Talk:Falun Gong/Archive 12

message: I think this might be easier if we stop working on the wording for a bit and decide what the central concepts are. So I'd like everybody to list what they think the two or three core principles are. No explanation, just a list. We can discuss after everyone's weighed in or 24 hours. And Truthfulness, Compassion and Endurance count as one. CovenantD 20:02, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: --Yenchin 20:04, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: What are the "central concepts?"

message: #Zhen, shan, ren (Truthfulness, Compassion and Endurance)
#Fa Rectification
#Li's role as saviour
Looking through the lists that were provided, would everybody agree that these three are the main, central concepts that should be in the lead section? (In addition to the ONE sentence that we've agreed upon.) CovenantD 13:02, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Summation of central concepts

message: How could I have missed this?  Here it is, Li's definition of "culvitation" spoken plainly and simply:
:"Cultivation is the process that enables a human being to ascend to heaven and become a god, so how could it not be hard?"  “My Version of a ‘Stick Wake-up’” (October 11, 2004)  http://faluncanada.net/library/english/jw/jw041011_e.html
Why don't we use these words in the introduction?  --Tomananda 22:27, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Master Li's Definition of "Cultivation"

message: Media reports have suggested Falun Gong practitioners receive health benefits from the cultivation practice.  Smith, Sally (March 8, 2002) "International Women's Day", Dawn Ontario-DisAbled Women's Network Ontario, retreived June 28, 2006Helal, Liala (May 4, 2005) "Students meditate using Falun Gong", The Minnesota Daily, retreived June 28, 2006Jiang, Hong (May 21, 2006) "Falun Gong Qi Gong", Wellife Faire Presentations, retreived June 28, 2006 McMillan-Scott, Edward (June 13, 2006) "Secret atrocities of Chinese regime", Yorkshire Post Today: Columnists, retreived June 28, 2006. However, little research has been undertaken into the purported health benefits of Falun Gong practice. A conference paper in 2004Li, Quan-Zhen; Garcia, Gabriela; Johnson, Richard et. al. (2004) "An ancient cultivation practice Falun Gong improves neutrophil functions and causes system-level gene regulation" The 12th International Conference On Second Messengers and Phospho-proteins, Meeting abstract, THP082, page 141, retrieved June 28, 2006 and a study by the same team published in 2005 using six subjects indicated there may be health benefits.Li, Q.Z., Li, P., Garcia, G.E., Johnson, R.J. and Feng, L. (Feb 2005) "Genomic Profiling of Neutrophil Transcripts in Asian Qigong Practitioners: A Pilot Study in Gene Regulation by Mind–Body Interaction" Journal of Alternative and Complementary Medicine, vol. 11(1), pp. 29–39, retrieved June 28, 2006, full text
References as follows:
Thanks, Hiding Talk 11:24, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Suggested Health Benefits

message: Please add the links to the quotes again! i accidentally erased them and dont have time to fix it.
Falun Gong, (; literally "Practice of the Wheel of Law") also known as Falun Dafa, (; lit. "Great Law of the Wheel of Law") is a system of mind and body cultivation introduced by Li Hongzhi (surname is Li) to the public in 1992. Falun Gong refers to five sets of meditation exercises (four standing, and one sitting meditation)Li, Hongzhi  "The Exercises of Falun Dafa", retrieved June 23, 2006 and several teachings Li, Hongzhi The Falun Dafa Books, retrieved July, 1, 2006 . Practitioners believe that when cultivating their xinxing (heart and mind nature or translated as character), they can assimilate to the core principles of --Truthfulness, Compassion, Forebearance-- which are also referred to as the "cosmic characteristic" Li, Hongzhi (Draft Translation Edition Feb. 2003, North America) One Standard Alone Determines if Someone is Good or Bad: Whether He is Able to be True, Good, and Endure from Zhuan Falun-The First Talk, Falundafa.org, retrieved July 5, 2006 (here we could provide a link to a daughter page explaining what that means in a neutral way of course).
In Zhuan Falun, Falun Dafa is introduced by Li in this way: “Our Falun Dafa is one of the Buddhist system’s 84,000 disciplines. It’s never been passed on to the general public before during this period of civilization, but it did once save people on a large scale in a prehistoric age. Today I’m spreading it again widely during this final period of the kalpa’s end, so it’s just extremely precious."Li, Hongzhi (Draft Translation Edition Feb. 2003, North America)Falun Dafa’s Special Features from Zhuan Falun-The First Talk, Falundafa.org, retreived July 5, 2006
Master Li, who is thought of as a person who has reached "enlightenment" or a "higher being" by many of his disciples, claims that his cultivation system is the most convenient source of salvation for mankind ever made public before. (Its not a final version but i think the "source of salvation" expression could be explained more in detail later on like on a daughter page or along the main article perhaps or maybe it could be changed, tell me what you think?)
I took one of the versions posted before and modified a few details, i think complicated topics can be mentioned but perhaps with a link to somewhere that can explain it more in detail. I was planning to elaborate another paragraph that can summarize the complicated concepts, when i finish it ill post it too. I think that if we are going to explain more in detail difficult terms like "The Last Havoc" or "Fa rectification" the critics must have their opportunity to express their oppinion just as we must have ours. I dont think this article is for promoting falun gong or anything, it must be neutral. Guys please tell me what you think! im sure we can come to a mutual understanding.--Andres18 02:19, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We should at least provide some kind of explanation such as a footnote to explain the special terms in cultivation community. Fnhddzs 16:21, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Andres, please include all of the references and links in your version above. If you have time to reply, you have time to include them. CovenantD 13:58, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

text: I tried to fix the references. It will turn out mixing with the previous references. But this won't be a problem in the final version. Fnhddzs 16:33, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Andres's Suggestion for the introduction

message: The full quote is this:
"Over the next two years, Ms. Chen became an enthusiastic participant, rising at 4:30 a.m. to exercise for 90 minutes in a small dirt lot with half a dozen other practitioners. After a day running errands for her children and grandchildren, Ms. Chen spent evenings reading the works of Mr. Li, the group's founder, and discussing his ideas with fellow members. Those beliefs incorporate traditional morality – do good works, speak honestly, never be evasive – as well as some idiosyncratic notions, such as the existence of extraterrestrial life and separate-but-equal heavens for people of different races."Ian Johnson, A Deadly Exercise, The Wall Street Journal, April 20, 2000 (emphasis added)
This was changed to:
Ian Johnson notes that Falun Gong beliefs "incorporate traditional morality... as well as some idiosyncratic notions, such as the existence of extraterrestrial life" and segregated heavens for people of different races.
You'll notice that the quote stops at "extraterrestrial life." Then the word "segregation" is added, and linked to "racial segregation." I don't know why someone cut the quote short and re-interpreted Johnson's meaning. It's unclear why there should be a need for this character of change. Paraphrasing and so forth is fine, but we should be careful not to inadvertently give a meaning to the quote that the writer did not already provide. Unless Johnson said that he believes Falun Gong teaches racial segregation, then putting it in like this may give a misleading impression to the reader. I won't comment on whether that was deliberate on the part of the editor who made that change. It's highly problematic to adopt this style of editing. Let's put it down to inexperience rather than malice. About other changes to the "controversies section": this is actually a "criticism" section, in the end. It only has negative views. Shall we balance them with positive views, or just leave it? And the other point I wanted to make is that you can't just decide what is a "controversial" teaching and what isn't. That area would be a mile long if we did it that way. A secondary source needs to make that evaluation.--Asdfg12345 02:54, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Please see separate but equal. You may have also removed sources without explaining either why the article does not reflect the sources accurately or why we should not use those sources. But I can't look into all this in detail now. Dan (talk) 03:45, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I can only say that I'm doing my best to explain all my edits and thinking behind them, and citing relevant wikipedia policies or whatever.  And if I fail to do that, and someone points it out, then of course I would seek to fix that up. In this case it would be original research to change "separate but equal" to "racial segregation." It's not clear that's what Johnson meant. Editors aren't supposed to make these sorts of interpretations about sources, as far as I understand. I thought we are supposed to let the reader decide. I think it's enough to just quote him. If some reliable source says that Falun Gong promotes real-world racial segregation, rather than Li merely discussing some metaphysical principle, then we can use that. --Asdfg12345 04:00, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Separate but equal is unambiguous in meaning.  It is the exact language of racial segregation in the USA.  It is not WP:OR to confirm that lapis lazuli is a blue stone. Simonm223 (talk) 18:59, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  Why can't you stick with the source? If anyone would like further details for that there is the wikilink, right? Why do you insist so much in changing it? --HappyInGeneral (talk) 19:35, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I would prefer Wikipedia not to use the language of oppressors in this case.  As the racism of Li Hongzhi is as evident either way I use the value-neutral wording instead of the original.Simonm223 (talk) 20:08, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

text: I would go for the shorter text, but keeping the " do good works, speak honestly, never be evasive " to explain what is traditional morality. The stuff about exercicing, running errands, etc, is just fluff. --Enric Naval (talk) 00:08, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: This has been dead for five days. The point made was that by cutting the quote short, changing the words, and linking to "racial segregation," that this was a kind of source distortion and original research. Simon gave an off-the-wall response. Dan's note was noncommital, or at least explanatory. It's not clear whether he advocates the altered wording, or why. It's simply going to be unworkable if we wait for everybody to agree to something simple like this. This isn't meant to be over the top of me, I'm just trying to deal with this rationally. If there's a good reason why we should change the words of the source and link to racial segregation, I'm waiting to hear it. And if there is, that person can make the change and explain it. --Asdfg12345 14:37, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Quick note on the Johnson quote