Talk:Falun Gong/Archive 3

Prior archived discussion:

• Talk:Falun_Gong/Archive1, 1 April 2003 - 29 May 2005
• Talk:Falun_Gong/Archive2, 29 May 2005 to 30 July 2005

Archiving

Greetings. The previous talk page was so large that it was getting difficult to navigate, so it has all been stored at /archive1. Fire Star 05:53, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

evil cult?

as a Buddhist, one thing is certain, that Buddhism has no connection with Falun Gong even though they claimed so. Li, Hongzhi has been abusing buddhistic terminologies or ideologies extensively thorough out his *religion*.

---

Just a quick query. I know that the chinese government has referred to the falun gong movement has been translated "evil cult", but what were the exact words they used in chinese?

Answer: The term Jiang Zemin used when the persecution begann means if translated litereraly "heretical religion". This term has been used by the party ever since, and when they write anti Falun Gong texts in english that term becomes "evil Cult", and in German "Boese Sekte" (which is yet another meaning)

But actually I am not so sure myself what they mean by "heretical religion". But as far as I know that term actually originates from the time of the cultural revolution. Back than any religous, spiritual, or traditional gathering that was not organised by the party itself could be accused of that and it is also still used for Christians, or buddhists that are outside Party controlled organizations.

Actually Falun Gong was also inside one of those Party orginazations, namely the "National Qigong Assosciation". But they left it in 1996.

Manuel

This article is damned biased. it presents opinions and allegations as fact. --Sumple 23:13, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

On reading it all, I take back that comment. It's well balanced. Cheers. --Sumple 23:22, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

---

Chinese, unlike many western languages, cannot be misinterpreted because words are translate, while it should have translated phrases. I can recognize what the words are in Cantonese, and the common interpretation of that phrase is exactly "cult", specifically the negative connotation of "cult" - that said cult is harmful and/or abusive to the believers - is the very denotation of the phrase.

Back a few years ago, when I was tutored on English, my tutor and I were fairly interested in politics. One day he asked me about Falun Gong, which I expressed my suspicion of them being a cult, which he find it odd. Next week, he showed me a leaflet that he had obtained from (supposedly) a practitioner, and we read it together. There are signs in that paper that was quite suspicious. It showed a graph of its members, which exploded in an exponential scale since 1992 (which is when the "head" of Falun Gong) start promoting it. Also suspicious was an exerpt of Li's writing which he mentioned that in one of the Nostradamus' Quatrains, the "prophet" had written something about Mars, which Li wrote that Mars is meant to be Marx. Upon further reading of the exerpt, we conclude that if indeed this is the type of teaching from Falun Gong, and this type of strange growth pattern makes Falun Gong, at best, of dubious quality. Too bad he kept the leaflet. Incidentally, this happened in Vancouver, BC.

---

Well, I wondered it too. Then again, Mars is the Roman god of war and also a "red planet", so if you want to believe, maybe there is some deeper connection in this. In addition, Nostradamus was a little bit vague when it came to names: for example, he wrote about "Hisler", whom many people have connoted with Hitler.

Anyway, I don't think Falun Gong is a cult; in my opinion the persecution has clearly fascist motives. Falun Gong might have some eccentric beliefs, but I've never heard of any foul play or coercion in their practice. Undoubtedly many people have found it beneficial from the beginning, so why wouldn't they seek to investigate the practice further? All practitioners I know are perfectly sane people, and many of them have improved physically and mentally since they started. One had relatively bad scarring on his face from severe acne, and when he started doing Falun Gong, the scars just started to fill in and disappear little by little... slightly peculiar.

Just my point of view.

Zhen, Shan and Ren

Does anyone have the unicode characters for the three main concepts? They would be a nice addition to the article. Fire Star 17:14, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

Corresponding Chinese characters added. -Broccoli 00:29, August 22, 2005 (UTC)

Another issue

No, but there is another issue I'd like to address.

Fire Star, how come you make biased modifications to the article (e.g. adding words like "controversially" when you surely know it's not such a simple issue, and not only that) without discussing them first? This is even more curious insofar as you revert other people's additions to earlier versions quite readily. It seems as if you had some personal agenda with this page, or am I wrong? Is it just because you maybe prefer another school of practice?

Li Hongzhi has stated that it doesn't really matter if somebody is interracial or not: he will take care of everybody anyway regardless of whether they practice Falun Gong or not, and only the person's attitude towards Fa-rectification is looked at. People of mixed race have a "primordial spirit" that corresponds to its respective race, and it's only that their surface elements don't have correspondence in these so-called paradises. Isn't this what he said? In this context it is, of course, irrelevant whether he's really Buddha Maitreya or not. I just don't see how these words would put people into "defective" positions. ---unsigned comment by 130.232.37.53

It is helpful for us to follow the discussion if you would sign your posts. Li has said a lot of things in his career, many of them at different points seem contradictory. There are several attestations (including direct statements by Li) that Li considers mixed race people to be defective. The version we have is rather mild, considering, and is the result of a consensus of our editors (read the archived discussion). If it wasn't for the evidence of racism (or, if you prefer, xenophobia) Li would seem just another run of the mill New Age guru and Falungong just another run of the mill qigong, nothing special, at least in my opinion. Wikipedia reflects a neutral, informative point of view, and as I've mentioned before we don't want to whitewash or demonise them, so we strive to simply report, warts and all. Li has said what he said, and apologists trying to explain it away won't change what he actually has said, and how weird that seems to a lot of people, hence the "controversial" statement. I hope this helps. Fire Star 04:55, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

I apologize for answering late, and my native language is not English, so I will not spend time polishing this. With all said and done, Li Hongzhi has not stated that people of mixed race are "defective". It is nothing but your (or some other person's) interpretation of his speech. Besides, he's never told practitioners not to marry anybody outside of their own race. This is not racial discrimination: it says nothing about racial inferiority or superiority. He has only stated that there's an issue that he can solve for you. You can't say that's racism, whether you believe his ideas or not. I'm fiercely anti-racist myself, but not everything that is said about racial characteristics is racism in the sense it's generally understood (as racial prejudice).

Anyway, you didn't comment on what I said about your modifications. You tend to revert other people's (sometimes perfectly justified) changes back to previous versions quite readily, yet you seem to have taken a different approach in your own demeanour. I respect your fine contributions to the Wikipedia community, but in my opinion, not all of the criticism you've received is unfounded. (P.S. Sorry for not creating an account this time... I'm also using a different computer, so the actual IP differs from above.) ---130.232.37.53

Reason for persecution

Let me get this straight. The only reason why Falun Gong practitioners are persecuted is that there are so many of them? Good grief! — JIP | Talk 05:21, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

@JIP: Why is the Chinese Communist Party persecuting Christians? It's the same reason. Communism is an atheist ideology, and the communist leaders fear that the only way they can make people obey them, is by destroying any ideology beyond marxism.

Now it is also true that there are some other "Christians" in China who do not get persecuted. What's the difference beetwen them?

The party has set up some churches of it's own, so if "Christians" are party members and first belive in atheism, and marxism, and THAN in God, it's fine. (you notice that this is contradictory...)

Thanks for the explanation. I'm a strong atheist myself, and if people stopped believing in God, or in Buddha, or in Khrisna, or in Yog-Sothoth, I would be only too happy, but that's their decision. More than I'm for atheism, I'm against torture. Therefore I condemn the Communist Party's persecution of Falun Gong. — JIP | Talk 14:39, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

@ Firestar: There where still some places in the article that implied that the Communist Party started it's persecution because of mass protests by Falun Gong practitioners, and them having political motives. This is incorrect. I have allready pointed out in the discussion on Li Hongzhi that the Chinese Government must have been planning its persecution long before theese events, and that the very reason those gatherings happened where because the Party allready arrested dozens of practitioners who tried to ask a magazine editor to stop carrying Propaganda that claimed Falun Gong would hurt people. Also now there are many gatherings and other activities by Falun Gong practitioners, but they have basicly one purpose only: make the party stop it's persecution.

Suppose i was a Chinese Falun Gong practitioner, and my friends and part of my family have been sent to forced labor camps, and now I go around and use every oppertunity to tell people about that, would you honestly tell me to not do that, and instead just let my friends die because the party calls such things "political activity"  ???

Manuel

Oh one more thing... it says in the text: "Li declined to name his own teachers or to delineate the actual provenance of Falun Gong, though earlier text versions (mysteriously discontinued since the persecution) are said to clarify the issue."

It is true that as i just mentioned even long before the persecution officially started the party banned the Falun Gong books (which in the beginning have been published by the Chines Government itself) and even publically burned millions of those books, and so they "mysteriously diappeared".

But of course publishers outside China did not at all stop carriyng those books. For example on Amazon you can order a German version of Zhuan Falun in which Li Hongzhi's Teachers are named.

http://www.amazon.de/exec/obidos/search-handle-form/ref=sr_sp_go_qs/302-7915739-6067227?size=10&field-keywords=Zhuan+Falun&url=index%3Dbooks-de

Manuel

Despite claims that by its followers that Falungong isn't political, demonstrations, even peaceful demonstrations, are in themselves inherently political activites. This apparent contradiction between Falungong's statements and its activities should be mentioned in the article. Fire Star 21:57, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

Am I wrong, or isn't it so that Falun Gong practitioners say they're saving people by clarifying the truth about the persecution? Don't they believe that people who've been poisoned by CCP's propaganda are in grave danger by positioning themselves against the "Fa-rectification" that is supposed to provide benevolent resolutions to all sentient beings? As far as I know, this is what they mean by not getting involved in politics, i.e. not seeking political power, but doing something out of compassion and sense of responsibility. Isn't it simply a difference in semantics? 146.161.127.1

I disagree with some of the principles of Falun Gong. I am a strong atheist, and do not believe in any sort of higher power or mysticism. The article claims Falun Gong is intolerant of homosexuality. I am fully tolerant of homosexuality. i don't care about the political issues at all. But all of this is by far outweighed by my disgust, hatred and contempt of the way the Chinese Communist Party is persecuting and torturing Falun Gong practitioners. No one should be persecuted or tortured for any reason. Therefore I am in support of Falun Gong, even though I disagree with it personally. — JIP | Talk 19:36, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

Well right... you don't have to believe what Falun Gong teaches, and i don't think that any Falun Gong practitioner thinks that you're going to hell for that or something (-: Even though i would call Falun Gong practitioners theists, they really aren't some kind of cult like the Communist Party claims.

As for those sentences about homosexuallity. We allready talked about this here in detail. Just because the article now claims that Falun Gong is intollerent of homosexuality, it doesn't mean that it is... It's true that there is a statement regarding homosexuality in Zhuan Falun... but it's not like what the party said... Everything in Falun Gong is voluntary. See Falun Gong asks practitioners to not take sex as too important. If you are a homosexual, and really believe what Falun Gong says, and really want to practice it, than it is up to you if you want to stop your homosexual activity or not. It's all up to the person. And if somebody doesn't want to practice Falun Gong, than even less would anybody bother tell him that he should not have homosexual activity.

Manuel

As for "clarifying the truth" and "saving people who believe the propaganda against Falun Gong" it's true, but i don't quiet think it is meant in the way this sounds right now...

I just found a video made by Falun Gong practitioners about the persecution. http://fgmtv.org/videos1/English/2004/11/Conciense/CONCIENSE-256k.ram I think it is meant the way it is described in the video... in such a context.

I think the video describes the way Falun Gong practitioners think about the persecution, pretty well, and of course it also illustrates what they mean by "clarifying the truth" So if there are no objections, i would like to suggest linking it in the article.

MAnuel

Greetings. I'll put the link you suggested into the article. I've also replied to your most recent message at Talk:Li Hongzhi. Regards, Fire Star 20:11, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

I do not like CCP's attitude towards Chinese people. The CCP government is for sure still a despotism ruler of China. But I don't like Falun Gong either. I personally know some Falun Gong practitioners in Beijing, and frankly speaking, they were all loosers wanting to achieve something by the way of believing "heavenly peace" or other Falun Gong thoughts to relieve their failure in real life.

What I hate most is that Falun Gong practitioners really do suicide. Set aside things happened in TianMen square, there are a lot of suicide cases took place in China because of practising Falun Gong.

If you just read those Falun Gong propagandas with a sociological concern, you will be definitely laugh at it. What kind of craps they are! Li HongZhi himself is just a poorly educated peasent born in the Northeast China. I really cannot see anything what he says to be reasonable! Somebody may say that the Falun Gong exercises really do improve health. That is true. But most of those exercises are stolen ideas of traditional Chinese Qi Gong, which is a effective kind of body exercise(my grandma practise it everyday, so that her eyesight is still very nice at the age of 80). In China during the 90's, there were numerous fake Qi Gong teachers who opened their own clan to cheat for money, and Li was one of them. The difference is that he really made a fortune and a prestige for himself----through cheating money from poorly educated people.

The funniest thing is that in Li's speech, the way of expressing his idea is so borrowed from the good-old Chinese commi's voice. The very first time when I heard Li's speech, I just laughed till my tear runs out(not to mention the funny scietific mistakes he made!)!

About Li's situation right now, I call him pathetic because even after he have moved to the free world, he still clings to his so called Falun Gong and cheating people for money.

According to the propoganda of Falun Gong. I suddenly feel that Falun Gong is qiute the same with CCP. Using an old Chinese saying, it is called "dog bites dog and their mouth is full of the same hair". Since I have great faith in American politics so I don't believe that U.S. government really hide Li to go against China. If Li becomes the leader of China, his way of ruling will definitely be the same as the commi's. That's just another peasent revolt anyway.

I am so happy that Western World has almost no such concern. In a democracy, the society will not be easily influenced by retard people. That is what exactly I feel about Falun Gong. If you ask what led Falun Gong this far, I will answer with two factors: luck and political opportunities given by the democratic movement(which I am proudly one part of it) of Chinese people hoping for a better life.

How tempting, sure, make things seem straightforward and simple! In 1998 about eight percent of China's population were Falun Gong practitioners. While you're trying to denigrate them as a bunch of uneducated, rural folk, these people actually came (and still come) from all social classes and age groups. I know practitioners who are university professors or PhD in nuclear physics, etc. Oftentimes it is the truly educated people who can grasp the boundaries and unexplored domains of science. You might not believe what Master Li is stating, and that's OK - nobody's ever forced people to practice. However, Li's things are genuinely rooted in the ancient xiulian tradition, unlike many watered-down New Age qigong practices for health and fitness. It is serious cultivation practice, not a workout for getting your rack trimmed for chicks and good times, so his stance on sexual misconduct and pleasure hunt is understandable. By the way, as far as I know, Li never got a single penny from many of his students, only those who bought his book for a few yuan.

In my humble opinion, Falun Gong isn't something that can be dismissed lightly. Both proponents and opponents have significant points on their side. It's certainly not a matter of obvious resolution. Many practitioners have personally experienced a myriad of things; it's not that Li is just rambling about something without any basis in phenomenology. It is those with inquisitive minds who're making science go further - not the people whose rigid concepts impede them from constantly checking and re-checking the foundations of their own dear worldview. The reality spreads out to the transcendent.

Just my opinion. ---Oliver

Hi Anonymous guy, I am just wondering... how many of those suicide cases your talking about did you actually see yourself? You say you know lots of Falun Gong practitioners, but did anyone of them actually commit suicide, or are you just refering to the tianamen square "self-immolation" from January 2001 shown on Chinese TV, which has allready been mentioned in the article?

What I think is pretty funny is that Wang Jingdong (the guy whom the party claimed that he said himself on fire) was not even burning in the video, was wearing a thick mask, had his hair intact, had an INTACT gasoline bottle between his legs right after it was said that he just burned himself.

Also that day the policemen that where at the scene had over 20 pieces of firefighting equpement ready right at the moment the burning supposedly started. How could they have known that this was going to happen? And last but not least, there have been detailed high-quality close-up camera shots and wide-angle shots of everything. If they did not know this was going to happen, where did all those cameras came from?

It goes on like this... and it was actually also mentioned by the UN Human Rights Commission in August 2001 that the burnings broadcasted by CCTV where staged.

But if what you are talking about is refering to a different incident than this... please be more specific. If you have evidence beyond what has been claimed by the party-controlled media than you should go ahead and tell us more about it.

As for the rest, if that is you personal opinion, than that's your personal opinion.

But as for what you what you said about the U.S. you have never been outside China, have you?

Have you not read the quotes by US Government officials at the very beginning of this discussion?

Manuel

The burning was real, your arguments are nothing more than nitpicks. The guy killed himself along with a little girl. FLG is a terrorist organisation that should be banned, along with supporters like you.

Manuel: Yes I have read it. Thank you for responde to my discussion. You have mentioned that many highly educated people practise FaLun Gong. That's true. But I want to state that this DOES NOT MEAN that Falun Gong should be accepted as a normal religion. I will explain this problem this way:

practitioners in China: Professors practicing FalunGong in China simply shows the fragility of the mental situation of these people. Long lived under the pressure of a despotism with no sign of progress in democracy, these highly educated people cannot find a way to express their opinion. FalunGong is a sign of depression and desparation(similar to something happened in America).

practitioners in Western world: I don't really know anyone who is highly educated and practises Falun Gong here. But I firmly believe that many people is doing so. I say it is the result of Falun Gong propaganda. I have read a lot of FalunGong propaganda here(as well as in China). The propaganda here is practically more reasonable and touchy and formal than the ones in China. Obviously, some highly educated brains are working for Li's society. They can skillfully decorate those crude and silly Falun Gong theories into something sounds scholar and mature. So Falun Gong is a growing system of theories, not a still one. Though it is getting more reasonable and it really attacks despotism of evil communism in China, I still cannot put my faith on such a silly thing.

I bet that you can't read much Chinese. Even if you do, you are not very good at Chinese culture. In the eyes of a reasonable Chinese scholar, Falun Gong's unreasonable is obvious. If you read a lot of Chinese history, you can find millions of peasant revolts using quite the same religious theories which Falun Gong adopt. It's just funny. I am a Chinese that's right; but I live in North America and loves democracy.

Li is not a religious enthusiast(unlike some American or japanese guy, you know:) . When he started I believe all what he wanted was to make a little dirty fortune. But now, the Chinese government changed everything. The government stupidly put Falun Gong to such a height and actaully gave Li a chance, with respect, to fool Westerners. I think that Li will never really fight for what he claims he beleives in.

In general, Falun Gong is a great sociological case shows that Western World and Eastern World still misunderstands each other.

Kirk

Hi Kirk,

I am not going to argue with you about that, since that is your personal opinion. Yet there is one thing... Because of my Job i have learned some methods by which you can tell if somebody is telling the truth. The main one is that a lie naturaly cannot be backed up by personal experience, also it is necassery for a rumor to stay alife to include warnings like "but do not talk with those people about that, since there are all crazy" or something to that. The reason is, if those people who belief the rumor where to not spread that rumor behind the victims back, but would all openly discuss it, and make their own observation, any lie which might be contained in such rumor would be brought to light.

So let me ask two questions, of which I think you will avoid answering me:

1. Are there Falun Gong Practitioners that you really know personaly, or have you ever practiced or at least looked at Falun Gong itself ?

2. That Propaganda you mentioned which seems to be different in China... was it actually something that you heard a Falun Gong practitioner in China say to you in person, or did you just hear it on CC-TV or some other party-controlled channel?

Manuel

Hi Manuel,

Thank you again for responding me.

The first and second question together: When I was in China, in a park near my home called Yue Tan Park in Beijing, I once saw people practising Falun Gong nearly seven years ago. I didn't pay great attention to it since it seemed to be just another Qi gong group. (in that little park had more than ten different Qigong groups doing exercise)

Also, there was a maths teacher of mine(she was 60 years old then)who practised Falun Gong. She quitted after a while(before the wipe-out of government)and she told me in person that Falun Gong was nothing but fake or stolen ideas, so she started to practise another Qi Gong called Xiang Gong:).

After Falun Gong was ruled outlaw by Chinese government, it was literally impossible for me to find any Falun Gong propaganda in China. After I came here, I first time read the pillar of its belief: Zhuan Falun, and was stunned by the ignorance it showed(beyond my imagination). I also checked with interest on its official website. It is lovely.

I don't know if my answer can satisfy you. I noticed that it seems you have a deep doubt in whatever I say as if I am telling lies for Chinese government(perhaps I am too sensitive since I have just came out from a despotism) . You have your right to believe what you want to believe(since it is on internet) but please be considerate, all right? I really don't take speaking for Chinese government a compliment!:0 Thank you!

Kirk

Hi Kirk, I do not believe you are working for Chinese Government, and I will try to be more considerate in the future. I am sorry... i sounded too accusing.

Yet... if those are the only things that you saw yourself, is my assumption correct that the things you said about Falun Gong before, are based on what you saw on Chinese TV?

Manuel

Greetings. "I am sorry... i sounded too accusing." is a very commendable statement, the stuff of which consensus is made. It is helpful for us all to remember that people, both Chinese and foreigners, can distrust both the CCP as well as Li Hongzhi and Falungong, and that many do. I'm sure there are patriotic Chinese who support their government and also (probably secretly) do Falungong, too, but I don't have any citations to back that up. All I can say is that China is a big country and people get up to all sorts of things... --Fire Star 20:23, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

Hi everyone, I was in Beijing during the persecution, and many of my friends were FLG practitioners. To be truthful, i believe that they are cultists. Did you guys know that a FLG practioners killed his entire family because he thought they were 'devils' according to Li's teaching? I'm not trying to demonize Li or FLG, but that's the truth. And also, a FLG practitioner forced her daughter to burn herself with him at Tiananmen Square to protest against the CCP, the daughter survived with over 95% burnt on her body and went mad, cursing FLG everyday in the hospital. You all may think those as propagandas, and I thought so until my friends told m that he actually SAW those happenning. Anyway, i think FLG's deserve it because they went messing with the CCP. And no one should have those kind of organized protests outside the centre of power of the country. Even in the US, after WWI, the veterans demand pensions and set up camps outside Capitol Hill to protest, the US gov't sent tanks and crushed their tents and killed many. What I'm trying to say is, no gov't could tolerate those kind of activities, let alone the fact that they're messing with the iron fists of CCP. And i think that Li ruined FLG, not the CCP. In the beginning, FLG was just a small Qigong organization that helps the senior citizens get together and exercise (don't laugh, that's the truth, my granma was one of them). There wasn't any religious believes or moral principles. As more members joined, Li started to introduce religious concepts into FLG. He took ideas from Buddhism (the swastika symbol), Taoism (the Tai-chi symbol), Lamaism (the Falun Concept), and some of his own creativity to create Falun Gong. With his greater influence on people, he declared himself a Reincarnation of Buddha(it's in his book, read it, or see the footage of one of his live speech). He made his follower's worship him like a Buddha, adding an orange aura on his pictures to show his divinity (by Computer of course). He tried to let his followers idolize him, and some actually did. It's crazy! It's like the cult of personality in Stalin's USSR, they pray to him, they worship him. I'm a buddhist, and after reading his book, i realized how evil he is. He completely desecrated Buddhism by making up weired stories of Buddha, inventing new Buddhas and twisting Buddhist concepts. And worst of all, he called FLG a new branch of Buddhism, a total disgrace for us. Also worth noticing, if Tolerance is one of their primary moral priciple, why would they organize massive protest when a paper publish an article criticizing them? The're trying to kill the fledgling freedom of speech in china (the article was written by an university professor, a famous public intellectual renowned for unbiased criticism against the gov't, so it's not planned by the gov't), they're self contradictory. I've written so much, just to give you guys an idea from a person who's close to the incident. Whether you wish to believe me or not, it's up to you.

A Concerned Buddhist

I love the "east meets west" and blatant propaganda attempts on this wikipedia entry. I find it an enlightening, and fascinating, introspective about motivation, direction, etc. For example: "Did you guys know that a FLG practioners killed his entire family because he thought they were 'devils' according to Li's teaching", is interesting because believers in all sorts of things, including communism, often kill their own families over belief.

Another example would be "Even in the US, after WWI, the veterans demand pensions and set up camps outside Capitol Hill to protest, the US gov't sent tanks and crushed their tents and killed many." Something that happened 5 generations ago in the west is seen as acceptable in the east? Generations cannot learn? Western mind has changing law, eastern mind has fixed, universal, law.

The US (and the western world) tolerates all kinds of self-death cults, including Scientology, Jehovah's witnesses, and many others who avoid medicine. We view it as a basic right to kill ones self. We do not view it as a basic right to kill children, or other people under our intellectual control.

Personally, I find FLG a racist, sexist, violent, science ignorant, vile, cult, which is *why* I believe they have every right to freely exist, recruit, and have demonstrations. In western mind, people choose how they fit into society. In eastern mind, society chooses how a person will "fit in".

To summarize: The western mind often believes that things that are a challenge to existing power are usually good, but the eastern mind disagrees. Ronabop 11:58, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

Frankly speaking, we should all avoid editorial content like this even on talkpages. This page is not for us to judge Falungong or bash/support it, it's for the article, not the thing! Hmmkay? Everyone, please refrain from ideological discussions on FLG and CPC et al, and focus on the article.

That being said however, Ronabop, are you a psychologist? No offense intended, but if not, then in all honesty, I don't think you're fit to judge what a "western" mind is like and what an "eastern" mind is like. You could read Dao De Jing, for a start, on your "eastern mind" comment. I consider myself as eastern as a mind can get, and guess what, I'm what would be considered a libertarian in the US, an anarcho-capitalist elsewhere, and possible on the blacklist in China. Peace.
-- Миборовский ^U|T|C|E 22:57, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

Sometimes it is helpful for people to own up to their personal POV on article talk pages. Other editors can see where they are coming from, and the position is therefore noted for inclusion (if it is germane). Sometimes it isn't! If a POV is espoused on a talk page it should be in aid of "it's for the article" certainly. Certainly discussion on this article has a relatively civil tone for such a controversial issue. That being said, it is very difficult to generalize. I've been around the world, lived in North America, Europe and Asia, and IMO no nation or culture has a monopoly on saints or idiots. We can only report on what Li has actually said, what his followers publish publicly in response, and what their notable critics and supporters have said in the public domain. --Fire Star 01:25, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

Point taken. However (I hate to be naming names here, but) editors like JIP are just here to voice his support for FLG and denounce CPC, something that does not contribute to the article and may piss off certain contributing people.
-- Миборовский ^U|T|C|E 01:43, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

I detest the term "persecution" when referring to the Cult. The Chinese Government lists dissent as one of the big concerns of the Cult, but personally I think the fact that there have been cases where Falun Gong practitioners have lit innocent passers-by on Tian'namen Square on fire to be just one of the more pressing issues that westerners seem to ignore. Phanatical 16:07, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

David Copperfield

I have read in one of Li`s books, where he ammends that there are other masters of chi, that have this gift by nature, like a popular magician who penetrated publicly the chinese wall but covered the scenery with white blankets etc. obviously refering to David Copperfield. I think this an important statement, that people should know to build up their own opinion Thomas h 09:22, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

More Focused Introduction

The article spent the entire first paragraph translating Falun Gong six different ways and talking about how many members it had, without saying what it really was. I took a crack at bringing it down to one set of chinese characters, one number, and one date — and moved the rest into the article body. I think the result is easier to digest and hits the parts that are relevant for most readers. However, I did not spend significant time finding a good place for the material I moved out of the introduction, so if someone can do a better job on that I'd be appreciative. Metaeducation 12:26, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

I just got back from China, and this page was definitely blocked by the great firewall. I thought that should be mentioned in the article so I put it in the intro. 24.22.74.4

Morality

I recently modified the morality entry to be more comprehensive, and I noticed that the changes were discarded in full. I would appreciate commentary on this.

I am attempting to (1) offer a broader picture of the morality espoused by Falun Gong adherents, and the rationale behind it (2) move away from the Judeo-Christion focus on "sin" which is emphasized in the first article, and not in fact this belief system, (3) cover more comprehensively what FG practitioners would consider "wrong," (4) address concepts around miscegenation.

THE PROPOSED TEXT:

Li states that the five exercises and the Falun are not sufficient to ensure a person's physical, mental and spiritual well-being; only by living a morally upright life according to the principles of Zhen-Shan-Ren (Truthfulness, Compassion, and Forbearance) can a Falun Gong practitioner be said to experience increased vitality, health, and peace of mind, according to Li's teachings. This principle is referred to as upgrading xinxing or "heart nature". While Li Hongzhi's teachings form a basis for learning how to apply Zhen-Shan-Ren in a complicated society, practitioners' responsibility for their own interpretation of the teachings, and their resulting decisions and actions, is stressed.

The Falun Gong traditional form of morality (sometimes seen as conservative) is expounded upon in the book Zhuan Falun, and is centered around obtaining virtue (de, or good karma) and avoiding creating karma (bad karma). Karma is seen to be created when doing bad deeds, and virtue is accrued when doing good ones. Thus, "...a practitioner should set high demands on himself, and should not return the same when being hit or abused." Practitioners should not be motivated by self-interest.

Irrespective of a practitioner's predispositions, pursuit of "free love," homosexual acts, drug abuse, among others, are regarded as creating karma, as is the taking of any life.

There has been some controversy in the press around Falun Gong conceptions of miscegenation. In his lectures, Li Hongzhi controversially suggested that different races bear the images of the gods that created them, and that each race of people on earth in the past had their own cosmic paradises, leaving people of mixed race with no paradise to go to. However, at the present time in history, people of mixed race have similar possibilities to anyone else.

In Zhuan Falun it is stressed that all sentient beings should be treated with tolerance and compassion, and that practitioners should not act in an extreme manner.

Well, what is notable about what Li teaches is that he does express his disapproval of homosexuality explicitly and mixed race children implicitly in his public statements. these things are in the public record, and while FLG followers may agree with him fully or indeed be able to rationalise his statements as you do, we still can report them in the article. FLG is a controversial subject and all sides of the issue should be reported. The issue you are bringing up isn't characterised by any Judeo-Christian concept of sin, but rather the notable issue of that Li seems to be intolerant of his concept of "sinners" i.e. homosexuals and mixed race couples. I hope this helps. --Fire Star 15:59, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

While I agree that Wikipedia articles should maintain a neutral, all-encompassing point of view (and it's perfectly all right to exhibit controversial statements), the modifications in question do clarify Li's teachings to a notable degree. Accordingly, they shouldn't have been entirely removed. Instead, the erased quote concerning homosexuality (from Zhuan Falun II) could've been returned; now I get the impression that Fire Star would like to make things more black-and-white than they essentially are. He distinctly wants to highlight the homosexuality and miscegenation issues from a judgemental POV and keep it that way. Fire Star, are you merely trying to keep your point untarnished? --130.232.37.53

How is simply reporting what he said judgmental and POV? I reversed the edits because they seemed like original research in aid of a POV to make Li sound better in light of his many apparently politically incorrect statements. We can't say he is a saint, or a god, or a cult leader. We can say what he has said, and the statements you object to are important information towards an objective view of Li's idiom. If you'll read through the article's edit history and the archived discussion above, you'll see that there is a long history of FLG enthusiasts who want to come here and make this look more like an advertisement than an encyclopaedia article. The reference and external links give plenty of evidence to Li's and Falundafa's party line. We can't say "It's OK that Li said these things because of blah..." as it is no longer reporting, it is apologetics. If we say "Li's followers say he said these things because of blah..." we have to say which followers said those things, it isn't good enough to report your personal understanding of those things. Regards, --Fire Star 20:28, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Hmmm...I think I understand your way of thinking about this now. What I wrote was based on Li Hongzhi's teachings. The point is, what Li Hongzhi has written about homosexuality is not definitive of the morality of the practice, while the entry as it stands makes it look that way. Perhaps it makes sense to have a section on morality that attempts to broadly explain it, while having another section that covers, "controversial issues / teachings?" -- this is more what that section looks like now. I will go through the process to dig up the appropriate references.

Yeah, that would be fine. We can have contextual information about what he said as long as it is qualified with neutral language and referenced with appropriate citations. "Both sides of the story" so to speak. We like to have as much info as possible in aid of a complete picture but with the many layered (and mostly subjective) controversies surrounding Li, FLG and the Chinese government, it is easier on all sides for us to be especially meticulous and "dry" in our presentation, which is why the present article may seem a bit abrupt in places. Regards, --Fire Star 13:31, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Using "quotes" from dubious sources

What do you mean by doing this, Mibrovsky and Fire Star? Doesn't the neutrality standard apply when you've found a delicious and apparently racist "quote" from Li that you just want to get in, no matter what? When other people have been trying to provide a more comprehensive understanding of the miscegenation and homosexuality issues, the changes have been straightforwardly reverted. Now nothing is done about a quote that can only be found from anti-Falun Gong pages, even though you know utterly well that a lot of these alleged quotes cannot be traced to their origin. There is plenty of propaganda out there. What is your agenda? A neutral, balanced article or simply denigration? ---130.232.37.53

As I have said before, there is a long history here of anon editors doing drive by edits to both make Li and FLG look good or to make them look bad. Neither are acceptable. Your case now seems a little different, so I'm happy to discuss this with you. The article at [1] apparently is a serious article that sources its statements. You may assert otherwise, but the burden of proof is on you, and even then the best you'll be able to do is qualify the listing. The pro FLG links seem dubious to many as well, but they also stay. So, you may dispute it, but you shouldn't remove it. Your statements that the source is "dubious" just aren't enough. We have pro-FLG links and anti-FLG links, people need all sides of the story, if those sides are notable. Li is a controversial figure, he says many things that aren't "politically correct" and he says them publicly. He has alluded to the statements you dispute in other lectures. There are people who think he is a dangerous cult leader, there are others who think he is a simple-minded buffoon, and yet others (including himself) who think he is a living god. That doesn't concern us. What does concern us is what he and others have actually published, info that belongs in this article, at least. If you provide apologetics, as you may in this case, they have to be sourced, we have a policy against original research. We can work on this, but this article is controversial to the point that no one person may edit it by fiat. I hope this helps. --Fire Star 15:03, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Fire Star has stated our point perfectly so there is no need for me to elaborate further. However, 130.232.37.53's statement, "When other people have been trying to provide a more comprehensive understanding of the miscegenation and homosexuality issues, the changes have been straightforwardly reverted", is... how shall we say... contradictory. (Ludicrous is such a bad word.) I cannot fathom how, by only deleting information on the said issues, one's understanding of them can become more comprehensive. If that were true, I'd be tearing up my AP Chemistry book right now and waiting to get an A on my next test.
-- Миборовский ^U|T|C|E 23:54, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

I am not referring to deleting anything. This case is an exception. I wholeheartedly agree that the quote concerning homosexuality from Zhuan Falun II is justified in this article, even though I feel the sentence by itself misrepresents the teachings of Falun Gong. However, there have been people who've elaborated on the homosexuality and miscegenation issues with a good, comprehensive understanding about what Li has said in different lectures. Of course, I understand that direct quotes should be provided to anchor these statements in his actual words. No original research - right. I am not against any of the principles of Wikipedia.

However, this gives emphasis to my point. You cannot assert that "Li said...", when you have no tangible proof at all that he's said a certain sentence. You could say, for example, "according to a research paper by Christian Research Institute, Li has said <blah blah>, but this sentence could not be traced back into any of his public lectures or interviews." And maybe you could add something about the raging information war, and how difficult it is for all parties to distinguish between propaganda and facts.

Fire Star: the article in question has nothing to do with a "serious article", and if you've studied in a college or university, you know how silly that sounds. Chances are that somebody's found the quote on a Chinese government website - and even you probably agree that the CCP doesn't always play it fair - and if the author's ambition has been to just validate his favoured viewpoint, maybe he didn't really care about the quality of his primary sources. Nevertheless, the sources ought to be traceable to their root, at least in principle! How is peer review otherwise possible?

This really makes me feel that you're evaluating modifications with a double standard. You're wearing a façade of neutrality, but your heart is weighted, and sometimes it seems you are making editions by fiat. At least you should overtly admit your subjective position. ---130.232.37.53

You have some good points and I am willing to go with a format like: "You could say, for example, "according to a research paper by Christian Research Institute, Li has said <blah blah>" and we should also add a note (or even an entire paragraph if there is a sufficient trail) concerning where they claim their sources come from. More information is good!

The next thing I want to address is wikiquette. I can assure you that I won't be flip, patronising or sneering when it comes to considering anyone but the most disruptive vandal's arguments; and only then to be illustrative, not belittling. The following two quotes are indicative of an approach that isn't going to be productive: "if you've studied in a college or university, you know how silly that sounds", "and even you probably agree that". If we want to work together and move forward (which I believe we can), I'll ask you not to use such figures of speech in future, thank you. --Fire Star 14:36, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

What I have so far...

The Christian Research Institute article by Christine Dallman and J. Isamu Yamamoto has a note sourcing the quote in question to:

"German Scientology News reporting on Li?s ?Great Perfection Way,? quoted in Strittmatter."

A Google search on the note takes us to a German Scientology website:

[2]

and the appropriate article is copied in full below:

Peking, China April 26, 1999 dpa China/Demonstrations/Cult Movements

China's state informants surprised by scurrilous cult protest

by Andreas Landwehr, dpa

Peking (dpa) - Several people from China's state security apparatus are now in difficulty. For years, citizens have been followed at great expense or put in jail for even attempting to organize. Despite state informants, suddenly and without warning a mass movement stood before the doors of Zhongnanhai, the Holy of Holies of communist power, where China's sovereigns reside behind high, stately red walls.

In the best style of a Chinese secret society the Falun Gong cult movement mobilized more than 10,000 adherents with a wave of the hand. Old and young, native Pekinese and visitors stood or squatted silently in long columns on the footpaths. Buddhist equanimity enveloped the faithful who felt they had been dealt with unjustly by the authorities and wanted to be recognized as good people.

The scurrilous and somewhat racist teachings of salvation have developed in China into a mass movement in just a few years. Where communist ideology and control have ebbed, superstition, sects and religions find ever more leeway. The army of the unemployed grows. The education level is low. Many Chinese feel that they have been abandoned by the system, are confused by the contradictions of society and are in search of meaning which charlatans provide cheaply.

By 1997 the government already kept a "white book" of "harmful organizations." "Several of the leaders of such pseudo-religions pervert religious doctrines, produce heresy, deceive the masses, reject state laws and regulations of obedience, and incite the people to destroy the government."

In an unusual gesture, Minister President Zhu Rongji received representatives of the movement who asserted that they were not members of a religious sect, but of teachings for the cultivation of body and mind. With similarities to the Qigong traditional Chinese breathing exercises for abdominal training they also give the appearance of a harmless health movement.

However, anybody who reads the teachings of their Master Li Hongzhi, who lives in New York, will come to a different conclusion. He helps himself freely to Buddhism and Taoism. He preaches that Jesus was also a Buddha. Li Hongzhi has bestowed upon his adherents a rotating "wheel of the law" (Falun) made out of supernatural energy which is supposed to be able to cure illnesses, among other things. Tuberculosis disappears; gray hair turns black anew. Medicine is only needed by he who does not properly believe, says the Master.

Li Hongzhi demands unconditional obedience. "In regards to your cultivation you need a master who protects you and cares about you." His adherents are supposed to read his "Book of Heaven" and buy his sound and video cassette records. Society in engaged in moral decay. Suffering is not accidental; it is kharma - fate determined by a previous life. Outbreaks of disease are said to be "a black wave, a dense mass of kharma which rolls hither and yon. Because of this, the spirit must be purified.

His teachings are openly racist. Each race is said to have its own "biosphere." Mixed-race offspring are said to be "defective persons" who appear in times of decay. Even heaven is said to be divided up according to skin color. "Anybody who does not belong to his race will not be cared for. I do not just say that. It is really true. I am revealing the secret of heaven to you," announced the Master.

--

Landwehr is a German journalist apparently for Deutsche Presse Agentur specialising in Chinese issues who doesn't write for Scientology as such, and a search on his name even reveals an article of his published on a German FLG website. That being said, the Scientology version of his article doesn't provide a source for his quote of Li, and I didn't turn up the original article. I'm going (when I have time) to look up the minghua.de website, which seems to have an archive of past articles. I'll post info here as I find it. --Fire Star 15:16, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Hi fire,

You're still debating about the same thing. And I am going to ask you the same thing i did a few month ago. Where does Li Hongzhi say this? You gotta remember that after all since the persecution began Xinhua has basicly only had one task: spread rumors to justify the persecution. And not just a few copied some of that. If you read the interview I once put on the discussion page of the article to Li Hongzhi, you will find that he does not say or demand such things at all, qite the opposite actually. How come you never linked THAT one? Even if look up the article by Li Hongzhi that YOU once linked, you will still not find anything like what the article apparently seems to quote. Where are those quotes from? How come he did not put in a source? How come you don't put in one either. And how come I am not spreading those things even though I practise Falun Gong myself?

Manuel-

Hi Manuel. I just gave my research so far sources for the quote you are asking about (which I didn't put in the article) above. The following links, that you mention, are of a piece with those quotes:

[3]

[4]

"Mixed races have lost their roots, as if nobody in the paradise will take care of them. They belong to nowhere, and no places would accept them. Therefore, you find the place where the continents of Europe and Asia meet a desert in the past and a depopulated zone. When the transportation means were not advanced, it was difficult to pass through it. With the progress of modern means, all these are broken through. Thus, races have become increasingly mixed up, which can lead to serious consequences. Of course, I will not go into details. I'm just saying that the higher levels do not recognize such a human race.

Question: Can you say a little more about the interracial children?

Master: I have already talked about such interracial children. I have only mentioned the phenomena in this Dharma-ending period. If you are an interracial child, it is, of course, neither your fault nor your parents' fault. Anyway, it is just such a chaotic situation brought about by mankind, in which such a phenomenon has appeared. The yellow people, the white people, and the black people have the corresponding races in heaven. Then, if one is not from his race or does not belong to his people, he will not take care of him. This is the truth, and it is not that I’m making up something here. What I am telling everyone are heavenly secrets. All interracial children were born in the Dharma-ending period. People are not to be blamed for it, because everyone is drifting in the tide, and nobody knows the truth. This is the way they have come through. If you want to practice cultivation, I can help. As for which paradise you will go to, we will need to look at your situation. I will assimilate more of whichever portion that is better preserved. Anyway, you should concentrate on your cultivation and should not concern yourself with these things. There is nothing to be afraid of now that you have attained the Fa. I did not mention such things when I was teaching the Fa in the past. However, such a matter will be told to man sooner or later."

So, there you go. Why you aren't spreading these things even though you follow Li is your business, and isn't really germane to our discussion, is it?--Fire Star 06:08, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

Why did you revert the changes when I quoted this passage? It seems to me that you specifically want the article to give an impression that Li is some kind of a racist and sexist ****, and that it's obvious to any rational person reading the text. Whenever more light is shed on the controversial issues, and the black-and-white opposition turns gray, you simply revert the changes. --130.232.37.53 20:19, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

The Tiananmen Square Self-immolations

== true FLG story from a common guy == Personally I think I'm an anarchist--I don't trust any kind of authority and I only rely on my own judgement. I don't see any good of any gov.---there's only worse and the worst.However, I think the U.S gov. still better. Following words are absolutely true story and personal opinion, if you don't like it, ignore it but please respect my right of speaking. I don't like FLG and you will see the reason. Well, I heard about FLG in 1996 when I was an undergraduate student in Beijing. My best friend was a practitioner of FLG and one day he showed me the bible of FLG ('Zhuan Fa Lun' in Chinese, and don't know the English name) and wanted me to join the FLG. At that time, FLG hadn't been announced as an illegal/evil cult by Chinese Goverment yet. So, I did read that 'bible'--if so called, and I thought it was ludicrous--a lot of wrongly written characters;rough-and-tumble and puzzleheaded mixed taoism & buddism ideology; especially some other ridiculous oracles throughout the 'bible'. I didn't take it seriously. It was nothing for a 20 years old undergraduate student.For me at that time, fooling around and hung with my buddies were more interesting although I was curious why so many people around me did believe what the hierarch said and practiced FLG everyday. After the Chinese Gov. prohibited the FLG my friend and his mother turned to underground practitioners, and the same year his mother was diagnosed cancer. As a common sense, you gotta sick, you go to a doctor and take medicines but my friend and his mom didn't do so. They believed what FLG said and thought the reason that his mom/her got sick was because of "she did something bad or she was a debtor of other people and she didn't pay it off in her preexistence". In that case, the cancer was sort of penalty or punishment of that reason. Anyway, my friend's mom refused to be cured by any hospital or doctor. She kept practicing FLG even harder--got up at 5am and practiced it till the midnight; my friend did the same thing tried to save her mother's life from fated death.But she died eventually...that was a tragedy for her and her family. When the chinese gov. prohibited FLG, there were a lot of propaganda on TV, radio and news paper. In the beginning, I didn't believe it as I didn't believe most of things CCP said. They lied pretty offen and there were always faked news which combined some truth and some artifical misleading things. But in this case, I believe at least part of what the Chinese gov. said was truth---the FLG is an evil cult. What kind of "beneficent religion" will forbid its member go to a hospital? Of course, there always some other things about one issue. During the period police arrested FLG members, some of the hierarch Li Hong Zhi's photos were put on the ground of major transportations' main entrances like railway stations & airports, and people had to step on the photo to approve him/herself not a FLG member...that's ridiculous too. I also think part of FLG's annoucement is true. Some persecution cases probably are true--After all, considering about the human rights situation in China it could happened but definitely no as many cases as FLG said. There're several FLG members/formal members around me and 2 of these cultists used to be prisoner but both of them have been released and living as normal people now. Of course, I used to live in Beijing, the capital, it might be different in smaller city or rural areas. But as I noticed, FLG mostly in urban areas. I came the the state in 2003, and I was suprised that there were so many FLG practitioners in NYC at the beginning because usually chinese people don't have much faith on any sort of religions whatever it's buddism/daoism/communism or anything else... After I read some local Chinese newspapers I understood the reason: Chinese people are using it! See, here's the deal: you're illegal resident in the state and now you may spend 50 cents buy a chinese newspaper and find a chinese law firm which has an ad. on the newspaper and said: "experienced on refugee and political asylum". In which case, you can get your green card if you claim that you are a FLG member and has been persecuted by Chinese goverment, bla bla. Again, I believe some people are really FLG diehard members and really need to stay in the U.S to avoid any trouble with the Chinese Gov. but most of these FLGers are using it and I've heard several successed FLG-green card holders. Ok, it could be a long story if I didn't stop here. My opinion is the FLG is an evil cult and this time Chinese authority doesn't make a 100% lie...What kind of story that we have been told by either side of FLG or Chinese GOV. should be at least divided by 2. Here are another 2 examples: 1\ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falun_Gong#The_Tiananmen_Square_Self-Immolation_Incident "Falun Gong practitioners strongly denied that the people who set themselves on fire could have been actual Falun Gong practitioners". Refer to my words "usually chinese people don't have much faith on any sort of religions whatever it's buddism/daoism/communism or anything else...", I REALLY DON'T BELIEVE ANY CHINESE COMMUNISM PARTY MEMBER WOULD LIKE TO GIVE UP HIS/HER LIFE TO TEAR DOWN FLG'S REPUTATION. 2\http://www.falungong.org.uk/article.php?sid=274&PHPSESSID=9c3b75299fba0241def409dbefd0dcd9 "According to a report by the Epoch Times, on October 23rd, a large rally supporting five million people who quit the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) was held in Cambridge. The event was organised by the Federation for Saying Goodbye to the CCP. " 5 million CCP members have withdraw from CCP. In a Communism Country like China, do you think there ain't any persecution against those people who wanna quit the authoritarian party? WHY THERE ISN'T ANY REPORT ABOUT THOSE PEOPLE WHO HAVE QUIT FROM THE CCP BUT ONLY PERSECUTION STORIES FROM FLG MEMBERS? think about it...oh, by the way, The Epoch Times is a FLG newspaper...

I would like to say just a few things about what you said above. Falun Gong does not teach that one cannot take medicine. There are principles which state that upon truly practicing Falun Gong one's body will be cleansed of illness, that illness is a result of karma, and that when you feel ill you should look inside for issues with your character rather than seeking external help. Nowhere does it state that one cannot take medicine. Rather, Mr. Li has stated that if you think you have an illness you should go to the hospital without delay. In addition, Mr. Li has said that Falun Dafa is not for healing illnesses and that trying to use Falun Dafa to cure your illness is a pursuit and wont work. The story you told about your friend's mother is very tragic, but also very odd. Mr. Li has stated that the exercises are a supplimentry means to enlightment, while the cultivation of your character is what is fundamental. However, upon being diagnosed with cancer your friend's mother did exercises all day long as if they would cure her. Weren't her extreme actions in response to her diagnosis an acknoledgement of the illness and a pursuit in trying to cure it? And doesn't her focusing on exercises rather than cultivation of character indicate a shallow understanding of Mr. Li's teachings? These are very abnormal actions for someone who supposedly practices Falun Gong. Mr. Li always tells his practitioners that they must focus on studying his teachings and do that everyday. If your friend's mother did this then I don't think she would have acted like that. This person did not even have a basic understanding of Falun Dafa, so how could they be considered a Falun Dafa practitioner? With this said, I don't think you can use this incident to say that Falun Gong practitioners have died because the teaching prohibits medicine. But I do think that what happend to your friend's mother is very tragic and very sad.

I disagree with most of what you said and I think that responding to your comments is important, so I will try to take the time to respond to most of them in the near future.

--Mcconn Dec. 6th, 2005

Wikipedia is not a soapbox. Try to refrain from editorial comments, please. Both of you. -- Миборовский ^{U|T|C|E|Chugoku Banzai!} 23:24, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

I want to add something though. There is a novel called "Yellow Disaster" http://angkor.com/cityrain/wang.shtml In this work of fiction the Chinese Public Security Ministry bribed patients suffering from fatal diseases into committing self-immolations, so that the ministry could later blame their deaths on an inicent group which it is persecuting. A female patient tracked down by the Public Security minister suffers from late-stage cancer and has undergone a complete mastectomy. The minister promises a lump-sum of 3 million yuan for her family. But to best achieve the sensational effects, she has to die. In the end she tries to escape with the money, but is found and murdered by the police which then could claim that she commited suicide afterall and used this as an excuse for their persecution against the minority.

This chinese novel was published in the 90's. It was banned only a few days before the alleged self immolation of Falun Gong practitioners was broadcastedt on chinese TV.

Actually if you watch this broadcast closely you can still see that even though she seems to be in flames, Li Chunglin (on of the "immolators") only collapses to the ground after she is hit by an iron rod being thrown at her by a figure from behind her wearing a military overcoat!

Those scenes where later edited out by cctv. But on the broadcast shortly after incident they are still there. Actually those scenes that you see on the vcd's and stuff that Falun Gong practitioners spread to tell the chinese people about the persecution, are really the same scenes cctv broadcasted, except that on the vcd they are in slow motion. That this "famous" self immolation has been set up by the Communist Party was also verified by the U.N. Human Rights commission in 2001. If you want i can also send you this U.N. report. But just look at the "selfimmolation" video yourself. (I think it's still linked in the article).

Manuel-

Then you have the burden of proof. -- Миборовский ^{U|T|C|E|Chugoku Banzai!} 02:50, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

First, the novel (which was actually published 10 years from the incident) is irrelevant to what actually happened.

Second, look at this logic: A government bans a book, and then uses the evil deeds in it.

Third, by looking at the video provided by FLG the "knocked out by iron rod" is a false cause fallacy. A careful examination of the video you'll see that that person has his back facing Liu, and his arm is raising in a way which couldn't apply sufficient force. His forearm is at the location of Liu's head, indicating the "iron rod" couldn't be struck on her. The so-called "iron rod" later bends while flying, indicating that it is actually soft, not hard.

Fourth, there is no such thing as a "UN Report", the best the FLG could do is cite a non government organization called "IED" (International Education Development) which made a mere statement at the 53rd Sub-Commission on the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights.

Besides these reasons, there are also various fallacies and other reasons which makes the so called "FLG deconstruction" of the incident unconvincing.--Yenchin 09:11, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Hi Yenchin, Please mention those fallacies, and why you think it's unconvincing, this would be important for the article.

Here is the wikipedia entry on the book: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yellow_peril#Fictional_Use it at least confirms that the book was banned. You can also read the entire book from the internet. You just have to look for it on google.

Here is an article about the book by a Falun Gong practitioner. He also cites some parts of the book and translates them into english: http://clearwisdom.net/emh/articles/2001/11/16/15835p.html

You are right the book was published over ten years ago... it was a relatively popular book for so many years, yet only after the persecution of Falun Gong started (more than 8 years after this book was published) was it suddenly banned

You can download the statement from the UN Human Rights Commission (among others) here: www.upholdjustice.org/English.2/D_40.doc It is not on the UN website, because the UN doesn't put the transcripts of all it's meetings online. However it DOES archive all meetings. You can write to: Commission/Sub-Commission Team (including 1503 Procedure) Treaties and Commission Branch Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights United Nations Office at Geneva 1211 Geneva 10, Switzerland Fax: + 41 22 917 9011 E-mail: ngochr@ohchr.org and ask them to verify the content of " Sub-Commission on the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights Fifty-third session, Agenda item 6 August, 2001"

As for the video... I think everbody here should just have a quick look at the | video himself... judge it himself.

Manuel-

Hi, Manuel.

As I said, what the book says is irrelevant to what is actually happening. Also that book was actually in a banned status since the author didn't dare publish it when he wrote it (he sneaked pages to Taiwan). The wikipedia article sort of reinforces this point by mentioning the "bootleg distribution".

Your UN report is dated "2000", the immolation happened in 2001, so it couldn't support the UN's position on the incident. I assume you think I'm denying the fact that PRC is persecuting the practitioners. No, I'm just focusing on the incident. The content of the 53rd session, although couldn't be found on the UN official site, I remember that it was archived in another site so I acknowledge its existence (too many practitioners were citing it from their own website, so I had to check). The problem is that in its content it doesn't mention the UN investigating the incident, as well as declaring it false. Which is contrary to what the practitioners claim.

Now for the fallacies.

Liu Chun-Ling: Besides the reasons I mentioned, the video claims that the object is "heavy and struck something" since it "wasn't blown away by the fire extinguishers". Non sequitur fallacy. Also note that Liu's body is between the extinguisher and the object.

Look at the trajectory of the object as well as the "police's" arm, and try hitting something that way. It's actually hard to reproduce such a trajectory.

There is a Washington Post article which practitioners use to claim that Liu's neighbors say that they didn't see her practicing Falun Gong. However, after reading the original text[5] it actually says the neighbors didn't "suspect" that she was a practitioner.

Wang Jin-Dong: Wang Jin-Dong was questioned for him staging a show between the police and himself. However, the video provided by FLG has been altered to make an impression of the police waiting for him to cry out the slogan. This can be done by calculating the frames of that event. There is a person walking behind him. Look at the speed of his pace.

The way Wang crosses his legs is also used as proof that he's fake. However, various pictures show people crossing legs the same way as him. The guy in green pants, the guy with black boots in front of him, Well....

The video mentions a PET bottle not getting melted. However, the way Wang burnt himself was that he cut open the bottle, poured the gas on himself, and lit himself up. The fire was obviously put out very soon since you can see his clothes not damaged severely. So it is not solid evidence to say he staged the event.

"Fake Wang Jin Dong". They're comparing a very young version, a blurry version while he's just burnt himself, and a version where he's recovered. Also such proof requires forensic experts, which makes it more weak.

Liu Si-Ying:

FLG criticized on how she was singing and say it was impossible. However, there are tracheostomy tubes with speaking valves that can make communication and singing possible [6].

FLG videos also criticize that Liu was bandaged excessively. However, there is such a treatment that exists, a simple Google check would point you to various websites showing it. Example. The only part I find strange is that she had a sudden death later. Since it involves more advanced knowledge I can't say much about it.

Liu Bau-Rong:

The most common comment from FLG is how she can drink so much gasoline and live. However, since appropriate First Aid measures could save her live, not to mention that PRC has been using lower toxicity unleaded gas, it is hard to convince me by just watching the film since these points weren't addressed.

Suicide:

FLG practicers criticize the incident by pointing out FLG doesn't encourage killing and suicide. The tricky part of this is that the immolators said they were pursuing a "full circle". So from a point of view, one could say that they're not killing anyone.

Discrepancy:

The video also mentions that CNN reports 5 people, PRC reports 7 people, thus the incident is self staged. This is a red herring fallacy.

Besides the reasons listed, there is also an interesting article from Time [7]which mentions:A Beijing arm of the outlawed spiritual group Falun Gong strongly suggested the protesters, one of whom died, were devotees. "We heeded a call from our master to strengthen our fight against evil," and it also says that later on FLG denied. It's hard to judge on what Time reported. But since FLG cites the Washington Post, I always thought that the Time report should also be treated in a fair way. Also note that it also reports that followers are having different opinions on the doctrine of FLG.

I hope this helps.

--Yenchin 03:30, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Hi Yenchin,

many of the things you are claiming have no basis. For ecample the U.N. report... just search for it on google ("Sub-Commission on the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights Fifty-third session, Agenda item 6 August, 2001") No matter where you find it, you will find it dated 2001. Also as I said you are free to check it with the U.N. I even gave you the relevant E-mail. But you wouldn't bother making that effort would you? And the same goes for the other things. You don't dare check any of THESE. How come? How come you go into so much trouble trying to reinforce those propaganda parts, while at the same time ignoring all facts that are not in conform with what the ccp claims?

If you really look into those things, even really look into all those claims you just made, and check it with the facts, you will see that they all have flaws.

I can point them out to you, but mayby if we we do it here it would lead us off-topic. If you want we can talk about it in detail on the phone.

Manuel-

Hi Manuel,

Sorry I was reading too fast and didn't make it to the bottom of the Word file. However my points on the 53rd Session still stands since there's nothing new in that file. The statement was filed by International Education Development, which isn't a UN office. A non UN organization [8] making a statement in a UN session and concluding something like "UN investigation report" is a big leap in faith. An odd fact is that in the IED's website they don't even care to archive their statement [9]. Appealing to such an authority is a bad example of the appeal to authority fallacy.

And before you start accusing me, I did mention that I read the statement on the 53rd Session, as well as verified its existence. So why won't you cut pointing fingers and stay on the topic.

If you can't point out the flaws in the arguments I made over here, its your problem, not mine. All of the things I claimed could be falsified in a reasonable way (for instance, showing proof on how a person can strike someone dead by the position the policman is standing, and the way his arm moves).

Its not that hard.

Yenchin 08:03, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

First of all, I don't believe that the Tiananmen square self-immolators were Falun Gong practitioners. If truth was on CCP's side, why would they have to cover up so much? Why the Western media was not allowed to interview the self-immolators? Why was the CNN reporter's camera confiscated just before the incident? I think it's useless to argue about this. Everybody can investigate the materials from different sources, and if you want to think one way or another, you'll surely find more or less dubious proof on your side. Just like with any other issue! It's a world of belief for all of us, don't you think?

But let us hypothetically assume that the immolators really identified themselves as FLG practitioners. So what? Is Falun Gong some kind of an organisation that dictates orders from top down? What if some psychotic person learns the exercises and then commits suicide - is it Falun Gong that made him do it? This applies to just about anything, even to real cults, sects and religions. People like to categorize and delineate the world, but would you say Mohamed Atta al-Sayed represents the Islamic faith as such? Now, we have to remember that according to some interpretations, the idea of a violent jihad is encouraged in the Qur'an. But there's just no way you could say that the teachings of Falun Gong propagate suicide or zealotry. ---130.232.37.53 00:02, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Which is why I bring out the reasons why I'm not convinced. It's not a matter of "belief". It's a matter of analysis of the facts and the arguments brought up by FLG. Also I've merely brought up the Times article to support that it's not just the PRC "smearing". You want foreign sources, the Washington Post's report supports nothing, the Times article shows some Peking practitioner's views which contradict an announcement. So how could FLG justify its claim by twisting the first and neglecting the 2nd?

Also since there is no solid proof that the followers would strictly follow the teachings, using "suicide" to claim that the immolators are not FLG practitioners falls in the no true Scotsman fallacy.

PRC cover up. So what? A cover up doesn't fall into the "they're not practitioners" conclusion, either. The PRC is already notorious for its unfriendly attitude to foreign media. And no matter what, their oppression on human rights is an embarrasment. Thus it is not abnormal that the PRC refuses to let the practitioners get interviewed.

CNN. Look at their first hand report here:[10]. No mention of cameras getting confiscicated before the incident. Look at another report here:[11], how could the CNN crew be "taping the events" while their cameras are confiscicated?

Another piece of news:[12].Pray, explain how this could happen when you don't have a camera: "The CNN crew that attempted to film the scene was detained by police and a tape was confiscated.The producer did get a small tape out by hiding it in her clothes when police weren't watching."

Mind you, even if you're against an "evil government", you're not infallible.

Yenchin 05:29, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Hi Yenchin,

Tell me have you read the CNN articles you linked?

"Police ran to the man and extinguished the flames. Moments later four more people set themselves alight as military police detained the CNN crew, which had been taping the events."

If it wasn't a set up, why would the police arllready be standing there, ready wiht over 20 fire extinguishers, even BEFORE all of them started to set themselves on fire ? And why would the CNN team get arrested by military police the moment it all really starts? Shouldn't the military police be more concerned about those five guys who just ignited then the reporters? Besides why was there even military police present?

As for IED: IED is an International Human Rights organisation, and a UN NGO. The statement was presented in the UN and was based on the findings from different UN subcommissions (of which IED is a part). So ja since those NGO's make up the sub commissions, you can at least call it a statement by the UN subcommission on the promotion and protection of Human Rights... actually other subcommissions where also involved. There are actualy entire volumes with statemnts like that:

http://falunhr.org/index.php?option=content&task=category&id=111&sectionid=8&Itemid=

(there are actually severel dozent different reports there... and each reports contains almost hundreds of statements and case descriptions, and that's just the selection. Even though the site linked is run by Falun Gong practitioners, all the statements are from the un speciall reportotuars (how do you spell that :-) and in thees cases not from an individual NGO. You are free to check their auteciany via the adress i allready put in above.)

You gonna go denny all of that? Well ja I actually think you will... after all we have something in common... I am German... and Germans where very patriotic you know... very nationalistic. Well and I think Chinese still are. You wouldn't be a good socialist, wouldn't be "patriotic", nor a good party member if you wouldn't try everything to slander the parties enemies. Even though you know fully well those are just common Chinese people. They where just thinking differently from communist theories and stuff, so the party decided to get rid of them.

You saying that there's gotta be a reason, that besides all the propaganda about them there has to be something wrong with those guys, otherwise the party wouldn't persecute them. But are you sure that the party didn't just start to persecute and slander them, because they are constantly afraid that they could lose the power over people's thinking? China is persecuting Christians just the same, calling them an "evil cult"... are they that way? Besides what about Tibetans, Muslims, non-marxist thinking Buddhists, and those other 15 Qigong schools being persecuted? The party made up the same lies regarding each minority.

In Germany we got a word for it... actualy it's a number... it's 08 / 15 It refers to goverments using very cheap and old methods to persecute it's people, yet still getting away with it. besides i know your "motivation" for doing this, so don't bother.

As for why you didn't find the statemnt on the IED website... I told you it's archived by the UN, I gave you the relevant adress.

I will put the statement in here real quick, cause I feel maybe we could also mention it in the article:

"Sub-Commission on the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights Fifty-third session, Agenda item 6, August, 2001

International Education Development has followed the topic of terrorism and human rights for many years and we welcomed the appointment of the Sub-Commission's Special Rapporteur Mme. Koufa in 1996. ... We strongly agree with the Special Rapporteur that State terrorism in the form of government terror against its own people -- what she calls "terrorism from above" -- produces far more gross violations of human rights than any other form of terrorism. ...When a regime resorts to State terrorism, the international community can expect to be overwhelmed with cases under the international mechanisms and swamped with persons seeking asylum from that regime. Such is the case in China with the regime's violent assault on practitioners of Falun Gong.

In our statement under item 3 we described the Falun Gong Practice as we have found it to be. The government, in exercise of the right to reply, attempted to justify its State terrorism against the group by calling it an “evil cult" that has caused deaths and the break-up of families. In our investigation, the only deaths have been at the hands of the Chinese authorities; families have been broken up because family members have been killed by the regime; people have been broken down, not by Falun Gong, but by extreme torture, incarceration in mental hospitals with brutal treatment, hard labour in labour camps and other such practices. As was reported in the International Herald Tribune on August 6, 2001, the regime admits that it has officially sanctioned violence against practitioners in order to wipe out Falun Gong. The regime points to a supposed self-immolation incident in Tiananmen Square on January 23, 2001 as proof that Falun Gong is an "evil cult”. However, we have obtained a video of that incident that in our view proves that this event was staged by the government. We have copies of that video available for distribution.

In his most recent report ( U.N. Doc. E/CN.4/2001/66, the Commission's Special Rapporteur on Torture attests to tens of thousands detained and tortured practitioners. (Paras. 246-290). The Commission's Special Rapporteurs on Violence against Women and Extrajudicial Executions also attest to these abuses, with similar indications as to numbers. (E/CN.4/2001/73/Add.1, para. 19; E/CN.4/2001/[ ]). We are compiling evidence indicating that at least 50,000 Falun Gong practitioners are detained in prisons, labour camps or mental hospitals, of which thousands are beaten and many tortured to death. Hundreds of thousands (perhaps millions) of practitioners are severely threatened. The UN mechanisms clearly cannot handle this volume of verified cases, nor can the international community easily cope with perhaps millions of asylum seekers -- all of whom would clearly meet asylum criteria. Accordingly, the international community as a whole and the Sub-Commission in particular should address this situation of State terrorism as one of extreme urgency."

Hi,

Of course I read the CNN news.

1. The reason the police were already standing there is because its Tiananmen Square, a very important place already known for people protesting. Before the immolation incident FLG practitioners, human rights activists often went there to protest. Asking this is like asking why there are police already hanging around the White House.

2. Fire extinguishers. Since it is an area which possible danger could happen, of course there are fire extinguishers. Also police cars also have extinguishers on them. Getting 20 extinguishers is no big deal considering the size of the Tienanmen Square.

3. And why would the CNN team get arrested by military police the moment it all really starts? Shouldn't the military police be more concerned about those five guys who just ignited then the reporters? Besides why was there even military police present?

I like the way you twist the facts. Aren't there policemen extinguishing the flames on the immolators? How many poicemen are you assuming at the square? How much policemen are required to arrest the CNN crew? And the term "military police" in PRC is not like the MPs Western armies. Go ask someone the role 武警 plays in the PRC.

4. IED. Please tell me you are joking, or look up the definition of NGO. By definition IED cannot stand for the UN. Any statement it makes in the UN is an opinion from them, not the UN. The UN must make a formal statement again if they agree with it. The title of the document is Agenda item 6, clearly not a UN statement.

Also the reason why IED doesn't archive its file is odd, is because it archives its other statements. Does that mean the UN doesn't archive those other statements? Unlikely.

And for the 3rd or 4th time, I have verified and agreed the document's existance. So stop pretending I'm still denying it.

5. My nationality. Suprise. I'm from Taiwan. Go check my file (which was edited long before I joined this discussion, in case you want to know). You want me to state my position on this incident(again?), I'm still maintaining that FLG is doing a bad job on the so called "deconstructioning". The way the video is presented is very unconvincing and misguiding. Which is why "False Fire" and various other "deconstruction" videos have a modest impact.

Also if one knows history of persecution, people who burn themselves in protests are martyrs. Which automatically attracts more support. It is stupid for a government to create martyrs and claim that the protesting group is evil.

6. IED again. Look at its statement. However, we have obtained a video of that incident that in our view proves that this event was staged by the government. We have copies of that video available for distribution. is the quote relevant to the incident. So as you can see, at most IED is convinced. Is the UN convinced? Did the UN send its own investigation group? Is there any follow up on the event after this session? I hardly see any mention.

Yenchin 19:11, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

I partly agree with you, Yenchin. The False Fire document is not entirely convincing in all aspects. However, I think that the people who made it just wanted to point out curious things. As you know, CCP turned this incident into deadly hate propaganda and actually claimed that the self-immolators represented Falun Gong in some way. How could they represent anything? Falun Gong is a xiulian practice method, and everybody who does it is an individual who's responsible for his or her own actions. It has never been otherwise, because there's no membership or organization, as you know.

I don't know who made False Fire - but most certainly they weren't at the Tiananmen square when the self-immolation took place, nor do they have anything to do with the group of alleged "practitioners" who committed this horrendous act. At best, the video makers can act like attorneys who make questionable things visible. Maybe they hoped that United Nations or international human rights organizations would start an independent investigation? When you're truly faced with state terrorism and a well-lubricated machinery of violence, the situation is, after all, quite desperate. What can you do? And when you do something, are you always 100% in the right?

This is not to say that I now think the incident wasn't staged. A lot of crucial issues are overtly fishy. Would you like to comment on these?

1. The Chinese media claimed that the footage was captured by surveillance cameras. According to False Fire, the surveillance cameras on Tiananmen Square do not zoom like the ones that were used in the film. I don't know the truth about this, do you? Would the Chinese media lie about the source of the film?

2. False Fire also claims that the police have not been normally carrying fire extinguishers, and now they were available in a matter of 3-4 seconds. It is hard to verify this.

3. According to Xinhua, the immolations took place at 14.41. However, the ambulance arrived at the Jishuitan hospital at about 17.00. For a regular car, the distance from Tiananmen square to Jishuitan is about 20 minutes, and ambulance should drive even faster. Why did it take more than two hours for the ambulance to get there?

4. The speech processing lab of a Taiwanese university analyzed the voice of "Wang Jindong" from three different interviews, and they determined that one of the Wang Jindongs was different from others. It is possible that they're wrong, but after all, they're supposedly the world's leading institution in Chinese speech recognition and related matters.

5. Even though it may be that the alleged "dull object" that was used to hit Liu Chunling actually bends, what is it? How is it related to putting the fires out? And why does she fall after receiving the blow?

6. Liu Siying's EKG and other tests were normal on the 3/16, 2001, a day before she died. The hospital staff told that Communist party officials came to visit her on the morning of 3/17 between 8-9 am. A couple of hours later the doctors found her in critical condition, and she died soon afterwards.

7. The self-immolators stated to the media: "Master Li betrayed us." What did they mean, and why would they say such a thing? Isn't it a big leap of malicious faith to claim that mr. Li would have approved and encouraged them to commit such an act that contradicts everything that he's taught about taking life, forbearance, endurance and conforming to the ordinary society? How come the self-immolators turned against Falun Gong? If they were so zealously devoted to something that they even wished to become "martyrs", why would they denounce everything immediately afterwards?

I'd like to add the comment by Hao Fengjun (from an Epoch Times interview). He was working in the 6-10 office in Mainland China and later defected. He probably hates CCP, but it is possible he really knows what he's talking about: "The general public is not able to see the true facts of the persecution of Falun Gong. What they see are the propaganda reports on how Falun Gong harms people and the lies made up by CCP. The unceasing reporting on the incidents like the self-immolation in Tiananmen Square and the killings of the beggars lead the general public to believe that Falun Gong is an "evil cult." The media blames almost all of the bad things happening in society on Falun Gong. They fabricated stories and incidents and then held Falun Gong responsible for all of it."

I'm a practitioner myself, but I do appreciate your comments. You have good arguments. This is an interesting question (but regarding the horrible crimes taking place in PRC, also quite tragic). ---130.232.37.53 00:49, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Note: I rearranged your replies, so that this whole thread doesn't turn into a chaotic mess when others reply. ----130.232.37.53 09:53, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Showing an example of the actions of an individual can be "representing" that individual's beliefs, if that actions and beliefs are connnected in some way. In this case, I believe the connection being made is that these practitioners supposedly thought they would be protected (not injured) by fire, or that they would heal rapidly because of their practice. This seems to be the main complaint about the "danger" of Falun Gong, in that practitioners are accused of illogical thinking leading to harm of themselves and others.

1. It seems patently absurd to me that cameras covering an area as large as the square would lack a zoom feature, especially after the 1989 protests. The distance zoom shots *do* have the characteristic mechanical feel of remote, joystick controlled, camera footage.

2. False Fire may be misleading in this context. Police don't normally carry firefighting items *on their person*, but keeping an extinguisher, blankets, etc. in a nearby car seems quite sensible. False Fire does *not* claim there were 20 fire extinguishers, it claims there were some 25 pieces of "firefighting equipment", without specifying what kind of equipment. It specifies that the scene played out in 7 minutes, not 3-4 seconds, so somebody may have started actions which alerted the police, (such as pouring gasoline on themselves, lighting the fire, the police rush over on foot and with equipment, etc.).

3. One should add in the time needed for the ambulance to get to the square, move through the police and crowd which would form during such an incident and add in the time for any treatment on-site, before arrival at the hostpital.

5. It is not certain that it is a "blow" from an object that makes her fall, that may have been a soft object whipping about in the breeze, that is near her right before she falls. For that matter, she could have been shot by a pistol, and falls swiftly from that shock. She could have suddenly fallen after going into shock. She could have tripped. She could have been pushed down by someone in an attempt to save her (by extinguishing the fire with the "stop drop, roll" method). False Fire makes several assertions that are similar to this, where they assert one possibility, without accounting for other possibilities.

6. This is not suspicious in the case of severe burn victims. For somebody to go from a relatively stable condition to a massive system failure (often due to infection) over 24 hours is quite normal.

7. If they thought that they would not be harmed, or only minorly harmed (because Falun Gong has made claims about having miraculous healing properties) because of their faith, and then discovered that they were severely harmed, they would likely feel betrayed by a person they considered their leader. Ronabop 02:54, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

1. That's what I thought, but this could be quite easily verified by investigation. As I said, I don't know the truth about this. I wonder why the makers of False Fire claimed something like that if they're really just guessing. Perhaps the video material is also of better quality than footage produced by Tiananmen's surveillance cameras.

2. You're right. Again, this is possible. It's hard to dig into the details without knowing what actually took place, and how the police were prepared. Once again, we're making guesses by what "seems quite sensible". Did the makers of False Fire verify this from some source?

3. It took 7 minutes to extinguish the flames. Even half an hour would be a long time for the ambulance to get into the hospital (but still understandable.) Here we are talking about over 2 hours.

5. As I said, I don't know what the object is. I'm just pointing out that it's suspicious, and it doesn't seem like just another flying artifact passing by.

6. The hospital staff thought it was peculiar, and they're the ones who were taking care of her. I have the impression that Liu Siying was almost healed just before her death. Mind you, this was almost two months after Tiananmen.

7. If somebody thinks that Falun Gong protects you from self-immolation, he's... eh, seriously deranged. Who has ever made such claims? And who has made the connection that you're referring to (see also your first chapter)? Surprise. Denying the rationality of a group of people is the classic propaganda tool. This justifies seizing their sovereignty over their own bodies, and using external power, even violence, to put them down. "The doctor" knows what is "for your own good"...

I'm not sure whether you think these are credible sources at all, but according to [13], the section chief of the Donggang City Political and Legal committee admitted that they received an urgent notice on the 21st of January that something big was going to happen on Tiananmen square on the 23rd. According to [14], a Tiananmen police substation insider revealed that they received an internal memo about the immolations three days earlier. Here [15] is allegedly a story by a taxi driver who had a conversation with some policemen on the day of the immolations. I know, these are just Clearwisdom articles. The whole case, however, has so many question marks on it that an independent investigation by human rights organizations or the UN is definitely called for. Unfortunately, the Chinese government will surely not let such an investigation take place. ---130.232.37.53 09:53, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

I knew one of the victims. I assure you, what happened was not a Government fabrication. Phanatical 16:10, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Personal accounts and opinions cannot be considered reliable. In any case, everyone's mind is probably made up here so there is really no need to "assure" anyone. Cheers. -- Миборовский ^{U|T|C|M|E|Chugoku Banzai!} 23:30, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

"Beliefs"

I merged the two belief sections, "core" belief and "other" belief are probably based on opinion and may not be accurate. --Fire Star 18:28, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Manual, could you please contact me? I don't know where to find your email. Send a message to mcconn@hotmail.com and I'll reply. Sorry, to bother everyone, but I don't know any other way to do this. My appologies. --mcconn

The Epoch Times

Have youse read the Chinese version of the Epoch Times? it being "sometimes accused of having a pro-Falun Gong platform" is an extreme and irresponsible understatement imo. Seriously, the whole paper is about how the Falun Gong members are being alklegedly tortured and killed and sent to Tibet to be locked up. It is quite obvious that the paper is funded by Falun Gong. --Sumple 22:52, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Recent radical changes

The edits so far today have been executed in such a fashion that diffs do not allow the changes made to be easily and transparently discerned. New text has been introduced and text has been removed at the same time as paragraph-moves. On the surface, I have a major problem with the changes in which a large chunk of text has been removed, and which appears to introduce a significant slant in favour of FLG through cherry-picking of sources such as Ownby. Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 04:04, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

In my mind, there is no doubt that user asdfg's edits are disruptive. Colipon+(Talk) 04:26, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

"Defending the Fa", or just proselytising, as most FLG practitioners are wont to do. Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 04:47, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Seems to me he just blank-reverted something and then tweaked it some how; he changed to link to the Persian site in the process... Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 04:51, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

No changes were supposed to be hard to discern. Most changes were made to two sections. The organisation section, which I renamed to "organisation and decentralisation," and included commentary from a wider range of voices, removing in the process, I believe, only one sentence, which was about how Ostergaard thinks Falun Gong is not democratic--it seemed irrelevant to the section. Then I just included information from reliable sources showing different views on the issue. The other changes were to the cult section, and that was, as I wrote in the diff, to make it clearer--as it is in the sources on the topic--that the cult label emerged in the context of the CCP's propaganda campaign, and secondly that it does not have support by mainstream scholars. The character of changes were just that. Is there anything else? Let me look at the diffs. Next time and in future I’ll make changes to only one section at a time, and execute paragraph moves separately to content changes. That would probably be easiest. Sometimes it’s hard to know what counts as a discrete change. I also remember that John guy once saying that because I made changes one at a time, that was supposed to be sneaky. No one spoke up at that time, so that also left things a bit ambiguous as to what we expect of each other in terms of how to make changes. I would prefer that it’s done one step at a time, personally. Colipon has several times done big changes to my changes (often just rv), so I know how it can be annoying to compare two versions that are quite different. To Seb: I don’t know what you mean “blank-reverted something and then tweaked it some how” – what does this mean? Blank reverted what? Tweaked what? To Confucius and Colipon: can you explain what you mean about how my edits are apparently disruptive? Is it disruptive to add sourced, reliable information, and to present the competing narratives that are available on the topic? I think if you have a problem it would be better to talk about the nuts and bolts of what the sources say and their relative quality and prominence, rather than the accusations. I could also respond to the accusations of Falun Gong partisan editing by reversing it and saying you just want to “attack the Fa,” or some other nonsense. Seriously, let’s just deal with the actual issues. If there are problems with the changes, either procedurally or in content, please let me know and we’ll work it out. The purpose of the changes was to provide the range of views available, rather than what was there just now, a narrow range that suited certain ideological proclivities, and, I believe, out of proportion to the prevalence of such views in the literature. Again, nothing personal, and the point is just to talk about it amicably, refer to policy, and look at the sources. --Asdfg12345 13:22, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, changing organization to org and decentralization. Decentralization-the spread of power away from the center to local branches or governments. So now, FLG has local gov'ts? Well that kinda still counts as organization. I'm going to change the name back.--Edward130603 (talk) 15:03, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

A couple of other things just quickly: a simple way to compare the versions is just to look at the finished ones side by side and see how they read. Another thing is, I'll work on this again in 8 hours and tidy things up again; I don't think the cult section needs both quotes of rebuttal of the label (by Johnson and Ownby). Providing context and so forth is enough. The section, however, needs to make it clear that the label does not have support in mainstream Falun Gong scholarship, and that it is a relic of the propaganda campaign during the persecution. This isn't "defending Falun Gong," it's just the basic purpose of wikipedia in presenting what's in the literature according to its prominence. If these two points are disputed we can go through all the sources again and hash it all out. Last time we started on this my life got extremely busy and I don't know what happened, but I seem to recall we had a giant list of people who rejected the label and linked it to the persecution, another list that didn't use it for Falun Gong at all, and only Singer and someone else who found it useful to describe Falun Gong. The section should simply reflect this dynamic. 不當之處請指正。--Asdfg12345 13:34, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Edward: the point of the change is to provide the reader with both narratives: one, that Falun Gong actually has some kind of organisational capacity, with branches etc., which it did in mainland China before 1997 (by necessity, mind you). The other narrative is that there is no formal organisation, and that things are highly decentralised. That section should convey both these points of view. The purpose of the section title change was to reflect that. Calling it simply "organisation" implies that there is some actual organisation, which pushes out the idea that there isn't. And, sure, "decentralisation" or having no formal organisation, you could argue, is also a kind of organisation—but what's being referred to are completely different. If there was no literature on the organisation of Falun Gong groups in China, there would be no section called "organisation" on how Falun Gong is completely informal and voluntary. If you have a better idea of how these two ideas can be gotten across, that's great. Maybe "Organisation, formal and informal," or something else? I'm not sure. I think the two ideas here are that: "Falun Gong is centrally organised," the other is that "Falun Gong is self-organised/grass roots organised." The two discussions are just about this, I think. If there is some other way of conveying this idea, that's fine. The word "organisation" itself though seems to connote the idea of centralised organisation, rather than informal/grassroots/decentralised organisation. The point is just to convey these differences, rather than trying to present a singular or closed perspective.--Asdfg12345 02:01, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

About the sub-headings in lead up to persecution

About these, I don't really care what they are as long as they're informative, descriptive, and neutral. I think there should be some differentiation between how Falun Gong was received in China, both positively and negatively, and then in the narrative of the lead up to the persecution. Calling the one about this "skeptics and opponents" doesn't seem to make sense, at least to me, since there was far more to it than that. They banned publishing of the book, then there were the critical articles, then the protests, etc.--all these things happened. This is related to critics, of course, but the wider issue is really in the context of how it lead up to the crackdown, right? It seems to make a lot more sense to explain this to the reader? The "reception" section would be better named "opponents and skeptics" if we are going to have any section named that. But consider: it's the equivalent of having a section named "Praise and supporters," isn't it? It looks equally silly and unbalanced. I think "Reception" suits the purpose of including all the material about how Falun Gong was received, then having the information about what lead up to the persecution in the "friction" section. Is there anything mistaken in this approach? let's discuss. (note: we need a clearer narrative of the lead up to the persecution etc., and a more streamlined explanation of how Falun Gong was received in mainland China, so that's part of the process)--Asdfg12345 02:22, 27 December 2009 (UTC)