pics for the Falun Gong page go? The Fading Light 13:18, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I suspect they were moved to the spin-off articles. CovenantD 16:35, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Good catch. Would somebody like to rewrite the Falun_Gong#Difference_between_Falun_Gong_and_Qi_Gong summary? CovenantD 16:35, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

text: I replaced the existing intro in the main page with the existing lead paragraph from the Criticism page, which has already been discussed.  --Tomananda 19:39, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Omido, most of what you claim is "not sourced" already has the citations in the body of the text and those citations are also listed in detail in the reference section at the end of the article. Not every source is to an on-line article, some sources refer to material in print (such as books) or academic papers which might not be available on-line.  When that happens, the detailed information for those sources is listed at the end of the article in the references section. There are a few remaining problem areas because of the removal of the Deng and Fang source which I will address in the Criticism page.  --Tomananda 19:45, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Please be sure to submit your version here first, so people can comment on it and we can reach consensus. We've agreed to review all major edits before they happen, so please respect that decision. CovenantD 16:55, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Where did the Pics Go? 

message: -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
These things i what I want to see sources for:
Li as a savior or supernatural entity
"critics point out that he assumes the role of a divinity by virtue of his claimed supernatural powers."
Although practitioners claim that Falun Gong is merely a “cultivation practice,” some commentators point to Li’s divine status as
proof that Falun Gong can rightly be considered a religion.  (Chang, 2004)
Chang opines: “If Li Hongzhi’s disciples can become gods by engaging in falun gong, it stands to reason that the founder of this cultivation practice must himself be a deity.”
According to Chang, the existence of Li’s law bodies combined with his claim to be without karma amount to an admission of his divine nature:  “Li also maintained that human beings do not have law bodies and that only he – as well as buddhas, daos and gods – have law bodies.  Falun Gong practitioners must wait until they have completed their cultivation, and attained buddhahood, to have such bodies.”
Allegations of elitism and intolerance in Falun Gong ethics
Critics of the Falun Gong have pointed out that aspects of Li’s system of morality can be considered elitist and intolerant. 
Critics who see the Falun Gong as elitist point to what they see as a strong “us-versus- them” ethos in Falun Gong teachings.
According to Rahn (2000), one of the potential effects of this ethos “is the possibility of isolating practitioners from family and friends as well as non-practitioners in general. It can also help create a feedback loop system where practitioners only relate to other practitioners, thereby mutually reinforcing belief in the teachings, identification with the group, and eradication of any conflicting or alternative views.”
Li’s teachings on the importance of racial purity have provoked considerable controversy. Critics opine that Li is intolerant of racial differences
Is Falun Gong a cult?
Critics of Falun Gong in the West argue that because of the relationship of dependency that Li Hongzhi establishes between himself and his followers, using what they say are a variety of manipulative techniques, the Falun Gong should be thought of as a cult rather than a new religious movement or metaphysical qigong.
Omido 16:48, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Do you know how to insert a "citation needed" tag? Just put    where you want a source referenced. I don't think of that as a major edit, just a way of letting people know where there's something that needs attention. CovenantD 17:00, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Understood. The biggest thing to remember with the Falun Gong pages is to talk about major edits before making them. Anything is going to be controversial so it's best to avoid edit wars by making sure people agree on what's being changed or added. CovenantD 16:37, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

text: With a few exceptions, virtually all of this material is already sourced in the text (Eg: the Maria Chang book (2004) or the Patsy Rahn paper (2000) so your claim of missing sources doesn't make sense.  I have updated the main page intro to the Difference between Falun Gong and Qi Gong and inserted a Chang reference that was previously missing.  As to the rest, I am going to respond on the Talk: Criticism page, since that is where this discussion belongs anyway. --Tomananda 19:36, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Need Sources 

message: I strongly suspect people are copying the article to their own computers and making edits before copying back into Wikipedia. I made a series of changes to the article, and while some was left intact, the majority was reverted, incorrect spelling & grammar intact.Phanatical 19:04, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reverts Deleting New Content 

message: How many warnings can one editor get before his violation of Wiki standards results in a sanction?  Dilip has repeatedly violated the 3RR policy, while also posting extremely deceptive edit summaries to conceal what he is actually doing through a series of hard-to-track edits.  Some time ago he received a warning from Miborovsky.  More recently, he received a warning (as did I) from another administrator.  I honored that warning, but Dilip did not...about two hours later he returned to reverting or deleting material in the main article.  Now, for the umpteenth time he has done it again, and quite deceptively.  Here's a summary of his most recent violation of the 3RR policy, together with an explanation so that we can all understand the ultimate results of Dilip's editing:
*7:07    3 June 2006
*15:27   3 June 2006
*17:34   3 June 2006
*19:41   3 June 2006
I invite every administrator who accesses this article to review this sequence of edits and how Dilip summarized them in his edit summary.   Here's the bottom line: Dilip evidently does not want Wikipedia to report Li's own statement about his origins in the Origins section. In some of these edits, Dilip simply deleted the entire Origins section (which pre-existed his History and Timeline page), in other edits he replaced the second paragraph with one of his own making, and in the final edit he was straightforward about what he wanted to do, saying in the edit summary:
"removed the completely unsourced paragraph starting with 'In the beginning'"
That last edit by Dilip, done at 19:41 on 3 June, represented his 4th attempt in 24 hours to delete or delete and replace the same paragraph.  It is a clear violation of Wiki rules and given that there is a long history of this violation on Dilip's part I insist that some action be taken.  Is there no accountability in Wikipedia ever?  
One more imporant point:  The paragraph which Dilip seeks to eliminate is already sourced within the body of the text.  It comes from an early edition of Zhuan Falun in Chinese whicih contained an official biography of Li Hongzhi--a biography which the publishers later on removed from subsequent editions.  The source of the Li quote, therefore, is a Falun Gong publisher.  The question we have to ask ourselves is this:  why does Dilip not want this material reported in Falun Gong, since it comes from the first biography of his master and was published, in book form, by the Falun Gong itself? --Tomananda 21:37, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Dillip has been blocked for twelve hours for this violation, though he contests that it was not 3RR. I agree with you here that his reverts are often times complex partial reverts with deceptive edit summaries, and as I've warned him in the past, this behavior is completely unacceptable. At the same time, there are three editors to this article who are editing in a highly disruptive manner, and I'm tempted to protect the article yet again, which I think would be highly unfortunate. As I think Dillip should at least be allowed to voice his opinion on these matters on the talk page, I've made an ultimatum to him that if he can refrain from editing the article altogether for the next twenty-four hours, I will lift the block. AmiDaniel (talk) 21:46, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you Ami!  Maybe this will help settle the overall edits down and encourage more discussion, which would be a good thing.  Let's give it a try. --Tomananda 21:58, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

text: * Dilip should be allowed to voice his opinion.  However we should make sure he does not do that in the expenses of others.  Before the page was unprotected there was discussion about the article paragraph by paragraph.  We should continue that process. --Yueyuen 22:26, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

text: This does not constitute a personal attack and it surprises me that you would even suggest it. In the above post I documented why a series of edits did, in fact, consitute a violation of the 3RR rule.  Because Dilip often uses deceptive edit summaries while deleting critical material and adding new material, it is often not clear what the real effect of his edits has been.  I have not said any thing about Dilip personally above, but I have characterized his edits as "deceptive"--which they are.  Collaboration of that fact has come from several administrators: most recently Ami agreed he used deceptive edits, and previously Fire Star stated she had increasing difficulty believing what Dilip says about anything.  And on top of that, you yourself used the "f" word to indicate your understandable frustration with Dilip's undiscussed deletions. To accuse me of personally attacking Dilip simply because I have done multiple postings on different occassions is unjustified.  I have done multiple postings because Dilip has done multiple deltions, often in vilolation of the 3RR rule, and had actually received a warning from Miborovsky about it.  --Tomananda 18:28, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not justifying or excusing or even talking about Dilip's actions - I'm talking about yours. I compared it to the first example of a personal attack because of your repetition. In some ways, you make my case for me. Admins are aware of the problem and are actively monitoring it. AmiDaniel appears to be very good at finding reverts - I think bringing it to hir attention is enough to bring action. If you feel the need to do a full report, there is a page for it. If you think my words are inaccurate, feel free to ignore them. I won't be offended. :-) CovenantD 20:23, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

text: PS - And to keep it neutral you might want to consider just asking that all editors be checked when you think one has violated 3RR. It often turns out that other editors are at three reverts, and that should be brought out too. CovenantD 17:56, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sure, but your comment begs the question.  I have done postings in the past asking for administrators to intervene and there has actually been some discussion among all the editors leading to suggestions that we should be permissive.  But IMHO, the permissive strategy has not worked.  I would rather that we all take a hard line on the 3RR policy in the future because I think the stability that will come from that will result in a better article.  I agree that every editor must be held accountable for this policy...plus providing honest edit summaries so people can figure out what is happening. --Tomananda 18:28, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed, which is why I'm pushing the idea of contacting AmiDaniel. S/he seems to be impartial so far, yet willing to wade in and take action. S/he also has a habit of counting everybody's reverts and making appropriate comments/warnings, another factor I find to be very useful. CovenantD 20:23, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

text: OK, then, I will trust that Ami will do his job (I think he's a he) and apologize if I've been impatient.  --Tomananda 21:53, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Enough is Enough: Dilip must receive a block sanction at this point 

message: Here's an intro I wrote for a block quote in the Ethics section:
:In a speech in Los Angeles (2006), Li Hongzhi spoke for the first time about what he sees as a big problem—cultivators not accepting criticism well. He also suggested that practitioners may be too focused on making judgments about others
In a recent edit, Dilip replaced the lead sentence with:
: In a speech in Los Angeles (2006) Li Hongzhi says:
Here are the key sections from the LA speech:
:Sometimes, while validating the Fa, doing Dafa work in general, or in your own cultivation, many unsatisfactory things indeed exist. The most noticeable and biggest problem, which has gone unresolved for a long time, is also what the gods have been muttering in my ears, something that troubles them the most. But I have never emphasized it, and I haven't discussed it with strong words. Why is that? It's because Dafa disciples needed a little human courage as they were going about validating the Fa today. That is why I didn't talk about it. I wanted to save that discussion for the final time--I wanted to talk about it later on, when the time was more ripe. What is it, then? When Dafa disciples make mistakes, they do not like to be criticized. No one can criticize them, and when someone does, it sets them off. When they are right, they don't like others bringing up things they could improve on; when they are wrong, they don't want to be criticized. They get upset as soon as others criticize. The problem is becoming pretty bad. (Applause)
:Why have I waited until now to talk about it? When you were validating the Fa and exposing the evil earlier on, I didn't want you to be too soft when doing things; in that case as you clarified the truth you would have been apt to do so at less than full strength. It would be a problem if, when others commented [negatively] as you clarified the truth, you just stopped right there, without giving any explanation. Now that you have become mature and rational, and know how to handle things, and now that [discussing this matter] will not affect your truth clarification, I am talking about what I had saved for today.
:Now that Master has spoken about this in today's teaching of Fa here, from this point on you must start to take this matter seriously. (Enthusiastic Applause)
Dilip, it seems to me the Master Li directly says he waited until now to talk about (this problem). The fact that he has previously told practitioners they must accept criticism well does not mean that he has previously scolded them for not doing so.  What’s new about this blockquote is not the moral teaching itself, but the pointed scolding he gives to practitioners for not living up to it. 
I introduced the block quote with “Master Li spoke for the first time about what he sees as a big problem.”    It is not reasonable for you to just delete that introduction with a deceptive edit summary.  If you or another editor wants to suggest alternative wording for the introduction, that's fine.  But your deletion of the entire introduction I wrote is not a cooperative editing thing to do.  --Tomananda 22:38, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Master Li lectures practitioners for not taking criticism well in 2006 speech. Was it the first time he has done that? 

message: I just want to point out that Fnhddzs has just added an edit to the second paragraph of the origins section which cites a Benjamin Penny article about Li's first biography.  What's important about Fnhddzs's edit is that for the first time a Falun Gong practitioner has admitted that the quote in fact did come from a book published by the Falun Gong.  (Readers of this discussion will note that Dilip was just sanctioned for doing a series of 4 reverts which deleted this very paragraph for the alleged reason that it was unsourced.)  So now the story is that the biographical statment is sourced, but that it had originally been written by a reporter and edited by the Falun Gong before they published it in the early version of the Zhuan Falun. I don't dispute any of that, and in fact think it is worth pointing out if it is true. However, why did we have to go through a potential revert war to come to this new understanding?  For those interested, the Fnhddzs edit was done at 22:47 3 June.  There are stylistic problems with the edit..it should be an independent paragraph and could be expressed more clearly, but it's a start. --Tomananda 23:33, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: *“A Short Biography of Mr. Li Hongzhi” was written by FAlun dafa research society developed and chaired by Li. A shorter version with a different title was distributed by Li himself at the very beginning of his master career.  This seventeen pages long bio was included in all chinese Zhuan Falun beofre 1999.  Li has been very secretive about his origins. This bio provides info to the origin of his wisdom and power.  It also talked about how he developed the Falun Gong system. --Samuel Luo 17:14, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There needs to be a version that is avail for people to read. It doesn't have to be online, but it can't be a part of somebody's private collection either. It must be accessible for people to read for themselves. If there is an English translation that has been published, that should be used. It the only version available is Chinese, then that will have to be used. The first step is verifying that there is a version that is accessible by the public. CovenantD 17:45, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  “A Short Biography of Mr. Li Hongzhi” 

message: The authorized biography of Li Hongzhi, which appeared as an appendix in earlier versions of Zhuan Falun, is totally legitmate as a source and since this is becoming an issue I will provide all the reasons why:
*Earlier versions of Zhuan Falun containing Li's authorized biography are publicly available in some public libraries. They may be difficult to track down, but that difficulty is no justification for not allowing it as a source.  
*The authorized biography is described in detail by Benjamin Penny in his article "The Life and Times of Li Hongzhi: Falun Gong and Religious Biography."
*In addition to summarizing the contents of the authorized biography, Penny makes several comments concerning its legitimacy.  Since most editors probably have not seen the Penny article, I will quote verbatim from it:
::When "The Life and times of Li Hongzhi" was released under the authorship of the research department of the Ministry of Public Security, the target of its attack was a biography of Li that has circulated both as an appendix to early editions of Zhuna Falun, the major book of the movement, and as a stand-alone text from the internet. Its English version is entitled "A short biography of Mr Li Hongzhi, founder of Falun Xiulian Dafa, President of the Research Society of Falun Buddha Science."  This biography consists of an introduction and five parts and describes the life of Li Hongzhi, from his birth until late 1993.  It's last sentence reads: "At present, Mr Li is heading his disciples to preach the Law and teach the cultivation exercise in big and medium-sized cities throughout the country."  Thus, it was probably composed in late 1993 or 1994 and appears to have circulated freely for some five or six years afterwards. The biography is presented as a product of the Falun Gong Reserch Society (Falun gong yanjiuhui)appearing over their signature.  Neither the current edition of Zhuan Falun nor its translation into English include this biogrpahical essay and it has also disappeared from the internet."
:Importantly, in Li Hongzhi's Canadian lectures held on 23 May 1999 in Toronto, the status of the biography was explicitly addressed in a queastion and answer session:
:: Q: I want to recommend to a newspaper that they publish the Master's biography.  Is this appropriate?
::A.  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 would ask 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 consumation."
*Although it's true that a similar and much longer version of this biography appeared in the first edition of Zhongguo falun gong..and that that biography was written by someone described as a journalist working for the magazine of the Chinese Association for Scientific Research into Qigong named Zhyu Huiguang...Dr. Penny concludes that the biography that was published in Zhuan Falun counts as an authorized biography.  He does, however, discuss "discrepancies  in accounts of Li's background" and speculates that a change in reported social status of Li may have been been done by the Zhuan Falun editors in order to help "prospective adherents to identify with someone with an 'average' social background, as opposed to the exceptional figure who rose from the gutter."   Penny states:
::In the later essay he (Li) is described as coming from "an ordinary intellectual's family."  The effect of this change in social status is to shift Li from the "ideal" of a boy who had to overcome great hardships to attain his great triumph, to the "unexceptional" where he is represented as being little differenct from his friends.
* Finally, although Penny states that the authorized biography is no longer available on the internet, it actually is by using one of the Archive search engines that have been described elsewhere in Wikipedia.  For those who are interested in readin this document in English, you need to go to an archive search engine first, then enter this URL (which was provided by Penny in one of his many footnotes):  http://www.compapp.dcu.ie/~dongxue/biography.html   I downloaded a copy of the page yesterday and read it.  Very interesting!  --Tomananda 19:31, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  You present your case very well. CovenantD 19:35, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Information on source verification for Li's early biography in Zhuan Falun 

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