Talk:Falun Gong/Archive 13

message: Feel free to disregard this, but all the quotes from Li can be addressed in the article, a lead should not be so specific.  Would people be happy with these three paragraphs?
Falun Gong, (Traditional Chinese: 法輪功; Simplified Chinese: 法轮功; pinyin: Fǎlún Gōng; literally "Practice of the Wheel of Law") also known as Falun Dafa, (Traditional Chinese: 法輪大法; Simplified Chinese: 法轮大法; pinyin: Fǎlún dàfǎ; 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) and moral teachings.  According to Li when one cultivates his/her xinxing (mind nature or character), he/she can assimilate to the supreme nature of the universe--Truthfulness, Compassion, Forebearance.
Add Paragraph Here about Salvation and Fa-rectification.  We already agreed on these topics, but have not agreed on the wording.  --Tomananda 23:19, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Just so you know, Hiding, we've already reached consensus on the last two paragraphs of the lead section. We've kind of been working backwards, from the easiest bits to the more difficult. Also so you know, we've also discussed what should be in the first paragraph or two here. You couldn't know that unless you dug through the last few archives and scoured this entire page so I thought I'd mention it. CovenantD 20:52, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've seen the central concepts discussion, I just felt the discussion on the first paragraph was getting bogged down on the usage of quotes, and I don't see that the quotes should necessarily be in the lead.  A lead should be a brief overview, and if you start using one set of quotes then people might want another set of quotes to balance, and those arguments and balancing are best made in the article itself. Hiding Talk 22:30, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

text: About the right mostly, except the "moral" teachings --> "spiritual" teachings (I don't mind continuing our previous sentence by sentence vote and I will read more about what is a lead section and rethink) and I am going to propose a poll on using the name persecution. I feel very uncomfortable if we cheat ourselves that is not persecution, per the new source confirming organ harvesting on live Falun Gong practitioners even TODAY. Fnhddzs 20:40, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Suggested lead by Hiding

message: 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). According to Li when one cultivates his/her xinxing (mind nature or character), he/she can assimilate to the supreme nature of the universe--Truthfulness, Compassion, Forebearance.
----
We have consensus on the above. We have two suggestions for addition to this, seen below in bold text.
I'm calling a 24 hour straw poll before we move on to the next sentence on Fa-rectification.
Even if you have expressed an opinion on this before, please do so again so we have a clear idea of consensus.
: I am sorry I don't agree with the above. Falun Gong refers to both teachings and exercises. Fnhddzs 16:36, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: How about "and spiritual teachings centered on moral improvement". It's more accurate and flows better into the next sentence. Mcconn 00:08, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

text: We are trying for a quick description of Falungong. I agree with the original description we are voting on above. I don't agree with the pro-FLG addition. Trying to load the description with "moral improvement" - a very subjective claim that only devotees are likely to agree with, especially in light of Li's racist public statements - is blatant advertising. --Fire Star 火星 13:00, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Why is my suggestion a "pro-Falun Gong" version? Previously, non-Falun Gong practitioner editors were suggesting "moral teachings" rather than "spiritual teachings". Later, a practitioner suggested "spiritual teachings" instead. Doesn't my version try to incorperate both? In addition, since the following sentence talks about the focus of the practice, ie. cultivating xinxing, which is certainly a pursuit of moral improvement, it flows better and makes it clearer to add "centered on moral improvement" to the previous sentence. Other than this I just tried to clarify the use of the term "Falun Gong". You seem ever more accusing these days Five Star. 61.229.233.44 08:51, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm assuming that you are Mcconn who didn't log in. The addendum is pro-FLG because it is an attempt to imply early on that Li's teachings are morally sound. Later on, we can say Li or others claim them to be moral, but there isn't universal agreement as to whether they are. The same with FLG jargon like "cultivation" and "rectification", etc. Claims, not established fact, that should be qualified as such. My position has been constant since I started editing here. It is symptomatic of an ongoing pattern that has been with this article since day one. Li and FLG practitioners commonly say one thing while acting another. They say they aren't political, yet the suppression started as a result of their huge political protests in China. They say they aren't a religion, yet they address entirely religious subjects using religious language to the point that Li declares himself the only and universal saviour for all mankind throughout eternity. The capper is that Li has ordered his followers to deliberately obscure his "higher level" teachings to the public. FLG practitioners several times in the course of these discussions have accused non-practitioners of not being qualified to edit the article but I wholeheartedly disagree. I am sure that I can see right through the sleight of word that seemingly comes from the top, and I won't allow this article to slowly thereby become advertising for Li and FLG. And that is a declaratory statement based on a pattern of evidence. --Fire Star 火星 12:45, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Well, not entirely my fault. Too many suggestions when I specifically asked for only support or oppose statements. CovenantD 17:28, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

text: How about "which includes, among other things, letting go of attachments and desires,". We don't want to create the impression that this is the only aspect of xinxing, but it's fine to mention it provided we make this clear. Mcconn 00:25, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I think "Stricly following the teachings" sounds odd to me. I do not think I strictly follow the teachings even now and it is not required for practitioners although I think it is a goal to aim at. Cultivation is step by step. Fnhddzs 07:04, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

text: I agree with version #2 with the addition suggested by Samuel as well.  Shall we call it a consensus?  --Tomananda 07:55, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Update on consensus for the lead

message: Please support or oppose with at most one or two sentences explaining your reason.
Falun Gong refers to five sets of meditation exercises (four standing, and one sitting meditation) and spiritual teachings.
:How about "and spiritual teachings centered on moral improvement". It's more accurate and flows better into the next sentence. Mcconn 00:08, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We are trying for a quick description of Falungong. I agree with the original description we are voting on above. I don't agree with the pro-FLG addition. Trying to load the description with "moral improvement" - a very subjective claim that only devotees are likely to agree with, especially in light of Li's racist public statements - is blatant advertising. --Fire Star 火星 13:00, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Why is my suggestion a "pro-Falun Gong" version? Previously, non-Falun Gong practitioner editors were suggesting "moral teachings" rather than "spiritual teachings". Later, a practitioner suggested "spiritual teachings" instead. Doesn't my version try to incorperate both? In addition, since the following sentence talks about the focus of the practice, ie. cultivating xinxing, which is certainly a pursuit of moral improvement, it flows better and makes it clearer to add "centered on moral improvement" to the previous sentence. Other than this I just tried to clarify the use of the term "Falun Gong". You seem ever more accusing these days Five Star. 61.229.233.44 08:51, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm assuming that you are Mcconn who didn't log in. The addendum is pro-FLG because it is an attempt to imply early on that Li's teachings are morally sound. Later on, we can say Li or others claim them to be moral, but there isn't universal agreement as to whether they are. The same with FLG jargon like "cultivation" and "rectification", etc. Claims, not established fact, that should be qualified as such. My position has been constant since I started editing here. It is symptomatic of an ongoing pattern that has been with this article since day one. Li and FLG practitioners commonly say one thing while acting another. They say they aren't political, yet the suppression started as a result of their huge political protests in China. They say they aren't a religion, yet they address entirely religious subjects using religious language to the point that Li declares himself the only and universal saviour for all mankind throughout eternity. The capper is that Li has ordered his followers to deliberately obscure his "higher level" teachings to the public. FLG practitioners several times in the course of these discussions have accused non-practitioners of not being qualified to edit the article but I wholeheartedly disagree. I am sure that I can see right through the sleight of word that seemingly comes from the top, and I won't allow this article to slowly thereby become advertising for Li and FLG. And that is a declaratory statement based on a pattern of evidence. --Fire Star 火星 12:45, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Well, not entirely my fault. Too many suggestions when I specifically asked for only support or oppose statements. CovenantD 17:28, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Straw poll #1

message: Please support or oppose with at most one or two sentences explaining your reason.
According to Li when one cultivates his/her xinxing (mind nature or character), which includes letting go of attachments and desires, he/she can assimilate to the supreme nature of the universe--Truthfulness, Compassion, Forebearance.
=====Discussion=====
:How about "which includes, among other things, letting go of attachments and desires,". We don't want to create the impression that this is the only aspect of xinxing, but it's fine to mention it provided we make this clear. Mcconn 00:25, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I think "Stricly following the teachings" sounds odd to me. I do not think I strictly follow the teachings even now and it is not required for practitioners although I think it is a goal to aim at. Cultivation is step by step. Fnhddzs 07:04, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with version #2 with the addition suggested by Samuel as well.  Shall we call it a consensus?  --Tomananda 07:55, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Straw poll #2

message: :How about "which includes, among other things, letting go of attachments and desires,". We don't want to create the impression that this is the only aspect of xinxing, but it's fine to mention it provided we make this clear. Mcconn 00:25, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I think "Stricly following the teachings" sounds odd to me. I do not think I strictly follow the teachings even now and it is not required for practitioners although I think it is a goal to aim at. Cultivation is step by step. Fnhddzs 07:04, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with version #2 with the addition suggested by Samuel as well.  Shall we call it a consensus?  --Tomananda 07:55, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Discussion

message: Alright, lets get things right to finish work on this subsection and move on.
Ill give you my opinion based on the ideas i have seen around here, then please everyone tell me if you agree or not and what you want to change. (remember it must be Neutral)
The Terms i see more neutral for the title are:
"China and Falun Gong" or "Conflict between China and Falun Gong"
And terms like "supression" and "persecution" should be atributed to each of the parties claims respectively.
Now please post your opinions on this. We'll give it as much time as it needs before we decide.
--Andres18 11:47, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Final Agreement on This subsection

message: I've already said this, but I can't seem to find it, but you are getting bogged down in a side issue.  Avoid both terms in the lead, and then bring them up in the appropriate section, which should be named something like Chinese government and Falun Gong rather than the POV Suppression of Falun Gong.  Persecution is a perfectly appropriate word to use as a description from the POV of practitioners, for cites see:
*Leading Article: China and the world: Hu and cry
**The Guardian (London); Apr 22, 2006; p. 34
*Don't insult China's victims, Mr Mayor
**Daily Mail (London); Apr 27, 2006; p. 71
Hope that helps. Hiding Talk 19:17, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hiding:  You make a good argument. I support "Chinese Government and Falun Gong" as the page title, with the understanding that this will not impede the pro-Falun Gong editors from making their case about "persecution" within the article itself. This more generic title will allow for other material to be included which may be of interest, but not directly relate to the ban and its implementation.  --Tomananda 19:35, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It is both neutral and informative, so I support Hiding's lead language proposed above. --Fire Star 火星 21:59, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

text: * I too believe that a title of a page should be as neutral as possible, I vote for Chinese Government and Falun Gong --Yueyuen 04:54, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Hiding, what do you mean by "Persecution is a perfectly appropriate word to use as a description from the POV of practitioners?" Is that another way of saying that it's not appropriate for a Wikipedia article name? I'm not being snarky, I really don't understand what you're trying to say there. CovenantD 23:35, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You've got it.  People who support the banning of Falun Gong canm legitimately argue it represents a POV.  Article names and section headers should be as neutral as possible, with such controversial language discussed within the body of the article, using appropriate citations to base the usages upon.  I was attempting to note that the phrase "persecution" can be used within the article, since I thought people were arguing against using the terma at all.  Hiding Talk 14:04, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

text: I am ok with avoiding both terms in the lead as I said before(note it seems that Hiding's post was accidently deleted). But as to the name of subsection, we already presented the reason why we cannot use Chinese government and Falun Gong. That is a POV title which implies that they are two parties comparable. Please see Mcconn's post:
We've already discussed the use of the terms "persecution" and "suppression". You can go here to refer to the discussion. I stand by using the term "persecution". "Persecution" is not inherentely POV, although some people may use it that way. What's happening in China is absolutely a persecution, and the term has been widley used by people from all sides to describe it. "Suppression" does not carry the same meaning. Whether or not you like Falun Gong you still have to own up to the fact that it is being persecuted in China. I think we should use this word in the title and the introduction. The article will then give context to the word. "China vs Falun Gong" is not accurate. That term almost implies that they are two forces engaged in some kind of battle with each other. This is not true as practitioners are merely doing what they can to counter and stop the persecution against them. They beat, torture, and kill us, but we don't lay a finger on them. We just want them to stop and want people to understand what they are doing. It's totally different from an "X vs Y" battle. Mcconn 09:47, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Mccon i get what you are saying but, even though we all know there is a persecution going on, the critics say there is no persecution, that would be their point of view right?. And if we say there is then maybe that could make it our point of view even though its undeniable that its really happenning. I think the idea of making this secton is not saying "there is a persecution" or "there is no persecution" but instead to leave the reader with a doubt. If that happens then it means we exposed both points of view on the matter in a neutral way and the reader will decide wether he thinks if there is a persecution going on or not. What i dont see clearly is what is the critics position, if they say there is no persecution, then according to them, what is going on?. What do they have to say about it? i think its appropriate to know their opinion on this matter so we can make neutral statements about this situation. I also agree with using "Falun Gong and China" or "Conflct between Chna and Falun Gong" as the title and i think we can also use the terms suppression and persecution as what each of the parties claim this situation to be. China government  says its a supression, falun gong says its a persecution. I think this should be the idea, does anyone think there should be more discussion on this matter 
==requior can we start proposing some writing for this subsection?.--Andres18 17:03, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

text: *The Falun Gong is banned in China for its violation of laws.  It has suppressed the rights of its critics and caused more than a thousand deaths.  I believe these justifications provided by the Chinese government partly because my rights as a critic was also suppressed by the Falun Gong and my step-father almost died in following Falun Gong teaching of abandoning medical treatment.  The ban of Falun Gong is not a persecution but a just action to free those who have been brainwashed and manipulated by Master Li and save lives.  I noticed that all Admins (uncle Ed, Firestar and Hiding) have suggested this neutral title “Chinese government and the Falun Gong,” after this much discussion I believe it is time to change that title and begin working on the article. --Samuel Luo 19:36, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Actually, Mcconn, it was neither Samuel nor I who posted the original suggestion that we call the page The Chinese Government and the Falun Gong.  My understanding from Hiding's post is that we should strive to be as neutral as possible in page titles.  You may recall that I had suggested we have not a page, but a section called "Homophobic teachings of the FG" but that was shot down using the same kind of argument that Hiding has used in his proposal.  As I've said before, I'm OK with calling the page "Supression of Falun Gong." Others are not ok with that compromise, though.  --Tomananda 07:15, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Is the suppression of FLG by the CCP legal? Is it legitimate? That isn't up to us to decide. It is what it is. We report, not condemn.  In yet another FLG associated irony, one can't help being amused that people practicing "tolerance, compassion and forbearance" would embrace condemnation of anyone. --Fire Star 火星 13:49, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Umm, I'm actually talking about the article, differing approaches to editing the article and what is important and unimportant to the differing sides, above. --Fire Star 火星 22:39, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Tomananda, you've learned quite a bit about citing references from your work on the "Controversies" article. Would you be willing to work with Andres18, teaching him/her what you know about it? CovenantD 13:55, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sure.  Andres, why don't you start by just looking at the existing footnotes and ask questions.--Tomananda 00:27, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Andres, Here is a link Wikipedia:Footnotes CovenantD showed me before which might be helpful. Actually it is easier to start by just following the suit of the existing ones. You will pick it up soon. Again, we could report on opinions of persecution. But persecution itself is facts. Even if you are a non-Chinese citizen outside of China, you may also be on a black list so that you could not board on airplanes to other countries. That did happen. Fnhddzs 16:43, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Avoid both terms in the lead

message: *Okay China and Falun Gong is plain wrong.  However, can we move past this dispute over persecution and suppression?  I'm going to create a temp page and just start from scratch.  Write the stuff up, nobody reverts and we discuss as we go.  If people start edit warring on the temp page I will most likely delete it. Hiding Talk 20:35, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: * Hiding WE DO NOT need to start a page from scratch.  What we need now is mediation.  Can somebody request a wiki mediator?   --Kent8888 22:26, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: *Ouch. I'm standing here attempting to mediate.  I'm trying to work out what everyone agrees on, by asking people to add to the temp page what they think everyone agrees on.  I would hope people would show good faith in this process. Hiding Talk 10:10, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: At the rate it's growing, the references section should be about as long as the article itself :-) CovenantD 13:24, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, that occurred to me too.  Something to add to the to do list for once we get the whole article rewritten. Hiding Talk 13:47, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Ack, I'm not over bothered, although I'm not sure how mediation works without discussing the issues involved, to be perfectly honest, and I'm not sure this should be seen as an us and them issue.  It's a question of finding out where we all agree Wikipedia's best interests lie. Wikipedia should be presenting the issues surrounding Falun Gong from a neutral point of view. Whilst we can argue our points, that the important thing to keep in mind. Hiding Talk 20:28, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Temp page 

message: I want to create a To Do List for the Falun Gong-related articles.
Question for an admin - where would be the proper place for this, as a subpage of the talk or the article? Or should it be a subpage of Wikiproject China? 
*I created it as a subpage of here, it matters little and can be moved if needed. Hiding Talk 21:38, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you. I'm going to move the list to the top of the page, just under the archives. CovenantD 16:38, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Falun Gong To Do List 

message: I've been looking at this whole mediation thing and trying to figure out what we haven't been doing within the bounds of that kind of framework. The two biggest things that I see are 1) the powers of the mediator and 2) the role of the participants.
#An official mediator has the power to edit others' comments, removing or rewording extraneous comments and personal attacks. This would have been very helpful during the recent straw polls when editors starting throwing in other suggestions and making comments on the motivations and tactics of others. A "real" mediator could have kept things focused much better with this power.
#The two sides in a dispute each have a single voice. This can be done easily when there are only two editors involved or by choosing a representative spokesperson to speak for each side.
I'm still willing to be the informal mediator, but I think we've moved beyond the point where progress is possible without these two points. CovenantD 14:19, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that some means of keeping the discussion on track is needed. I haven't seen the self-control required on the part of editors so I guess it will have to be an outside party. So let's find out 
Who would agree to be a party to mediation?
===Would accept mediation===
#Accept. --Fire Star 火星 22:36, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Care to elucidate? -- Миборовский 17:48, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Please see Wikipedia:Requests for mediation. --Fire Star 火星 22:35, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, I know. Like I said, I've been doing research. Where do you think I got the idea to find out who agrees? CovenantD 00:56, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: My apologies. I think it is a fine idea, there is too much of an impasse. --Fire Star 火星 14:44, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Could I? There would have been 5 people crying out for my blood within the hour. -- Миборовский 17:48, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: LOL... point to Miborovsky. CovenantD 17:51, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

text: It wasn't binding mediation. He was attempting to do what CovenantD also is attempting to do. What is now being proposed is that the seemingly intractable dispute will be considered in the light of Wikipedia policy by mediators and perhaps eventually arbitrators whose subsequent decisions about the article will be enforced by administrators. Please read Wikipedia:Requests for mediation. --Fire Star 火星 19:43, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mediation 

message: #Accept. --Fire Star 火星 22:36, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Would accept mediation

message: I decline on the basis it is a poor suggestion. Whitemanners 21:57, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Care to elucidate? -- Миборовский 17:48, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Decline mediation

message: It would be counter-productive for me personally. As a neutral party it would be inappropriate for me to take a side, nor would I wish to give up my right to comment on the goings-on. CovenantD 22:11, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please see Wikipedia:Requests for mediation. --Fire Star 火星 22:35, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, I know. Like I said, I've been doing research. Where do you think I got the idea to find out who agrees? CovenantD 00:56, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: My apologies. I think it is a fine idea, there is too much of an impasse. --Fire Star 火星 14:44, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Could I? There would have been 5 people crying out for my blood within the hour. -- Миборовский 17:48, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: LOL... point to Miborovsky. CovenantD 17:51, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

text: It wasn't binding mediation. He was attempting to do what CovenantD also is attempting to do. What is now being proposed is that the seemingly intractable dispute will be considered in the light of Wikipedia policy by mediators and perhaps eventually arbitrators whose subsequent decisions about the article will be enforced by administrators. Please read Wikipedia:Requests for mediation. --Fire Star 火星 19:43, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Discussion

message: Hi all, CovenantD has been playing a role of an informal mediator here and he is interested in continuing this role.  I am proposing that we make him an official mediator on the Falun Gong article.  His edits have shown his enthusiasm in improving this article, his ability to remain neutral and his willingness in following Wikipedia edit principles.  I believe if we recognize him as an official mediator here, meanning giving him the power to make final judgments in conflict, his future contributions would speed up the improvement of this article.  ConventD and I have reverted each other a few times, however I recognize his ability to make NPOV contributions.  I don’t believe we can get a mediator who would spend the kind of time and energy as ConventD has contributed.  I propose that we work with ConventD for now and if it still doesn’t work then we go to formal mediation.  
CovenantDcan only work as an official mediator if he has the power to make the final judgment.  Would you recognize him as an official mediator here and give him the power to make final judgment?  Please vote here.
Accept--Samuel Luo 05:46, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Stop. Those are not nice words. Never use them on anyone. Fnhddzs 06:27, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: And reverting vandalism. CovenantD 02:56, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

text: I am willing to bet the bank that CovenantD is definitely not an FLG practitioner. He doesn't write like one. --Fire Star 火星 14:13, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

text: *While waiting for a few more editors to vote, I would like to make one point clear, Wiki mediators are requested when there is an impasse, CovenantD should also wait for us to request his decision.  We (editors on both sides) should try to reach an agreement without going to CovenantD, but once his decision is requested and made then all of us who have voted to give him the power of an official editor have to respect that decision.  If there is disagreement with CovenantD’s decisions wiki policy and facts backed by evidence should be cited instead of our POV.  
Since many editors on both sides have supported him, I propose that CovenantD start exercising his power as an official mediator in 24 hours, in the absence of objection.  Since we have agreed to request mediation, his first task should be making a judgment on the disputed paragraphs in the intro and request the article to be unprotected.   --Samuel Luo 19:50, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Nope, adminship is not a requirement. Only the trust and goodwill of the involved editors. CovenantD 14:30, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[User:CovenantD|CovenantD]] official mediator here 

message: This article has been protected for ages and, despite the discussion above, I cannot find any extant request for mediation.  Would it be out of the question to simply unprotect the article and see what happens?  --Tony Sidaway 22:41, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Not out of the question, but perhaps not a good idea either. Every time I've seen this article unprotected without a clear idea on the talk page on what to do next, it's ended up in a revert war in a matter of hours. (The major editors haven't been present for a few days, though, so it might go longer this time.) If you do unprotect it, I'd ask that you do so when you have the time to keep an eye on it. Don't just unprotect then sign off Wikipedia for a couple of days ;-) CovenantD 22:47, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  That's not something I've a habit of doing.  However I think I'll wait a few more days. --Tony Sidaway 22:55, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I think it's time to unprotect. It was protected for the first or second paragraph of the introduction. But now the discussion is quite far astray from that. Fnhddzs 01:34, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

text: But the question is, what are we going to do when the main page is unprotected?  Why don't we at least agree to a deadline for completeing the introductory se=ction before unprotecting the main page?
--Tomananda 21:32, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

text: I hope that selecting a mediator will help that process. I'm gonna start striking out comments that are personal in nature (see below for some examples) and not related to the task at hand. That should prevent side-issues from overtaking the real work. CovenantD 14:35, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unprotect? 

message: Let me ask you guys a question real fast.
Why would it be inappropriate for someone who practices Falun Gong to edit the Falun Gong article as long as he completely applies the wikipedia standards?
Maybe some of you are saying that this would be okay.
Then may I do it?
I think you would not let me do it, and would revert my change.
Because right now the article makes it appear as though a major part of Falun Gong may be to spread material indicating the doom of the world, discriminating homosexuals, showing off the awards and recognition of Falun Gong and Li Hongzhi (which according to the article may simply be used to mislead people), and promoting Li Hongzhi as a savior, and Falun Gong practitioners as "Gods". 
My article would mention all of these things, but it would also explain why those things might not at all be a major aspect of Falun Gong, are not being spread by Falun Gong practitioners, and are being mentioned in an encyclopedia entry only because since the beginning of the persecution (or "suppression" or whatever,) related quotes from mister Li's works have been taken out of context so as to make the mass murders (this fact does not seem to be debated) of Falun Gong followers by the Chinese Communist party seem justified.
My article might also try to explain the original context of the disputed quotes, so as to avoid missunderstanding.
But because I would do that, I think most of you would not agree with my article. Am I right?
--Hoerth 18:21, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's kinda moot at the moment because the article is protected - nobody can edit it. We need to resolve the lead section before it should be unlocked. Would you care to help with that process? CovenantD 18:30, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

text: What caught my eye in your proposal was this bit: "but it would also explain why those things might not at all be a major aspect of Falun Gong" Why wouldn't that be original research in aid of pro-FLG apologetics on your part? --Fire Star 火星 19:10, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

text: I didn't say that I believed you would. I asked why the explanations you were proposing would be different than apologetics, precisely. Your actual answer to that question (not the diversionary bit about the other side's problems with the article) was logical and promising, because if you can find quotes by Li prioritizing his supernatural and moral doctrines into sets of major or minor teachings (I haven't been able to find any) that would be great. I agree that there is a lot of both pro and anti POV associated with these articles and that it should go. I will say here, explicitly rather than implicitly, that I personally discount the explanations of FLG practitioners somewhat because Li has ordered them in the past to obscure features of his teachings to the greater public. That being said, if a practitioner provides verifiable quotes and other citations, I wouldn't continue to say their value is diminished by their provenance. So, notwithstanding the implications you've drawn from my earlier question, for now you get the benefit of my doubt. --Fire Star 火星 21:14, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with you about the editing part, but it is also Wikipedia policy that a mediator must not have a personal stake in the subject matter she/he is mediating.  In other words, to be a mediator for the Falun Gong article,  neither a practitioner nor a critic of Falun Gong could be chosen.  That policy I think is explicity stated somewhere and so if you are a practitioner, you need to disclose that fact now.  I still respect your proven ability to adopt a neutral stance, but since we're talking about you as the official mediator, based on Wiki standards, you cannot yourself be a practitioner.  I assume you are not (since comic books are your thing), but you do need to disclose this now before we go down this path.   --Tomananda 04:16, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

text: I've already addressed this in the appropriate section of this talk page. CovenantD 04:27, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Oooops!  Yes you did, sorry I missed it. --Tomananda 05:01, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Question 

message: I went with a minimalist approach to these two sentences. Yenchin and Samuel's objection about the difference between Dafa and Gong are addressed in the first sentence (not shown here) where the two are used interchangably. Fire Star had compelling arguments on why moral improvement should be addressed in the body of the article. Mcconn's suggestion, "which includes, among other things, letting go of attachments and desires" and Samuel's suggestion, "when a person strictly followes the Falun Gong teachings," are implied by the cultivation line and can be expanded on in the main article or the Teachings article. CovenantD 06:41, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You have more to cover “salvation” and “Fa-rectification” that both sides have agreed to include in the intro, right? --Samuel Luo 08:06, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes indeed, I'm still reviewing those for the best possible course of action. My feeling at this point is that more input will be needed, but I'll let you know. CovenantD 16:36, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

text: It is perfectly acceptable to me. --Fire Star 火星 15:00, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

text: I'll take another look at the discussions to date. CovenantD 16:16, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Since my request to unprotect the page and insert these edits has been denied, would one of the monitoring admins mind placing these two sentences in the first paragraph? They should replace all but the first and last sentence in that lead paragraph. CovenantD 15:15, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I will do it. I want to make it crystal clear that I am only editing according to the request(s) of our mediator by consensus, CovenantD. --Fire Star 火星 20:10, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Do you mean Wiktionary links? --Fire Star 火星 02:06, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Rendering my decision

message: I refuse to contribute to this article until this matter is resolved. I am sick and tired of the neglect on the part of the "anti- FLG" editors when "perceived" pro FLG editors try to make contributions. In other words, I beg you to address this issue properly. Thank you all. Whitemanners 23:37, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You want Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard or some other administrator page. This is not the proper place for such requests. Please stop clogging the page with this. CovenantD 23:54, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Call for investigation: Samuel/ Yueyuen 

message: Hi, I just dropped by because I was curious about the Falun Gong (I read a headline in the Epoch Times, who I didn't know until now are an FG newspaper, about FG practicioners being the subject of live organ harvest and it made me curious about what was going on). I found this page a little unsatisfying.  Here are some questions I have that the page didn't quite answer, or answered incompletely:
Is Falun Gong a meditative practice, like t'ai chi?  A practice that can also be a religion, like Yoga?  A religion that happens to have formalized meditation forms in it?  
What does it mean to be an FG practicioner?  Are there FG "churches" where people meet to practice/discuss?  Do people sign up somehow, or enroll as FG practicioners?  What about it is so compelling that people would sign up for it over, say, Qigong practice (especially considering the persecution aspect)?  I would love to see a picture of the physical practice, if is photographable.
If there aren't churches or formal enrollment, how does the Chinese government identify FG practicioners?  And why is the Chinese government so upset about the practice?
I see that the page is gargantuan already, but I suspect most people unfamiliar with FG would share my curiosities and want to know that stuff more than they'd want to know about FG ethics, origins, epistemologies, etc.  I see that there are troubles with the page, so I apologize if I'm adding to the problems;  I just thought I'd let you know what an uninvolved person was interested in.  Good luck with your editing!  Katsam 08:58, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: To clarify, I wasn't requesting that someone explain to me the answer to these questions, I just wanted to explain what I would like, as a reader, to see on the Falun Gong page.  (Although it was nice for people to try and explain it to me personally as well.)  Katsam 23:25, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

text: There has been some substantial progress; a mediator has been chosen by most of the editors. Could you review those sections and indicate your support or lack thereof? CovenantD 14:58, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Another question 

message: It is hoped that the criticism sub-section on the main page be shortened as soon as possible. I request the admins helping to edit the page to kindly make sure that it is done at the earliest. Also Samuel Luo's Personal webpage deosnt belong to the references section. Kindly remove the same from the references.
Dilip rajeev 10:26, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Nice to see you back. I was wondering what had happened to you. Would you care to comment on the above discussions that you missed in your absence? CovenantD 14:11, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Shortening of "criticism" section on main-page and Re-rrangement of subsections 

message: According to this article below Lili Feng was diagnosed with pancreatic cancer Cancer in 2003.  She could have saved herself by receiving medical help but instead she bet her life on the divine healing power of her Master.  In March this year her condition deteriorated significantly but she was not sent to the hospital until June 20.  She died two days later.  Practitioners, what do guys make of her death?  --Samuel Luo 04:16, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sidenote for this article. It came from Miss Tanxi (嘆息) from hardkingdom.com's freshrain discussion board. Tanxi herself admits it is hearsay. So it's basically a dead end. --Yenchin 04:38, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

text: More lies: Fnhddzs says "once you believe you have illness, then you should go to the doctors."  Well, once you believe you have illness that means you are no longer a Falun Gong practitioner because as Li says, if you believe in the disease-curing effects of Falun Gong, why would you take medicine?  More importantly, Li teaches Falun Gong practitioners not to think of illness as illness in the medical sense.  All illness is the opportunity of getting rid of karma, which should be welcomed because once you've gotten rid of all your karma (which requires the direct help of Master Li to remove every last bit of it) then you can aspire to consumation.  The goal of practice is, in fact, consumation, although you practitioners seldom talk about it.  Another lie. But getting back to Lili Feng: she spent so much of her professional life praising and trying to prove the disease curing benefits of Falun Gong. Now that she has died of pancreatic cancer, shouldn't the Falun Gong honor her in some way?  Shouldn't there be some kind of testimonial on the clearwisdom website? Shouldn't the great Li himself write a poem honoring her life and death, all in a good cause?  She died on June 22nd, so there has been enough time to recognize her.  Why hasn't this happened?  Why does the Falon Gong not honor its own heroes?   --Tomananda 05:22, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

text: I am sorry, Samuel. I don't know Lili personally. Neither do you. I don't know why Lili did not seek medical help. And how she went to hospital to examine her health (otherwise how could she find the diagnosis?) But if she did not seek medical help, I suppose she should practice Falun Gong diligently. But did she? I appreciate that she did a lot of social activities and conducted research on other practitioners. But did she really have time to do the practice and read the book? As far as I know, I am afraid she was too busy to do it. My local fellow practitioner saw her when she came to our city last fall for a speech. According to this practitioner, she looked quite tired with a bad face color. And she told this practitioner she has some some illness. And when asked if there is time guaranteed for her Fa-study and practice, she said it is hard when she is busy. Well, it seems at least she admitted she had illness according to the diagnosis. That is not a thought based on practitioner's understanding. Having said that, I regret her passing away as I regret on anybody's passing away. However, such cases are nothing fancy to our article. And nothing fancy to practitioners' cultivation if your post is trying to picking some bones. Fnhddzs 05:56, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Yes, this is quite off the track of the topic. Besides, it is quite original research. By the way, I have never thought minghui is a newspaper that has to track each practitioner's life details. Birth, Aging, Illness and Death are not related to cultivation that much. Minghui's purpose is to help to stop the persecution, help to share cultivation experience. Fnhddzs 05:38, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Key Falun Gong member dying of her illness 

message: I strongly believe that we should honor the life of Dr. Lili Feng by acknowledging that she has died of pancreatic cancer.  In FG terms, she suffered a very painful illness and apparently did what Master Li asks of all his true practitioners: not to take medicine, because sickness is really not sickness, but rather the opportunity to get rid of karma.  Dr. Feng worked tirelessly to promote the teachings of Li Hongzhi, especially on sickness karma and the idea that metabolism is fundamentally changed in the body of a true practitioner. In this Wikipedia article, there was an entire page written which featured the work of Dr. Feng under the title "health claims." However, Dr. Feng's death has apparantly not been ackowledged and honored in the Clearwisdom website. I think this is an outrageous oversight.  Although I don't read Chinese, there was a posting about Dr. Feng's recent death at:  I believe there needs to be a suitable recognition of Dr. Feng in the Clearwisdom site for people who only read English to see.
--Tomananda 06:01, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: According to Falun Gong doctrine, she must had an enormous among of sin or karma whatever the FG calls it.  The question that matters the most now is that is she given a place in the Falun Gong heaven? --Yueyuen 06:24, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Samuel, you are not responsible in your wording. I understand that you may not understand me. But what do you mean by cruelty? Just based on the story written by somebody? Does Falun Gong ever guaranttee it can cure illness? No. It is not the purpose of Falun Gong. So many people died in hospitals, are doctors cruel? Falun gong ask practitioners not to seek self-benefit, to put down attachments, not to pursue .... Those may be hard to explain if you are not experiencing it. Well, I am sorry I could not honor Dr. Feng in her funeral since it is quite far. My heart is with her spirit. Peace. But minghui is not a place to track each practitioner's life stories. Fnhddzs 06:16, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Fnhsszs: You are missing the point. Dr. Lili Feng, a practitioner who did so much to promote Falun Gong based on health claims, has died of cancer.  The cruelty of Falun Gong leadership is that it will probably not acknowledge and honor Dr. Lili Feng's great contribution because the leadership is more concerned about it's reputation than it is in honoring a FG hero who has passed away.  I, for one, have a big problem with that and I would guess many practitioners would have a problem with that as well.  As long as a practitioner satisfies Master Li's requirements, and works to promote the good name of his Dafa, everything is ok.  But the momement something happens which may appear to discredit the FG, such as Lili Feng's death, then the FG leadership disowns that person as if she never existed.  Isn't there something wrong with that?  --Tomananda 07:32, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Since my time is limited, I only write briefly now. If without Falun Gong, Dr. Feng may have passed away earlier. According to her colleagues who have all the diagnosis X-rays of her, her status(energetic, making research breakthrough etc.) had been amazing to them. Actually they mentioned some surgery. This is no ground for Samuel's allegations. As the critism article write, the five year surviving chance of such cancer is 5%. We are not clear when this cancer started to develop, it may be quite earlier. If it started in 2001, then Dr. Feng belongs to the 5%. She is blessed. Both her husband and son are practitioners. They know more details. We know she is blessed. What kind of honor you are requesting us to give Dr. Feng. How could you say we denied her existence?Fnhddzs 17:38, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

text: There should be a memorial type posting in honor of her life and reporting her death on Clearwisdom and other websites.  My understanding is that she died about a month ago, so this should be done right away.  I looked for such a posting and couldn't find it.  The editor who first reported her death in discussion commented that Falun Gong always reports the deaths of practitioners in China, but typically doesn't for practitioners who die in the West. That shouldn't be the case, don't you agree?  --Tomananda 02:22, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Speculation and unencyclopaedic. WP:NOT a memorial to alleged cult victims. --Sumple (Talk) 04:24, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

text: You've misunderstood me.  Of course this would be inappropriate in Wikipedia.  Instead, I am saying that the FG should post a memorial on their website. --Tomananda 04:49, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Honoring the Life and Death of Dr. Lili Feng 

message: In the West, practitioners are perceived as heroic and admirable for daring to demand human rights from an authoritarian government.  However, these heroes are really compelled by fear or baited by the spell their Master casts.  Li’s scolding of those who have failed to break away from their family (Li calls it break away from humanness) attachment reveals all: 
:Some of the people [practitioners]…have had their lives extended through the Fa; some of them have received all kinds of benefits, such as good health, harmony in the family, indirect benefits to their relatives and friends, a reduction of their karma, and even Master’s bearing things for them…  Despite this, when Dafa is about to consummate you, you are unable to step forward from humanness, and when the evil persecutes Dafa you are unable to stand up to validate Dafa.  These people who only want to take from Dafa and not give for Dafa are, in the eyes of Gods, the worst beings.  Moreover, this Fa is what’s fundamental in the cosmos, so those people who are still unable to step forward today will be weeded out after this tribulation is over.”  
Reaching consummation is the goal of Falun Gong cultivation; practitioners are taught that they will become gods or Buddhas living in heaven.  Li’s statement reveals a circumstance that the West does not see: these practitioners were not driven by their love of human rights but by Li's promises of heaven or threats of hell.    
Olaf, what upsets me the most is the cruelty of the Falun Gong leadership toward practitioners.  Li and his close associates who form the leadership have never expressed any sympathy and compassion towards practitioners in pain.  In stead Li regularly scold his followers for not doing enough for him and his Dafa.  
Giving up the Falun Gong under any circumstance is a sin, a disgrace according to Li: “Some students haven’t been able to endure amidst the agony of the persecution, and have done what a Dafa disciple absolutely should not and cannot do. That is a disgrace to Dafa.”  He followed it up by explaining why willing to die for the Falun Gong benefits practitioners themselves:  
:If your righteous thoughts are truly strong, if you're able to put aside the thought of life and death, and if you're solid and unshakable like diamond, then those evil beings [Chinese authorities] won't dare to touch you, because they know that other than killing you any type of persecution will be useless.  The evil will have no choice but to leave you alone.  If in this scenario the evil still persecutes you, then Master will show no leniency.  Master has countless Law Bodies, and on top of this, there are countless righteous Gods helping me do things, and they will directly eliminate the evil, too.  Didn't I tell you before that each of you Dafa disciples has eight types of Heavenly Law-Guardians protecting you?  It's all because you haven't done well enough that all these Gods are being restrained by the old cosmos’s Fa-principles and can’t do anything, despite their really wanting to help.
So, when practitioners suffer they should blame themselves for not being worthy of the Master’s divine protection.  Safety, not consummation is guaranteed here but only when one is willing to give up his or her life.  Apparently, Li has thought of every angel to convince followers to “willingly” die for him.  
Olaf, do you now see why I am angry at the inhumanly-cruel Falun Gong cult.    --Samuel Luo 05:33, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Craig S. Smith from the New York Times noticed the lack of concern for the well being of practitioners from their Master.  He reported “Mr. Li's cryptic exhortations to followers on the Falun Gong Web site have grown increasingly strident, chastising those people who cannot endure torture or even death in defense of his cosmology, which holds that Falun Gong is engaged in a struggle with evil beings for the redemption or destruction of the universe. "Even if a dafa cultivator truly casts off his human skin during the persecution, what awaits him is still consummation," Mr. Li wrote a few days after the labor camp deaths. Dafa means great law or dharma, and refers to Falun Gong, which can be translated as Law Wheel Practice. Consummation is an apparently transcendent event that is the goal of all followers. "Any fear is itself a barrier that prevents you from reaching consummation," Mr. Li wrote.” --Samuel Luo 06:42, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Again??? Fine, you re angry at falun gong, this is not the place to be posting about it. I hope all this threads will be eliminated by the mediator.--Andres18 05:40, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Why not here?  It is all about the Falun Gong.  This topic deserves a section on the suppression of Falun Gong page. --Samuel Luo 05:52, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Andres18 In this case why don't you keep your fancy answers. --Yueyuen 06:19, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Would the compassionate Buddha have told his followers that at all costs they must protect his reputation and the good name of his teachings?  Would the compassionate Buddha have allowed a great munk leader to go un-noticed when she died because her death from natural causes was considered invonvenient for his media image?  In fact, would the compassionate Buddha have been so attached to his own ego that he would threaten his followers if they plagiarized his writings or thought badly of his "great law"?  Sorry, but your comparisons are absurd on the face of it.  Li Hongzhi lives comfortably in the US and has a formidable PR operation (including media maven Gail Rachlin) behind him.  His primary objective is the destruction of the Chinese Communist Party.  He claims that is not a political objective, but of course it is.  He lies and exploits his followers. If Li Hongzhi has an ounce of decency left in him, he will issue a dignified memorial for his loyal servant Dr. Lili Feng and have it published on all the various websites that he controls through his followers.  Absent that, I cannot respect your leader, but I do have great compassion for all the Falun Gong practitioners who have been duped into supporting Li, thinking that he is their ticket to salvation.--Tomananda 16:21, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The cruelty of Falun Gong leadership 

message: I am surprised by the strong reactions my text provoked. I wrote it  with the intention of pointing out some important matters I'd like to discuss. Instead of receiving civilized and well-versed responses from the active contributors, my text was chopped and sliced in an obvious hurry, while the real issues were either avoided or slated with a few lines. I was accused of personal attacks and my writing was called "frustrating", even though I tried to foster mutual understanding between the editors. I would expect that this is quite apparent to any outsider. However, if I have insulted somebody by accident, I sincerely apologize.
In addition, if I am speaking on a too academic level and some people have a hard time understanding what I mean by a concept or an expression, please don't hesitate to ask for clarification. I'm trying to compress a lot of information into a few chapters, and I'm accustomed to using the jargon of cultural studies, hence my text inevitably reflects this background. If some major points are prevaricated for other reasons, I will continue to bring them up, so you'll have to deal with them sooner or later.
Let me start by repeating some concerns here and providing additional material to back them up. The first commentary was about accusations of covering up Li's high-level teachings. Tomananda introduced two quotations from Master Li to underpin his POV, but he didn't even try to dispute my own understanding of this issue. Let me quote myself, because I don't feel the urge to rephrase the text until somebody points out its deficiencies:
Learning something new always starts from the basics and proceeds further as the fundamentals of a certain mode of thinking have been grasped. Some people don't want to acknowledge that this holds true for Falun Gong as well, even though the entire educational system is based on this approach. Not talking about concepts of high-level cultivation in everyday anti-persecution activities has, in my opinion, at least two major reasons: the first one is that practitioners want to build a consensus against human rights atrocities in China, even among people who hold different beliefs. Falun Gong as a cultivation method is available to whoever wants to practice it, but as practitioners we don't want to impose our worldview on others by coercion or "evangelism". The second one is that the Western scientific method is by far the most dominant framework for observing and conceptualizing reality, and many people strongly believe in its exclusiveness and superiority. A system with different axioms is oftentimes marginalized and strongly criticized, especially by people who have been influenced by positivist philosophy. I have seen many instances where people cannot draw a distinction between the human rights issues (i.e. condemning torture, organ harvesting, brainwashing, slave labor, etc.) and Falun Gong's existential theory, as if the freedom of belief and opinion were somehow subservient to the fight against "heretical" dissidence. 
Therefore, while I admit that some practitioners' conduct on this page might have seemed as if they didn't want to admit certain things, I claim that a lot of quarrel is based on their different understanding of the issues at hand. Mostly it's a question of somebody taking something at face value or another person seeking to understand its relation to the whole. And like I said, our different POVs lead to a situation where editors downplay or emphasize certain selections based on their preferences and intentions. We have been discussing these matters by e-mail with Cullum, Dilip and some others, and we all agree that we have nothing against a good, comprehensive exposition of Fa-rectification, Li's moral theory and other relevant matters, even the so-called "high-level teachings" that you say we want to hide from the public. Please refrain from accusing that we don't want to make them known when the real bone of contention is the discourse, not the content.
In addition, I understand Master Li's words from the third chapter of Zhuan Falun very differently. He's not saying that practitioners shouldn't tell the so-called "heavenly secrets" to "everyday people" - I think he's referring to the audience as "everyday people" and saying that he couldn't tell these matters irresponsibly. In Zhuan Falun, there are several instances where the expression is used in this sense. Some examples: "If you search externally for something, you will not obtain it by any means. With an everyday person’s body, an everyday person’s hands, and an everyday person’s mind, do you think that you can transform high-energy matter into gong or increase gong?"; "You cannot understand it with an ordinary person’s mentality, as it is just this rotating mechanism. The same is also true with our Falun, for it just rotates. By increasing the exercise time, it has solved for everyday persons the problem of practicing cultivation amidst normal living conditions."; "Though you sit here and have begun to practice cultivation, you are, after all, just beginning from the level of an everyday person with many everyday people’s attachments still not abandoned."; "You are an everyday person. How can you cure diseases after studying it for two days? Isn’t that deceiving others? Doesn’t it encourage your attachment?" Of course, I could dig up more, but I think these suffice to prove my point.
Another commentary touched upon the editors' tendency to select their sources based on their personal beliefs, even when two sides of the story are easily available (emphasis added). Ironically, Samuel Luo immediately proved my point correct. We all know that the Falun Dafa association stated that the ten-plus practitioners were tortured to death at the Wanjia labor camp, and witnesses reported that the bodies were bruised all over, even though the Chinese authorities claimed that the practitioners hanged themselves. Of course, we know that the Chinese authorities tend to deny all their criminal stuff even when independent investigators provide strong proof of widespread torture, organ harvesting and other atrocities. Needless to say, we don't have to privilege either version of the events in Wikipedia. The reader can make his or her own conclusions, and this is what I mean by two sides of the story. I got the impression that Samuel Luo wants to believe the CCP, maybe because mass suicides are something a caricatural cult does, and his objective is to make Falun Gong seem as much like one as possible, right? He presents many of his assertions as rock-solid facts instead of admitting that he just prefers one side of the story, which surprisingly often originates from the Chinese authorities.
I also said that the article is lacking good background information. Maybe the word "narrative" was misunderstood; I simply meant that a good article first provides a context for the phenomenon and then moves on to describe its details and unique characteristics. Even Deng and Fang, while fiercely opposing Falun Gong, have stated: Falungong insists on being, or is accepted by the western media as, a part of the Chinese tradition, blending Buddhism, Daoism and Mysticism.  Is it part of the Chinese Tradition?  The simple answer to this question is affirmative, but the question is: which part? We have not claimed that all traditions are wise or all traditional practices are helpful to current problems. No matter what you think of these traditions or Master Li's interpretation of them, we have to provide a meaningful context for Falun Gong to elucidate its position in the cultural field. This belongs to the beginning of the article, because it clarifies a lot of issues and provides a rationale for the practitioners' profound motivation. That's what I intended to do with the "Ontological and Epistemological studies". I still don't understand why it was removed and the Origins chapter was replaced with some biographical trivia that doesn't deal with any real problematics.
Even though I talked about discerning the essential questions and addressing all parties' concerns, in Tomananda's eyes I was "confusing an encyclopedia article with the PR spin Falun Gong is used to creating." Maybe he didn't really grasp that he, too, belongs to a party I was talking about, and I was also trying to make his concerns catered for. What I want to see is a neutral, balanced article and a group of editors who are willing to give space for people with different starting points. This applies to pro-FLG and anti-FLG editors, as well as everybody else. This was also my real intent behind the guesswork about Tomananda's and Samuel Luo's motives - it was not to create stereotypes but an attempt to understand different opinions on a deeper level. Maybe I was mistaken in my estimations, but at least I didn't seek to "border on the personal attacks" against them.
On a side note, I found it peculiar to see the same persons accuse Falun Gong practitioners of "not [being] driven by their love of human rights but by Li's promises of heaven or threats of hell." I find such language defamatory. For instance, I have met many tortured people - tortured for doing nothing but practicing a method I've myself found efficient and rewarding. I also know that the persecution has drastically altered the lives and families of millions of people in China and abroad. While the practitioners also believe that exposing the persecution belongs to their cultivation process, their concerns and worries are extremely genuine.
Another issue I find appalling is that some editors suggest that practitioners should act against their deepest spiritual beliefs and give in to their torturers by signing a declaration condemning Falun Gong. Samuel Luo even shifted the responsibility on Master Li, as if He - not the Chinese Communist Party - were the perpetrator of these acts. Suddenly Samuel seems to have sympathy for the detained practitioners, whilst he openly speaks in favor of the crackdown. In addition, in this context Samuel unwittingly admits that the practitioners are "in pain" and "giving up [their lives]", and of course we know that such a situation wouldn't exist if the authorities weren't breaking international laws. However, he still doesn't want to use the term "persecution" in the article but insists on "suppression".
There are still other issues I could raise, but this message is quite long already, so maybe I'll continue later. All in all, I want to have a civilized conversation with you, so please try to think what I am saying instead of straightforwardly denouncing or ignoring my concerns. I hope you also refrain from inserting your comments in between the chapters, as it shouldn't be too hard to reply in a solid format. ---Olaf Stephanos 17:27, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I thought that I replied civilly, and will continue to do so, but I still disagree with your position. And please don't worry, you are by no means arguing over my head academically. The biggest problem I have with what you are saying is that I still see you and others here trying to present FLG and Li Hongzhi's other teachings seemingly in aid of winning converts rather than reporting them in an encyclopaedic manner. --Fire Star 火星 19:02, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Olaf replies 

message: Your long post elicited a strong response from me because, among other issues, you tried to second guess the motives of two non-practioner editors (me and Samuel) in a way which was inappropriate, albeit  presumably well-motivated.  You also got into a rather tortured argument about the merits of the critical opinions reported in the "Is Falun Gong a Cult" section which I found offensive because: a) you and I worked cooperatively on that piece several months ago and b) it is not the topic we are presently discussing although, as you will see from the above, there is no end to the challenges some practitioners, especially Dilip, will make to the Criticism section.
You correctly point out that I did not respond to your paragraph in bold, so here's my point-by-point response:
First the postive:
1. You do acknowledge in your writing that practitioners don't talk about "concepts of high-level cultivation in everyday....activities."   Since this is a point I have been making repeatedly, I appreciate your tacit agreement with me that this is the general behavior of practitioners. 
2. You provide two explanations for this behavior (which I call "concealing the higher level teachings of the Falun Gong") and, even though I don't buy your explanations, I appreciate that they are well-thought out and sincere.  (More on that below.)
Now the negative:
1. Your premise appears to be that writing an encylopedia article is akin to learning a new system from scratch.  But in fact, no encyclopedia article is meant to replace a learning system and when you make that argument, it appears, as Fire Star aptly points out above, that you are attempting to win converts rather than simply reporting the basic teachings and practices of Falun Gong.
2. Your insertion of anti-persecution before the word activities in the sentence I partially quote from above is very telling and ultimately weakens your argument.  Your framing of the explanation for "not talking about concepts of high-level cultivation" in the context of the allegations of persecution in China amounts to an admission that practitioners approach their job of editng in Wikipedia solely based on their goal of gaining sympathy for practitioners in China and condemnation of the Chinese government.  I understand that this is a paramount issue for practitioners, but it is certainly not the only issue that needs to be addressed in an encylopedia article.  
3. I am a compassionate person who strongly believes in human rights, but at the same time I find the Falun Gong's rigid insistence on a "one message all the time" approach to public relations hypocritical and ultimately self-defeating.  Let me provide just a few examples of why:
*Many of the claims of torture in China appear to be fabricated, or at least are so outrageously exaggerated as to elicit a distrusting reponse.  Take for example the claims of organ harvesting at the Sujian facility.  Supposedly there were 6,000 victims at this facility and they were operated on, alive, in the basement of the facility.  But as reports have indicated the facility has no basement, and it is co-owned by a Malaysian organization which has recently visited the site.  Other outside investigators have also weighed in, including US government officials, and there has been no collaboration of these reports which are based solely on the private testimony of two people who were interveiwed by the Falun Gong.
*Under ordinary circumstances, one might want to give the Falun Gong the benefit of the doubt but hey, you guys have a big credibility problem.  Your leader makes outrageous and contradictory claims and is not accessible to western media.  When he has been interviewed by the press, he has claimed to be just an ordinary person. Yet to practitioners he is thought of as a god, savior, Buddha or whatever terminology you are comfortable with. It's clear that Li assumes extraordinary supernatural powers and by his own say-so the cultivation system he provides requires his personal intervention every step of the way.  Yet it's been a royal struggle to have any of this information reported in Wikidpedia because there's been an endless series of outright lies from practitioners on some of the most basic stuff.  It would be funny if it weren't so sad.  Take one small example on homosexuality: at one point, after we had agreed to post Li's poem "The World's Ten Evils" (which includes homosexuality)a practitioner actually logged on and claimed no where do we say that homosexuality is evil.  And even now, in your own post, I notice that you don't mention Li at all when you talk about Falun Gong as an "existential theory" or whatever.  Falun Gong is NOT just an "existential theory"..it is Li Hongzhi's revealed truths about the origin and fate of the cosmos, his role as savior, and his teaching about Fa-rectification.  Please, let's start being honest about this.
*Concerning civil rights, I notice that no practitioner has commented on the bullying tactics used by the Madrid lawyer last year.  In effect, he was ready to have the organizers and presenters arrested for hate speech because, in his twisted logic, anything anyone says which is critical of Falun Gong amounts to aiding and abetting what he claims is "genocide" in China.  Give me a break! And this kind of harassment of critics is not new to Falun Gong...it was, in fact, this kind of behavior that partially led to the ban in the first place.  Can Samuel and the other presenters get an apology on this?
4. Your second "explanation" for why practitioners don't talk about the higher teachings is off the mark.  You mention the dominance of the scientific method in the West and seem to justify the  concealing of Li's higher truths from the general public because "a system with different axioms is oftentimes marginalized and strongly criticized."   Well, maybe that's true, but is that really a justification for not reporting what those teachings are in an encylopedia article?   You, Li Hongzhi and FG media maven Gail Rachlin may think of that as a winning strategy, but to me it paints Falun Gong practitioners as deceitful and not trustworthy.  How can a group which claims to value "truthfullness" be so outraegously dishonest about its own beliefs?  And if a group cannot speak the truth about what it believes to the general public, why should that public believe them when they make outraegous and undocumented claims about torture in a forein land? 
5. You finish by saying "I have seen many instances where people cannot draw a distinction between the human rights issues...and Falun Gong's existential theory, as if the freedom of belief and opinion were somehow subservient to the fight against "heretical" dissidence.  But really, Olaf, the  people who criticize the Falun Gong can draw a distinction between human rights issues and what you strangely call "Falun Gong's existential theory." (Don't you mean "ontological theory"?) These two areas of inquiry are certainly not mutually exlusive and there is no reason why critics and editors in Wikipedia cannot address both issues in the same article.  For me that means, at a minimum, we should report on:
*Allegations of human rights abuses not just in China by the CCP but also in the West by over-zealous Falun Gong lawyers who seek to intimidate critics with unjustified legal threats.
*The fact that much of what Falun Gong claims is happening to its practitioners in China is highly suspect, especially given Li Hongzhi's tendency to exaggerate and embellish the truth. 
*The fact that Li Hongzhi's stated objective is not just to stop any and all persecution of practitioners in China, but rather to eliminate the Chinese Communist Party through overt means, including the distribution of the Nine Commentaries.
*"The fact that critics in China as well as the West have voiced legitmate concerns about the harmful effects of practicing the Falun Gong.  Those harmful effects include health consequences for practitioners who do not seek medical help when needed due to their belief that perceived sickness is not really sickness, but rather an opportunity to get rid of karma.  
*The fact that critics in the West find Li's teachings on homosexuality, racial differences and mixed race people very disturbing and contradictory to a commitment to universal human rights.
*And finally, the fact that Li assumes supernatural powers and absolute authority over his disciples and that this type of relationship is considered by some experts to be very destructive. Whether that makes Falun Gong a cult or not is debatable in the academic community,  but certainly there is evidence of manipulation of the disciples and what some legal experts are now calling "undue influence."  People who fall victim to authoritative, charismatic cult leaders are typically sucked into the group through deceptive recruitment and pressure from other group members over time. The Wikipedia article cannot draw a conclusion on this issue, but it certainly can report all sides of the debate.--Tomananda 00:38, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tomananda replies to Olaf 

message: Olaf, I am not going to play this game.  Your use of French quotes and your sophomoric air of assumed intellect does not address the fundmental issue I raised in my post: that Falun Gong has a big credibility problem.  The only way you can convince me that you are able and willing to speak the truth about Falun Gong is to speak the truth about Master Li Hongzhi,which includes his self-proclaimed role as the exclusive savior of mankind and his claim that his Dafa is judging all beings and weeding out the unworthy.  Master Li says he has removed the names of all Falun Gong practitioners from the registry list in Hell and promises to turn his followers into gods as long as they fulfill their obligations as "Fa-rectification Dafa disciples."  
You and every other Falun Gong practitioner/editor has been promised salvation by Master Li. But you have been told by Li that you can no longer expect to be saved simply by studying Zhuan Falun or doing the exercises.  Rather, you must expose what he considers to be the "evil and wicked" Chinese Communist Party and help to destroy that party through a variety of actions, including speading the nine commentaries and telling endless stories of persecution of practitioners in China. Even if the all the Falun Gong claims of persecution, torture and  organ harvesting were true, and even if all of that were to stop today, Li Hongzhi's goal would not be satisfied because the Chinese Communist Party would still exist.  The soteriological condition for Falun Gong practioners is clear:  salvation = the destruction of the CCP.  
But sadly, I am not buying your story.  There is a point at which one's credibility is so damaged that even if the truth is spoken, the listener doesn't believe...or just tunes out.  You say to Fire Star emphatically, even arrogantly, that you demand a detailed reponse to your arguments. But why should Fire Star or any other non-practitioner editor respond to your request when you yourself have ignored the post you claim to be responding to?  Unless and until you and the other practitioners demonstrate a willingness to accept edits which report Li's self-proclaimed status as the exclusive savior of mankind and his teaching that his Dafa is judging all sentient beings and weeding out the unworthy during this period of Fa-rectification, there is little point for us to continue any discussion on these pages.  Your explanation that practitioners don't talk about these things because Western thinking, which is too postivistic for your taste, may reject Falun Gong teachings does not wash. 
One more thing: I did an earlier post about honoring the life and death of Dr. Lili Feng.  Even though Dr. Feng dedicated her life to finding scientific evidence to prove the supernatural health benefits of Falun Gong practice, and even though her status as an honored Falun Gong practitioner has been recognized on many occassions by the Falun Gong, now that she has died it appears that she is being ignored by Falun Gong leadership and Li himself.  If you can prove me wrong...if there is some Falun Gong honorarium for Lili Feng that I have missed...please tell me.  Otherwise, Olaf, I ask that you once again intervene with the pratitioner/editors of Clearwisdom.  Please ask them to post a suitable honorarium for Dr. Lili Feng. My suspicion is that pratitioners are only honored by Master Li as long as they demonstrate their utility in his campaign to destroy the CCP. I would love to be proven wrong on this, since I believe there is human decency in all of us.  So please write once again to those Clearwisdom editors to make this request.  Thanks.  --Tomananda 17:53, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Falun Gong's Credibility Problem 

message: Agree it reads well, its concise, explanatory, neutral and it doesnt advertise falun gong in any way.--Andres18 04:15, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Comments of Mcconn's version

message: Ah yes, comments. I want to comment that when we do define "Fa-rectification" we should have a brief mention that the word "fa" 法 is one with a long religious and secular history in Chinese culture that Li is using in a compound, a new coinage, to present his supernatural doctrines. --Fire Star 火星 15:03, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Comments on Fire Star's additions

message: The main problem, which is also true for Kent's and Tomanda's version, is that the emphasis is placed on humankind's moral degradation. Fa-Rectification has very little to do with human kind's moral degradation and is instead a response to the decline of the whole universe (of which humankind is only one tiny tiny level). So this emphasis is wrong. Also, Falun Dafa doesn't weed out anything, the Fa-Rectification does. Mcconn 14:38, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Comments on Samuel's version

message: (Refactored from above section) I like Kent's version, but find it a bit skimpy and lacking in needed citations. --Tomananda 00:46, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The emphasis is in the wrong place (see my comment for Samuel's version), which makes it misleading. Mcconn 14:38, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Comments on Kent8888's version

message: Here's my proposed paragraph. Once again, there's been the usual blanket rejection of my edit alleging it's "out of context" or "represents my POV," but there has been no attempt to respond to the actual words which come directly from Li.  This is the fourth time I have put together a paragraph on salvation and Fa-rectification using the Master's own words and the fourth time it has been rejected out of hand.  I think we need to take a poll on each sentence.  If there's a sentence which is not true, please point it out and explain why.
*According to Li, humans have become so corrupt that “Gods don’t care about them anymore” and “No religion is being watched over by the Gods.”    It is believed that we have entered the stage of “the final period of Last Havoc” in which all beings are being judged by Li’s Dafa (great law). ,   Humankind’s last hope relies on the “Fa-rectification” , a process where the Dafa punishes the evil and rewards the good thus renewing the entire universe to its original purity.  There is some debate about who will be eliminated and who will be saved in the Fa-rectification.  However, Li has stated that heaven is already punishing people who don’t deserve to be saved, including evil beings who “interfere with and persecute the Fa-rectification and Dafa disciples.”  ,  --Tomananda 06:43, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Mcconn: How can you say that the quote in the first sentence...especially the second one...is not relevant to an understanding of Li's teaching on salvation and Fa-recification?  It is totally relevant, because it reveals that according to Li other religious teachings cannot do what the Dafa can do.  "No religon is being watched over by the Gods."  Li has made that same claim in a variety of different ways, but the substance of the message...which is that the Dafa can save sentient beings during this time of the Fa-rectification, but the old religions can't...is most certainly relevant. You continue to resist a straight-forward reporting of this material. I am not attached to any particular quote, but no matter what quote I provide you reject it. Care to suggest some alternative wording that conveys the same thought?   --Tomananda 04:58, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It is all good information, and I would support its inclusion in a section on the supernatural teachings of Li. My only criticism is that it is just a little quote-heavy. This is a literary quibble having nothing to do with whether or not Wikipedia should report such things out of a practitioner's "context". Maybe take one or two of the quotes out in favour of a paraphrase with citations, or have more prose in between the same number of quotes? --Fire Star 火星 13:22, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

text: If I'm not mistaken, Tomanda, you consider the most important aspect of Mr. Li's statements regarding Fa-Rectification to be statements that suggest only he can save sentient beings, right? This may be an important point when analysing Mr. Li's role in Falun Dafa, and his relationship with other religions and spirituality, but that's not what we're talking about here. We're looking for a concise explanation of the Fa-Rectification and what you're suggesting isn't it. What I think needs to be done is to look at the whole picture of what Fa-Rectification means, what Mr. Li has said about it, and then shrink that into a couple sentences. Your paraphragaph does not attempt to do this. The Fa-Rectification is not happening because human beings are corrupt, nor is it happening because Gods are not looking after human beings. These are telling of man's deviation, a deviation that has happened at the lowest level of the universe, but Fa-Rectification involves the entire universe. There are a lot of aspects of Fa-Rectification that are equally or more important than what your suggesting and if we were to include all of them the paragraph would be even longer. Your paragraph is already too long as it is. The weight of the paragraph needs to balanced with that of the other paragraphs in the intro. Our summary of Falun Dafa's core teachings and the persecution, are both quite concise, so this should likewise be concise. Doing otherwise would through off the balance (we were originally only suggesting a sentence or part of a sentence within the summary of the teachings). I feel that it's significance when weighed against the other aspects of the intro is not that big. I stand by my suggestion as the most focused, accurate, clearcut, and appropriately weighted of all of the suggestions up to now. Mcconn 14:49, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Back to the Introduction 

message: Tony Sidaway  thanks for the reminder.  We should get back to the article.  However I must say that the discussion we had in the last three days were all about the article.  As you can see the article is blocked, our communication were aiming to solve the conflict between Falun Gong practitioners and critics.  
I hope you guys don’t mind that I am moving things around.  Any ideas about what to do next? --Samuel Luo 22:18, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Back to the article 

message: If Samuel's site goes, here's a partial list of other links that must be deleted:
:Falun Dafa Information Center
:The Epoch Times
:Global Coalition to Bring Jiang Jamin to Justice
:Friends of Falun Gong
:Barend ter Haar's FG Evalution site
Dilip, stop changing the subject. Be a team player and help finish the first goal of writing
about Falun Gong salvation and Fa-rectification. --Tomananda 20:02, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: All of the above, with exception of The Epoch Times, are personal or private interest websites. The Epoch Times has to be eliminated because it is not a legitmate newspaper, but rather was founded by Dafa disciples for the purpose of validating Li Hongzhi's teachings.  That's what Li himself says about his newspaper and other media outlets.  So the Epoch Times link has to go as well, if in fact you continue to push your agenda of removing Samuel's website. --Tomananda 17:01, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Mcconn  is any wiki policy being broken here?  I suggest you and other practitioners who can not tolerate my website to read this discussion  --Samuel Luo 01:05, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Samuel's personal website STILL exists in the references section.=

message: We need to work on an into summarizing the criticism section. This cannot be postponed any longer.
Shortened?  Why do we need to shorten what already is a very short summary of critical articles?  Is it because you want to do everything in your power as a "Fa-rectification period Dafa disiple"  to whitewash the Falun Gong in Wikipedia?  There is no editorial need to "shorten" this section.  We did, however, agree to re-write it to function more like a true summary of the Criticism page, but that little project got sidetracked as you know.  And by the way, there are way too many separate daughter pages for different aspects of the Falun Gong which Dilip created without any discussion among the editors.  --Tomananda 20:06, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: The Criticism section on main page needs to be shortened

message: The order needs to be changed?   We haven't even completed the introduction section!  This is yet another diversionary tactic from a Falun Gong practitioner whose very salvation depends on working towards the destruction of the CCP, which means censoring any and all material about the Falun Gong which does not fit nicely with its neatly packaged media image.  Oh Glory Days!  We are finally seeing the triumph of media manipulation over truth, all in the name of "Truthfullness, Compassion and Forebearance"   The Dafa is judging all beings and we who do not fit the Dafa's media image shall be weeded out. Li says anyone who doesn't think the Dafa is good will be weeded out first, along with everyone who is a member or supporter of the CCP.  That's a fact.  What is less clear is whether all those don't-meet-the-standard-of-being-human homosexuals in the world will be weeded out now, or will we benefit from Li's divine forgiveness?  And the big lie continues...  --Tomananda 20:26, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: The order of the sub-titles need to be decided upon

message: It doesn't look like CovenantD is coming back.  Should we request formal mediation?  --Kent8888 19:36, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It has only been a few days. People sometimes disappear for days at a time, especially if the weather is nice where they live. I'd give him until next Monday. --Fire Star 火星 14:26, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request formal mediation 

message: Okay, I have been procrastinating but got some time now. I realised that for many diffs, there is no more immediate explanation than what's in the edit summary. But what's disputed further, we can discuss. I number and link there here anyway, so it's clear what's going on. Again, I request that each edit be dealt with separately, and that responses not be ad-hominem, but actually dealing with the straightforward question of wikipedia policy and sources. You can see how to easily set up the numbering system, or use your own way. Is this the best way of keeping track of the discussion? Anyway, we can try it like this. Would it be more helpful if I copied and pasted the edit summaries right here, so we can see? At the moment I just have two browsers on each side of the screen and can refer to them back and forth easily, but if the paper trail needs to be clearer, I am happy to oblige.
#
#
#
# -- This needs a source or it's simply a random snippet that someone put in cause they thought it sounded good. Do I misunderstand something? It's like putting in any random comment or statement, right? Doesn't make sense.
# -- I could be missing something here. Like in all the cases, happy for an explanation if I misunderstand something. But I didn't believe the CCP was a reliable source? Maybe it could be handled with context, or something? In this case, it's not clear how their view is relevant to the discussion, though, since they are not RS, and the CCP's view on Falun Gong is most relevant in the section about their view? Am I wrong?
#
# -- this is actually a more complex issue. It's basically a question of how the cult label debate should be treated in the article. I don't think major revision is necessary to the current version. But I think there are two key points that are both verifiable through sources and important for the page to reflect. 1) the origin of the term. 2) the "uptake" or response the term has received among journalists and scholars--i.e., how it's most often talked about and contextualised. More on that later. In short, I believe this should be in the section that explains the CCP's propaganda campaign against Falun Gong. But it's not enough to simply assert that. The point is to show that such an argument actually has strong textual support. Wikipedia has to conform to what the sources say, so the placement of this material should reflect the best sources.
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
--Asdfg12345 15:29, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: The changes have been reverted multiple times, and no one has made any attempt to respond to the edit summaries or the info above. I also wrote above whether it would help if I ported the edit summaries here, but no response... This is now kinda entering the realm of fantasy. But I just watched the last half of that star trek prequel, so I'm feeling pretty optimistic. It's hope that makes me so assiduous. I'm just going to restore the information that I added to the article. I will also list the other problems that currently exist, as I perceive them. These are all in various states of non-discussion. As in, the problem is brought up, someone makes a dismissive remark, abandons dialogue, and nothing further. Then, apparently, it's "no consensus" so no one can edit. anyway. I have taken note of how to make good edits, so I hope things are even more transparent. --Asdfg12345 13:44, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I added a lot of material to the article. I didn't change much of what was already there. Apparently that's a no-no. And I tried to check the diffs to see that they were all very clear. All these edits in the midst of so much turmoil, it seems pretty contentious. I know. I will explain briefly. I don't think it's right that I be intimidated from editing the pages because people are revert happy, because they call me names, say I'm a pro-Falun Gong POV-pusher, and whatever else. The pages just need improvement. I'm not going to not do that because of irrational arguments levelled at me. This isnt' meant to be provocative. I just do not want to get caught up in all this drama. I only added information, impeccably sourced, and often quite relevant. Most of the time it balanced an existing POV, or added some (what I would consider) background or context. I will be interested to see whether someone dares revert them all. I was careful to not actually modify the existing structure or content, so as not to invite that sort of thing. So I basically just added stuff. I welcome others to build on it, work with it, and play with it constructively. If you revert it all and call me names, I'll be sad. Unfortunately though, I won't be surprised. But it will be a great example of the collapse of the editing environment around here if it happens. I think the edits stand on their own, and I think they fit the context of the article. I suggest you read through them before deleting them. Judge whether they are good or useful changes or not. Don't tell me that I have to get a consensus on each point before I can add information. That's not true. This is a dynamic, work in progress, right? As I say, my changes are simply adding information. First read, think, and consider: is it a net benefit to the page, to the encyclopedia? We can change and discuss, change and discuss. I hope I'm not acting out of line, but I've been considering the events of the last few days, and I think it would be wrong to just give up on improving the pages because I've been met with hostility. Live long and prosper.--Asdfg12345 16:42, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Changes and discussion for them