Talk:Falun Gong/Archive 17

message: The PRC government banned the Falun Gong for what it claimed to be illegal and seditious activities, calling the Falun Gong an evil cult which is responsible for causing deaths and morally corrupting its practitioners, thereby threatening the overall social stability of the country (footnote). Falun Gong claims that these accusations are lies and that the persecution is due to the CCP's official atheist nature, its intolerance of other beliefs, as well as Jiang's personal jealousy over the growing success of the discipline and a sense that he could not control the people's hearts and minds.(footnote)
Tell us if you agree or not to this paragraph in here or if you would like to modify anything.--Andres18 18:18, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I propose a slight edit to the PRC view, near the end.  The paragraph should now look like -
The PRC government banned the Falun Gong for what it claimed to be illegal and seditious activities, calling the Falun Gong an evil cult which is responsible for causing deaths and morally corrupting its practitioners, thereby threatening the overall harmony of Chinese society and social stability of the country (footnote). Falun Gong claims that these accusations are lies and that the persecution is due to the CCP's official atheist nature, its intolerance of other beliefs, as well as Jiang's personal jealousy over the growing success of the discipline and a sense that he could not control the people's hearts and minds.(footnote)
Let me know what you all think, especially if there's any opposition to it.  Jsw663 23:33, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Actually the previous edit had favoured the Falun Gong view in length and I was trying to redress that.  Note that I have not even passed a comment on the pro-FG view precisely because you wouldn't want people who you perceive as unchangeable skeptics / critics to 'distort' or 'reinterpret' your view.  Now from what I read above your only objection is that it doesn't give FG the slight original advantage it once had what I'm proposing is to ensure that the viewpoints are evently represented.  This is why I can't agree to a groundless objection but thanks for showing your views as having taken a savage lurch to the more extreme views of the pro-FG camp since Asdfg's "warning" earlier.  Jsw663 06:29, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

text: It's amazing how you veered off from a discussion about the content of the 3rd paragraph into a tirade against the CCP.  Stick to the subject, or move your above paragraph to the section below.  It doesn't belong in this section about discussion of the 3rd para.  Jsw663 16:44, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

text: OK here's the source on why I proposed the latter addition of a few more words: .  I trust you aren't going to hack into that site to alter details like you did for Chinese TV now... So, where's your reference for your proposed addition?  An encyclopedia could do with non-outrageously-biased sources to back your POV.  And when we can both back up our points with sources, this 3rd paragraph may finally be 'set'.  But since I can back up my proposed addition of a few more words with a source, this comes back to the original point - why do you object to it, and what are you basing it on?  Jsw663 02:37, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposal for the 3rd paragraph 

message: http://www.falundafa.org/eng/exercises.htm Falun Dafa's fifth exercise
Regarding the 'little girl doing Falun Gong' picture in the beginning pasted in by Asdfg but objected to by several editors:
Why does a little girl doing FG have to be put in the beginning of the article?  Is it to elicit sympathy for the movement?  I don't see what's wrong with the picutres on the Teachings of Falun Gong page where a male in traditional clothing seems to be demonstrating quite well.  Or is the little girl picture supposed to show how ruthlessly the FG practitioners brainwash others, including their own children, to the movement?  Nevertheless, I object on the grounds that the little girl picture seems to be nothing more than a PR stunt to elicit sympathy and provoke 'good' feelings about FG.  This is distinctly unencyclopedic.  If you disagree or are Asdfg, please say why here instead of engaging in an edit war on the main page.  Jsw663 23:47, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: When have I never kept a cool head?  I will also always assume bona fide (good faith) intentions initially until shown otherwise.  It's a pity, but pro-FG editors have clearly shown the otherwise - that being a certainly concerted if only sometimes united effort at information and psychological control and the propaganda, aka point of view, being put forward by your 'camp'.  Time and time again people have said that Wikipedia is not a FG advertising website yet time and time again pro-FG editors' behaviour reflect their real-life - thinking that constantly bombarding people with an avalanche of distorted Li Hongzhi opinions can convince them as to the 'bona fide' aspect of FG.  So although I will respect your opinions, respect can only be reciprocal if there isn't a targeted agenda to ensure half-truths or fabrications are put forward only, dismissing anything critical or contrary as CCP propaganda or lies.  Now we get onto the picture of the little girl.  Note that I personally have no objections if you want to fill the Teachings of Falun Gong page full of the elderly or the younger generation practising Falun Gong, providing they are instructional.  However, placing a picture of a young girl at the top of the page clearly has a subjective motive and is intended to suggest or imply to the average reader of the 'innocence' of Falun Gong.  Yes, I'm basing the 'innocence' of a young girl on a stereotype, but unfortunately it remains common nowadays.  So if, and only IF, Falun Gong really only want to show its practitioners practising it, I suggest a more value-neutral picture in the appropriate section of the page or appropriate page.  And in case you think I harbor some anti-FG bias, I'm here to dispel such a misconception now because I would equally vociferously object to any similar picture be shown on any cult pages (Scientology), religious pages (Christianity, Islam) or spiritual pages (qigong) in their pre-introduction section.  Jsw663 06:29, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well my personal opinion on this image is, first of all that is a very good image, and yes it is nice too. I think that it would be relevant to this page to put a picture with somebody practicing because it might give a first impression (an image says a thousand words) on what Falun Dafa mainly is: meditation and spirituality basically getting closer the principles of Truthfulness Compassion Forbearance. For these reasons I think that perhaps this image is the best one, but I don't object in using another image. Although I know that some people accuse some practitioners of being anti-CCP that I believe happens only because the CCP banned the practice. --HappyInGeneral 18:43, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  One more thing, until we have an other image on which we can agree upon, shouldn't we use this one? --HappyInGeneral 18:55, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  After viewing other similar Wiki entries, namely qigong, Buddhism and Christianity, note NONE of them even have A picture in the pre-intro.  This makes any desire to have a picture of a practitioner ridiculous to the extreme.  The logo of Falun Gong is already stretching the rules, but broadly acceptable in keeping with Wiki practice.  Jsw663 12:32, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thank you so much for pointing this out, because this way I actually searched for other similar articles: Yoga, World_Tai_Chi_and_Qigong_Day, Tai_Chi_Chuan, Chinese_martial_arts, and I could give a few more and all these have images in the intro. Now why is it that these are more relevant to the wording of Falun Gong then let's say Qigong? Because Qigong is like the word morality for Christianity. Then why is it different then Buddhism and Christianity, because they don't cultivate the body so they don't need exercises, so for them exercises is not the main thing in the least. For Falun Dafa there is moral improvement and exercises for body improvement, both should be present. Also please don't delete from the talk page the image, because we are indeed talking about it here and so here it undeniably relevant. --HappyInGeneral 14:04, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  There is a very big difference between FG and the ones you named above.  Yoga, as a practice established for 5000 years, is more similar to Buddhism.  Both of these traditions have offshoots, some more traditional, and some 'fads' (aka cults).  FG practitioners contradict themselves as to whether FG is derived from Buddhism or not.  Falun Gong is neither of those and was only established by Li Hongzhi.  The World Taichi + Qigong day is describing an event, not just the beliefs itself.  Tai chi doesn't seem to have a logo, hence the picture, NB of a man, and a black/white one only, not in a particularly 'peaceful' position (compared to the biased picture you insist on), and FG is most certainly not a martial art!  (I think everyone will agree with that last point at least)   The Qigong entry does NOT have any picture, nor a logo, in the pre-intro.  Falun Gong has a set of political beliefs (anti-CCP) as well as spiritual attached to it, and thus cannot be compared to tai chi.  There is also a big difference between a set of purely spiritual exercises and one which works as a pseudo-religion.  The difference is that with the former, you don't see anyone forced to do it, nor do you see people engaging in any form of propaganda in saying it is only good.  But in the end, the point still comes to the political aspect - FG is political; purely spiritual exercises are not.  Jsw663 15:46, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I thought that we are talking about having or not having the image on the intro. We both know that debating about the other issues are counterproductive. For anyone wandering which are the both opinion I guess a good page for this is Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_mediation/Falun_Gong there is a lengthy discussion. So getting back to the picture, we can have it because, it’s in context and because there are other pages who have it. Of course if there wouldn’t be other pages that have images on their front we could still put it here, because: 1. It’s well sourced; 2. It’s in context. --HappyInGeneral 14:05, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  After a further look, note this - Tai Chi Chuan only has one black and white picture of an old man doing it because it doesn't have a logo to represent it.  More pictures in colour are given below.  Yoga has a peaceful philosophy yet FG has a government-overthrowing one.  On the issue of the pictures, the article has not even been RATED!  The pictures in the beginning are subjective in value, but less subjective than this little girl one.  FG is definitely not a Chinese martial art.  Thus your comparisons are simply inappropriate.  The entries I used for comparison were Buddhism which has at least been rated B-class, Christianity has a GA-status and qigong has a B-class rating.  This FG only has a start-class rating, and thus must follow better articles.  This picture will not help in a relatively neutral Wiki entry, nor is it in keeping with Wiki guidelines / policies / other better entries.  We are trying to make progress towards a (neutral) Wiki article, not a FG propaganda leaflet.  Jsw663 13:13, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Buddhism and Christianity has no body cultivation and also Qigong is a concept not a particular cultivation system, so I don't think it's fair to compare then with Falun Dafa from a presentation point of view. Tai Chi Chuan is a B-Class rated article which has a black and white image most likely because of historical reasons, such as there were no color photographs at that time. I'm quite sure that if the they would have it in color it would have not affected the quality of the article. Yoga is quite colorful also. PS: sorry for a late answer, I was not active for a while on Wikipedia. --HappyInGeneral 13:30, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Sure there's body cultivation in Christianity. You sit, you stand, you kneel, you bite plastic wafer, you sip wine, you ingest "blood and body of Christ" (a term heavily disputed depending on sect). =)  —  Rickyrab | Talk 12:11, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I understand that you are trying to be funny, still if I may, I would like to remind you that you are talking cheap about gods and sacred things, be it Christianity, Buddhism, Falun Gong etc ..., if you believe in any of them you should really avoid this, if not well then that is your choice and at some point you will have the fruit of what is yours. --HappyInGeneral 12:03, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Totally out of line, General. You're basically threatening divine retribution. I rarely speak up on these talk pages anymore, the entire lot of you having exhausted my patience, but this is over the top. Don't invoke your own personal beliefs in an effort to supress discussion. CovenantD 20:14, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  If that is out of line I'm sorry. It supposed to be a friendly reminder for somebody who somewhat believes in something. If the reader does not believe in anything, for them I agree it's truly a waste of time and it does not deserve anything to say, since they already have their POV well formed. Anyway is there anybody who is really thinking that in Christianity there is "body cultivation"? I thought this comment was a complete irony to start with, so really there is nothing to repress here, at least that is my impression, anyway if I'm wrong I apologize. --HappyInGeneral 08:54, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

text: One thing to add for the moment: What's with this "the Falun Gong" business? There is "Falun Gong" and there are "Falun Gong practitioners", but there isn't "the Falun Gong". Falun Gong is the name of the practice, and Falun Gong practitioners are the people who practice it. There isn't some kind of organization called "the Falun Gong". This should be appropriately corrected. Mcconn 02:52, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

text: The above comment is referring to the paragraph in question. The discussion seems to have gone astray from that. If someone wants to bring up something not related to the subject heading, can they please make a new section for it? This will help us stay on track. JSW, Andres had a good point about US and human rights organizations who use the term "persecution" being perfectly valid 3rd party organizations. I want to add that not only are human rights organizations, such as Amnesty international, 3rd party organizations, but they are also experts on these matters, which gives even greater weight to what they say. So what's the problem with using this term? Mcconn 03:32, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Replied to Andres above, but I'll make a few additional comments here.  I wish you'd place your reply in the correct section though, Mcconn.  Now to your questions.  In addition to what I said above, I have read other similar persecution-alleged pages - one obvious one being Guantanamo Bay.  On that page, the only mention of the word 'persecution' was when it was qualified by "Organization X alleged this and that".  This would be great in the main article itself, but in a title to describe an action, we are not afforded that luxury.  Hence, read my reply above for my conclusion.  Jsw663 16:58, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The 'little girl doing Falun Gong' picture in the pre-intro 

message: All of the subpage summaries on the main page are one or two paragraphs except for the criticism/controversy subpage, which has individual subsections with links and summaries for each subsection on its main page. So I am suggesting reducing this to one or two paragraphs, like the summaries of other subpages. First, I'd like to know who supports this idea and who doesn't. If you don't support it, then please state why. If most are in favor then perhaps someone can take up the responsibility to write a draft and post it on the talk page for review. Mcconn 23:01, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, I do not support this obvious attempt to dilute the Criticism and controversies summary on the main page.  You seem to be bothered that there are separate links to sub-articles which happen to appear on the same Criticism page, but not bothered that at the same time this material was created the FG practitioners created a bunch of separate pages to promote the FG.  As I've said before, the placement of some of the sub-sections in the Criticism page is rather arbitrary.  For example, the "Is Falun Gong a cult?" subsection probably belongs on the main page, where it was at the very beginning of our discussions.  And there are other sub-sections in the Criticism page which could easily warrent their own separate pages.  Why should we have multiple pages which FG practitioners created, but only one Criticism page?  Is that really balanced?   --Tomananda 00:06, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Sorry, I made a mistake. The Scientology page does have a seperate subpage for criticism. Mcconn 04:19, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: For an example of a well-sourced critical page on a well-known subject, please have a look at Criticism of Coca-Cola. We have a lot of one-subject editors here, both pro- and anti-, so hopefully this should be interesting. --Fire Star 火星 15:56, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Criticism/Controversy summary on main page reduced to one or two paragraphs

message: Since it appears we are not going to work sequentially on editing the main page, I am posting here for discussion the new somewhat merged paragraph that I posted in the introduction section:
:Li claims to provide salvation for mankind http://www.falundafa.org/book/eng/north_america.htm and his Dafa (great law) is judging all beings in a process called Fa-rectification.http://falundafa.org/book/eng/jjyz2_46.htm In the Fa-rectification process,  all beings are judged based on the principles of Truthfulness, Benevolence and Forbearance and the attitude they have towards the Fa-rectification.  Li states:  “Once the saved ones have attained the Fa and left, the dregs of humanity and the degenerate world that are left behind will be weeded out.” http://www.falundafa.org/book/eng/jjyz2_28.htm   In more recent speeches, Li has stressed that “the old forces are to be weeded out during Fa-rectification, the vile party (the CCP) and the evil specters will likewise be weeded out for sure and all who have a hand in what they do.” http://www.clearwisdom.net/emh/articles/2006/6/10/74333.html The Fa-rectification process is said to be nearing completion.
For those who remember the previous complaints about what I had written, you'll notice that I have changed the previous reference to moral quality (an undefined concept if there ever was one) to the much more precise reference to Truthfullneess, Benevolence and Forebearance, which is the precise definition of what constitutes moral quality for Li Hongzhi and his disciples.  There are some other changes in the paragraph as well.  Please indicate your approval or disappoval of this new paragraph below, or alternatively suggest modifications you would like to see.--Tomananda 00:16, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Li Hongzhi has stated that by teaching Falun Dafa he is offering universal salvation to all sentient beings. Li Hongzhi has also stated that he initiated a process called Fa-rectification, which refers to the salvation, renewal, rectification and completion of the disintegrating old cosmos. In this process, all beings' attitudes toward Fa-rectification determines their position in the new cosmos, whether that is salvation or destruction; their attitudes toward the teaching of Truthfulness-Compassion-Forbearance is said to decide their future. The Fa-rectification process is said to be nearing completion. Of this, Li Hongzhi himself says: "Why did Fa-rectification have to be done? To save the beings in the cosmos - save all the beings in the cosmos, normalize bad beings and turn them into good ones, have sinful beings be rid of their sins, and have those warped beings reconstructed into good ones again. Dafa brings humankind these wonderful things, and it brings the beings in the cosmos these wonderful things. But during this persecution many beings have indeed lost their chances to be saved and have been denied salvation."
In some words, that is basically what Fa-rectification is, and I wrote a great deal in a long post above explaining how. I want you to read all of it. The things about the old forces and even further on, the CCP, may be introduced in another section explaining Fa-rectification, when there is time to go into more detail. This is the introduction, remember? I would actually not mind to see a properly written enclopedic article about Falun Gong that discussed all the beliefs and everything, so why don't you? You know, there is already enough for people to have all kinds of opinions when just neutrally presenting what Li Hongzhi has said, so why do you think it's better to misrepresent his words and what he has taught? I am actually not saying these things with the thinking that this is something really great for people to understand Falun Dafa. I would tell them to read Zhuan Falun on their own for that. But as an editor I feel that it would be bad for me to pretend he has not said these things, and try to weedle out of a frank discussion of it. I am telling you that I am extremely willing to engage in a frank discussion of these things on wikipedia, and I have demonstrated that, but I will resist any attempt to obscure and misrepresent Falun Dafa. --Asdfg12345 01:04, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Statement about salvation and Fa-rectification expanded to one paragraph 

message: Well I've read through a lot of the discussion above. I think this article is hopeless, unless we set some concrete deadlines, or all meet in person to discuss how to word everything. The hell with the mediation committee, what are they gonna know about all the ins and outs of Falun Gong and its socio-political background? One of the admins should step up and dictate some kind of procedure.
My e-mail is hongshi_fang@hotmail.com, if you'd like in-depth discussion feel free to e-mail or IM on MSN Messenger. I'd actually prefer one with jsw.   These talk pages hardly promote any new understanding, it's basically a prove-disprove cycle. We need to know when to stop. Colipon+(T) 04:53, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wake up? 

message: Pages of discussion about the in's and out's of Falun Gong, but no one has bothered to correct a simple typo?
"However after teh onset of the persecution"
: Agreed that and things like that should be fixed. On the other hand that is a straight forward fix, nobody would object/debate about it. --HappyInGeneral 12:19, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Much discussion, little basic editing? 

message: I am neither a practitioner nor a critic of fallun gong, and as a neutral curious reader, I find that the sentence "Falun Gong quickly grew in popularity in China because many people found what they had been searching for all their life, and starting in 1996 Li has introduced the practice to other countries" is not only non-neutral, but is an awkward stylistic mess.  The phrase "...because many people found what they had been searching for all their life,..." is unnecessary and should be deleted.--Crestodina 01:08, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for pointing the above, Crestodina.  In fact, the majority of the article is clearly not neutral, nor is it proportionally represented, etc.  However, the current sysop who locked the article on its biased version, Centrx, has allowed the last user Asdfg to go on a 'break', taking advantage of inaction to his benefit.  But then both sides' edit warring before has meant that unfortunate consequences have had to be taken.  It was a good move at first, but I see no reason for continuing this indefinitely or for much longer.  Jsw663 14:09, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  And for that we should have a clear section of change proposals on which we agree upon, right? --HappyInGeneral 15:43, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Which both sides engaged in for the past two months, but was undone by a bunch of unhelpful edit wars, section blankers, and now a complete freeze on the main FG entry.  If you remember, you also contributed to such a discussion, but this seems to have been abandoned.  PS Tomananda, please do NOT edit my posts, thanks.  Jsw663 20:13, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Non -neutral phase in origin paragraph. 

message: Coliphon couldn't be more right.  He said we need to know when to stop and that these talk pages are  "basically a prove-disprove cycle."  We had all requested a mediator, but nothing really came of it.  I'm beginning to wonder if any administrators, mediators or arbitrators are willing at this point to step in and really enforce Wikipedia standards.  We saw Omido repeatedly blanking large sections of the main page and some daughter pages only because they had critical content. He was warned by Firestar, but nothing happened.  Asdfg came along behind him and did the same wholesale blanking.  Then an administrator came along and froze everything.  Supposedly this page is being monitored by a whole bunch of interested parties with expertise in China, religion and the like.  Yet more importantly, there are many Falun Gong practitioner/editors whose very salvation depends on their ability to present a positive view of Master Li's teachings to the public.  Wikipedia is not unique in being used in this fashion...sometimes theatre is also used. For a recent example, I suggest we check out this interesting article about a falsely promoted New Tang Dynasty show in San Francisco at: 
Please be sure to read the comments. --Tomananda 09:59, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Normally I would give you a lengthy response on this, like what is the problem on having interested people on this topic, and so on ... , but for the moment I have only one question: how is your statement above help the editing, since you are basically just attacking practitioners, even though you probably agree with the fact that we indeed cultivate Truthfulness Compassion Forbearance? I think the best thing right now it would be to concentrate on a list of change proposals that we can discuss and agree upon. --HappyInGeneral 15:50, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thanks for that response, HiG.  Now turn your statement around by replacing FG practitioners with anti-FG persons, and vice versa.  Can you also adhere to your statement then?  In your insistence in responding to my response to the KM report, I should quote you: "how is your statement above help the editing, since you are basically just attacking [FG skeptics]"??  Jsw663 20:28, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  :) I hope that my statement above helps the editing process by point out the fact that we should concentrate on things that help the editing process :) --HappyInGeneral 18:17, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  You never responded to my question.  But then there wouldn't be a need to if the answer was obvious.  Jsw663 12:50, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  OK, then let me answer very clearly here as well. You used your OR, “analysis” on the Organ Harvest Investigation report, by Kilgrou & Matas to say the following: “08:28, 3 January 2007 Jsw663 (Talk | contribs) (Rv vandalism by Dilip. If you want to challenge this, do so on the Falun Gong discussion page where I tore into the so-called neutral Kilgour-Matas report.)” So my answer is actually because of your request. :) Of course after that you did state that your analysis is OR and it will not be used. So for the moment I’m in stand by on that. --HappyInGeneral 14:22, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  WP:No Original Research applies to the main Wikipedia entry, not discussion.  Otherwise, we will have to edit both sides' arguments heavily in the discussion as over half of it counts as 'original research'.  And just because there is a distinct lack of support for the pro-CCP side and sources does not mean there aren't such reports.  Should I constantly quote them as well, making long and unnecessary points about how FG does this and that?  It would be unhelpful to continue such a FG discussion.  Once again, your lack of will to contribute towards a more neutral FG entry but unlimited willingness to engage users in a purely FG good/bad discussion is worrying.  Wikipedia isn't established for that.  Jsw663 15:57, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

text: I am taking it easy, Andres.  In case you haven't noticed, I am pointing out what I consider to be misrepresentations done by Falun Gong practitioers.  A proper response would be: ah, maybe we have made some mistakes in what we have said.  But instead, you respond by saying "take it easy."  I am still concerned about Omido's editing behavior and the fact that even though Fire Star repeatedly called him on his POV warrioring, he has suffered no consequences.  Frankly, what is the point of producing edits if Omido can simply come along and blank them all out because of their critical nature.  Why should we bother?   And in case you haven't sensed it, I am especially outraged by Omido's attempt to lie about the documentable history of Falun Gong criticism in China.  That criticism began long before the ban.  No one questions that fact.  Yet Omido changed that fact to a  statement that criticism did not begin in China until 1999 and was only in response to the ban.  Come on, Andres.  You are an intelligent person.  Can't you see how that was a blatant attempt to whitewash the Falun Gong?  And yet this kind of duplicitous behavior has been a constant pattern in the pro-Falun Gong edits.  You might think that I am biased because of the Li Hongzhi quotes I select for reporting in Wikipedia, but at least I base all my edits on notable sources.  Frankly, I don't see how we can continure editing without the intervention of a mediator who can enforce basic Wikipedia standards, and that includes NPOV, no original reasearch, notablility and the sourcing of our material.  My edits have lived up to these standards consistently, whereas those of editors such as Omido have not.  I am tired of this game and again ask that a mediator intervene. --Tomananda 22:27, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Andres, may I ask why criticism of FG must be placed after the awards it gained?  I'm just curious.  As for Omido, I already placed the mediation case on hold, in the hope that Omido will be a constructive editor in the future.  I would thus urge Tomananda to exercise a little more restraint, even if others won't treat him likewise.  After all, part of negotiations is about moving towards a solution, and in order to achieve that we must get rid of the obstacles in our way first.  As long as Omido proves himself in the future not to be an obstacle any longer, I'm more than happy to have him contribute to our discussions as well as (constructive) editing.  Jsw663 11:47, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

text: If we do so, we will have to do a history/chronological entry for FG, e.g. "Falun Gong 19?? - 1999" and then "Falun Gong 1999-200?", etc.  That would be a dramatically new layout, but it could be positive - it would just mean a LOT of work.  Jsw663 12:50, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Any mediators available? 

message: The following are proposals drawn up for each of the sections on the Falun Gong page for easier navigation and better organization.
*/Introduction
All parties willing to compromise and not simply argue are invited to contribute. Colipon+(T) 22:05, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Task Panel Navigation

message: Hello, was just visiting the site. All citations after 12 are appearing as coded text on the site proper. Perhaps one of you can fix this, it's probably a matter of minutes or seconds. 69.61.67.34 03:20, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Quick fix in citation section needed 

message: Since the main page has been unblocked, I've taken the modest step of restoring the original summaries for Criticism and Controversies.  I have not deleleted anything.  You will recall that in our discussions above, there was some agreement that Omido and then Asdfg had gone too far in blanking this material, therefore I have restored it.  We can talk about different ways of presenting these summaries, but I think we can all agree that the blanked version...which only preserved one line of summary and deleted all the links...was a far cry from balanced. --Tomananda 07:41, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Restoring the Criticism and controversies summaries 

message: Given the extremely lengthy discussions which occur on this page and extensive argument, I'm not surprised outside intervention & mediation has failed. I'm not intending to get involved in this but having briefly read the the discussion, I have to agree that 'persecuted' should not be used. Persecuted is an emotionally charged phrase. There is a vast amount of disagreement about whether the treatment of Falun Gong and it's supporters in China amounts to persecution. As such, using it as a fact (including of a title) is not NPOV and I would also consider it a word to avoid in this case. Far, far better to use more neutral and less emotionally described words and to mention the allegations etc. This may include claims the treatment amounts to a persecution or genocide if such claims are from a realiable source. Obviously, these claims should only be presented as claims and other POVs should be presented. Nil Einne 12:23, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I can claim that what happened to the Jews in WWII wasn't a genocide, and for whatever reasons there are some who do, but that doesn't mean it shouldn't be reported as such or that the word "genocide" should be given less weight. Why? Because the claim of "genocide" is supported by facts and experts. Similarly, when facts and experts suggest that Falun Gong practitioners are facing persecution in China, we shouldn't play that down just because some people here don't like that word. Mcconn 15:56, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Nil is correct.  The use of words like "persecution" or "genocide" are way too POV for Wikipedia to report as fact.  The Falun Gong uses these terms to attack the Chinese Communist Party, but even when it's own supporters, like human rights activist Harry Wu say that the FG is "straying too far from the truth." they ignore that criticism.  The bottom line is that Wikipedia itself cannot report these things as established fact, because they are not.  --Tomananda 19:57, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Falun gong practitioners like to use words like genocide and persecution to solicite support from the public.  But at the time they continue to lie to the public about their true beliefs.  I don't think we should use these terms because they do not reflect the facts.  It is offensive to me that Falun Gong practitioners use the genocide of Jews to make their case. The Falun Gong is a deceptive cult, but the Jews are victims of a racist and brutal regime.  --Yueyuen 01:33, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

text: McConn, I have replied to your reply.  Your insistence on promoting one side's agenda at the total expense of the other is worrying, and shows motivation of personal beliefs rather than neutral Wiki policy.  Jsw663 13:26, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Replied.  The CCP does NOT admit to suppression and thus I am not promoting a CCP agenda, so once again your fantastical allegations are groundless.  I will, however, admit I am trying to promote a Wikipedian agenda. Jsw663 13:23, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Quick opinion 

message: I must say I am very impressed by the findings of Li et al. (2005) on the Journal of Alternative and Complementary Medicine (JACM). I have read the journal, actually, and this is just a perspective look on how these studies are not presented in the right fashion, and actually don't prove that much.
I do not doubt whatsoever that Falun Gong has health benefits. However, the fact that in the JACM Qi Gong studies are extensively covered should not be ignored. It is fair to say that FLG is but an offshoot of Qigong on a purely physical level, and that through empirical evidence I would argue that many Qi Gong studies have proven health benefits, and by the way the section looks now it seems Falun Gong is taking exclusive claim to these health benefits. Let me expand by quoting the study itself (Li et al., 30):
:Subjects
:Eligible subjects were 18 years of age or older. Six (6) Asian FLG practitioners (3 males and 3 females, mean age, 46.7 _ 13.3 years) and 6 Asian normal healthy controls (3 males and 3 females, mean age, 41.3 _ 11.3 years) were recruited by advertisement for our study. The practitioners had practiced FLG for at least 1 year (range, 1–5 years). The practice includes daily book reading (Li, 1994) and daily FLG exercises lasting 1–2 hours each time. Selected normal healthy controls had not performed Qigong, yoga, t’ai chi, any type of mind–body practice, or physical exercise for at least 1 year . With the approval of the Institutional Review Board and after informed consent was given, 30 mL of heparinized blood was taken from each subject.
I do not have the qualifications to debate any of the results myself. However, in the methodology, one must note the part about "...or physical exercise for at least 1 year", I am a bit unclear as to what this refers to. In addition, 12 people were used as subjects in total. The sample space seems awfully small. Most importantly, however, when the authors of the study are emphasizing the fact that these people who are non-FLG have also not practiced QiGong, Yoga, T'ai Chi, or any type of mind-body exercise, to say that Falun Gong can claim exclusivity to these benefits (as any western reader may interpret while reading this section) is absurd. I myself have practiced QiGong, and so do many family members as a way of keeping healthy, to me, to say that FLG is more effective than any other mind-body exercise seems an unfair assertion. To have a few studies support these seemingly exclusive benefits from Falun Gong is somewhat inappropriate.
This is a suggestion, that we find studies relating to how Falun Gong compares with conventional QiGong or even Yoga in terms of health benefits. Then these claims to health benefits can be fairly brought to light. I think the section should remain, but needs work. Feedback would be greatly appreciated.
I just looked at the Chinese study. I can only gasp in awe at its sheer simplicity by which the "conclusions" are based upon. I don't think I even have to debate the methodology there. I can't believe there's even a link on here to that. Colipon+(T) 01:26, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Colipon, I think you've got some good points here. I wish there were more studies, like those done on Taichi, done on Falun Gong. To Falun Gong practitioners, the health benefits are not only clear, but often astounding. We'd like to report those in anyway we can, but it's hard when so little scientific studies are available. Actually, I believe that during the 90's there were more studies done in China that simply aren't available now. It's a shame. I would be open to see what changes you suggest for the section, although I suggest that you post them here first before making them. I also want to say that I've seen in your edits that you are striving for neutrality. So although I still may not agree with all of them, I see your effort, and respect that.Mcconn 16:42, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The problem for health studies (I've been involved in a few) and faith healing like FLG is that in Li's teaching there is no independantly reproducible mechanism for any health benefits which may accrue from the practise. Physically, there are 5 simple qigong-like exercises, but most other qigong systems, especially the martial ones, are more complicated and more thoroughly defined in their range of motion and application. What Li proposes energetically in his lectures is that his students have to surrender their will entirely to him and then he somehow (either directly or indirectly) puts his energy into his followers to get the FLG wheel turning internally. Most medical doctors or academics (outside of psychologists or perhaps anthropologists) would laugh you out the door after such a proposition. They want to see a chain of cause and effect from A to Z, with every stage discussed and diagrammed. If you get past that stage, then there is the issue of the critical stream of a controllled study that the hopeful devotee will have to be able to swim in. Science is a tough business! --Fire Star 火星 17:32, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

text: I'm sorry they are embarassing, but these are things Li has said many times in his lectures, implicitly and explicity. Don't shoot the messenger. --Fire Star 火星 14:50, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Give me a break, Asdfg.  When an editor does quote Li, you object to the quote. I have repeatedly quoted Li (directly or indirectly) ony to have those quotes blanked by you.  Fire Star is only posting a comment in disucssion here, not posting an edit entry.  And regardless, "submit to Li's will" is a pretty accurate description of the relationship between a practitioener and the master, isn't it?  Are you willing to state right now that Li is wrong in his teachings on any subject?  Or that you are comfortable disregarding his directives if you don't agree with them?  --Tomananda 01:36, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

text: I'd like ASDFG to respond to my comments about the health benefits which he seems to have forgotten. Colipon+(T) 02:33, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

text: No, I don't think you responded well at all. I don't really understand what you are trying to say, and I don't think you truly understood what I was trying to say either. My contention stands until you reach this understanding, and gather some evidence to back up these circumstantial claims of yours. Colipon+(T) 07:26, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Health Benefits 

message: *If you always reject reproaches and criticism, always point your fingers at others, and always refute others' disapproval and criticism, is that cultivating? How is that cultivating? You have grown used to focusing on other people's shortcomings, and never take examining your own self seriously.
Given the founder's teaching on reproaches and criticism, I wonder if the best response to "suppression" or "persecution" is to point a finger at the "evil suppressors" (as the Epoch Times has done at great lengeth). It appears followers are departing from the recommended course.
But the real question is what Wikipedia contributors should do. I would not make a fuss over whether the ban amounts to "suppression" or "persecution". Clearly, everything about Falun Gong is controversial. Every claim is balanced by a counter-claim. They're tortured like animals, they're left alone. Their deceptive hooligans, they're fine upstanding people. It's a religion, it's a cult. And so on. 
Unless you all agree that you "cannot tell whether I have a dog in this fight" from the above, I'm not going to be able to supply "neutrality assistance" here. But I'd be glad to help if I could. --Uncle Ed 18:16, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Criticism and opposition

message: :I'm reposting this section since it never really took off when it was originally posted. Tomananda, I hope you can write a response since you are the one mostly concerned with this section. Mcconn 17:49, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That would be fine w/me. There should be consistency. --Fire Star 火星 18:39, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

text: No, I do not support this obvious attempt to dilute the Criticism and controversies summary on the main page.  You seem to be bothered that there are separate links to sub-articles which happen to appear on the same Criticism page, but not bothered that at the same time this material was created the FG practitioners created a bunch of separate pages to promote the FG.  As I've said before, the placement of some of the sub-sections in the Criticism page is rather arbitrary.  For example, the "Is Falun Gong a cult?" subsection probably belongs on the main page, where it was at the very beginning of our discussions.  And there are other sub-sections in the Criticism page which could easily warrent their own separate pages.  Why should we have multiple pages which FG practitioners created, but only one Criticism page?  Is that really balanced?   --Tomananda 00:06, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Sorry, I made a mistake. The Scientology page does have a seperate subpage for criticism. Mcconn 04:19, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: For an example of a well-sourced critical page on a well-known subject, please have a look at Criticism of Coca-Cola. We have a lot of one-subject editors here, both pro- and anti-, so hopefully this should be interesting. --Fire Star 火星 15:56, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Criticism/Controversy summary on main page reduced to one or two paragraphs

message: I find it curious that the page is always locked on pro-FG versions, even for paragraphs that were broadly agreed upon (ie except for a few things here and there) before.  It seems certain users, including (worryingly) Asdfg12345, who returned just when a constructive solution was being discussed by users from both sides, and who also previously claimed to be working towards a Wiki solution, is taking advantage of lockdowns in edit wars to get their version across.  If this persists we can never have a proper Wiki entry, and sysops should do more to rectify this.  I know non-involvement should be practised, but if people are taking advantage of a supposedly non-involvement Wiki policy to their advantage (in essence, Wiki vandalism via section blanking) then it is clear that they have no interest in seeing an ultimate compromise.  They only have an interest in seeing their version being put forward and will do ANYTHING to ensure this is the case - even be willing to start an edit war to ensure their version is locked to prevent further edits of it.  And if this remains the case, sadly, it will be up to those with Wiki powers to rectify this, but if they don't, will point out a severe failing of Wikipedia as a supposed encyclopedia in general.  An alternative solution is mediation, but that hasn't worked, nor has the ArbCom thing.  See next section for the rest of this reply.  Jsw663 19:24, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit wars - those who start one to ensure their view is 'locked from editing 

message: I made a very long post about the term Fa-rectification and also presented a paragraph to sum it up. You did not respond to the long post, and you did not make any concrete points about how the paragraph I presented did not represent Fa-rectification. It is actually wrong to say that what you are presenting is just Li Hongzhi's words. You are presenting your interpretation of them. "...his Dafa (great law) is judging all beings in a process called Fa-rectification.", based on this: 
Foretelling the Fa’s Rectification of the Human World
The Fa-rectification moves through the world, the grand manifestation of Gods and Buddhas unfolds, and all of the chaotic world’s unrighted wrongs and karmic relationships are settled with benevolent solutions. The ones who do evil against Dafa go down into the gate of no-life. As for all the others, people’s hearts return to righteousness and they cherish virtue and do good, all the myriad things are renewed, and every single sentient being reveres Dafa’s saving grace. All of the heavens and the earth celebrate together, congratulate each other, and exalt together. Dafa’s most glorious period in the human world begins at this moment.
Li Hongzhi
December 9, 2001
That is your own stuff you draw from that. That statement should not go on wikipedia at all. Fa-rectification should definitely be mentioned in a quick explanation of Falun Dafa in the introduction, because it is in some ways a major part of the teachings, but I hope you understand when I say that your proposal is difficult for me to treat as a serious attempt to actually explain Fa-rectification. So to me, I think that there should be a mention of it, but not an attempt to explain it in the introduction - but that there should be a bit more of an explanation further below in the page. Maybe you think I am trying to hide the teachings. I hope you don't think that. I am not. We can put it in the introduction but I think that would be a bit unwieldy for wikipedia. Of course, I don't have anything to hide.--Asdfg12345 01:44, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  here 

message: Pro-falun gong editors, you have again removed two important sections, “Depravity of today’s people” and “Sickness Karma” on 
Teachings of Falun Gong page.  Also, “Interviews with Mr. Li Hongzhi” and “Li's claims of divinity” sections on Li Hongzhi page.  Since material in these sections are directly referenced to falun gong’s own websites and some to major US media, there can be no justification for their removal.  Edit wars have been provoked by your aggressive and outrageous edits repeatedly.  I am tired of reverting them again and I hope you can truly be truthful and stop removing these sections.  Thanks --Mr.He 20:39, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I love how no one replied to this. Colipon+(T) 19:02, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

text: The reasons for removing these sections are explained on those page's talk pages. If you feel that the reasons aren't good, you can say so there. The divintiy section was not removed, only renamed. Mcconn 19:04, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Definately the section you are referring to, Mr. Pirate. See the talk page. Mcconn 22:51, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Mcconn, what I and many other editors have said for a long time is that we should not do editing at the expense of other editors.  What that means is, wholesale blanking of sourced material should not be allowed.  There's a big difference between changing a title of a section (eg: the Divinity section) versus blanking out an entire section (what you and others have done to the Interviews with Li section.)   What really disturbs me is that you seem to want there to be a double standard.  There is quite a lot of pro-FG material on these various pages which I have often been tempted to delete, because I don't think it meets Wiki standards.  Specifically, I am referring to the very long block quotes of Master Li which do not read like an encylopedia article, but rather as excerpts from a book.  I have not blanked that material because I assume eventually we will get around to improving those sections.  Yet when it comes to things that the pro-FG editors don't like, they simply delete it...even whole paragraphs or sections.  Sorry, but that amounts to a double standard.  If the material is sourced and relevant, than it should not just be deleted.  Instead, as Jsw proposed some time ago, we should have discussions about balance and weight.  --Tomananda 20:59, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

text: It's interesting that you would say this after my reasons for removing that section have been sitting without reply for well over a month now. I repetedly tell people to take their quarrel to the talk page, just as I've done above. And I'm repetedly ignored. Sometimes there are good reasons for deleting entire sections, and if no one has anything to say in response to these reasons, am I just supposed to leave it there? I don't think so. I rarely make edits for which I don't provide an explanation in the edit summaries or on the talk page. If I've only explained my edit in an edit summary, and find that it's been reverted, I almost always go right to the talk page to explain it more thoroughly and initiate a discussion. Mcconn 03:47, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Mcconn, Many editors (including Firestar) have restored those sections you deleted repeatedly, does this mean anything to you?  The rule is very simple, you are not allowed to remove sourced material.  This is the response you have been getting from me on the edit summary.  I don’t think it needs to be repeated on the talk page.  Your blankimgs have only provoked revert wars and protection of these pages, why continue?  --Mr.He 07:15, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Show me this rule. I've got an idea. How about I create a section called "Lectures of the master" and then quote all the things I think are interesting from all the lectures he's ever given. Or, even better, I could create a section called "adjectives and adverbs". In it I could list all of the adjectives and adverbs that Mr. Li has used that I consider interesting. Don't worry, I would make sure everything was sourced. By virtue of what you said, I suppose these sections couldn't be removed, could they? Do you see how ridiculous this logic is? Get to the talk page. Mcconn 15:52, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Mcconn, you don’t seem to respect others and show no desire for peace.  I have tried my best to reach an agreement with you and other FGers; now I will do my best to protect those sections.  --Mr.He 22:54, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: pro-falun gong editors stop concealing info

message: Any of you who has a bit of time to spare should really read the following study. It really opens up your mind. Entrepreneurial Logics and the Evolution of Falun Gong  Colipon+(T) 00:09, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That link has nothing at it - is there a mistake or something? You know, since you are really NPOV, why don't you post anything that says favourable things about Falun Gong? Anyway, just a little joke. We find these things interesting and they should be included in wikipedia, have no doubts. I have no judgments and everyone's opinion is worth considering, right? I just want to say, to cultivators we find these things a bit funny. We just read the books, do the exercises, meditate and cultivate our xinxing. We don't want anything like money or power, and especially Teacher, he taught us to be this way, so even less does he want them. It would be wonderful if you were pursuing these things out of a desire to see a balanced wikipedia article rather than a desire to discredit Falun Gong. Like I said, if it were just us the pages would like like falundafa.org, and be short and simple explanations with links to the books. That is not really an encyclopedia, is it, so it is good to bring in all these things and report them. I just wished it would be more like an academic exercise rather than anything else, and that you realise Dafa is harmless and has taught us all to be good and kind people. That is what we want people to know. We just want to cultivate our xinxing and become good. Maybe this old Taoist story will help you to understand the way we think about these things, when people say Teacher is trying to make money or build up some thing. You know Chuang Tzu.
Owl and Phoenix
Hui Tzu was prime minister of Liang province. He had heard that Chuang Tzu wanted his job and was plotting to usurp him. When Chuan Tzu came to visit Liang, Hui Tzu sent police to arrest him. The police searched unsuccessfully for three days and nights, but in the meantime Chuang Tzu presented himself at the palace voluntarily. He said to Hui Tzu: “Have you heard about the bird that lives in the south, the phoenix? It never grows old. It drinks only from the clearest springs. It rises out of the South Sea and flies to the North Sea without touching land or water, except to alight on sacred trees from which it takes its only food, the most exquisite rare fruit. “Once, an owl, chewing a dead, half-decayed rat, saw the phoenix fly overhead. The owl looked up and screeched with alarm, frantically clutching the rat to protect his kill. “Why are you frantically clutching your ministry and screeching at me with alarm?”
--Asdfg12345 02:16, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

text: I've restored Asdfg's story. Colipon, your deleting part of Asdfg's post and putting your own words in it's place is in serious violation of wiki policy. Mcconn 18:02, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You offer me very valuable advice, McConn. In the near future I will probably incorporate your advice above in a big quotation on the talk page so every can see understand Wiki policy in an emphasized manner. Meanwhile could you pro-FLG editors please go read the study. That is the topic of discussion, please do not try to change it. After that perhaps read all my comments from above again and try to refine it to find deeper meaning. Colipon+(T) 18:56, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Just a side comment.  If pro-FG editors keep on insisting other parties read pro-FG sources, studies, etc., the least they could do is practice what they preach as well by reading and considering non-pro-FG sources.  This assumes that FGers are receptive to criticism.  However, try not to let this sink into a FG discussion forum again.  Jsw663 19:45, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

text: I do, and I believe the others do too. I've been looking for that study, and now that you've presented a link, I'll gladly read it. Mcconn 21:18, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Study may include "Opinions worth considering"

message: The current version of the article says:
The foundation of Falun Dafa are teachings known in traditional Chinese culture as the "Fa" (Dharma), or "Dharma and principles" – that are set forth in the book Zhuan Falun.
Since taking over the government of China in 1948 China has striven to uproot "traditional Chinese culture" and even though that attempt probably could not be called an unqualified success, nevertheless what exists in China today is a far cry from the kind of life, the kind of values, that were uppermost during the time before the fall of the Qing dynasty.  Yet whoever wrote the above sentence seems to think that the new is the traditional.  If these teachings were "known in traditional Chinese culture" they would not be causing such controversy today. Moreover, they could not be "set forth" in the Zhuan Falun, they could only be repeated or given a commentary.
If there is any truth at all to the statement, then the author should be able to provide ample evidence that the expression "Dharma and principles" was a common one before the "Falun Dafa" came on the scene.  If there was a regular association of these terms, the the words "set forth" should be changed to "explained." P0M 07:58, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Quite so, there has been a couple years of POV creep as the pro- side pushes an agenda of one sided advertising. As larger matters are reverted back and forth smaller (in size, not importance) details like this have gotten missed in the rush. The Chinese word fa is actually a common usage, not just in Buddhism, and the following wiktionary link will give some background info: 法. --Fire Star 火星 14:42, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Strange idea of history 

message: We currently link to Supression of the Falun Gong which doesn't exist. Should it be the Falun Gong or Supression of Falun Gong which does exist? 203.109.240.93 14:53, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah IC, the silly persecution argument came up again with a revert war and the last version happened to be slightly wrong. 203.109.240.93 14:59, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Supression of the Falun Gong or remove the 

message: i think i made clear there are rejected case in chinatwon jakarta i didn't know why they erase even i am prove there picture about the rejected banner (i didn't understand why falun gong people can not ecept concept falungong could be reject cause they activitydid they think every place  would acept and welcome them every where? such absurd if they think every place would acept them [well i see as denial phase they are not ecept any rejection, see]) did my foto not prove there is reject case? and certainly i have put link adress about the incident so both side argument would be put in there to read, not only one side story. http://www.indonesiamatters.com/570/falun-gong-in-jakarta/ Daimond 06:15, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Because the parade organizers insist that the parade remain non-political.  In a prior year, the FG had been granted permission to march on the condition that they not engage in political activities, but they distributed anti-CCP propaganda anyway.  Chinese New Years is meant to be an inclusive holiday celebration for everybody, not an opportunity to divide the community into two camps: those for and those against the CCP.  In order to participate in the parade, the practitioners need to let go of their attachment to progandizing against the CCP, but I doubt they can do that since Master Li requires them to work towards the destruction of the CCP as a condition of their salvation.   BTW: by using the word "political" I merely refer to the agenda to destroy a foreign government.  FG practitioners always claim they are not "political" because they define the term very narrowly.   So please, guys, let's not get into another discussion of whether the FG is "political."  Clearly your Master's goal, and your required activity as Fa-rectrification Dafa disciples is to work to destroy the CCP.  --Tomananda 22:21, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I see. Thanks for the reply. Colipon+(T) 22:24, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You're welcome. For background information about the parade denial and actions by the San Francisco Board of Supervisors at that time, check out:   Towards the end of the article the Chinese Chamber of Commerce president is quoted about the reasons for the parade denial.--Tomananda 22:26, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  This info would be very useful in the Falun Gong outside China article. --Sumple (Talk) 23:43, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  falungong outside china

message: Came across this article on Yahoo news and wanted to know more about this "Falun Gong"- admittedly I was ignorant to what "Falun Gong" was. So straight to Wikipedia I go and find quite the little mess and a bigger mess on the talk page. I think this article holds the record for protect/ unprotect. As a completely neutral (ignorant) reader who came here to educate myself on a topic that I had never heard of before (hence the pedia part of Wikipedia)- I certainly hope the editors can find some middle ground as this article could be very good given the amount of references. Currently there are nearly more references than there is body to the article. For my two cents I hope that editors on both sides and in the middle just don't lose sight of why they are doing this so that people like me can come here and read a good "encyclopedic" description of this topic.Cireshoe 08:24, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If these harvesting organs allegations are true (I actually do not doubt it), whoever is in charge of it should seriously make the smart decision to stop harvesting people's organs. It is not only quite terribly immoral and inhumane, but gives Falun Gong ample ammunition to mask Li Hongzhi and Falun Dafa's real background, exacerbating the current problem with mainstream western media which focuses on Falun Gong's persecution but not its origins and very doubtful leader. Colipon+(T) 02:52, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, but if David Kilgore and David Matas are truly sincere about correcting a "disgusting form of evil", I challenge them to go live on TV and present their findings. Instead, so far, they have been doing this type of investigation secretly, largely without any oversight from the general public.Btmachine333667 03:38, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Btmachine, thanks for having the same opinion as I did when I challenged the Kilgour/Matas report in one of the above sections on the discussion page.  Their evidence is suspect at best, and that is sad for a lawyer to start drawing firm conclusions on such shaky evidence really.  Why have they suddenly committed themselves to a FG cause where they can get next to no reliable evidence if they were truly 'independent'?  Seems a little suspect.  Anyway, thanks for Cireshoe / Btmachine for airing their views on here. Jsw663 19:46, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

text: I thought we were not going to sink back into a FG discussion forum on Wikipedia.  You are entitled to your own views, but please don't simply crush any views aired by those who aren't heavily involved in the editing simply because they don't agree with yours.  After all, I could equally say that the US State Dept dismissed the Sujiatuan thing yet you insist that it took place; is your opinion worth more than the US State Dept's?  But this is not a helpful comment and breaches the Wiki guideline on Civility.  Jsw663 11:22, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  More News On Harvesting Organs

message: Hello.  Since my view on the matter was requested some time ago, I have made a suggestion that I hope all will find equitable, although I am not sure how likely that is to actually be the case. I encourage you to share your views on the matter, especially considering my suggestion is rather bold.
You are encouraged to discuss the matter at Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/Falun Gong/Suppression, persecution, genocide or other.
Thanks!
— Armedblowfish (talk|mail) 02:29, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mini-mediation on suppression / persecution / genocide / outlawing / other