Talk:Falun Gong/Archive 10

This is an archived discussion page. DO NOT EDIT THIS PAGE. Please go to the main talk page and join the discussion there.

Archived discussion:

• Talk:Falun_Gong/Archive1, 1 April 2003 - 29 May 2005
• Talk:Falun_Gong/Archive2, 29 May 2005 to 30 July 2005
• Talk:Falun_Gong/Archive3, 31 July 2005 to 20 January 2006
• Talk:Falun_Gong/Archive4, 21 January 2006 to 2 March 2006
• Talk:Falun_Gong/Archive5, 3 March 2006 to 21 March 2006
• Talk:Falun_Gong/Archive6, 22 March 2006 to 10 April 2006
• Talk:Falun_Gong/Archive7, 10 April 2006 to 25 April 2006
• Talk:Falun_Gong/Archive8, 25 April 2006 to 26 May 2006
• Talk:Falun_Gong/Archive9, 26 May 2006 to 2 June 2006

Unprotected

As requested at WP:RfPP, I've now unprotected this article as it seems to have been long enough and the discussions here seem to have been productive. I'll keep the article watchlisted and jump in if edit warring begins again. Feel free to contact me or respond here if you agree or do not agree with unprotection, or if you feel that it may be necessary to protect again. AmiDaniel (talk) 03:48, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

I am introducing links to the sub-pages created. Dilip rajeev 04:18, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Alright everyone, calm down. Not five hours, and you're back edit-warring again. I'm not going to protect again just yet, but please everyone refrain from reverting and discuss your issues as if the article were protected--or else I will have to protect it again. Talk about changes, and then implement--changing, reverting, and arguing with edit summaries is quite counter-productive. AmiDaniel (talk) 08:11, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Ami: Right after you unfroze the article Dilip, who requested you to do so, immediately reverted to a drastically different version which was not approved by the editors. His version actually deleted certain existing sections on the main page (eg: Ethics) and added new ones (eg: Research into Health Benefits and Theoretical & Epesitomological Studies. This is a dishonest action on Dilip's part and cannot stand. --Tomananda 08:16, 2 June 2006 (UTC) The ethics section is here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theoretical_and_Epistemological_studies_on_Falun_Gong#Ethics

Agreed. Removing sections has not been agreed on. We haven't even agreed on the second paragraph yet. CovenantD 08:19, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

As a note on that, User:Dilip rajeev is currently at four reverts (thus already in violation of 3RR). He has been warned, and upon reverting again, he will be blocked. AmiDaniel (talk) 08:26, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

And as another note, while I'm not endorsing either version or any editors' actions here, I do find it quite misleading and dishonest that User:Dilip rajeev marked this edit as minor, as it clearly was not. I'm going to assume good faith and say that this was a mistake on his behalf, but I do find it rather bothersome. AmiDaniel (talk) 08:32, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

I am sorry but I myself noticed the m only after I saved it.. It was not intentional.. Also I had mentioend in the edit history what I had done, indicating the edit was not a minor one.. I described the edit as:Added sup-page links and replaced content with intro paras.( except "criticism" section)Dilip rajeev 16:30, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

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

Second paragraph

Okay, let's start with the one that was in place when the page was frozen.

Falun Gong has been the focus of international controversy since the government of the People's Republic of China began a nationwide suppression of Falun Gong on July 20, 1999 for its illegal activities. The Falun Gong came to the attention of the Chinese government when 10,000 practitioners protested peaceful at Zhongnanhai the compound of Chinese top leaders on April 25, 1999.

Here's a suggested modified version which tries to strike a balance between the two POV's, but also adds more detail:

Falun Gong has been the focus of international attention since April 25,1999, when 10,000 practitioners assembled in a peaceful protest outside Zhongnanhai, China’s leadership compound. Prior to that, the Falun Gong had staged protests against its media critics all over China. On July 20, 1999 the government banned the Falun Gong for its violation of Chinese laws. However, the Falung Gong denies any wrongdoing, claiming that the Chinese government itself has violated international laws, while also alleging mistreatment and torture of its followers. --Tomananda 08:50, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

I dont udnerstand why anybody would want go into such "details" in an article of Falun Gong. The reason why you want to put it like that is only too conspicuous. I dont think going in circles discussing this would work. Just menstion that China began a Nation-wide supression of Falun Gong on.. and that this has been regarded a major human-rights violation.. Over a week, and we are again back on square 1. To procced we must clearly have the article split. The intro paras can be discussed and modified. That is clean and starightforward. Dilip rajeev 10:16, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Suggestions for edits

My first suggestion is to not make any changes until we agree on them. Dilip, that means you should put the second paragraph back for now. CovenantD 08:19, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

I second that. And let's go in the order of the existing sections. Dilip wants to add some new main page sections and delete (or move) some others and those changes can be discussed as we go along as well. I am not saying I reject everything Dilip wants to do, but do insist we fully know what these changes are and agree to them. --Tomananda 08:29, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Tomanda, Covenant was talking about the intro paragraph. You seem to want to cover up things in a mess and make the discussion go around in circles. Not intented to be an offense but just pointing out what I feel. To procced, we must clearly have the article split. The intro paras can be discussed and modified. That is clean and straightforward and the dits will move much faster. If anything has been left our from the previous version(s) it can be re-introduced. Think about it please, it it takes two weeks to decide a two line pragraph and we are still arguing, we really wont be able to get things done unless things are put into appropriate sub-pages and scrutinized thereby creating a high-quality article. Dilip rajeev 10:16, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

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

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

Other than Tomananda's initial attempt at an alternate version, above, there hasn't been any productive discussion on the second paragraph. Look at the two versions at the top of this section and make suggestions for changes here. CovenantD 18:24, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

---

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

Beliefs and teachings and Cultivation of mind and body

Folks: I have a question. I think the current structure are not logically clear. For example, I think these two sections are not parallel.

3 Beliefs and teachings

4 Cultivation of mind and body

Progress

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

1st paragraph of intro

I see that Dilip has added another sentence to the first paragraph. Is there anything in this that needs to be discussed? Unless there's a dispute about the numbers, it seems like a non-issue to me. CovenantD 17:32, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

The system has been growing in popularity world-over with the teachings translated to over 40 languages and practitioners present in over 80 countries.

Unless somebody objects to this sentence being added in the next 24 hours, I'm going to add it and resist any attempts to remove it without discussion. CovenantD 18:21, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Second paragraph of Origins section

It's just been pointed out that this paragraph is in contention. Let's discuss.

At the beginning, Li introduced himself to the public as a master with the utmost supernatural powers and wisdom. In “A Short Biography of Mr. Li Hongzhi” which appeared as an appendix in the early version of the group’s bible Zhuan Falun, Li claimed to have been trained by numerous Masters in Buddhism and Taoism since the age of four and acquired supernatural powers at age of eight. He could levitate off the ground and become invisible simply by thinking "Nobody can see me.” Two other supernatural powers were his ability to control people’s movements by thoughts and to move himself anywhere he wanted by thought alone. Li also presented himself as the very embodiment of Truthfulness, Compassion and Tolerance and claimed to have discovered the truth of the universe…the origin of humankind and foresaw the development and future of the humankind.

Dilip, you're the one who removed it, so why don't you explain why. Tomananda, you pointed out it had been removed so maybe you could explain why you think it's relevant to the section summary (as opposed to the daughter article on History). Samuel, you just jumped in so you need to explain the same. Also see the relevant portions of this talk page on the intro. CovenantD 18:57, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Covenant, at this point I am more concerned about dealing with Dilip's failure to play by the rules. The paragraph that he deleted was written by another editor, Samuel, so it is up to Samuel to provide the argument for relevance. --Tomananda 21:31, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't think this section should be there, iv'e searched for "A Short Biography of Mr. Li Hongzhi" and found nothing, I have not read the book and I dont what it says there. 213.114.166.136 11:56, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Order of topics in Criticism and Controveries section

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

Ethics section

I've returned the Ethics section to the article for now - there hasn't been agreement on removing it. It's now open for discussion. CovenantD 17:27, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Just wanted to point out that a copy of the ethics section exists here.. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theoretical_and_Epistemological_studies_on_Falun_Gong#Ethics.. Dilip rajeev 17:34, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing that out. I missed it. I still think that some editors might want a mention on the main page, so perrhaps we should look at how to summarize what we have here now. CovenantD 17:38, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Now that Tomananda has made me look at the various Ethics sections with this, I see some problems. What's there is almost the same as what's in the Theorhetical article. That is unacceptable. There's also the fact that Ethics can be viewed from a critical viewpoint, so that needs to be worked in. I'd suggest a new subsection under Criticism and moving the current Ethics to a subcategory of Theorhetical and summarize it. CovenantD 22:16, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, most of the current Ethics section is critical, so that's why we retitled it to Allegations of elitism and intolerance in Falun Gong ethics and placed it in the Criticism page. I agree something needs to be written, but that would be a more pro-FG rendering of its system of ethics. --Tomananda 22:31, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

okay, now I'm confused again. Are you saying that the section that it's this article, the section called Ethics, is the same thing that's on the Criticism page? What's here now is pretty long. CovenantD 22:42, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, it is confusing. The original article appeared in the main section. Then another editor (I think it was Ed Poor) felt it belonged in the Criticism page. I then did a minor re-write to make it more suitable for Criticism. The versions are similar, but not the same. Check out the criticism version here: Criticism and controversies about Falun Gong#Allegations of elitism and intolerance in Falun Gong ethics Please note that when I revised the article in the Criticsm page, an editor inserted the lead paragraph from the original version. But since a criticism page should start with what the criticism is, I've just deleted that first paragraph. What would work well, then, would be for the pro-FG editors to write a new main page section for Ethics and have that cross-linked to the Criticism page. Would make for an interesting read I think. --Tomananda 00:34, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

External links

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

Status of edits and playing by the rules

Several things to report and discuss:

• Yesterday Ami Daniel warned both Dilip and I that if we did any more reverts he would block us. As the history will show, I stopped doing any more edits, while a few hours later Dilip deleted an entire paragraph in the origins section (see above discussion). This was clearly in violation of Ami's directive and I have requested that Dilip now be blocked for a 24 hour period. Enough is enough.
• Dilip's stated reason for deleting the paragraph...which quotes from Li Hongzhi's original biography as printed in earlier editions of Zhuan Falun...was that it was "unsourced."
• Covenant, you have asked that we not delete material for reasons of sources but instead add a citation needed. In doing his deletion, Dilip not only violated the 3RR limit warning, but also your earlier request to not delete material because of source issues. What's more, the paragraph in question was sourced within the text.
• There is a great deal of material in other pages which is unsourced, unverified or needs to be re-written. I did an extensive post about these issues days ago, but there has been no response. We cannot have a double standard on the issues of sources.
• Among the many changes that Dilip has slipped into his edits, without discussion, is the creation of a new page called "History and timeline." We did not discuss this new page and I question it's need at this point.
• A rewrite of the Ethics section was placed in the Criticism page some time ago titled "Allegations of elitisim and intolerance in Falun Gong ethics." Now I see that Dilip or perhaps another practitioner has added a link on the home page under Ethics to "Theoretical and epistomological studies.." which, by the way, is yet another new section. This particular change is not acceptable, as the content for the re-written ethics section clearly belongs on the Criticism page. If there's a desire to write up something new for Ethics and place it on another page, that's fine. But the existing section, which focuses on aspects of FG ethics which are elitist or intolerant should not be moved. --Tomananda 21:28, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

• AmiDaniel is the admin overseeing this. If you don't get a response from hir, ask Fire Star, Mirobrovsky or another admin to request a neutral party to look it over.
• The paragraph has been returned and is now open for discussion.
• ...
• Material in other pages should be addressed on their respective talk page. All sources must meet Wikipedia standards.
• Having a history page is not a bad idea for now. It does fit the style of summaries and sub-articles that we discussed, so I'm inclined to assume good faith on its creation. Process questions aside, it allows for a space to create that portion of the story that is Falun Gong. If we decide it's more appropriate for this main article then we can fold it back in. Let's discuss it over there.
• Much of that also applies here - the style of the main article, the assumption of good faith, space to work on that separate from the main article summary. I agree that ethics is something best dealt with from several perspectives. Um, and I'm the one who added the link to the Theorhetical article after Dilip pointed it out to me. I'm going to claim an assume good faith defense also. Now that you've made me look at the Ethics sections, see my comments here. I see some problems that need to be addressed. CovenantD 22:07, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Concerning the need for citations in the Persecution page, I notice that a few were added by Dilip, but not accepted by Covenant. In addition to dealing with those problem areas, I especially ask for a response to items # 1 and # 2 that appeared in my posting above Talk:Falun Gong#Text that needs to be deleted, verified or re-written Having just gone through a major challenge to the Deng and Fang academic paper, I am especially concerned about verifying sources about the alleged healh benefits of Falun Gong. Please see: Talk: Research into health benefits of Falun Gong--Tomananda 22:23, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Already on it. See my responses on the talk page and my edits to the article[1]. CovenantD 00:52, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

A paragraph starting "At the beginning..." was removed from the origins section as it seems to be completely unsourced further what relevance does the unsourced claim have? It sounds more like made up criticism... AND AGAIN THE NY TIMES FIGURE HAS BEEN DELETED BY SOMEONE. IF YOU KEEP DELETING SUCH WELL SOURCED THINGS...(I THINK IT HAS BEEN DELETED REPEATEDLY OVER A DOZEN TIMES BY THE SAME PERSON) I WONDER TO WHAT EXTENT THIS PERSON WOULD GO TO VANDALIZE THE ARTICLE. Dilip rajeev 06:59, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

• Dilip rajeevAnyone who reads the paragraph would know that the material comes from “A Short Biography of Mr. Li Hongzhi” appeared as an appendix in the early version of the Chinese Zhuan Falun. Why don’t you ask a Chinese practitioner for a copy of it? And again, one more time, you rewrote the article and deleted a section without consensus!

I understand there was something in a version by A publisher in China and that it was written by a journalist. But of what relevance is that? There are so many publishing houses around the world publishing Zhuan Falun and I guess even in mainland china there were more than one. Dilip rajeev 13:11, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

NY Times figure

And again, one more time, the NY Times figure has been deleted, and a completely unsourced claim introduced.. Dilip rajeev 07:24, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Why does this keep getting deleted? It's cited and fits the context. Please explain the deletion. CovenantD 07:26, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

The figure provided by NY Times contradicts the government’s figure. The original source should be cited whenever there is a conflict like this. If you promise not to rewrite or delete anything without a consensus, I will not delete it again. --Samuel Luo 07:30, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Samuel Lou: "The figure provided by NY Times contradicts the government’s figure. " Do you trust a killed government responsible for the deaths of 100 million chinese or the Ny Times? Who cares about the Chinese Government? Are you going to follow all the Chinese Communist propaganda too? Stop deleting it please. Omido 16:36, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Samuel, thank you for agreeing not to delete the material until we reach an agreement.

The obvious solution is to include all three sets of numbers. The New York Times is the embodiment of a reliable source. CovenantD 16:52, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

• Dilip rajeev, It was not written by a journalist but the Falun Dafa Research Society chaired by your master. The version of the Chinese Zhuan Falun I have which contains this biography was published by Falun Fofa publishing co in Hong Kong owned by your master. Why don’t you ask for a translation of it from a Chinese practitioner? Benjamin Penny wrote about it in his paper “The Life and Times of Li Hongzhi: Falun Gong and Religious Biography” [2]

Omido, I don’t trust the Chinese government, the Falun Gong and you. We have to report the claims of the Chinese government and the Falun Gong nothing more nothing less. --Samuel Luo 17:33, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

We discussed this issue in depth here. If you want to debate the issue please look at what has already been said. In my opinion, the discussion left off indicating that the NY Times source should be included. Mcconn 16:59, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Samuel, your issues of trust aside, what do you think of the current version of the paragraph that deals with the number of practitioners? I'm referring to the version that lists the NYT numbers first, then the Chinese gov't figure, then the ClearWisdom number? CovenantD 17:20, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Where did the Pics Go?

Where did all of the pics for the Falun Gong page go? The Fading Light 13:18, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

I suspect they were moved to the spin-off articles. CovenantD 16:35, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Also why is the Feng and Deng quotes on the main page? 213.114.166.136 16:29, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

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

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

Yes I can do it, ALOT of things on the critics section is unsourced too... Omido 16:37, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

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

--Tomananda 19:45, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

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

Need Sources

---

These things i what I want to see sources for:

Li as a savior or supernatural entity

"critics point out that he assumes the role of a divinity by virtue of his claimed supernatural powers."

Although practitioners claim that Falun Gong is merely a “cultivation practice,” some commentators point to Li’s divine status as proof that Falun Gong can rightly be considered a religion. (Chang, 2004)

Chang opines: “If Li Hongzhi’s disciples can become gods by engaging in falun gong, it stands to reason that the founder of this cultivation practice must himself be a deity.”

According to Chang, the existence of Li’s law bodies combined with his claim to be without karma amount to an admission of his divine nature: “Li also maintained that human beings do not have law bodies and that only he – as well as buddhas, daos and gods – have law bodies. Falun Gong practitioners must wait until they have completed their cultivation, and attained buddhahood, to have such bodies.”

Allegations of elitism and intolerance in Falun Gong ethics

Critics of the Falun Gong have pointed out that aspects of Li’s system of morality can be considered elitist and intolerant.

Critics who see the Falun Gong as elitist point to what they see as a strong “us-versus- them” ethos in Falun Gong teachings.

According to Rahn (2000), one of the potential effects of this ethos “is the possibility of isolating practitioners from family and friends as well as non-practitioners in general. It can also help create a feedback loop system where practitioners only relate to other practitioners, thereby mutually reinforcing belief in the teachings, identification with the group, and eradication of any conflicting or alternative views.”

Li’s teachings on the importance of racial purity have provoked considerable controversy. Critics opine that Li is intolerant of racial differences

Is Falun Gong a cult?

Critics of Falun Gong in the West argue that because of the relationship of dependency that Li Hongzhi establishes between himself and his followers, using what they say are a variety of manipulative techniques, the Falun Gong should be thought of as a cult rather than a new religious movement or metaphysical qigong.

Omido 16:48, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Do you know how to insert a "citation needed" tag? Just put {{fact}} where you want a source referenced. I don't think of that as a major edit, just a way of letting people know where there's something that needs attention. CovenantD 17:00, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Convenant, I am really sorry for all those reverts, I am kinda new :) Omido 17:04, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

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

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

Reverts Deleting New Content

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

Enough is Enough: Dilip must receive a block sanction at this point

How many warnings can one editor get before his violation of Wiki standards results in a sanction? Dilip has repeatedly violated the 3RR policy, while also posting extremely deceptive edit summaries to conceal what he is actually doing through a series of hard-to-track edits. Some time ago he received a warning from Miborovsky. More recently, he received a warning (as did I) from another administrator. I honored that warning, but Dilip did not...about two hours later he returned to reverting or deleting material in the main article. Now, for the umpteenth time he has done it again, and quite deceptively. Here's a summary of his most recent violation of the 3RR policy, together with an explanation so that we can all understand the ultimate results of Dilip's editing:

• 7:07 3 June 2006
• 15:27 3 June 2006
• 17:34 3 June 2006
• 19:41 3 June 2006

I invite every administrator who accesses this article to review this sequence of edits and how Dilip summarized them in his edit summary. Here's the bottom line: Dilip evidently does not want Wikipedia to report Li's own statement about his origins in the Origins section. In some of these edits, Dilip simply deleted the entire Origins section (which pre-existed his History and Timeline page), in other edits he replaced the second paragraph with one of his own making, and in the final edit he was straightforward about what he wanted to do, saying in the edit summary: "removed the completely unsourced paragraph starting with 'In the beginning'"

That last edit by Dilip, done at 19:41 on 3 June, represented his 4th attempt in 24 hours to delete or delete and replace the same paragraph. It is a clear violation of Wiki rules and given that there is a long history of this violation on Dilip's part I insist that some action be taken. Is there no accountability in Wikipedia ever?

One more imporant point: The paragraph which Dilip seeks to eliminate is already sourced within the body of the text. It comes from an early edition of Zhuan Falun in Chinese whicih contained an official biography of Li Hongzhi--a biography which the publishers later on removed from subsequent editions. The source of the Li quote, therefore, is a Falun Gong publisher. The question we have to ask ourselves is this: why does Dilip not want this material reported in Falun Gong, since it comes from the first biography of his master and was published, in book form, by the Falun Gong itself? --Tomananda 21:37, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Dillip has been blocked for twelve hours for this violation, though he contests that it was not 3RR. I agree with you here that his reverts are often times complex partial reverts with deceptive edit summaries, and as I've warned him in the past, this behavior is completely unacceptable. At the same time, there are three editors to this article who are editing in a highly disruptive manner, and I'm tempted to protect the article yet again, which I think would be highly unfortunate. As I think Dillip should at least be allowed to voice his opinion on these matters on the talk page, I've made an ultimatum to him that if he can refrain from editing the article altogether for the next twenty-four hours, I will lift the block. AmiDaniel (talk) 21:46, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Thank you Ami! Maybe this will help settle the overall edits down and encourage more discussion, which would be a good thing. Let's give it a try. --Tomananda 21:58, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

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

Tomananda, please be a bit more restrained in your posts about Dilip's actions and reverts. It's getting very close to the first example of a personal attack because of it's repitition. Your feelings are recorded on the talk page and in the edit history, and there's a neutral-party admin keeping an eye on this page, so there's no need to expound on those again. A simple request to check the number of reverts, here and on AmiDaniel's page, will suffice in the future. CovenantD 16:59, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

This does not constitute a personal attack and it surprises me that you would even suggest it. In the above post I documented why a series of edits did, in fact, consitute a violation of the 3RR rule. Because Dilip often uses deceptive edit summaries while deleting critical material and adding new material, it is often not clear what the real effect of his edits has been. I have not said any thing about Dilip personally above, but I have characterized his edits as "deceptive"--which they are. Collaboration of that fact has come from several administrators: most recently Ami agreed he used deceptive edits, and previously Fire Star stated she had increasing difficulty believing what Dilip says about anything. And on top of that, you yourself used the "f" word to indicate your understandable frustration with Dilip's undiscussed deletions. To accuse me of personally attacking Dilip simply because I have done multiple postings on different occassions is unjustified. I have done multiple postings because Dilip has done multiple deltions, often in vilolation of the 3RR rule, and had actually received a warning from Miborovsky about it. --Tomananda 18:28, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm not justifying or excusing or even talking about Dilip's actions - I'm talking about yours. I compared it to the first example of a personal attack because of your repetition. In some ways, you make my case for me. Admins are aware of the problem and are actively monitoring it. AmiDaniel appears to be very good at finding reverts - I think bringing it to hir attention is enough to bring action. If you feel the need to do a full report, there is a page for it. If you think my words are inaccurate, feel free to ignore them. I won't be offended. :-) CovenantD 20:23, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

PS - And to keep it neutral you might want to consider just asking that all editors be checked when you think one has violated 3RR. It often turns out that other editors are at three reverts, and that should be brought out too. CovenantD 17:56, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Sure, but your comment begs the question. I have done postings in the past asking for administrators to intervene and there has actually been some discussion among all the editors leading to suggestions that we should be permissive. But IMHO, the permissive strategy has not worked. I would rather that we all take a hard line on the 3RR policy in the future because I think the stability that will come from that will result in a better article. I agree that every editor must be held accountable for this policy...plus providing honest edit summaries so people can figure out what is happening. --Tomananda 18:28, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Agreed, which is why I'm pushing the idea of contacting AmiDaniel. S/he seems to be impartial so far, yet willing to wade in and take action. S/he also has a habit of counting everybody's reverts and making appropriate comments/warnings, another factor I find to be very useful. CovenantD 20:23, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

OK, then, I will trust that Ami will do his job (I think he's a he) and apologize if I've been impatient. --Tomananda 21:53, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Master Li lectures practitioners for not taking criticism well in 2006 speech. Was it the first time he has done that?

Here's an intro I wrote for a block quote in the Ethics section:

In a speech in Los Angeles (2006), Li Hongzhi spoke for the first time about what he sees as a big problem—cultivators not accepting criticism well. He also suggested that practitioners may be too focused on making judgments about others

In a recent edit, Dilip replaced the lead sentence with:

In a speech in Los Angeles (2006) Li Hongzhi says:

Here are the key sections from the LA speech:

Sometimes, while validating the Fa, doing Dafa work in general, or in your own cultivation, many unsatisfactory things indeed exist. The most noticeable and biggest problem, which has gone unresolved for a long time, is also what the gods have been muttering in my ears, something that troubles them the most. But I have never emphasized it, and I haven't discussed it with strong words. Why is that? It's because Dafa disciples needed a little human courage as they were going about validating the Fa today. That is why I didn't talk about it. I wanted to save that discussion for the final time--I wanted to talk about it later on, when the time was more ripe. What is it, then? When Dafa disciples make mistakes, they do not like to be criticized. No one can criticize them, and when someone does, it sets them off. When they are right, they don't like others bringing up things they could improve on; when they are wrong, they don't want to be criticized. They get upset as soon as others criticize. The problem is becoming pretty bad. (Applause)

Why have I waited until now to talk about it? When you were validating the Fa and exposing the evil earlier on, I didn't want you to be too soft when doing things; in that case as you clarified the truth you would have been apt to do so at less than full strength. It would be a problem if, when others commented [negatively] as you clarified the truth, you just stopped right there, without giving any explanation. Now that you have become mature and rational, and know how to handle things, and now that [discussing this matter] will not affect your truth clarification, I am talking about what I had saved for today.

Now that Master has spoken about this in today's teaching of Fa here, from this point on you must start to take this matter seriously. (Enthusiastic Applause)

Dilip, it seems to me the Master Li directly says he waited until now to talk about (this problem). The fact that he has previously told practitioners they must accept criticism well does not mean that he has previously scolded them for not doing so. What’s new about this blockquote is not the moral teaching itself, but the pointed scolding he gives to practitioners for not living up to it.

I introduced the block quote with “Master Li spoke for the first time about what he sees as a big problem.” It is not reasonable for you to just delete that introduction with a deceptive edit summary. If you or another editor wants to suggest alternative wording for the introduction, that's fine. But your deletion of the entire introduction I wrote is not a cooperative editing thing to do. --Tomananda 22:38, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia has apolicy of no orginal research. But I completely disagree with your interpretations. What do you think culitvation practice is? Personal conclusions or interpretations you comeup with cannot be put in the article. 202.83.32.50 15:54, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

“A Short Biography of Mr. Li Hongzhi”

I just want to point out that Fnhddzs has just added an edit to the second paragraph of the origins section which cites a Benjamin Penny article about Li's first biography. What's important about Fnhddzs's edit is that for the first time a Falun Gong practitioner has admitted that the quote in fact did come from a book published by the Falun Gong. (Readers of this discussion will note that Dilip was just sanctioned for doing a series of 4 reverts which deleted this very paragraph for the alleged reason that it was unsourced.) So now the story is that the biographical statment is sourced, but that it had originally been written by a reporter and edited by the Falun Gong before they published it in the early version of the Zhuan Falun. I don't dispute any of that, and in fact think it is worth pointing out if it is true. However, why did we have to go through a potential revert war to come to this new understanding? For those interested, the Fnhddzs edit was done at 22:47 3 June. There are stylistic problems with the edit..it should be an independent paragraph and could be expressed more clearly, but it's a start. --Tomananda 23:33, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

At the beginning, Li introduced himself to the public as a master with the utmost supernatural powers and wisdom. In “A Short Biography of Mr. Li Hongzhi” which appeared as an appendix in the early version of the group’s bible Zhuan Falun, Li claimed to have been trained by numerous Masters in Buddhism and Taoism since the age of four and acquired supernatural powers at age of eight. He could levitate off the ground and become invisible simply by thinking "Nobody can see me.” Two other supernatural powers were his ability to control people’s movements by thoughts and to move himself anywhere he wanted by thought alone. Li also presented himself as the very embodiment of Truthfulness, Compassion and Tolerance and claimed to have discovered the truth of the universe…the origin of humankind and foresaw the development and future of the humankind.

This is completely unsourced. A version by A publsher in China carried a two page "biography" written by a journalist. Thats all .. What this para claims is something else...

• “A Short Biography of Mr. Li Hongzhi” was written by FAlun dafa research society developed and chaired by Li. A shorter version with a different title was distributed by Li himself at the very beginning of his master career. This seventeen pages long bio was included in all chinese Zhuan Falun beofre 1999. Li has been very secretive about his origins. This bio provides info to the origin of his wisdom and power. It also talked about how he developed the Falun Gong system. --Samuel Luo 17:14, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

There needs to be a version that is avail for people to read. It doesn't have to be online, but it can't be a part of somebody's private collection either. It must be accessible for people to read for themselves. If there is an English translation that has been published, that should be used. It the only version available is Chinese, then that will have to be used. The first step is verifying that there is a version that is accessible by the public. CovenantD 17:45, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Information on source verification for Li's early biography in Zhuan Falun

The authorized biography of Li Hongzhi, which appeared as an appendix in earlier versions of Zhuan Falun, is totally legitmate as a source and since this is becoming an issue I will provide all the reasons why:

• Earlier versions of Zhuan Falun containing Li's authorized biography are publicly available in some public libraries. They may be difficult to track down, but that difficulty is no justification for not allowing it as a source.
• The authorized biography is described in detail by Benjamin Penny in his article "The Life and Times of Li Hongzhi: Falun Gong and Religious Biography."
• In addition to summarizing the contents of the authorized biography, Penny makes several comments concerning its legitimacy. Since most editors probably have not seen the Penny article, I will quote verbatim from it:

When "The Life and times of Li Hongzhi" was released under the authorship of the research department of the Ministry of Public Security, the target of its attack was a biography of Li that has circulated both as an appendix to early editions of Zhuna Falun, the major book of the movement, and as a stand-alone text from the internet. Its English version is entitled "A short biography of Mr Li Hongzhi, founder of Falun Xiulian Dafa, President of the Research Society of Falun Buddha Science." This biography consists of an introduction and five parts and describes the life of Li Hongzhi, from his birth until late 1993. It's last sentence reads: "At present, Mr Li is heading his disciples to preach the Law and teach the cultivation exercise in big and medium-sized cities throughout the country." Thus, it was probably composed in late 1993 or 1994 and appears to have circulated freely for some five or six years afterwards. The biography is presented as a product of the Falun Gong Reserch Society (Falun gong yanjiuhui)appearing over their signature. Neither the current edition of Zhuan Falun nor its translation into English include this biogrpahical essay and it has also disappeared from the internet."

Importantly, in Li Hongzhi's Canadian lectures held on 23 May 1999 in Toronto, the status of the biography was explicitly addressed in a queastion and answer session:

Q: I want to recommend to a newspaper that they publish the Master's biography. Is this appropriate?

A. No. I don't want to speak about my own situation. Nobody should. Because everybody wanted to find out about me there was a very, very simple biography in Zhuan Falun. Now I would ask them to take it out. What I tell you about is the Law, everyone should study this Law. Have no interest in my circumstances! Just study the Law and that will lead you to consumation."

• Although it's true that a similar and much longer version of this biography appeared in the first edition of Zhongguo falun gong..and that that biography was written by someone described as a journalist working for the magazine of the Chinese Association for Scientific Research into Qigong named Zhyu Huiguang...Dr. Penny concludes that the biography that was published in Zhuan Falun counts as an authorized biography. He does, however, discuss "discrepancies in accounts of Li's background" and speculates that a change in reported social status of Li may have been been done by the Zhuan Falun editors in order to help "prospective adherents to identify with someone with an 'average' social background, as opposed to the exceptional figure who rose from the gutter." Penny states:

In the later essay he (Li) is described as coming from "an ordinary intellectual's family." The effect of this change in social status is to shift Li from the "ideal" of a boy who had to overcome great hardships to attain his great triumph, to the "unexceptional" where he is represented as being little differenct from his friends.

• Finally, although Penny states that the authorized biography is no longer available on the internet, it actually is by using one of the Archive search engines that have been described elsewhere in Wikipedia. For those who are interested in readin this document in English, you need to go to an archive search engine first, then enter this URL (which was provided by Penny in one of his many footnotes): http://www.compapp.dcu.ie/~dongxue/biography.html I downloaded a copy of the page yesterday and read it. Very interesting! --Tomananda 19:31, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

You present your case very well. CovenantD 19:35, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

I reinsert my edits on origins

Yesterday I made edits "01:10, 4 June 2006 Fnhddzs (→Origins - add info. for the biography) ". But they were deleted without reasonable bases.

I cannot find the original of biography now. But according to my memory, your edits on that biography have inaccuracy. I also looked up Penny's paper. I could not even find "numerous masters" there. I could not find things like "very embodiment of Truth, Compassion, Forbearance" either even in Penny's paper. It is not in print any more. I don't think it is appropriate to put it here. Fnhddzs 17:19, 4 June 2006 (UTC) I remember it is 1 or 2 page biography in the last page of Zhuanfa lun (old version). Fnhddzs 17:20, 4 June 2006 (UTC) How could you guys say it is 17 pages? Fnhddzs 17:21, 4 June 2006 (UTC) Below is what I copied from Penny's paper (on China quarterly) on his notes of finding that biography. " http://www.compapp.dcu.ie/�dongxue/biography.html, downloaded on 9 March 2001. The “Translation Group of Falun Xiulian Dafa” is credited with the translation and no author is given. By 1 May 2001 it had disappeared from this site and I have been unable to locate another website on which it appears. All citations come from this text. Another translation is available in Chinese Law and Government, Vol. 32, No. 6, pp. 14–23. This translation is, in many ways, more readable than the falun gong version but as it does not have the imprimatur of the movement, the official version is preferred. The Chinese version of this biography can be found in Li Hongzhi, Zhuan falun (Turning the Wheel of the Law) (Beijing: Zhongguo guangbao dianshi chubanshe, 1994) pp. 333–345 under the title “Zhongguo falun gong chuangshiren, falun gong yanjiuhui huizhang Li Hongzhi xiansheng xiaozhuan” but has not been published in that book since 1996. An English language internet version of Zhuan falun, translated by the “Translation Group of Falun Xiulian Dafa” and dated 1997 has the biography listed in its table of contents but the relevant link leads to the message, “The page cannot be found” (http://www.nb.net/�boying/ZFL/en_zfl.htm and http://www.nb.net/ �boying/ZFL/Biograf.htm)."Fnhddzs 17:43, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

This bio was seventeen pages long used to introduce the Master as a saint to the public from 1995 to 1999. Before 1995 a shorter version was used. Why are you practitioenrs trying so hard to hide information about Li?--Samuel Luo 17:45, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't think the biography you referred to was the one in Zhuan Falun (please see Petty's paper). If you like to refer to other biographys, please say clearly. Why you want to hide Li's quotes on Canada lecture?Fnhddzs 17:51, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Don't make major edits to the intro

We don't have agreement on what the intro should be yet. I've just reverted a bunch of edits that weren't discussed here first. CovenantD 17:42, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Why people remove stuff without my agreement either? If the article owned by "we", who are "we"? Fnhddzs 17:44, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

ok. let's discuss the following edits of mine. People say it changed the meaning of the first paragraph. So what is the meaning of the first paragraphy supposed to be?

In Li Hongzhi’s Canadian lectures held on 23 May 1999 in Toronto, a question was asked to Mr. Li: "I want to recommend to a newspaper that they publish the Master’s biography. Is this appropriate?" and he answered:

No. I don’t want to speak about my own situation. Nobody should. Because everybody wanted to find out about me there was a very, very simple biography in Zhuan falun. Now I had asked them to take it out. What I tell you about is the Law, everyone should study this Law. Have no interest in my circumstances! Just study the Law and that will lead you to consummation.

Fnhddzs 17:49, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

To be fair, if we are going to revert intro to an earlier version it is this long standing one 05:20, 4 June 2006. Changes have been made since this time without consensus. --Samuel Luo 17:50, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

The first two paragraphs, after my revert, are the same as when the page was last unfrozen, with one sentence added after nobody objected on the talk page here. The third paragraph of the intro is under discussion here. CovenantD 17:54, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

What do you mean by fairness? To be fair, the biography should not be put here at all. That will make the article clean and neat. Fnhddzs 17:52, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Samuel just reverted back to the complete intro that was in place when the page was unfrozen. I accept this revert as it does remove any edits that may still be in contention. CovenantD 18:02, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

No, the biography is in dispute. We don't like it be there alone without other info. like Mr. Li's answer. Fnhddzs 18:07, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Paragraph on numbers (3rd intro para)

Samuel and I have engaged in numerous reverts over this paragraph. I'm glad that the NY Times content has been accepted, but there is still more that is in dispute. Here are the two versions.

Mine:

There being no membership or formal organization in Falun Gong, the exact number of practitioners is not known. A figure of 70 million was quoted in two NY Times articles, both published on April 27, 1999, before the crackdown began. According to the articles, this figure was the estimate of Chinese government. [2][3] On Thursday, August 24, 2000, the Chinese government presented a figure of 2.1 million. [4] Falun Gong websites state a figure of 100 million practitioners worldwide including over 70 million in China.[5]

and Samuel's:

The Chinese government presented a figure of 2.1 million. [2] Falun Gong websites state a figure of 100 million practitioners worldwide including over 70 million in China.[3] A figure of 70 million was quoted in two NY Times articles in April 1999 [4][5] The exact number of practitioners is not known.

Differences:

Mine mentions why the numbers are of dispute and states it first. The NY Times' statements are before the others and, rather than giving a specific date, it states that they were published before the crackdown. It mentions that the Chinese government's statement was given after the crackdown. Mine also mentions the source of the NY Times figure.

Can we come to a consensus on which version is preferable? Mcconn 17:56, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

The first version, but after substituting actual date for references to the crackdown and suppression. That puts the presentation of the numbers in chronological order and doesn't allow for bias in any way. CovenantD 18:05, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

I made a change in bold based on what you said. What do you think? Also, by saying "mine" I'm referring to the version I prefer. I'm not saying I wrote it. Mcconn 18:13, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Um, I need to look at the references. I just realized that I haven't actually confirmed the information being presented, so caught up in style and checking reliability of sources. I also want to confirm the dates that are used. CovenantD 18:28, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

• This sentence is a POV "There being no membership or formal organization in Falun Gong." Taking out this unimportant sentence also shortens the article "According to the articles, this figure was the estimate of Chinese government." --Samuel Luo 18:22, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

That's why I originally had a {{citation needed}} tag on it. :-) The first sentence of that paragraph needs to say what the figures are talking about. CovenantD 18:28, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Confirmed the People's Daily number and date, made the change above. CovenantD 18:35, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

What's POV about it? I think it's entirely relevant to state why we can quote exact figures. The reason we can't is because there are no members or formal organization to keep track of them. I don't think we need to cite something that doesn't exist unless there are others who say that it does exist. This statement is pretty undisputed. Mcconn 18:39, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Confirmed the two NYT articles, corrected the date to the 27 of August, 1999. Confirmed the ClearWisdom numbers.

Mcconn, here's what I suggest. We move the second NYT citation to support the "no organization" assertion, changing the wording give proper attribution. Thus the first sentence becomes, "There are no conditions for membership, and people can come or go at any time, says Yi Rong, an associate of Li based in New York, according to the New York Times.[3]" The exact number of practitioners is not known." CovenantD 18:55, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Summary Of the three intro paragraphs, this is the one that's had the most discussion. I think we're close to an agreement. So far we seem to be in agreement on including all three sets of numbers and a statement that the true number in not known. Does everybody agree to that? I think a straw poll might be in order. CovenantD 18:30, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Straw poll There should be a statement that the true number of practitioners is not known. All three sets of numbers should be presented, in chronological order.

• Support CovenantD 18:30, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

origin

The folowing statements talk about the bio itself rather than Li and the Falun Gong. It serves no purpose here. Can I take it out?

In Li Hongzhi’s Canadian lectures held on 23 May 1999 in Toronto, a question was asked to Mr. Li: "I want to recommend to a newspaper that they publish the Master’s biography. Is this appropriate?" and he answered:

No. I don’t want to speak about my own situation. Nobody should. Because everybody wanted to find out about me there was a very, very simple biography in Zhuan falun. Now I had asked them to take it out. What I tell you about is the Law, everyone should study this Law. Have no interest in my circumstances! Just study the Law and that will lead you to consummation.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Samuel Luo (talk • contribs)

It addresses the issue of the legitimacy of the bio. IF the legitimacy of the bio is in dispute then that should be noted somewhere and this becomes relevant. IF the legitimacy of the bio is not in doubt then there's no need for it. That's my take on it anyway. CovenantD 19:39, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

No, you can't take it out. Your reasoning demonstrates a POV which, I assume, is meant to support Li's decision to pull his authorized biography from subsequent editions of Zhuan Falun. If this were a Falun Gong web page, it would be understandable that you wouldn't want to report the content of this biography. However, this is an on-line encyclopedia, and as such relevant information which is verifiable...and this early biography is certainly verifiable...needs to be reported. Frankly, how can you even suggest that an early authorized biography of the founder of Falun Gong isn't relevant to a report on its origins? --Tomananda 19:51, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Tomananda, please assume good faith. CovenantD 20:05, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Actually I do. I assume good faith, but also POV for all of us. The intent in my post above was to point out that even though we all have our POV's, the Wikipedia standard is not to allow the suppression of information in edits merely because of one editor's POV.--Tomananda 20:38, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Ooops, I see my post was a total non-sequitor, since I am referring to the biography itself (as reported in the second paragraph) and not the related Li quote. My post was meant to appear above. Sorry about that. --Tomananda 21:32, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

• Tomananda did a good job in tracking down Li's bio. Since the legitimacy of the bio is no longer in question, I am deleting those statements in question here. It makes the paper read better. --Samuel Luo 01:22, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

I recommend that we have an independent section on Origins

Having read the Penny article and the authorized biography, I feel there is a wealth of material here that warrants its own section. The origins section could include highlights of Penny's analysis of the edit changes done between the first version of the biography and the shortened Zhuan Falun version. I believe all of this provides an insight into the origins of Falun Gong which won't be available any other way. I am here copying some excerpts from the Zhuan Falun (authorized) version so people who haven't been able to download their own copy can get an idea of the material:

A Short Biography of Mr. Li Hongzhi Founder of Falun Xiulian Dafa, President of the Research Society of Falun Buddha Science

(List of teachers)

• At the age of four, Mr. Li received personal instructions from Law Master Quan Jue, the 10th heir to the Great Law of the Buddha School which has been handed down to only one disciple each time, and began his cultivation of the supreme qualities "Zhen Shan Ren" ( Truth Compassion Forbearance).

(break).

• His first master left him when he was twelve. On the point of leaving, the master said to him, "A new master will come to teach you." The second master mainly taught him Taoist Gongfu. He began to practise boxing,sword-and-spear play and did the integrated cultivation of both external and internal exercise. The master would take him to an isolated place and keep him company when he was practising. When doing the riding stance, he would keep the posture for hours. He practised so hard that he often dripped with sweat.

(break)

• Soon his second master, for whom he had a deep affection, was also to leave him. On the eve of departure, the master said to him, I'm called Eight-Pole-Immortal. I'm wandering about without any destination. After I am gone, the only thing you should keep in mind is: Practise diligently

(2)

• Mr. Li got a job in 1972. That year, a third master - a master of the Great Way School with the Taoist alias of True Taoist came from the Changbai Mountains. Unlike his two former masters, this master wore no Taoist's robe, but he was dressed like an ordinary man. He never said where he lived. This master mainly taught inner cultivation.

(break)

• The master of the Great Way School was gone in 1974. Later, came a female master of the Buddha School,who chiefly taught Buddha School's cultivation principles and exercise to him.

(break)

• Over a period of about a dozen of years, he received instructions successively from more than twenty masters from both the Buddha School and the Tao School, with a different master teaching him at each different level of cultivation.

(break)

(Supernatural Powers)

• Now, Mr. Li's energy potency has reached an extremely high level. Some of his supernatural powers are difficult for ordinary people to imagine or understand.

(break)

• Mr. Li's energy potency reached an extremely high level. Above all,he has been able to see the truth of the universe, many more beautiful things which have existed there for a long time, as well as the origin, development and future of mankind.

(3) (break)

• With the growth of his energy potency, he came to understand mankind and human life better and better.

(break)

(Creation of a great law)

• He decided to create a great Law suitable for ordinary people to cultivate based on the great Law which had been imparted only to himself and which he had been cultivating alone for so many years as a means of achieving this goal.

(break)

• From 1984, Mr. Li started making a serious investigation into different qigong activities at home and abroad and attended a number of qigong impartment classes. He analysed the characteristics of modern people, as the Great Law, which would find its cultivators among ordinary people, should adapt itself to their way of life.

(break)

• Everybody looks forward to a happy life, but they meet with every kind of misfortune because they have lost their true selves. Therefore, Mr. Li was determined to create a great Law- Falun Buddha Law suitable for the cultivation of contemporary people (because the Great Law of Falun Cultivating the Buddhas Mr.Li had cultivated in the past was a grand-scale cultivation way and could not be popularized on a large scale). Beginning from 1984, Mr. Li devoted his whole body and mind to the adaptation work of Falun Buddha Law. The Law Wheels of the Buddha School, the Yin and Yang of the Tao School, and everything in the ten Directions, all find their reflections in Falun Buddha Law without exception.

(break)

• The design of Falun Dafa was basically finalized in 1989 . But Mr. Li was not anxious to make it public at once. .

(4) (break)

• Besides, Mr. Li also plants Falun into other parts of the students' bodies to cure their diseases or help them practise. These Falun never stop rotating. They adjust the practitioners' bodies automatically. In order to help the students grasp the essentials of the exercise, he also plants Qiji ( the energy mechanism) around the students' bodies. Like Falun, it circulates incessantly, guiding the students to the correct movements and enabling the energy in their channels to circulate along the Heavenly Circuit.

(break)

• Being enlightened, Mr. Li has a deep insight into the mysteries of the cosmos, which enables him to dispel the miasma in which the present-day world of qigong is shrouded.

Penny treats these biographies with great respect as examples of the form of religious biographies found in the Buddhist and Daosist tradition of China. The actual text is presented as a poem, broken up into five different chapters. If there is consensus, I am willing to work on a summary of Penny's findings in order to create an article on Origins which I think would be very interesting for readers of Wikipedia. --Tomananda 23:14, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

PS: When accessing this document on the Way Back archive machine, I found that there are two ways to get to it. You should get to a screen which shows horizontal years and under two of the years there are clickable months and dates for pages that were archived at that time. If you get to that screen, you need to click on one of the specific dates under one of the months (sorry, I didn't make a note as to which date, but I think it was January). However, I have also found that sometimes you wind up with a verticle listing of 865 pages, and many of those pages don't open. So if you're having trouble with this, the alternative URL that should work directly is: [4] --Tomananda 03:21, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, I'm just here to artibtrate and increase the quality of these articles, so I'd rather hear what others think. CovenantD 03:52, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

The question is who wrote it?? and what is it based on? This was written by a journalist.. of what relevance is that?

Please show all the sources (website links etc) for all these materials. /Omido 09:24, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Who wrote the authorized biography of Li Hongzhi? Why not ask Li? The point is that it appeared in copies of Zhuan Falun for several years and therefore counts as an authorized biography. The more pertinent question to ask is this: Why did Li decide to remove the biography from later editions of the Zhuan Falun? Why was it ok to publish that biography in the early years and then all of a sudden it became not ok? Li said in his answer he wanted people to focus on his Dafa rather than the details of his life. That's fine, but then why did he ever allow the biography to appear in one of his official publications?

As to web pages, I have already given the link to the authorized biography which is an archived copy of a page on a Falun Gong website. It's the authorized version of the biography we are discussing now, so I don't see any point in tracking down sources for the other biography at this point.--Tomananda 18:57, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Removed abusive messages

I have removed some abusive messages on this talk page from Archaos2. See here and here.--MrFish^{Go Fish} 12:58, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Also here.--MrFish^{Go Fish} 13:00, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

And from a bunch of IP addresses too. I've semi-protected this talk page. If the article page and/or subpages and/or talk pages of subpages and/or user pages gets vandalised repeatedly, get someone to semi-protect those as well. (I can't after 9 AM PST, that is UTC -800.) -- Миборовский ^{U|T|C|M|E|Remember 6/4!} 15:36, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

New York times figure delted again, article says falun gong banned for "illegal" activities.... the intro needs to be made factual.. < Falun Gong (Traditional Chinese: 法輪功; Simplified Chinese: 法轮功; Pinyin: Fǎlún Gōng; literally "Practice of the Wheel of Law") is 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 in 1992. Central to Falun Gong are the teachings of "Truthfulness, Compassion and Forbearance" and five sets of meditation exercises (four standing, and one sitting meditation).) The system has been growing in popularity world-over with the teachings translated to over 40 languages and practitioners present in over 80 countries.

   On July 20, 1999 the People's republic of China began a Nation-wide Supression of Falun Gong. This has been considered a major Human-rights violation world-over.

   There being no concept of organization of membership in Falun Gong, the exact number of practitioners is not known. Falun Gong websites state a figure of 100 million practitioners worldwide including over 70 million in China. After the supression began, the Chinese government presented a figure of 2.1 million. A figure of 70 million was quoted in two NY Times articles before the crackdown began.[29][30] According to the articles, this figure was the estimate of Chinese government.

Please point out anything non-factual or irrelevant to the introduction

3rd paragraph of intro

Samuel and I have engaged in numerous reverts over this paragraph. I'm glad that the NY Times content has been accepted, but there is still more that is in dispute. Here are the two versions.

Mine:

There being no membership or formal organization in Falun Gong, the exact number of practitioners is not known. A figure of 70 million was quoted in two NY Times articles, both published on April 27, 1999, before the crackdown began. According to the articles, this figure was the estimate of Chinese government. [2][3] On Thursday, August 24, 2000, the Chinese government presented a figure of 2.1 million. [4] Falun Gong websites state a figure of 100 million practitioners worldwide including over 70 million in China.[5]

and Samuel's:

The Chinese government presented a figure of 2.1 million. [2] Falun Gong websites state a figure of 100 million practitioners worldwide including over 70 million in China.[3] A figure of 70 million was quoted in two NY Times articles in April 1999 [4][5] The exact number of practitioners is not known.

Differences:

Mine mentions why the numbers are of dispute and states it first. The NY Times' statements are before the others and, rather than giving a specific date, it states that they were published before the crackdown. It mentions that the Chinese government's statement was given after the crackdown. Mine also mentions the source of the NY Times figure.

Can we come to a consensus on which version is preferable? Mcconn 17:56, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

The first version, but after substituting actual date for references to the crackdown and suppression. That puts the presentation of the numbers in chronological order and doesn't allow for bias in any way. CovenantD 18:05, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

I made a change in bold based on what you said. What do you think? Also, by saying "mine" I'm referring to the version I prefer. I'm not saying I wrote it. Mcconn 18:13, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Um, I need to look at the references. I just realized that I haven't actually confirmed the information being presented, so caught up in style and checking reliability of sources. I also want to confirm the dates that are used. CovenantD 18:28, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

• This sentence is a POV "There being no membership or formal organization in Falun Gong." Taking out this unimportant sentence also shortens the article "According to the articles, this figure was the estimate of Chinese government." --Samuel Luo 18:22, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

That's why I originally had a {{citation needed}} tag on it. :-) The first sentence of that paragraph needs to say what the figures are talking about. CovenantD 18:28, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Confirmed the People's Daily number and date, made the change above. CovenantD 18:35, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

There are several sources that can serve as citations for the fact that there is no concept of membership in Falun Dafa. Just like it wuold be hard to find the number of Tai Chi practitioners.. it is hard to find the number of Falun Dafa practitioners.

Dilip rajeev 20:41, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

What's POV about it? I think it's entirely relevant to state why we can quote exact figures. The reason we can't is because there are no members or formal organization to keep track of them. I don't think we need to cite something that doesn't exist unless there are others who say that it does exist. This statement is pretty undisputed. Mcconn 18:39, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Confirmed the two NYT articles, corrected the date to the 27 of August, 1999. Confirmed the ClearWisdom numbers.

Mcconn, here's what I suggest. We move the second NYT citation to support the "no organization" assertion, changing the wording give proper attribution. Thus the first sentence becomes, "There are no conditions for membership, and people can come or go at any time, says Yi Rong, an associate of Li based in New York, according to the New York Times.[5]" The exact number of practitioners is not known." CovenantD 18:55, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

my suggestion

There being no concept of organization of membership in Falun Gong, the exact number of practitioners is not known. Falun Gong websites state a figure of 100 million practitioners worldwide including over 70 million in China. After the supression began, the Chinese government presented a figure of 2.1 million. A figure of 70 million was quoted in two NY Times articles before the crackdown began.[29][30] According to the articles, this figure was the estimate of Chinese government. Dilip rajeev 19:24, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

the following version has no POV: In July, 1999, the number of Falun Gong practitioners in China was estimated by the government at 2.1 million .[1] The number of practitioners claimed by Falun Gong is much larger, with 100 million followers worldwide including over 70 million in China.[2]--Samuel Luo 19:35, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Dilip, any version that uses the words suppression and crackdown is not acceptable. See the discussion about New York Times numbers and other 3rd paragraph discussions for the reasons why using dates is NPOV.

Samuel, I know this is the version that is in place. It's already been discussed how to improve it. Let's not ignore all of that work. CovenantD 19:53, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Summary Of the three intro paragraphs, this is the one that's had the most discussion. I think we're close to an agreement. So far we seem to be in agreement on including all three sets of numbers and a statement that the true number in not known. Does everybody agree to that? I think a straw poll might be in order. CovenantD 18:30, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Straw poll

There should be a statement that the true number of practitioners is not known. All three sets of numbers should be presented, in chronological order.

• Support CovenantD 18:30, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
• SupportDilip rajeev 20:32, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
• Support Fnhddzs 20:43, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
• Support Mcconn 18:25, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Support --Fire Star 火星 01:05, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Including three figures is fine with me, why Don't you show the revised third paragraph here? --Samuel Luo 21:04, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

I want to make sure we all agree on what should be included before we agree on the wording. I'm just waiting on a few more people... CovenantD 22:05, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

I support the straw poll proposal as well. --Tomananda 22:19, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Now that we've had a chance to hear from people, here's what I suggest we use for the third paragraph. I've confirmed that all of the references are accurate. CovenantD 03:20, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Covenant's suggestion

The exact number of Falun Gong practitioners is not known. "There are no conditions for membership, and people can come or go at any time," says Yi Rong, an associate of Li based in New York, in a New York Times article.[6]" A figure of 70 million practitioners was quoted in another NY Times article published on the same day, April 27, 1999. According to the article, this figure was the estimate of Chinese government.[7] On Thursday, August 24, 2000, the Chinese government presented a figure of 2.1 million in the People's Daily.[8] A Falun Gong website state a figure of 100 million practitioners worldwide, including over 70 million in China.[9]

• Haven't engaged much in the number discussion/debate, but this version seems fine to me. --Yenchin 05:41, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

I strongly object to this POV statement "There are no conditions for membership, and people can come or go at any time," says Yi Rong." This paragraph should just provided the fact/figures presented by all parties. Also the Chinese government provided its estiate in July, 1999 on a Chinese Xinhua article. This article is not cited only because it is in Chinese and not availble on line. --Samuel Luo 06:22, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Actually published offline sources are considered more authoritative than online ones. -- Миборовский ^{U|T|C|M|E|666} 06:34, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree, but the problem is pro-FG editors demand material in English and I am sure they will fight over anything that they can not get their hands on. They even deleted Li's bio for that reason. --Samuel Luo 06:55, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

• ConventD the FG figure is published on its "official website" this point has to be included. --Samuel Luo 06:57, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

There is no "official website" for Falun Dafa. Mcconn 18:30, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

I also strongly object to including that quote from a Falun Gong spokesperson. All that needs to be said is that no formal membership records are kept. Certainly e-mail lists are maintained and even though Falun Gong denies it is "organized"...how do you think they manage to get so many practitioners from so many different cities to show up to their big protest events? When President Hu was in Seattle, Washington recently, the Falun Gong organized hundreds of people coming from different cities, many taking chartered buses to get to that out-of-state destination. According to a relative of a practitioner who lives in Seattle, there are only a handful of practitioners who actually live in the Seatle area!

This kind of organizing is not possible without some kind of lists, whether they be called "member" lists or not. The same was true back when Falun Gong practioners were showing up in the thousands to protest in China. There is a definite leadership hierarchy among the Falun Gong volunteers. In a recent speech...I believe it was in San Francisco...Li actually talked about the practitioners who are "in charge" for that area. The idea that there is no "organization" of the Falun Gong is a myth. There is no formal legal organization, but there certainly is organized communication, as well as levels of volunteer responsibilty. I can provide the name of one of the Bay area organizers for the Falun Gong. Her name was recently cited by one of the San Francisco supervisors as a top local leader.

Also, once a practitioner has internalized Li's teachings, there is strong pyschological pressure for that person to remain in the group. Although no one is physcially constrained, Li has his disciples believing that if they do stop practicing Falun Gong some day, they will forfeit their one and only chance for salvation. Li warns them that if they stop cultivating, they will no longer be protected by him (or his Fashen) and bad things will happen, such as the return of illnesses or other bad things caused by demons or "the old forces." Of course practitioners will deny all of this, but there most definitely is a different POV than the one expressed by Yi Rong above. --Tomananda 07:10, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

I think this edit proposed by CovenantD is fine with me. I don't see POV since it already cite Yi Rong from a quality source. Of course, Yi Rong's statement is his/her POV. But it is totally fine since we just report this. Right? Fnhddzs 07:27, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

No it is not ok to have a one-sided quote like that appear in the introduction. If we have that kind of POV appear as part of a general introduction, we will need to add a counter statement or quote. But then we will dilute the whole paragraph on material that is not needed in an introduction. --Tomananda 07:31, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

As to the "leadership", you can look up here[10]. You can see each area has a volunteer assistant who could be contacted especially for new comers asking help. As far as I know, the form is very loose and situations are very different geographically. In my area, the volunteer assistant has changed many due to relocation. Actually I think everybody is a leader and everybody has responsibility. "Your enlightened, original nature will automatically know what to do." said by Master Li.[11]Fnhddzs 07:42, 6 June 2006 (UTC) I understand in American culture, people expect somebody would walk out to speak. So sometimes there do exist such spokesmen, spokeswomen for Falun Gong. But I don't think that makes up membership. If you ask how many students enrolled in a University, there must be one. If you ask a list on who are practitioners, there is NO such a list. That's why people say no concepts of membership. Fnhddzs 07:50, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

• That is what practitioners say/believe, however it is a POV and therefore should not be included in the intro. Should there be a section call Falun Gong organization? --Samuel Luo 08:02, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Tomananda, most of the things you just wrote, are all your own opinions which does not mean anything at all. "This kind of organizing is not possible without some kind of lists.." and these kind of things are all your own opinions, how do you know it is not possible? Also, you seem to be a person who have really missunderstood the Falun Gong teachings, so your own opinions regarding the teachings can't be included as well. /Omido 10:57, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Samuel Lou, you say that it is POV when FLG practitioners say there is no organization. Then I say, please show me evidence that it has a organization. If you can't, then everything else is POV. /Omido 11:01, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

There is absolutely no such thing as membership or organization. Falun Gong is a cultivation practice.. and many practice it.. just like many practice yoga. Volunteers are just volunteers helping others learn the system. Dilip rajeev 13:40, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

I've looked at the comments above and here's my replies and a revised suggestion.
Yenchin - You're a party to this so your viewpoint is welcome.
Samuel & Fnhddz - While the statement from Yi Rong is POV, the fact that it appear in the NYT means it could be used. I am, however, taking it out as non-essential. I've also altered the sentence about the People's Daily number so it doesn't imply that this is the first time the Chinese gov't has used the 2.1 million number.
Tomananda - same thing. The quote is out, substituting your wording "no formal membership records are kept." As far as your theories about organizing protests, well, I've got some experience in organizing large events. Often all that is needed is an announcement that something is happening and people will find their own way. That doesn't require a list of any kind, just a means of distributing the info, such as a website.
Omido - Please be nice and don't say that Tomananda's opinions don't mean anything. They can't be used in the article, but they have meaning.

Im sorry, that was what I meant, that they can't be used in the article, nothing else. /Omido 18:40, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

All the rest of the comments seem to be a debate about what constitutes membership, a topic for another section (not the intro).

Revised suggestion

So here's the revised suggestion. If everybody agrees to this one, we can put it in place today. Woo hoo!!! CovenantD 14:16, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

The exact number of Falun Gong practitioners is not known.; no formal membership records are kept. "There are no conditions for membership, and people can come or go at any time," says Yi Rong, an associate of Li based in New York, in a New York Times article.[12]" A figure of 70 million practitioners was quoted in another NY Times article published on the same day, April 27, 1999. According to the article, this figure was the estimate of Chinese government.[13] On Thursday, August 24, 2000, the Chinese government presented a figure of 2.1 million practitioners was presented in the People's Daily.[14] A Falun Gong website states a figure of 100 million practitioners worldwide, including over 70 million in China.[15]

Agree. But I feel "no formal membership records are kept" could be improved as there is absolutely no concept of membership... I learned the exercises using the website and I am a practitioner because I do the exercises and study the books -as simple as that. Omid heard about Falun Dafa from a webpage and taught himself the system using the videos and books on the FalunDafa.org website.. there is no concept of membership. It would be like saying "a Tai Chi member".. Overall, I agree to the paragraph. And I hope the new version is put up ASAP. Dilip rajeev 17:25, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Support. As for the issues raised, there's always more space to add/edit/discuss. --Yenchin 18:37, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

I think this version can go up, but I also agree with Dilip. Why not simply say "there is no membership in Falun Gong"? To say "no formal membership records are kept" might suggest that there is some kind of loose membership, which isn't true. There's simply no membership at all. Hey, I used to skateboard a lot with my friends. We all liked skateboarding so we would often hang out and do it together (it's often more fun that way). Sometimes we even organized a big group of us to go to a skatepark downtown for the day. I guess that made me a skatboarder member? Mcconn 18:52, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, what is membership? AAA membership, IEEE membership, SIAM membership, whether free or not free, you must have registered it. But Falun Gong does not have this registration progress. Whether you are a practitioner is only decided by your heart and with no conditions. We do have volunteers to contact to help. But a website is also enough to teach yourself. So please delete "formal". Fnhddzs 19:06, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Since there are volunteer lists, email lists, and so on, it could be argued that their are informal membership lists. I think it works best the way it is. CovenantD 19:36, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Infact there are no email lists or anything of that sort. If you are willing to volunteer to help others learn the exercises, you can more people know by putting your name up on some website. Any practitioner can be a volunteer if they are willing to help.. you dont need yuor name to be on any website..And there are absolutely no email lists. Websites like FoFG have email lists for news-update... and not everybody sbuscribing to the FoFG newsletter is a Falun Gong practitioner.

Dilip rajeev 04:40, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

How about LAN party? People play games together? I do see they have online maps[16] with contact person/email indicating where they can find a party. So you think that is a kind of membership? Fnhddzs 21:44, 6 June 2006 (UTC) The fact is, there is a way somehow people find how to practice Falun Gong, but nobody keeps track on who come and go. Even practicing in a park together, people don't even ask each other's names (maybe only spies are interested in getting a list of practitioner names). In my understanding, Falun Gong does not have any form of membership according to the definition of this term. If we redefine the word, or use another word, we could describe such a kind of form of "no form":) But I would say NO on implying an informal membership. Fnhddzs 22:06, 6 June 2006 (UTC) Also please keep in mind that we are living in an Internet times. We are easier to communicate than before. But communications do not imply a membership. Fnhddzs 22:50, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm just here to facilitate this process. I'll change it if nobody objects. CovenantD 00:08, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

• this statement should be taken out "no formal membership records are kept." I don't think anyone can make this statement here since none of us represents the Falun Gong. Also as Samuel has pointed out the Chinese government's figure was provided on July 22, 1999 when the ban of the group was announced. The date has to be changed.--Yueyuen 01:50, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

• I think all numbers here are POV. We just report them. I think we should include Yi Yong's words. Fnhddzs 02:13, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Yueyuen, do we have a source for that July 22, 1999 date? It's gotta have a source and it's got to be verifiable. CovenantD 02:36, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, to avoid POV on either side, the first sentence can just read "The exact number of practitioners is not known."

Concerning Dilip's statement about no e-mails lists, we know that is not correct at least for the United States. Keep in mind that Li travels to many cities in the US to give lectures which are never open to the public and require a ticket for attendance. Practitioners themselves are not told if he will show up, but they are told about the meetings and travel arrangements ahead of time because often they may have to travel hundreds of miles to get there. There is no doubt that the Falun Gong uses large e-mail lists to communicate with practitioners as well as other groups. In a recent LA speech[17], Li was asked the following question:

Disciple asks: We have been clarifying the truth and exposing the evil from the angle of human rights by regularly sending emails to mainstream society, governments, and organizations in different countries, and have had great results. We now have a database that contains millions of addresses. Some people think that this precious resource of ours should be used primarily for our main tasks, which are clarifying the truth and exposing the evil, while others think we should maximally utilize this resource by using it to send out other things such as event notices, announcements, Gala promotions, and communications on activities related to the advocacy of human rights in China, etc. This is a specific question, but it's very important, because if it's not handled well it could have a negative effect.

Teacher: You first have to be clear about what you are doing today. You are saving sentient beings, so things that are unrelated to saving sentient beings are not among the things you need to do. Once you have told people the facts about the persecution of Dafa disciples and about Dafa, the other things are less important.

Of course, these specific matters should be looked at case-by-case. Motivating them to join ordinary people's rights advocacy movements is not a responsibility Dafa disciples have. The media you run can focus somewhat on those activities, provide information on them to the public, and expose the vile CCP. There's one thing you must be clear on, though. The purpose of your existence is not for rights advocacy efforts; rather, the rights advocacy efforts have taken place to assist Dafa disciples in validating the Fa. (Applause) You need to keep your priorities straight! If you are promoting Gala tickets, that of course is meant to help them learn about Dafa and Dafa disciples. (Teacher smiles)

Notice three things about Li's answer:

• 1) He assumes the role of manager of his organziation by answering these types of very mundane organizational questions. He played the same role in China and issued many specific directives while visting his different Falun Gong centers.
• 2) Although he says that the priority use for these large e-mails lists should be clarifying the truth and exposing the evil, he also gives his approval for using these large e-mail lists for promoting events (other than joining civil rights organizations) and specifically approves a mailing for the upcoming Falun Gong Gala. (Can I get a ticket?)
• 3) Finally, Li tells his practitioners in LA that "the media you run can focus on" promoting the joining of civil righs groups. Essentially he is saying that internal Falun Gong events can be promoted by their own mailing lists, but those promoting other organizations, such as encouraging practitioners to join their local chapter of Amnesty International (so they can lobby for anti-China resolutions), do not justify the use of the internal e-mail lists.

Despite all the denials, the Falun Gong definitely has a kind of organizational structure, rather like the organizational structure of un-incorporated grassroots groups in the West. But unlike grassroots organizations which encourage bottom-up decision making and frequently elect their leaders, in the Falun Gong there is only one decision maker, the Master himself. --Tomananda 07:58, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Tomananda, of course he will answer when disciples ask him questions. He did not say: "Come and ask me these kind of questions". Disciples ask him questions because the disciples think their Master is wise, and also disciples does not want to do anything that can have a bad influence to Dafa, so they ask their Master if it is okey to go ahead with this or that. I don't see how this has anything to do with "membership" or "organization". /Omido 10:52, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Also, it is not a Falun Gong Gala, it was the Chinese New Years Gala, which was arranged and done by Dafa disciples. /Omido 10:53, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Tomananda, the only line in all of that that really matters is, "Well, to avoid POV on either side, the first sentence can just read 'The exact number of practitioners is not known.'"  :-) All the rest, and Omido's reply, is best dealt with in the body of the article somewhere.

So, with Tomananda's revision of the first sentence, I think we have consensus. I'm making the change. CovenantD 13:35, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I don’t believe there is consensus. Tomanda has given us nothing more than pov towards allegations of membership or email lists. Clearly the email lists the practitioner is referring to in the question above are those of VIPs or organizations, rather than of practitioners themselves. Like Omid said, practitioners ask questions related to problems they seek their Master’s guidance on. Since many practitioners are very busy working in various organizations to stop the persecution they often ask questions related to their work. This in no way implies that Mr. Li is some kind of manager or someone controlling all these things. As for mailing lists (newsgroups), I’m on a number of Falun Dafa mailing lists. Some local, some international. So what? This is to facilitate communication on various things related to what we may be concerned with. You don’t have to join mailing lists to practice Falun Gong. There are many practitioners who don’t even have computers. This has nothing to do with membership. Bottom line: there is no membership in Falun Gong. This is undeniable and no evidence has been presented to prove otherwise. This is the reason we don’t know how many practitioners there are in the world and it should be included in this paragraph. Mcconn 18:19, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Samuel, thank you for providing a citation for the July date. Can't get more official than the Embassy website.

Mcconn, this is as close to consensus as we're going to get without spending another week on it. Any further information can go in the article itself. If it's this contentious an issue, then it needs space to explore that and the intro isn't the place. What we have now is bare-bones and NPOV. CovenantD 18:51, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Covenant, I agree...the introduction needs to be as neutral and basic as possible. There are two sides to the issue of Falun Gong's organization, and I can picture a whole section being written on that topic alone. But none of that is needed or appropriate for an introduction.--Tomananda 22:38, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Put it up. I'm fine with it being up, but I think it can be better. As I said before there's no evidence or even reasonable claims to suggest that Falun Gong has some kind of membership or that the organization is more than very loose, but there are lots to suggest otherwise. I've given you first hand experience and it is reinforced in Mr. Li's statments regarding organization. Simply because a couple editors do not believe this doesn't mean that we shouldn't include it. It's not a matter of POV or neutrality. This is the way it is and it is a simple, basic fact about Falun Gong. I understand the desire to move forward and I also want to. I just think that this a very basic point, and there is little reason to not include it. I think this point is on the verge of resolution so can we move forward while maintaining this discussion? Mcconn 19:22, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm not saying that it can't be included in the article, but I'd rather we didn't get bogged down in the intro. CovenantD 19:34, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

One last dispute on the numbers

Let's talk about the new date, July 1999, and the reference http://www.china-embassy.org/eng/zt/ppflg/t36570.htm that Samuel provided. Dilip, what do you think it wrong with it? CovenantD 17:20, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Besides the fact that it shows a November date. CovenantD 17:43, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

The figure was provided in July, 1999, but the statement is in Chinese. The November date is the the day that statement was posted, I am changing the wroding to make that clear. --Samuel Luo 18:16, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Adding words like "however" and "main" are not part of what we agreed to. Please don't change the implication. I've reverted to the last version we had consensus on until this is resolved. CovenantD 19:27, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

• CovenantD, I remember disagreeing using this statement “On August 24, 2000, a figure of 2.1 million practitioners was presented in the People's Daily.” See [18] This statement has no consensus among editors. Also “alleged” was added without consensus as well. --Samuel Luo 20:42, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

CovenantD, What is wrong with the following statement? “However, according to a statement posted on November 1, 1999 the membership estimated by Beijing was 2.1 million.” I can understand if you want me to explain why “however” is needed. But what is your logic reverting the statement back to this “On August 24, 2000, a figure of 2.1 million practitioners was presented in the People's Daily?” --Samuel Luo 22:14, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with it. Dilip sent me a message about it, so I reverted until it's settled. I thought I was reverting to the last version we had consensus on. Do you want be to go all the way back to the frozen version? I think what's there at least represents some progress. If Dilip hasn't explained why he has a problem in a day or two, we'll change it to an earlier date. CovenantD 22:57, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Since we're talking about the same number estimate, I think the earliest appearance of that number...coming as it does from the Chinese goverment's own website...is better. --Tomananda 22:18, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm willing to accept any citation that the two "sides" of this issue can agree on. If it's the July date, fine. I don't read Chinese, but if there's agreement, I'll trust those who do. CovenantD 22:57, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Falun Gong's main/official website

Clearwisdom.net is the English version of Chinese Minhui—the Falun Gong’s official/main website. Li has stressed the authority of the minhui net: “On important matters, practitioners watch the position of Minghui Net. The purpose of posting my photo and the article 'The Knowing Heart' on Minghui Net was to build a trustworthy website for practitioners." This statement was included in an article call “On Important Matters, Practitioners Must Pay Attention to the Attitude of Minghui Net” published on July 14, 2000 on the Falun Dafa Bulletin Board.

I notice that two practitioner-editors objected to calling clearwisdom.net a “main” website of the FAlun Gong in the 3rd paragraph, intro. This is just another denial/lie from practitioners. As Li’s statement unmistakably points out the status of this website, it should be labeled as “main” or “official” website of the group. --Samuel Luo 23:13, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Minghui or Clearwisdom was mainly for cultivation experience sharing among Falun Gong practitioners. Most articles were written by practitioners. However, practitioners are just practitioners, humans on the way of cultivation. Not gods. Any views of practitioners cannot stand for Falun Gong teachings. Yes, the Minghui or Clearwidsom has been used as a website to release Master Li's new articles/talks. Master Li stressed its creditability on releasing his articles because, in my view, some people pretend they are Master Li and spread faked stuff such as "the Tenth Talk" of Zhuan Falun. However, this does NOT imply endorsing everything published on the website as Falun Gong teachings.

So Clearwisdom is not an official/main website standing for Falun gong teachings. Even falundafa.org are established by practitioners. Everything except the Falun Gong teachings originals cannot stand for Falun Gong teachings. On the www.falundafa.org [19], it is said

All of the content in this site – excepting the founder's writings – represents the ideas and opinions of Falun Dafa practitioners, and should not be taken as representative of Falun Dafa itself.

On clearwisdom website [20], it is said

Created and maintained by Falun Dafa practitioners, Clearwisdom.net is designed to serve both fellow practitioners and the general public with daily articles that provide insights into Falun Dafa cultivation practice, expose the harsh persecution in China, and report the news of Dafa activities around the world.

If you are new to Falun Dafa, we encourage you to first visit our introductory site www.falundafa.org to find out more about the original teachings of Falun Dafa.

In sum, ideas, understandings, writings, speeches of Falun Gong practitioners are not Falun Gong teachings. Fnhddzs 01:11, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

• Since the master stressed the importance of that website, and that his teachings as well as experiences of practitioners are shared in this website, is it wrong to call it the main website of Falun Gong? --Samuel Luo 01:18, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Honestly, Samuel? I think if it's controversial we should keep it out of the intro. Using the word main just isn't important enough to argue over. We can deal with it in the article. There used to be a section called Media. It needs to come back, I think, or maybe the Controversies article. CovenantD 02:27, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

It is controversial only because Falun gong practitioners are trying to conceal the truth. Anyone with common sense will see that it is a "main" website. I can not give in to their unreasonable demand. --Samuel Luo 03:09, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

• Since there is no concensus on changes, the intro shoud be reverted back to the protected version. --Samuel Luo 03:21, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Enough of this going back to the protected version. This straw poll shows consensus on having a basic statement about the number not being known and including all three figures in chronological order. These are the numbers that were present when the straw poll took place, so this is the last version to have consensus. THIS is the one that we revert to.

The exact number of Falun Gong practitioners is not known. A figure of 70 million practitioners was quoted in a NY Times article published April 27, 1999. According to the article, this figure was the estimate of Chinese government.[21] On August 24, 2000, a figure of 2.1 million practitioners was presented in the People's Daily.[22] A Falun Gong website states a figure of 100 million practitioners worldwide, including over 70 million in China.[23]

- CovenantD 19:42, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Even FalunDafa.org introduces clearwisdom.net as the “main” Falun Gong website. The following statement is from FalunDafa.org:

• Clearwisdom.net: The main Falun Dafa web site for practitioners and whoever is interested in Falun Gong issues. It is mainly for telling the truth of Falun Gong, sharing insights and information in Falun Gong and cultivation practice, and disclosing the persecution in China.[24]

I hope this statement settles the issue. --Samuel Luo 19:17, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

ok. Thanks. I had never known that. It is only stated in the English (sorry I don't know other languages than English or Chinese) version of falundafa.org written by the website owners. I don't care it too much though. Fnhddzs 22:44, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Fnhddzs, does that mean that you agree to have it in the 3rd paragraph? Dilip, what about you? CovenantD 00:26, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

• When the group itself calls this website a main website I don't think consensus is needed. Are we going to stop calling the Chinese government a authoritative regime if there is no consensus? --Samuel Luo 00:35, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

I just don't want another revert war over this. I want them to put in writing that they agree to this. CovenantD 00:47, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

I am ok except that I added a "A" before it. "A main Falun Dafa website" Fnhddzs 00:53, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Sure, it should say "a main Falun Dafa website." --Tomananda 01:33, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Dilip, elsewhere on this page, has expessed his approval of the 3rd paragraph. We've done it folks. We have a paragraph that everybody has explicitly agreed to!! CovenantD 16:52, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

3rd Party Intervention

What we truly need, although contrary to major Wikipedia principles, is a third party to look into the issue of Falun Gong that has very little to no prior knowledge. This suggestion, being the only solution left in editing this article, is incredibly idealistic in and of itself. Debating about Falun Gong is currently more controversial than debate about the existence of Jesus. People on both sides will never reach a consensus, and as new back-up evidence continues to surface for both sides in this issue, it is really impossble to ever complete this article in any of our sentient lifetimes. Colipon+(T) 23:28, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

The 3rd Paragraph

The NY Times figure has disappeared one more time. I am reverting it to the version Covenant introduced. And deleting Samuel's personal website from the references section. Dilip rajeev 18:16, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Citing sources

I'm going to start revamping the References list based on the guidelines found at Wikipedia:Citing sources. I also want to add a short list of Wikipedia articles for people to read at the top of the this talk page. It would include stuff like Wikipedia:Reliable sources, Wikipedia:Notability, and Wikipedia:Verifiability. CovenantD 00:52, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

ok. try to work together with you all. Fnhddzs 01:00, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Due to the instability of the article, there isn't much point in formatting them because they'll just get reverted and then you'll have to do it again. Waste of time really. Edit wars are easier with inline links. Skinnyweed 09:14, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Related Legal Cases

{{Cawley v. Malin}} Cawley v. Malin - New York State Supreme Court, U.S.A. A divorce case filed on the grounds of fraud, adultery and mental cruelty as a result of espionage for the Falun Gong against the Chinese Government. www.courts.state.ny.us [25]

• Note - the court system does not permit hyperlinks directly.

You can search on court case reference number 24648/2003 I can fax you copies of the court documents if you insist. Also, Rick Ross has been retained as an expert witness. Likewise, I can fax you a copy of the fee agreement.

Dear Falun Gong members:

You can remove this section; however, you can not remove THE TRUTH.

Sincerely Chris Cawley

Plea to pro-Falun Gong editors

User pages of several non-Falun Gong practioner editors, as well as this main article page, have been hit again by apparently pro-Falun Gong vandal(s) today. A few days ago there was a similar incident, user pages and this talk page as well as the main article were all hit.

It goes without saying that vandalism is counterproductive for Wikipedia. As such, in the (hopefully unlikely) scenario that you might know who carried out or was behind these attacks, other editors and I hope you would advise them to stop their vandalism. Thank you. -- Миборовский 05:46, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

this user Redzsuckz has also vandalized the article. It was created earlier today. --Samuel Luo 08:11, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

It was blocked indefinitely. We can revert any change he makes without breaking a sweat, so he ends up wasting much more manhours than we will. Though it would be good if we didn't have to, which is where vandal-hunting bots come in handy... :D -- Миборовский 09:20, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

You know, that vandal really reflects badly upon you FLG folks. Zhen Shan Ren? Heh. Look, we'd really appreciate a page without vandals. So please, if you can do anything to stop it, please do. -- Миборовский 09:25, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Please do not add junks on the article

[26]

Fnhddzs 05:57, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

It has been removed. Now, if there wasn't that annoyingly (but harmlessly) persistent vandal this would probably not have stayed there as long as it did. ;) -- Миборовский 06:00, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Continuing with the Edits

Covenant.. Lets carry on with the job of scrutinizing material on the main page and cleaning up the article.

We have reached consensus on the 3rd paragraph of intro. It is hoped that nobody would change it.

The first and second paragraphs of the intro

The second paragraph said Falun Gong was banned for "illegal activities".. somebody again deleted the "alleged" word. I have deleted the phrase which is completely non-factual and and an unnecessary extrapolation. Dilip rajeev 15:59, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Covenant.. I think we must carry on the discussion of the first two paragraphs..

A few suggestions:

1. Have a section on talk page for keeping paragraphs on which a consensus has been reached. That way a lot of arguments can be saved
2. Set deadlines for discussing each paragraph on talk page.

Dilip rajeev 15:59, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

1. I think I want to move the 3rd paragraph discussion into /Archive 10. I'll put a placeholder in so they can be integrated as we finish other paragraphs.
2. Already suggested one for midnight (UTC) for the second paragraph.

- CovenantD 16:56, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Li Hongzhi biography

Could somebody please explain why "In “A Short Biography of Mr. Li Hongzhi” which appeared as an appendix in Chinese Zhuan Falun from 1995 to 1999..." is still there? As I know, this biography was not a official Falun Gong material, also...this has no verifiable source, does it? If it does, I would like to see it. I am a Falun Gong practitioner and still have not even seen any bipgraphy. /Omido 19:16, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Funny you should ask... I've just finished setting up the references for the Intro and Origins sections and the biography was one of them. You can follow the inline link or you can go down to the References section and find a full reference and link there. Hope that helps! CovenantD 19:29, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

That is a biography, not an autobiography. Also it is funny about the date from 1995 to 1999. I don't think that is right. It existed as of 1994. And it was removed since 1996.

"The Chinese version of this biography can be found in Li Hongzhi, Zhuan falun (Turning the Wheel of the Law) (Beijing: Zhongguo guangbao dianshi chubanshe, 1994) ... but has not been published in that book since 1996." Fnhddzs 20:00, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Omido has a point there. The biography certainly appeared in a version of Zhuan Falun by a publisher in China. But thats something a publisher chose to add as an appendix and the material was written by some journalist. It really isnt of much relevance to the article.

Dilip rajeev 20:06, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

I would suggest it be removed from the origins part. It is not teachings. not related to Falun gong practice. not related to the article. It is not in press any more. It is out of dated. It is odd to put there. This paragraphy was not there before. Not a consensus to put it up. The article is in a warped shape, with an odd "origins" and lengthy "ethics". Fnhddzs 20:16, 10 June 2006 (UTC) I added more contents in the Origins. Everything was from the same biography. Fnhddzs 20:28, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

I knew when I looked at this one that it was going to be trouble...

Omido, I've given you the reference.

Fnhddzs, so what if it's a biography rather than an autobiography? That's not enough reason to rule it out. And, where did you get that quote you use? It could be important. Also, just because something is out of print is not reason to exclude it. A version of the paragraph was in place when the page was frozen, as seen here [27].

Dilip, if it appeared in published copies of Zhuan Falun for multiple years, that tends to indicate that it's not a publishing mistake. Again, the fact that it was written by somebody else is not enough reason to rule it out.

I think we should leave it in place for now and give Tomananda or whoever added it a chance to respond. We've only heard from one side so far.

- CovenantD 20:34, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

It is a biography and Li Hongzhi has not officialy recognized it. Further, of what relevance is a biography written by a journalist in an article of Falun Gong. Should it be taking up a major part of the page? An article on Christianity wont carry pages of criticism on Christianity... A page saying "Criticism of Christianity".. in itself is a POV if it takes up a huge portion of the article .. Anybody( with a strong POV + ulterior motives) can pull two sentences out of The Bible, put them out of context and say "elitism" and "intolerance".. and then get two books from the market to "substantiate" his claim. Dilip rajeev 21:06, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Unauthorized biographies are still valid sources.
I'll grant that some of this may be more appropriate for Li's article than this one.
To use an example that's been cited here before Scientology has a criticism article and a pretty extensive summary right in the main article.
But that's starting to get into structure, and this section of the talk page is about Li's biography so I'll stop. CovenantD 21:17, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

If you don't like the stuff in the same biography, then do not use it at all. Fnhddzs 21:51, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

What are you talking about? CovenantD 22:09, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

You suggest removing the text I added from the biography. I think we cannot hide information if the biography is used. Either do not use it or keep full information. Fnhddzs 22:13, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

I've been busy with non-Falun Gong related political activities recently and have not been able to keep up with all these postings. Even though I was not the editor who added the paragraph about Li's authorized biography in the Origins section, I feel strongly it belongs there. Here's why:

• Early writings about the biographies of historical figures are definitely relevant to a report on their "origins"...in fact, these writings are likely to be more relevant than material that comes later, since over time leaders and organizations tend to re-invent themselves and modify their messages.
• The existing biographical records about Jesus were written by contemporaries after his death. The "gospels"...Mathew, Mark, Luke and John...were all written decades after his death, and the gnostic bible material was written a century or more after the gospels. These sources do not agree on historcial points, but nevertheless they are key historical documents for the life of Jesus. And religious scholars (eg: Karen Armstrong) generally give the most biographical weight to earliest writings for obvious reasons.
• The fact that Li had this early biography deleted from subsequent editions of Zhuan Falun is, of itself, relevant to his biography and needs to appear in Wikipedia.
• Although the Zhuan Falun version of the biography was partially based on an earlier version written by a journalist, it is by no means the same document. As Penny points out, there are significant differences between the longer earlier version and the edited (and changed) Zhuan Falun version.
• Penny has used the term "authorized" to describe the Zhuan Falun biography and for good reason. Practitioners may be reluctant to acknowledge the degree of control Li Hongzhi exerts over his publiclations, but that control is easily proven by many of Li's own statements. Here's a good example from Li's 1996 writing called "Awakening" in the Essential for Further Development:

Disciples must remember: All Falun Dafa texts are the Fa that I have taught, and they are revised and edited personally by me. From now on, no one may take excerpts from the tape recordings of my lectures on the Fa, or compile them into written materials.

• Notice that Li sid that he revises and edits all Falun Dafa texts. Since the Zhuan Falun is Falun Gong's most important text, and the master said in 1996 that he reviews and edits the content of these books, how can anyone question the "authenticity" of that biography? The fact that the biogrpahy no longer is authorized by Li does not diminish it's relevance. In fact, I think it becomes more relevant precisely because Li had it pulled from subsequent editions of Zhuan Falun.

Finally, as Covenant points out, even unaothorized biographies can be used as sources for people's lives --Tomananda 22:19, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

• That Bio was not written by people outside of the Falun Gong but the Falun Dafa Reseach Society chaired by Li. Also this Bio was written under Li’s authorization, he is the only one who knows his many masters and training. It was published in Zhuan Falun from 1994 to 1999 and provided info about the origin of the Falun Gong and Li’s wisdom and supernatural power. Falun Gong practitioners are again trying to conceal the truth. You guys are abunch of liers --Yueyuen 01:10, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

As far as I know, it wasnt written by the research society but by a journalist. None of the sources say the research society wrote it.[28]. Using the biography, is alright with me but just pointing out. Dilip rajeev 04:38, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Yueyuen, NO personal attacks! We get enough of that from anonymous vandals, we don't need it from each other. CovenantD 01:25, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

ok. Let's use the biography. Please do NOT delete my edits! They are all from the same biography. Fnhddzs 04:41, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Origins v History

As I said, please do NOT delete the edits fromt the same biography! Why you want to hide information ? Fnhddzs 19:21, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't know about the others, but I told you to take it to the correct article, History of Falun Gong. Origins deals with how it came into being. History is what happens after it's begining. That's not my opinion, that's the definition. CovenantD 19:44, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't care much the structure. I care exercising the same standard. If you put them in the history. Put them ALL. Otherwise, keep them ALL. Thanks. Fnhddzs 19:45, 11 June 2006 (UTC) Exactly, it is about how it came into being. It fits beautifully in the Origins. The age 4 or 8 stories have less relation with Falun Gong's origins.Fnhddzs 19:49, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

For the record, I've read the first English translation of Zhuan Falun which has Mr. Li's biography. According to the related discussion, there are apparently two versions. I'm not sure if the one I read is the same as the one we're using. If it is, then I have no quams with using this information responsibly. If it's included as a section of the book, then it's acknowledged by Mr. Li. Mcconn 15:34, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Article structure

Now that we've had some success on finding agreement on a paragraph of the intro, do you think we should look at the structure of the article again? Many of the daughter articles have been created and editing is going on in them, but we should decide which ones are good and which ones need to be renamed or combined or split. I think it's time, if not now then when we finish the second paragraph. CovenantD 20:34, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

It's important to look at the other articles too, but I recommend we at least try to finalize what we have agreed to in the introduction section while the topics are fresh in everyones' mind. Could you just post below what you conisider to be the approved text, or did you do that above and maybe I missed it. Also, I'd like to finish the second paragraph first --Tomananda 22:23, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

The only one we've agreed on is the 3rd paragraph and that's already in the article. The discussion for the 1st and the 2nd are somewhere above this. I can refactor so that they're at the bottom again if people want. CovenantD 22:41, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, if you could sort of put it all together so we can see where we're at, that would help at least me and probably others as well. --Tomananda 05:11, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Luo Gan

So Luo was He's cousin, but now he is the brother-in-law? What gives? This connection is awkwardly inserted into the text as if to say, "look, He's related to Luo, so they must all be operating similar agendas." He Zuoxiu is a pseudoscience critic, Luo is a politician. If you read He's works, he also criticizes traditional Chinese medicine, whose organizations are supported and sometimes funded by the Chinese government. They are not operating on the same agenda, and He's criticism has nothing to do with the wider campaign against Falun Gong. Stop asserting that it does. Colipon+(Talk) 09:08, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

• The connection was picked up by academia, for example Minna Jia, University of Southern California, see here: "For example, the Zhengqing Net is an anti-Falun Gong website and operates under the name of He Zuoxiu, who is the academician of the CAS and also known as the husband of sisters with Luo Gan.". That makes this information relevant, because He Zuoxiu is not just an independent academic as you try to portray him here. --HappyInGeneral (talk) 14:11, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
• See also mentioned by Porter: [29] --HappyInGeneral (talk) 14:19, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
• National Review, Ethan Gutman: [30] --HappyInGeneral (talk) 14:26, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Firstly, every single one of those sources exhibit a serious bias, or is simply not reliable. Take the first one, a university student's paper. This is in no way a primary or secondary source to prove familial relationships - not to mention, of course, that it's written in poor English. And then, of course, Porter, who cites Falun Gong website clearwisdom.net throughout his book. Finally we have the National Review, an anti-China U.S. conservative publication. Need I say more?

Now, let's assume that in fact, He Zuoxiu is married to one of Luo Gan's sisters. So what? He's involvement with Falun Gong notably preceded Luo's by some two or three years. He criticized Falun Gong from an academic perspective, noting the damage it has caused to practitioners. He felt particularly sympathetic to his students who practiced Gong long before the state ever cared to become involved. Luo, on the other hand, was commissioned by the state to crack down on Falun Gong in June 1999. Unless there is a reliable source to indicate that there is a relationship between two with solid evidence, then stating a familial relationship with the intention to paint a misleading picture is unacceptable. Colipon+(Talk) 15:02, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

As I see it you made up your mind :), but consider if scholars consider it worth mentioning then perhaps they think it is relevant. What you or me thinks is WP:OR right? --HappyInGeneral (talk) 15:36, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Even if they are related, through blood or marriage, it merits nothing more than a line in their respective wiki-biographies. These power elites are all related in some way to each other. A good example is the Soong sisters. Maybe more like the intermarried royal families of Europe... Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 16:00, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Yep, if I don't find a reasonable source (Porter doesn't count, for example, since his expertise are on the ethnographic side not on Chinese politics) drawing attention to this connection, then we won't have it in the article. --Asdfg12345 10:37, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

I see that Asdfg12345 has decided to place it anyways into the article and then edit war to keep it[31] --Enric Naval (talk) 14:33, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

So you are saying that removing sourced information is somehow OK? Or maybe it should have been taken to the NPOV noticeboard since that was claimed? --HappyInGeneral (talk) 15:03, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Eh? Edit warring to keep it? That wasn't my intention... and the Beijing Television thing was deleted as well. If I randomly deleted relevant information that I didn't like, I'd expect Ohconfucius restore it as well--and I wouldn't say he was edit warring. The Luo Gan/He Zuoxiu connection appears in a number of sources. The one quoted here also makes a wider point: that's not a coincidence. Since this is sourced, and it doesn't take up much space, can someone please explain what the problem is with it? I would understand if there is no source, but we can't just delete relevant, sourced stuff because we don't like it. Also, Colipon is going too far by asking for an extra level of proof from the source that they are related. As wiki editors we don't do that level of sussing things out; not that a third party source would even be able to obtain the marriage certificates and proof of identity etc. Since it's appeared in various sources, and the one quoted makes an explicit link between He's article and Luo's position, why should it be deleted? Thanks.--Asdfg12345 23:25, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

The reasons were given above, and you already acknowledged the problem in your own comment. See WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. --Enric Naval (talk) 16:14, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

It's always best to look at both sides and to point out the correct approach, let me quote again: "So you are saying that removing sourced information is somehow OK? Or maybe it should have been taken to the NPOV noticeboard since that was claimed?". Even WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT can go both ways. What do you think? --HappyInGeneral (talk) 16:27, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, but I'm not going to fall into those games. The reasons were already explained above. --Enric Naval (talk) 16:32, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

update: I'm confused by the WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT thing. We're just discussing the usefulness of including this Luo Gan/He Zuoxiu thing, right? Let's have a look what the sources actually say, rather than dismissing or arguing things based on personal taste. I'm going to do a few other things then I will paste them. It could be in 36 hours, or it could be in 1hr. I think the former, because it's the day before Christmas and I think I have to get festive pretty soon.--Asdfg12345 02:22, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Asdfg12345, we were at the part where you agreed that you didn't have a reliable source for how the connection had any importance at all, and how you were going to search for a reliable source before re-adding the text. Hint: you are now supposed to get a reliable source. --Enric Naval (talk) 03:14, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Here are some references to the Luo Gan/He Zuoxiu connection in reliable sources:

An occurrence on Fuyou Street: the communist myth of Falun Gong's original sin National Review, July 20, 2009 by Ethan Gutman

"In 1999, the Public Security Bureau estimated that Falun Gong had attracted 70 million practitioners, 5 million more people than belonged to the Communist party itself. It was at that point that a physicist published an article in a Tianjin Normal University journal portraying Falun Gong as a dangerous cult. China isn't the West, and these things aren't random: The physicist, He Zuoxiu, is the brother-in-law of Luo Gan, at that time the head of public security, and the Tianjin Normal University journal answers to the state. The article was a flare in the night sky, a signal and trial of the party's designs."

Falun Gong in the United States: An Ethnographic Study By Noah Porter (described as "excellent" by Ownby; I can justify this source further if need be)

"He Zuoxiu, a scientist and one of Luo Gan's relatives, perhaps partially motivated by how Li Hongzhi calls modern science limited, seems to have intentionally provoked Falun Gong... Things could not have worked out better for the two if they had planned it — which, it appears, they just might have."

Zhao Yuezhi mentions it opaquely

A number of factors were involved in the souring relations among Falun Gong and the Chinese state and the news media, including ... lobbying efforts on the part of Li’s qigong opponents and scientists-cum-ideologues with political motives and affiliations with competing central Party leaders, which caused the shift in the state's position.

A number of Falun Gong sources also mention the connection.

The disputed sentence was: "He Zuoxiu was brother-in-law of Luo Gan, at that time the head of public security."

So as far as I can tell this has several references. Why shouldn't it be included? We can take this to an RS or NPOV board, too.--Asdfg12345 14:05, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Hadn't you already presented these sources in this section? You were told to get new ones, not to repeat again the old ones.... --Enric Naval (talk) 12:22, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Can you please explain how these are not reliable sources, then? I saw what Colipon said, but I didn't understand how what he said was germane to whether or not the sources were suitable for wikipedia--his remarks mostly seemed an expression of personal opinion. Maybe it would help if I could understand how those objections fit into wikipedia policies. As far as I understand, these are reliable sources on the subject--are they not? If you believe these are not reliable sources, it would be good to know why--an anthropologist, a journalist and published author, and then an established academic. Yep, so I think that's the stumbling block. I think it's clear that they're reliable sources, simply because they are all published, referenced among the other sources on this topic, etc. Prima facie they meet the standard for reliable sources, as far as I understand. So I'd be interested in any argument that could be mounted to discount them. Is that the issue? Thanks.--Asdfg12345 14:45, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Colipon and Ohconfucius already explained the problems with those sources, and why the information should not appear here. --Enric Naval (talk) 15:07, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Are you advancing the same arguments? Why don't you put your objections in your own words? I am just not sure who or what I'm supposed to be speaking to. Colipon believes the sources are biased, but this has nothing to do with WP:RS. That argument doesn't make any sense. Every source has a point of view. This is basic stuff. They appear, prima facie, to be reliable sources, and in the absence of any meaningful dispute (saying "they're biased!" is not a meaningful dispute), then we should take them as reliable. Ohconfucius says that it's not relevant that they are related. This doesn't make sense either, in my view. The fact that they appear in this material makes it relevant; it's relevant because a number of sources make the argument that the noose was tightening on Falun Gong before the persecution, and one of the reasons they cite for this is the Luo Gan/He Zuoxiu connection. So the two arguments that "the sources are not reliable" and "it's not relevant anyway" (which is what Colipon and Ohconfucius's arguments boil down to) need further substantiation. I don't understand the real objection, to be honest.--Asdfg12345 01:17, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

• I am not sure if Falun Gong is attempting to prove "persecution" by enlisting conspiracy theories of a set-up by two people within the hierarchy of the CCP? There are already those who seek to personalise the issue to Jiang Zemin's feeling threatened by the power of FLG or feeling personally inadequate against Li Hongzhi's charisma, so let's take this one step further and exploit the fact that two players are married to sisters to once again strengthen the conspiracy theories... Although I have many issues with how the Government of China treats its citizens, I feel it doesn't have to 'prove' anything in this connection. They made a law against FLG and other "heretical groups" and they are carrying it out through a crackdown. The two people happen to be related by marriage – big xxxxxxx deal! None of the sources cite that He and Luo did what they did BECAUSE they were related – all the mentions were en passant – so how can this possibly be relevant? Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 03:16, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Ohconfucius, I don't know what you are talking about. What you wrote doesn't seem to be a response to what I wrote. There are several sources pointing out the He Zuoxiu/Luo Gan connection; there are also some sources (like Gutmann's) suggesting that the pressure on Falun Gong had been building for a while. This is related to that. I don't understand the grounds for excluding this from the article. The He/Luo thing is just one point. It's sourced. It has several sources. I don't get why it's being turned into something else, when it's just sourced info? I don't get all the meta-argumentation. If the sources are reliable, it should be okay to have a small note on this, then, right? What's the problem? --Asdfg12345 08:55, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

• Material can be sourced without it being relevant. It's called a coatrack. You know that. ;-) Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 13:15, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Gutmann and Porter directly talk about the significance of the connection. I'm not seeking to add something irrelevant. They point it out, then discus its wider relevance in what unfolded. Where is the coatrack there? It's a coatrack when you include unrelated info to make a point, right? But in this case the sources are directly saying it. You can see them above. Why are we dancing in circles over this? Perhaps putting it in direct quotes would eliminate this complaint. got to walk out the door right now though. --Asdfg12345 04:04, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

The problem with this still hasn't been addressed, only vague referrals to objections that made no sense to begin with and do not seem to be defended now. What is happening here? There were two points related to this: identifying the role of Beijing Television in the Chinese media landscape, and secondly identifying He Zuoxiu as brother-in-law of Luo Gan, and noting the significance that Gutmann attaches to this. Both (or, all three) of these points are sourced. The sources are above. It simply hasn't been explained why this sourced information does not belong in the article, despite a lot of arm waving and "who cares!" type remarks. The question is simple: why should this information, from reliable sources, which adds context to several points in the text and takes up very few words, be excluded?--Asdfg12345 00:48, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Got to go now, but I just saw Enric's remark on the AE. It says: "The rest of the section is Asdfg12345 failing to acknowledge that he needs a secondary source that makes the connection that he wants to put into the article." This is simply untrue. Just look at the sources I quoted: "It was at that point that a physicist published an article in a Tianjin Normal University journal portraying Falun Gong as a dangerous cult. China isn't the West, and these things aren't random: The physicist, He Zuoxiu, is the brother-in-law of Luo Gan, at that time the head of public security, and the Tianjin Normal University journal answers to the state. The article was a flare in the night sky, a signal and trial of the party's designs." (Gutmann). "He Zuoxiu, a scientist and one of Luo Gan's relatives, perhaps partially motivated by how Li Hongzhi calls modern science limited, seems to have intentionally provoked Falun Gong... Things could not have worked out better for the two if they had planned it — which, it appears, they just might have." (Porter). "A number of factors were involved in the souring relations among Falun Gong and the Chinese state and the news media, including ... lobbying efforts on the part of Li’s qigong opponents and scientists-cum-ideologues with political motives and affiliations with competing central Party leaders..." (Zhao). So, I made it very clear. I don't understand the claim that I provided no sources to back up what I was saying. I provided three. No response was provided except a referall to earlier, unsubstantiated dismissals. I hope this is clear.--Asdfg12345 01:19, 15 January 2010 (UTC)