Talk:Falun Gong/Archive 15

message: I have archived the last month's worth of discussions.
Since our request for mediation has stalled, the next stage is perhaps to investigate an informal mediator from the Mediation Cabal. Otherwise, we should make a request for arbitration with the arbitration committee. I will do some research in the next week or so to find out what we'll need. In the meantime, remember this is not an FLG discussion board. No amount of argument or accusation will have any effect on the article in its present state whatsoever, so please refrain from either pro or con polemics as they will simply clog this page to no good end. --Fire Star 火星 18:23, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have just made a request for another informal mediator from the Mediation Cabal. If that doesn't go anywhere, then we should go to the Arbcom. --Fire Star 火星 18:51, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Next stage of [[dispute resolution]] 

message: Is mediation even possible for an entry about Falun Gong?  Given the controversy, I don't think true mediation is possible, regardless of whether you ask the ArbCom, the MedCab or any other party.  Think about it - how many people can have truly neutral views on both the CCP and FLG, as well as have a relatively centrist political inclination (ie not pro- or anti- human rights / 'freedom of religion') and not be involved in the matter in some way (eg through ethnicity) yet be sufficiently knowledgeable? Jsw663 06:41, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The problem does seem intractable. I consider myself to be neutral, but I also acknowledge that what I consider to be a neutral reading of the issue makes Li Hongzhi look very much like a megalomaniacal nutjob. I do acknowledge that as my opinion, however, and wouldn't (and didn't) express that opinion in the article. The public domain reports of grandiose claims he publishes about himself, his (and his disciples') word-gaming promotion of FLG and his post-CCP suppression flight to the USA led me to that opinion. So, not wanting to state any opinion in the article itself, I can also see why it is necessary for a complete picture to report exactly the things Li himself claims for himself (what led me to my opinion in the first place); the statements that attempt to differentiate FLG from as well as associate FLG with mainstream Chinese religion (his claims of superiority for FLG over any other system of qigong for example), his xenophobic public lectures and his claims of himself as the only effective universal saviour contrasted with his also calling himself an ordinary human. Notwithstanding those issues I also personally believe the CCP are indeed a gang of thugs who routinely overreact on religious speech issues such as this one, and that Li and FLG have received notable support from governments and human rights groups around the world. But, to FLG acolytes, my resistance to having the article be a simple advert for FLG makes me a biased editor. I can accept that (everyone is entitled to their opinion!) and I do agree that some editors here are unremittingly hostile to Li and FLG at the same time they are uncritical of the CCP. We have had a good run at a mediation in the past, before it was derailed by issues outside of any of our control. We may yet be able to have another successful mediation, but it is also very likely that we may not. I feel it is worth one more try. Failing that, an Arbcom decision, enforceable by administrators, is the only way I can see towards getting this page unlocked and subsequent to that having it relatively unmolested by edit wars. --Fire Star 火星 14:14, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

text: For two reasons, both related to the article, and not intended to provoke believers (although I knew it would anyway, unfortunately: "... to FLG acolytes, my resistance ... makes me a biased editor"). The first reason is for transparency, so that everyone, especially the people new to the subject whom we've asked to help, will know where I stand. I'm suspicious of both FLG and the CCP, in other words, which is in reply to a point raised by Jsw663 above about the possibility of neutrality. Everyone has an opinion, and my considered professional experience in Chinese cultivation methods (wen and wu, civil and martial) leads me to the conclusions I have reached about Li and his FLG. The second reason I wanted to highlight my opinions above was to show, as I mentioned twice in the process, that I sincerely believe those (or anyone's) opinions have no place in the article. What does belong in the article are the published positions of Li and FLG worldwide that led me to those opinions. I saw an identifiable pattern in those utterances, others' mileage will vary. We are in the information business, what people do with the information isn't up to us. You may even get some new FLGers if they like what they read... --Fire Star 火星 15:52, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

text: I agree; our perspectives as editors is relevant to the article because it allows us to be honest and transparent. Indeed, if you have an opinion different from Fire Star's, please express it, because through such honesty and clarity an unbiased article can spring forth. 67.100.45.134 04:55, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is mediation possible on such a controversial topic? 

message: Why dont we divide the article up into three equal pieces. One is about the actual religion, one is about support of the human rights about the religion, and one is about how the religion is being prosecuted. If someone is feeling a certain opinion which they think may lead to them vandalising the article, they shouldn't edit anything except the prosecuted part. That way, only part of it gets messed-up, instead of the whole article. Its not a perfect solution, but it should last until the dispute gets mediated. Perhaps if everyone insists on acting so immature and persists to vandalize articles to the point that they must be locked-up and protected from editing by everyone so that they don't turn into giant vandalism forums, then its time to rewrite the whole article. maybe a fresh start is all that this article needs.
Ilikefood 15:14, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You really have no clue, do you?  This is not some college exercise.  This is for real - life & death.
Cj cawley 10:23, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Because according to cult experts, the PRC, and victim testimonials, Falun Gong has led to the deaths of many of its practioners. But according to Falun Gong, the PRC is killing their people. Who controls this Wikipedia page controls the opinion of people who come finding out about the "true nature" (whatever that may be) of Falun Gong, and it is not entirely impossible that what they read here can get them killed, one way or another. -- Миборовский 22:43, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  How to make everyone happy at once 

message: In order to have adequate information for the Arbitration Committee about what is happening the article needs to be unprotected. Fred Bauder 21:54, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: But in this case the chaos would be good chaos. -- Миборовский 01:25, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: After several hours no one is editing. I'm sure they will be along, but this pot is not boiling. Fred Bauder 02:28, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, it is quiet, too quiet... ;-) I think the page has been protected so long everyone is out of the habit of compulsively checking it. --Fire Star 火星 12:34, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Unprotected

message: :Yet another convert seeking to push the links as often as possible and convert others. It gets old when you've seen the same thing from the 20th or so editor. CovenantD 04:05, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  I have a suggestion. 

message: Surely this subject has been discussed before, but I want to raise it again. If we described what the CCP is doing to Falun Gong merely as a 'ban', that would be completely inadequate and it would hide the facts about what they are doing. The way this event is referred to is important. It has been labelled as a genocide by Vice-President of the European Parliament, and it fits the definition of a genocide. From the wikipage: 
"Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (CPPCG) Article 2 as "any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnic, racial or religious group, as such: Killing members of the group; Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life, calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part; Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group; and forcibly 
transferring children of the group to another group."
Jiang Zemin's infamous order to “demoralize them mentally, bankrupt them financially, and eliminate them physically,”, and everything one can find to read about this that does not come from the CCP would indicate that it is a genocide. I can find some links to different reports from the UN, human rights groups, even the recent highly regarded and very clear Canadian report confirming the organ harvesting stuff,  if anyone needs to familiarise themself with what is happening here. 
It would be most accurate to refer to it as "genocide", but I get the impression that some of you would not like that word. So I am proposing that the term used to refer to what is happening be "persecution", rather than "suppression". Can we exchange ideas here about what different people think?--Asdfg12345 23:26, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Read the archives. CovenantD 18:42, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I agree with CovenantD, and want to add that you, Asdfg12345, should familiarize yourself with Wiki policies.  Loaded words are explicitly forbidden - and what may seem 'common sense' to one person may not to another living in another country.  I suggest you read the "Additional suggested Reading" section above which highlights Wiki's main policies.  If you disagree, please quote a Wiki policy/guideline to back up your POV, thanks.  Jsw663 22:32, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

text: I repeat, please use a Wikipedia POLICY and/or GUIDELINE to back you up.  I am not disputing content, but a violation of Wikipedia policy here. Jsw663 08:18, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

text: As I said above already, assuming you do read my replies in full, WP:NPOV (Neutral Point of View, a Wikipedia Policy).  'Genocide' and 'persecution' here is a loaded word (ie subjective).  And once again, as I said before, if you feel the word 'persecution' is justified in this case, please back your case up with a Wikipedia policy or guideline.  Jsw663 11:52, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

text: The words 'persecution' and 'genocide' already assumes that one party is clearly in the wrong, and by inference the other is clearly in the right.  You may say that there has ALLEGEDLY been persecution / genocide - that's different.  But to state that something is fact already when it is so controversial means you are already showing POV.  Why not let history determine if it was genuine persecution and genocide? Jsw663 17:22, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ban, Suppression, Persecution, or Genocide 

message: Religious or Spiritual aren't these too words pretty similar? Is there any reason to argue too much about them? My personal preference inclines to Spiritual because for me it inclines directly to the mediation part. Which, though is not the only part of Falun Dafa, it's an important component as well. Also Spiritual, about spirit, state of mind, character, al these ring a bell when talking about Falun Dafa. Religious, for me at least, it carries the burden of the obligation part, which is not present at all in Falun Dafa, since if you like it you can cultivate in it, if you don’t you can leave without any problem. --HappyInGeneral 21:07, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Replied on my talk page - I thought I was FOR putting the word 'spiritual' and AGAINST putting the word 'religious'.  Jsw663 15:29, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  True and I agree with you. Best regards. --HappyInGeneral 20:03, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Religious or Spiritual teachings? 

message: Falun Dafa refers to a set of religious teachings. Li claims that he and his Dafa are the only source of salvation for mankind and his Dafa (great law) is judging all beings in a process called Fa-rectification. [1]
Li's own words justify the use of this statement, if you disagree please provide your argument here. --Mr.He 00:39, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: (Just copying and pasting my text I typed above again here) - As for the introduction, notice I am NOT denying you the text on the entire page - just the very beginning, or the 'pre-introduction' if you like. There are far too many Wiki pages at present with ridiculously long intros that need to be cut down severely. Ideally the pre-intro should contain 50 words or less, but this is not a rule or guideline. The phrase 'spiritual teachings' embodies more or less all FLG beliefs, and if the reader wanted to know more details, they would read the rest of the page; if not, they wouldn't. Jsw663 18:27, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: intro

message: Again, as we discussed repetively for a while. Falun Gong, also known as Falun Dafa. Please do not use two defintions. Also the claim on Li is not supported by the citation. Fnhddzs 05:48, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Falun Gong, also known as Falun Dafa 

message: There has been reverts over the following passage in the intro: "Li claims to provide salvation for mankind  and his Dafa (great law) is judging all beings in a process called Fa-rectification. "
According to wikipedia edit policy this sourced statement is perfectly legitimate.   Its repeated deletion violates wiki policy.  --Kent8888 22:11, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It is a well-documented statement. Li does indeed claim such things, often, and I agree that it belongs in the article. The only question is whether it belongs in the intro. For myself, I feel it is significant enough of a public utterance (one doesn't meet someone claiming to be a universal qigong saviour every day, after all!) that I'll support its presence in the intro. --Fire Star 火星 22:52, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Who would be more fitting to edit pedophilia than pedophiles? Nazism than Nazis? Communism than communists? -- Миборовский 04:05, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Sorry, I couldn't help laughing after reading Miborovsky's reply.  How true it is though. Jsw663 13:58, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Миборовский was making an analogy, not calling FLG people Nazis or paedophiles. He was commenting that the proposition that only FLG people should edit the FLG article is as ridiculous as Nazis claiming that only they should edit the Nazism article. Of course, behaviour such as calling people whom you disagree with "children" will get you blocked, by me, if you continue to do so in violation of WP:NPA. --Fire Star 火星 16:51, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

text: The problem with including the statement above is that, unlike the rest of the paragraph, there is a lot of context behind understanding that statement. Also, by including a statement along those lines in the intro we are then opening the intro for inclusion of other statements at the same level of greater significance, such as upgrading xinxing (character), the existance of Buddhas, Daos, and Gods, etc. Just because a statement may be grand and shocking to some doesn't mean that it's worthy of being in the intro. And as Jsw pointed out, the intro is long enough as it is. I'm not going to take the initiative to remove it at this time, but I will if no one responds. Mcconn 14:54, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: first paragraph, intro

message: Good news everybody! Our case was accepted at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Falun Gong. Please keep an eye out for further developments. --Fire Star 火星 00:39, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mediation 

message: I know i still new in here and my english not so very good, so i not try verbal attacking them even i like to attack them cause make me and my community suffer cause they unwise action, so i still have upset and pain cause them, so i try erase my personal scream to them that my point in the main articel, even i accused they lying, but that cause i read the epoch time who have only one side story from they prespektif only and other story from they member, this to me like bending the truth, lying and what reality happend certainly in the field are diffrent. 
So I certainly  still upset cause they did and uncare to our community and culture and how they reaching they own agenda. who add more wound to us as result when we strugling to live in indonesia after we have been have mayor disaster in the past.
So better put reference who have both side reference that i have think for more balance for both side. 
and i bit told what is the indonesia chinatown to give perspektif what they do in this buisnis area.
so please who more advanced and more netral point of view.Daimond 07:20, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: jakarta,indonesia outrage

message: Seems like nothing's happening. How should we proceed? Are the mediators waiting for a blazing revert war, or should we just initiate some discussion here on the talk page? I have found some interesting new sources, and I'd really like to continue with the article. ---Olaf Stephanos 11:40, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is the first time I've checked the wp pages in weeks, and I'm really dissapointed that there has been absolutely no progress since I last checked. It's completely stagnent. Weren't we supposed to have gotten a mediator or something? If so, then where are they? I'd really like to continue too. Mcconn 14:45, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Mediation?

message: When I was in China, people told me that the local newspapers claimed that members of Falun Gong had killed some homeless people. Whether this is true or not, these claims by the Chinese government should be addressed in the article. That the Chinese government makes these claims (true or false) is fact. --Ryan Wise 06:08, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The Chinese government has made a lot of incredible statements. For example, they still claim that there was no massacre on the Tiananmen square in 1989. It's no problem mentioning such things in a proper context; they are typical (and worn-out) examples of political indoctrination. ---Olaf Stephanos 12:49, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I can be an evidence. I grew up from China, I had no idea of what the Chinese TV said could be lies until I left China and met my previous teacher. I was told by TV that no people died on the square and students killed the soldiers. My teacher told me he went to see the five rescued dead bodies put in the university across the street of our school. The bodies would have been erased as evidence if not rescued just as the police/army washed away the blood on the Tiananmen square by water. He had never (dared) mentioned such things before. The bodies were very very miserable. Some with their bicycles punching through their bodies when the tank grinded them. However, the sad things are reoccurring now. Even now, one of Chinese friends coming from China said he thought the organ harvesting is ok because he heard that Falun Gong teach practitioners suicide (such as self-immolation). The Falun Gong teachings clearly teach "committing suicide is sinful". The Chinese propoganda makers did not even read the Falun Gong teachings before they forged the claims. It's really sad. Fnhddzs 02:58, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  What sort of hyped-up exaggerated emotional appeal is that, Fnhddzs?  FLG may claim committing suicide is sinful yet, despite your not-so-subtle link on the self-immolation incident to a FLG source, one still cannot rule out, conclusively, that it did not happen.  As for organ harvesting, if anyone thought it was just some CCP practice, maybe you should question the American doctor who was in the news less than a month ago who was doing exactly the same thing.  I'm not saying it's morally and ethically praiseworthy but you can't simply lambast it as simply a uniquely CCP excess.  As for the Tiananmen incident you only talk about bodies and blood - merely emotional appeal.  If you condemn this incident, then to subsequently use this to justify any FLG belief is even more unacceptable.  (N.B. I refuse to make a judgement, moral or not, on the Tiananmen incident.  I believe history will later judge the incident more fairly).  Jsw663 10:55, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Chinese propaganda?

message: A lot of the content here doesnot conform to wikipedia rules regarding NPOV or Reliable Sources. Further, a lot of well sourced information has been deleted or replaced by self-written POV in the versions in which the pages are currently locked.
I was just going through the posts on the subject here..I really dont wish to contribute more to the arguments... and so am making this post under a seperate title. At the same time I would really urge you to go through the teachings of Falun Dafa for that is the only way we can work towards an objective article..
http://www.falundafa.org/eng/media.htm#GUANGZHOU
I know someone may suggest this topic has been brought up elsewhere... but please allow me to request you to go through atleast the first four lectures before voicing your opinion on the matter...
http://media1.minghui.org/media/dafa/en_mpg/rm-lectures/Lecture1.rm
http://media1.minghui.org/media/dafa/en_mpg/rm-lectures/Lecture2.rm
http://media1.minghui.org/media/dafa/en_mpg/rm-lectures/Lecture3.rm
http://media1.minghui.org/media/dafa/en_mpg/rm-lectures/Lecture4.rm
Master Da Liu, the Master who introduced Tai Chi to North America said at the age of 95,"I had been teaching Taichi and studying various Qigong practices for more than 40 years when I started looking into Falun Dafa. I now tell all my students to practice Falun Dafa."
I am not asking you believe anything or accept what Da Liu said .. but please give it a thought .. Tens of millions around the world find Falun Gong extremely beneficial to Mind and Body ..Why did Master Da Liu say so? If you just go through the lectures and try out the exercises you would objectively know what Falun Dafa is.. Isnt everything else just borrowed opinion .... 
220.226.58.72 06:38, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Of course, we do know that millions of Chinese people changed their former practices to Falun Dafa, but I remember Fire Star saying that Da Liu did not introduce Tai Chi to North America. Maybe it was a specific branch or something? Does somebody have more information? ---Olaf Stephanos 12:49, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

text: How ironic a post about striving for an 'objective, neutral' article should conclude with "please give [FLG's teachings] a thought".  We are not talking about objective and neutral for the average FLG practitioner.  We are talking about NPOV for the community, ie where more people are non-FLG than FLG, at large.  One can keep posting about 'objectivity' and 'neutrality' but if they are only undisguised covers for FLG propaganda then, since FLG discussion should be prohibited and that includes any pro-FLG teachings, this talk page ought to be drastically edited / reduced. Jsw663 16:09, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  PS Unless 220.226.58.72 can actually cite examples of POV etc., making an empty allegation merely confirms your own unwillingness to accept other opinions, even a truly neutral one.  Jsw663 16:11, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  On working towards an objectve, neutral article