Talk:Teachings of Falun Gong/Archive 1

Archive 1

Controversial Teachings

Samuel, you know that we are talking about creating a stand alone article on the Controversies. Introducing as much as you have here without any discussion is inappropriate. CovenantD 02:40, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

The blockquote in the practice section

The block quote the practice section was introduced as it summarizes the purpose of the exercises and the role practice(the exercises) plays in the cultivation system of Falun Gong. Thats central to Falun Gong teaching. Dilip rajeev 04:20, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Why the move?

Why was this article moved from Falun Gong teachings to this new title? I can't find any discussion of this move or whether there was a consensus regarding the move. Ande B 01:02, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

The discussion about splitting the main Falun Gong article has been going on for quite a while (it was over 100k). This is actually one of the less contentious moves. CovenantD 02:09, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, I saw that the main article was rather long, though quite interesting. I wasn't looking for an argument, just curious. I get rather confused at times about naming conventions & article moves. I look for consistencies and just don't seem to find them when I expect them! Ande B 02:30, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

I still don't see any relation between splitting the main article and renaming the daughter article. What is difference betwen "Teachings of Falun Gong" and "Falun Gong teachings"? How about we rename other articles also if there is a convention? Or people can just do it without reason? Quite puzzled. Fnhddzs 05:44, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Me neither. You'd think someone could point to a WP policy on this. Ande B 05:56, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Oh sorry. I misunderstood the question. I have no idea why that name change happened. CovenantD 06:09, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Please do not delete the images

Thanks. Fnhddzs 05:52, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Agreed - I should have reverted earlier. CovenantD 06:34, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Intro

the first paragraph says nothing about the teachings, a waste of my time. --Yueyuen 01:40, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm gonna go out on a limb here and support Samuel and Tomananda's ideas for the opening paragraphs. Those by Dilip are more appropriate for the Origin section of the main article. Let's not duplicate information in multiple places. CovenantD 23:15, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

That should not be construed as support for their version, just the thrust of their version. I'm not expressing an opinion on the wording as it currently stands... yet :-) CovenantD 23:17, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree with covenant that the other para is redundant if you look at content in other sections.. what is important is the the introduction must atleast tell the reader what Falun Gong is according to the teachings of Falun Gong... the quote perhaps would better fit into the Buddha Fa section... and actually Falun Dafa refers to the system of cultivation not the teachings.. Dilip rajeev 05:40, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

"Practitioners encourage studying the books or listening to the lectures, first-hand, to gain a good understanding of the principles and the cultivation system." .. That is a central aspect.. if you look at www.falundafa.org you will see that the website says... "All of the content in this site – excepting the founder's writings – represents the ideas and opinions of Falun Dafa practitioners, and should not be taken as representative of Falun Dafa itself.We merely hope to introduce this wonderful practice to you, and we hope you will take some time to explore it for yourself!"... Dilip rajeev 05:58, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Remember, you only get to have that in one place on the Falun Gong pages, so choose carefully!  :-) CovenantD 06:35, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

2nd Paragraph

I'm inclined to give the practitioners a bit of leeway on content here, just like the critics get leeway on the Controversies page. Let's give Dilip a bit of time to figure out where he thinks the paragraph might fit in better. CovenantD 06:39, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Demons

If the two people involved in the revert war don't start talking about it I'm going to ask that the page be locked. CovenantD 16:04, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Merge

The two articles seem to cover the same basic areas under different names. I don't see why they are separated. CovenantD 05:30, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

I've stricken my comments since they are that of an editor and not a mediator. See below. CovenantD 15:54, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Theoretical and Epistemological studies on Falun Gong

Let's start with the assumption that the Theoretical article should be folded into this one unless a compelling reason not to it presented. Please present your opinion, Merge or Don't merge, based only on Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Especically relevant to this are Wikipedia:Content forking, Wikipedia:Article size and Wikipedia:No original research. We'll allow three days for comment. CovenantD 15:48, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Merge

• Tomananda 23:17, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Reasons to merge

The content of this section should be merged into the teachings section. The word "epistemology" means the study of how we know. In Falun Gong, there is no theory of "how we know" beyond Li's sustained assertions that he holds the only truth, or has discovered things by traveling back in time (like the time he visited Jesus' paradise and found there were no asian people there). The real question that should be asked...but the practitoners will never agree to it....is how does Li know what he claims to know? They believe in him as the holder of the highest cosmic truths, and he speaks of himself as the teacher to the gods of his Dafa. The epistemological equation in Falun Gong is very simple:

• TRUTH = Whatever is spoken from the mouth of Li Hongzhi

Or as Li so succinctly put it:

• Dafa is the Fa (Law) of the cosmos, and Dafa has created all beings in the cosmos. “Using at Will” (June 28, 2000 ) in Essentials for Further Advancement II, item 12.

• I am telling you now that Dafa belongs to me, Li Hongzhi. It is taught to save you and spoken from my mouth. “Awakening” (May 27, 1996) in Essentials for Further Advancement I

--Tomananda 23:17, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

This page seems to meet the Wiki criterion of content forking. I don't think it is for reasons of having different POV's, but rather when Dilip created this separate page he perhaps thought that by using words like "theoretical" and "epistemological" in the title a separate page would be justified because it is somehow at a different (deeper) level. But that is not the case. The section called "theoretical background" basically compares Falun Dafa with other Qigong systems, tries to show how it is different, and then concludes that it is not a religion. This section lacks internal cohesivness and seems to try to do too many different things. It, and the sections that follow, belong in the Teachings page. --Tomananda 23:57, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Reasons not to merge

This article covers the teachings the primary sources are the main reference. The Epistemological studies see ( Epistemology ) discusses the viewpoints on the teachings, comparison with other systems, etc. The material going under the two titles being quite different. 202.83.33.58 07:33, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Olaf says a word

Instead of waiting for an official mediator, Samuel Luo and some other editors are again fomenting a crackbrained revert war by introducing slanderous interpretations of the teachings. When will you ever learn? ---Olaf Stephanos 19:22, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Quoting directly from Li is alanderous? When will you guys stop concealing the true teachings? --Samuel Luo 19:35, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Olaf: the version you are promoting is dishonest because it conceals some of the most important teachings. I just did a search for the words "Fa-rectification" and nothing came up in your version. I also did a search on the word "salvation" and only found it once..burried in an over-long Li block quote (two entire paragrpahs no less!) I assume you want some wording changes in the version I just reverted to, and that's ok with me. But we must have a starting point which includes all the important teachings. To exlude something as basic as Fa-rectification and Li's role in offering salvation to mankind is unacceptable. --Tomananda 19:45, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Nobody is "concealing" anything. All the teachings are available for free download. You attributing senseless interpretations to things is what I am against.

220.226.15.209 19:55, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Not concealing anything? Li calls all of you Fa-rectification Dafa disciples and that means your salvation (consumation) depends on the destruction of the Chinese Communist Party. It is no longer enough for any of you to just stay home and read Li's sacred books, you have to stick it to the Chinese government in order to reach consumation and become gods. Li states that over and over again every time he makes a speech. Yet you continue to deny this most basic of teachings under all maner of pretexts. To say that this material is available for free download does not justify your suppression of this material in this Falun Gong article. The blatant dishonesty of the Falun Gong absolutely boggles my mind. --Tomananda 20:11, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Hey, guys. all teachings are in public. What I see are no more than what are posted on the falundafa.org website. But some of you tried to interpret the teachings, instead of reporting. That is not appropriate. Fnhddzs 20:23, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

I emphasized the first part of the sentence - "Instead of waiting for an official mediator" - to make it as eye-catching as possible. Once again, it didn't help. And you keep on avoiding my important points, like you've been doing before. That's one of the reasons we need a mediator. By now you should know the standards of writing an encyclopedia article, something you've been repeatedly demanding from practitioners. While we all want to have a balanced article, we don't buy your expedient quotes with snide comments. It's clear we cannot get forward without a third party, so why can't you wait? This page is included in the formal mediation request. Gentlemen, why do you have to pour in your stuff now?

By the way, I am not 220.226.15.209. I suggest everybody signs their posts. ---Olaf Stephanos 05:53, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

I see no intent of the FLG side trying to say "but this whole big straightfoward unaltered quote doesn't mean this because...etc!". If the FLG side thinks the teachings are public, and uses this to justify the laughable reverts, I'd suggest a deletion of this article. --Yenchin 09:50, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Content regarding the Fa-Rectification and the CCP will be included in due time and it will be done contextually and responsibly. However, trying to do this now is jumping the gun. I suggest that if you have an idea for the page right now you can write it down and save it till we have a mediator. I agree that the page isn't good right now, but it's not a disaster either, so it can wait. Just wait a little longer, I'm sure we've all got ideas for it. I know I do. Mcconn 15:10, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Regarding the current version

"Instead of waiting for an official mediator, Samuel Luo and some other editors are again fomenting a crackbrained revert war by introducing slanderous interpretations of the teachings. When will you ever learn? ---Olaf Stephanos 19:22, 23 August 2006 (UTC)"

I agree, as what is on the page now is an erroneous and slanderous interpretation and should be corrected. The concept of cultivation practice and the words 'Zhen-Shan-Ren' - which is the most central part of the teachings - are not mentioned until halfway down. I think it is fine to include a section on sickness karma, the depravity of mankind, even aliens if you like, but as it stands now it is very far from being an encyclopedic reporting of the teachings of Falun Gong. For example, the introduction seeks to make a split between Falun Gong and Falun Dafa in some way? That doesn't exist and I have only ever seen that on Samuel's website. It is one thing, one teaching, and there is no 'two main components' like that. I think I have read Samuel saying that the words 'gong' and 'Dafa' have very different meanings. Yes, but they are just two different words that have been used to describe the same teaching. Also, the word 'the' before Falun Gong or Falun Dafa should be removed. I have requested unprotection. My plan is to:

. Remove the obvious bias in the tone and wording of the sections Falun Dafa, Sickness Karma, Depravity of today's people. . Change the order of those sections to more closely correspond with the teachings . Introduce in the beginning that Falun Dafa is cultivation practice based on Zhen-Shan-Ren

They are the main changes that should be made, maybe there are plenty more. 'Depravity of today's people' is actually also a biased use of words. Master Li has discussed the situation of mankind today in the context of the whole universe drifting from the Fa - it is not as it is portrayed on the page now. Like I say, if you just write it down without any of your own ideas, then it can stand for itself and people can make their own assessment. Some sections about Fa-rectification etc. can also be added. --Asdfg12345 17:29, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Yueyen, and the reverting between two versions

Yueyen, the version you want to use is a really inaccurate portrayal of the teachings of Falun Dafa. Perhaps some of the aspects from that version could be used in this one. The subheadings of the other version really do not constitute the essence of what Falun Dafa teaches. I think that you want that version because it reflects negatively, rather than because it actually portrays the teachings. I think it would be reasonable to put in a section corresponding to "Depravity of todays people", though discussing those issues in greater context and attempting to discuss the scope of what Falun Dafa is talking about in this regard - the whole universe having deviated from Zhen-Shan-Ren. Even so, those things are a minor part of the teachings of Falun Dafa. If it were to be used, I think the article would have to be quite long to justify it, and include sections on other, different aspects of the teachings. There are some pages on wikipedia that are very long - like the one on Buddhism. If this article was to become quite long, it would make sense to expand and put in all these parts that are not the main focus of the teachings - that would make sense. As you want it now, it is inaccurate, selective, POV and bordering on slanderous. We can work on making quite a long article, as I think that would be a good idea, and then things like what Master Li has said about homosexuality, "depravity of today's people", and so on could all be included. I request that you do not revert this version. I do not have time right now, but I will copy in parts from the other version as a beginning to creating a longer article. Then over the weeks to come I can put it more subsections to talk about other aspects of the teachings. Let me know what you think about this proposal. It would not be good to revert constantly, and the version you want, to become something that actually explains what Falun Dafa is, would have to change too much that its not worth keeping as a base. --Asdfg12345 12:33, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Yueyen I think it would be best to address the issues I raised in the above post. I do not want to keep reverting back and forth. The things you have written for wanting to revert to the other version do not make sense to me. Perhaps I misunderstand, though. To be honest, I am confused by your message. "Your depiction of Li’s teachings is not accurate. To avoid POV, we should just quote his words here." The other version has now got the Falun emblem included, and it consists almost entirely of direct quotes from Master Li. The version you want to put up contains far less direct quoting and it seems like whoever wrote it had a clear idea of how they wanted to depict the teachings, then they found put some quotes in between their commentary, rather than simply reporting the teachings. The sections "Falun Dafa", "Sickness Karma" and "Depravity of todays people" are all to a greater or lesser degree inaccurate in reporting what Master Li has actually taught, and contain all sorts of obviously negative commentary. The best way to present the teachings would be to almost solely quote from Master Li. In this note I am explaining what I see is mistaken with the version you are advocating, mostly in reference to those three sections. Please respond to what I have said. --Asdfg12345 14:47, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

DIALOGUE PLEASE

I have reshuffled and renamed sections. The problem we all have with what you want on the page, Yueyen, is that we think that it is a major misrepresentation of what Falun Dafa teaches, and that it is a deliberate misrepresentation. What I think is that if Falun Dafa is actually a bad thing, and Master Li has been saying bad things, then all you need to do is to present that without any kind of editorial style or slanderous tendencies. Other practitioners: maybe the best idea would be to revise the sections so they corresponds closer with what Falun Dafa teaches, rather than reverting the version. If we just write it properly there will be nothing Yueyen can complain about or revert - or at the very least, it will be too obvious that he is only intent on vandalism, and I think there are channels for dealing with that. I think the ordering of sections is more how it should be, that is, corresponding closer to the primacy of the teachings. Yueyen: please discuss here about what you think, and whether I have understood you wrongly. I do not want to assume you are just up to no good. It is becoming more difficult to do that though, noticing your edits and the comments you leave. You also have not responded to anything I have written to you. Maybe you have been busy. Feel free to respond and explain your ideas about the direction of the page. --Asdfg12345 02:22, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

UPDATE: I have revised the section formally called "Falun Dafa", now called "Falun Dafa ontology", and I have revised it. Mainly I took out the remarks in between Master Li's quotes, and expanded on the quotes slightly to allow greater context. The other sections may be slightly more difficult and require greater context again. For example, the part about "women's liberation", "sickness" and so on, all need rewording along with greater context - Master Li spoke about yin and yang in terms of male-female relationships, and that our society today no longer really recognises such essential differences between men and women. If the whole paradigm within which he is discussing these things is not explained, and presented in the way it has been, with a snippet of what Master Li has said and the rest editorial, I really think people will have a hard time getting to the bottom of what Master Li has taught. --Asdfg12345 02:49, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

I suggest that you move all your comments to the main page discussion. People are less likely to check this page or take it as seriously. Mcconn 07:01, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I might post something there if this cannot be resolved. I have revised two sections now, with the section formally titled "depravity of today's people" now called "the universe's deviation from the Fa" still waiting to be sorted out.

Yueyen: if you take a look at the revisions, I think you will find that basically all of the content remains. All the points that were made in the other versions, before I revised them, remain. The difference is that now it is just quoting from Master Li, rather than the editorial style and commentary that was in the other. I apologise if you find that some minor things that were in the other version are not in this version. As it stands now, it is basically a complete outline of what Falun Dafa says about karma, illness, etc. In fact, that paragraph from Lecture One of Zhuan Falun is enough. Everything else serves as elaboration - since it was in the other version I just copied those sections here. If there are going to be problems with length, the essence is expressed quite simply in those few paragraphs from Lecture One. Yueyen, if you think there are some key aspects of the teachings missing in this version, let me know. --Asdfg12345 13:01, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Samuel's Edits

Please read through the current version. Everything that was written mixed in with negative commentary has been removed and what has replaced it is basically direct quotes. That is the way it should remain. All the content that was in the slanderous versions is also in these, it is just that this time there is no commentary. That is a more accurate way to report the teachings. Those sections you want to stick in are just slander and they do not belong on this page.--Asdfg12345 13:25, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Negative and slanderous comments removed? Who is the judge of that? My edits include direct quotes from Li and paraphrases of those quotes. I challenge you to point out the negative and slanderous content of my edits. --Samuel Luo 16:56, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

All of the actual content in those sections is already in two other sections called something like "suffering, sickness and cultivation practice" and "the universe's deviation from the fa". Those consist almost entirely of quotes from Master Li.

I copy below your section called "Sickness Karma" and "Depravity of today's people" with what I consider either slander, negative comments, unnecessary comments, comments that do not make sense, comments that are sarcastic, or comments directed toward the POV you are pushing, italicised. I will also put in brackets some explanations about why I regard those parts that way. At the same time, note that the sections already there are more complete explanations of what Master Li has actually taught on these subjects. Those sections are just what he has taught, and no more. I think that we should let Master Li talk for himself and people can also judge for themselves. Since there is quite a lot of material here, forgive me if I just make general comments and also if I do not address every instance of stuff I see that should not be in the article:

This is ridiculous! Who makes you the judge of what gets to be included in the article? --Samuel Luo 23:35, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Sickness Karma

Claiming that he is the only one who knows the true cause of sickness, master Li has characterized modern medical science as shallow and said that the cause of sickness is “simply beyond the reach of modern medical technology.”[3] [Li did say that] The real cause of sickness is not physical but moral, reveals the master: “Due to karma [sin] resulting from past wrongdoing, one has illnesses.” [4] Li explains that people reincarnate life after life and in each life unavoidably commit wrong deeds and therefore amass sickness karma. This karma then forms layers in the physical body like the annual rings in trees, as a result “the human body is like the annual rings of a tree, whereby each ring contains sickness-karma.” [5] When this sickness karma remains inside the physical body the person is fine but “when it returns to the surface of this physical body the person becomes ill.” [6] Master Li’s explanation is vague and intelligible; it’s intended to explain the causes of sicknesses like cancer or heart attack that are not contagious. [I accept your opinion here, will take this sentence out]

Master Li also reveals ('reveals' is a POV comment) [POV? ( - Point Of View)] a different way that karma causes sicknesses: “The smaller the particles of the karma that exists in other dimensions—the smaller its grain—the more power it has. When it seeps into our dimension, it’s a microorganism, the most microscopic virus.” [7] This simple and transcendental explanation is intended to explain the kind of sickness that one gets by virus infection like influenza and AIDS. [I accept your opinion here, will take this sentence out]

Since the cause of sicknesses is supernatural, the treatment has to be a supernatural as well. Master Li claims that he has just the power: “Your illnesses will be cured directly by me.”[8] [this is what he said repeatedly] Ever since the begining of the Falun Gong Master Li has claimed to have the supernatural power to heal. Master Li’s official biography recalled the miraculous healing he did for his students. [9] First, he used his supernatural power to purify the bodies of his students and rid them of the root cause of their sicknesses. Then he installed a Falun—a turning law wheel—in each student’s abdomen; forever rotating, it cures illnesses. The installation did not require an operation nor did it cause the practitioners any pain, for the Falun is not a physical object; it can not be seen or touched. It is formed by the supernatural energy of the Master, which is the reason why it has the power to heal.(it is not pertinent to the teachings of Falun Gong to include anecdotes about healings Master has done, if you could explain why you think it is, then copying an anecdote straight in might be okay. but I dont see how it is relevant.)

Practitioners who seek medical treatment and take medicine for pain are criticized by the master as everyday people: [Li did say that] (it is actually far more sophisticated than this. the other section addresses the issues associated with cultivation practice and sickness) “you find it terribly uncomfortable and painful, can’t bear it, regard yourself as an everyday person, and go take medicine... your enlightenment quality isn’t up to par.” [10] According to the master it’s ok for everyday people to take medicine, but as a Falun Gong practitioner whose mind has been enlightened and whose body has been purified by the master they should know better.

The master scolds practitioners who constantly fail the test by taking medicine, perhaps out of his concern for them since the consequence of their unwise act is so devastating: [Li did say that]“you feel that you’ve recovered because you took the medicine. But let me tell you that it nonetheless accumulates over there. Life after life human beings are accumulating this stuff. When the accumulation reaches a certain extent, the person becomes incurable and when he dies he’s totally destroyed. He loses his life—forever loses his life. That’s how horrifying it is.” [11] In order to stop his followers from seeking medical help and to persuade them to totally rely on his divine power, master Li reveals the devastating result of taking medicine—an eternal death. [this is a reasonable conclusion given what he said]

Depravity of today’s people

According to Master Li, “The standard of the human race's thinking is already at a level lower than hell.” [12] Li teaches that human beings are corrupt, ignorant, selfish and greedy--“these lives should have been destroyed upon falling to this level.” [13] The corruption of humankind is so great that even the Gods have left us. “People nowadays are indeed degenerate. Gods don’t look after them anymore,” Li teaches. [14]

Women’s liberation is one source of depravity. Li denies that women were oppressed in the old days—to claim that they were is tantamount to judging the ancients with modern people’s degenerate notions. When women start to stand up for their rights, the result is “divorce, fighting, abandoned children, and other social problems,” therefore Li concludes that “the advocacy of “independence” and “self-reliance” for women is wrong.” [15] Mixed raced children are products of ignorant people according to Li. “The races in the world are not allowed to be mixed up,” he has stated, “now, the races are mixed up and it has brought about an extraordinarily serious problem.”[16] Children born of mixed-raced marriages might be “physically and intellectually incomplete”[17] and they do not have a “relationship with the higher levels.” .”[18] Li also teaches that paradises are racially segregated: “Jesus told people not to spread the teaching (Christianity) in the East. I have also found no oriental people in Jesus' paradise.” [19]

Li has condemned people who start new religions: they are “demons who undermine orthodox religions.”[20] Such religions are “evil religions” [21] Li warns, they interfere with people’s faith in orthodox religions.

Li acknowledges that orthodox religions such as Buddhism and Christianity were legitimate, but they are being run by people who have been corrupted: “people in religions brag about themselves and flaunt their credentials to have others believe in them and provide for them. They seek fame and personal gain, even becoming politicians.” [22] Li also teaches that these orthodox religions can no longer save people because “no religion is being looked after by gods, since gods see that humankind is too depraved.”[23]

_______

I will not italicise the Depravity section because I think the whole thing is misrepresentative of what Master Li has taught. Every part of that, to make any sense, needs an explanation. The article would need to be a lot longer to incorporate those explanations, and spending a lot of space explaining such minor aspects of the teachings does not seem to make sense. I put in a sentence mentioning the things like feminism, homosexuality, religions, mixing of the races etc, with links.

Also, the part you want at the beginning which says: Master Li explains the greatness of his teachings this way: “The principles of Falun Dafa can provide guidance for anyone’s cultivation practice...", aside from the obvious POV in the lead-in line, that quote is already in the Falun Dafa teleology Theology section. The other quote you wanted to have up the top, what was wrong with that?

The main thing I would like you to respond to is that I do not understand why there needs to be any kind of commentary between Master's quotes in the first place. Aside from the particular commentary found above being misleading and slanderous, you can see the other two sections where it is just quotes, and they explain fully the aspects that need explanation. What is there is a more complete explanation of the distorted representation found in the sections you are advocating. Please respond to my points. --Asdfg12345 20:55, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Do you see any article on wikipedia that looks like a collection of quotes? This is not the way to write a encyclopedic article. We need to quote Li [a few words] to back our characterization of his teachings. There is nothing in the "Depravity of today’s people" section misleading or slandous which is why you could not point anything out. --Samuel Luo 23:55, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Samuel, I did not mean to come across like I was trying to be the judge of these things. I am just telling you my opinion and reasoning with you. This is just my understanding. By now it is obvious to me that you are not interested in reporting the teachings of Falun Gong in an objective way. It seems that your only interest is slandering them. Those sections are just that. I would have italisiced the whole "Depravity" section for slander. Every sentence is some kind of POV, sarcasm or interpretation. Encyclopedias do not read that way. You want to damage Falun Gong and you can do that freely on your own website, but by including all those things you would also be damaging wikipedia. I do not think I need to say much more. Since it has got to this point - you are unwilling to admit that the content you want included is POV, slander, and unencyclopedic - it is fine for me to just revert back and forth.--Asdfg12345 10:37, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Are you telling me that the great Dafa(law) can be damaged by me writting something here? I thought the dafa created the universe.

--Samuel Luo 17:03, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Locked on the wrong version

This is actually the version that does not conform to wikipedia, and which violates wikipedia policies of at least NPOV and no original research. The page should be locked on the version which does not violate wikipedia policies. If you are reading this and can rectify this situation, please do so.--Asdfg12345 16:53, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree with the user above. The same content was covered in an NPOV manner in the article. The present version picks out semi quotes and adds personal commetnary to it apprently with some motive. Even the ordering of the titeles reflect a strong POV. Before the central books or even the exercies are introduced, the titles go "sickness karma" and "depravity of todays people" which is far from what Falun Gong is. I also wish to point out that the same material was covered in the previous verion of the article. For these reasons I am reverting the article to the previous version. Please point out anything i may have overlooked.

Dilip rajeev 08:50, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

These material can not be removed simply because they are part of Falun Gong teachings. --Samuel Luo 19:07, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

According to Li, mankind has become so corrupt that the gods no longer take care of human beings. It's quite obvious that the "corruption" or "depravity" of mankind is a central theme in Falun Gong teachings. It is the condition which explains and justifies Li's concept of Fa-rectification. No editor should be deleting entire sections, period. Instead, we should discuss specific edit changes here in discussion. But we also need to work out a larger strategy for working through all the pages of this article, and that will involve the oversight of the new mediator. --Tomananda 23:02, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Some comments on the deleted sections

This is getting a bit tiresome. Those things absolutely have no place on wikipedia. The whole tone is negative, sarcastic, ironic, goes nowhere to actually explaining things, is NPOV, original research, Samuel's own website is not a legitimate source, that information is already presented, deviation of mankind is NOT A MAIN TEACHING (Tomananda: Fa-rectification is because of the deviation of the whole universe, mankind being a part of that, see page) , and so on and so on. I repeat one thing: THAT INFORMATION IS ACTUALLY ALREADY THERE. If you want to add to what is already there, then calmly add to it in a sensible way, observing wikipedia policies. I am going to put a note on the moderators page about this. People will open the page and think it is a joke, the way those sections have been arbitrarily slapped in there. Tomananda, your suggested "modifications" to make those sections conform to wikipedia would amount to rewriting them. Seriously.

Now I propose this: come up with some changes to make them a bit normal, post them here, and we can discuss and work through them. This sort of process has always been observed. Trying to introduce this content the way it is is going too far. In my recent edits on the Li Hongzhi page I wanted to include some positive commentary. That was a lot of effort, since it kept being deleted with some notes. I modified it, it got deleted, modified, deleted. I toned it down enough and changed it until it was acceptable. That is what you should do here. It is your responsibility to write content that conforms to wikipedia, not write whatever you like and expect others to spend a long time trying to make it conform to some basic things like original research as well as having a balanced tone. You can scroll up and see the large amount I have written trying to engage you guys in some process to correct these sections. Also, take a look at the Falun Gong front page. There's a lot there I would like to change, but I have left it until we work through it step-by-step. I would urge you to do the same here. As I mentioned, that information is already covered, so if you actually see some things in relevant sections which do not already explain things in the sections you propose, please bring that up and that content should be added in a neutral way. It is fine to do that, but the sections you are proposing do not belong on wikipedia. It is your responsibility to correct this and make it work, using the existing content. Please try this cooperative approach rather than constant reverting.--Asdfg12345 15:25, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

I completely agree. Wikipedia is not a game. If the editors who so dearly desire these sections' existance actually take this seriously, they will take the time to work it out over here, rather than simply reverting. I agree that if anyone wants these sections, they will have to be completely rewritten. Mcconn 15:58, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

The standard for Wikipedia edits is NPOV, no original research and use of sourced material. If you feel that any part of "Depravity of today's people" or "Sickness karma" does not meet those standards, you should point out the offending sentence and suggest a re-write. What is so tiresome is the wholesale blanking of material. --Tomananda 03:18, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

On the "Righteous Thoughts": Sending righteous thoughts is one of the "3 Things" to do in FLG as directed by LHZ, Li also has lectures and photos on this, Minghui Net directly includes the words "righteous thoughts" in a title for its sections ("Righteous Thoughts and Righteous Deeds in Suffering", 苦難中的正念正行). It is hardly a minor issue, it is hardly something to be neglected, and every single word is a faithful description, directly cited from sites like Minghui Net. Any rewrite it deserves is to lay out more "testimonies" and details. I'm reluctant on guessing the reason for blanking them. --Yenchin 18:25, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

PLEASE DON'T PUT THE SECTIONS BACK. THEY DON'T BELONG ON WIKIPEDIA. YOU'RE HARMING THE ENCYCLOPEDIA. WITHIN ONE WEEK WE WILL HAVE REDONE THEM (AGAIN) AND ALL OF THEIR CONTENT WILL BE AMPLY COVERED, BUT IT WILL BE COVERED IN THE CONTEXT OF THE TEACHINGS AND THE BIAS, POV, MISREPRESENTATIONS AND SARCASM WILL ALL BE REMOVED. ONE WEEK. JUST WAIT PLEASE. --Asdfg12345 23:03, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

The above note was quite a while ago and the page was locked the following day so the plan was aborted.

Those two sections are so far out of place here. To your credit Jsw, I would like to express my surprise at your revert. I thought higher of your standards of editing than that. It is hard for me to know where to begin. I will make a few points, but I do not have time to grab parts of the sections and highlight my points one by one. OR, uncited claims and weasel words, no matter on what occasion, including for criticism, do not belong on wikipedia. I am sure you agree. I am sure you also agree that the two sections in question are rife with all those things and other violations.

Secondly, even if there was legitimate criticism in there, it would 1) HAVE to come from a secondary, reputable source or it would constitute original research and, 2) does not belong on this page anyway, but on the criticisms page (which should be changed to the "Third Party Views" page to conform to NPOV)

I actually did not expect that the removal of these two sections would be a genuine issue. It has always been users with vandal type editing behaviour that contested the removal, so I would once again like to express my surprise. It will waste several hours of time that could otherwise have been spent productively on these pages if I am forced to comb the sections and provide examples and back them up by wikipedia policies. I hope that we do not need to engage in that kind of thing. We should know the policies and consciously play by them. The two sections do not, in any sense belong anywhere on wikipedia, and that should be obvious just by reading them. There is a section on sickness karma elsewhere on the page. This is rather deficient since it consists almost solely of Li Hongzhi quotes, but at least it does not so blatantly go against wikipedia policies. Since this section obviously needs to be improved--Jsw, why not paraphrase the key ideas with close reference to the primary text, using quotes as appropriate to convey the key ideas in a neutral way that conforms to the policies and spirit of wikipedia, and in this way productively contribute to the article? Wouldn't that be better than these awful fights about things that any people sincerely editing these articles should right away recognise?--Asdfg12345 19:03, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

The root of the issue that worried me was removing all criticism, once again. A mere link to the 'critical' page(s) is not sufficient; an extended version of criticism of the teachings isn't justified either. So in a way I do agree with you that those sections need to be rewritten, because it is sarcastic and thus can come across as POV. I don't see why criticism would have to come from reputable sources only, because the definition of 'reputable sources' is highly contentious, and many of the anti-FG camp have disputed that everything LHZ said / commented on non-FG topics (e.g. politics of China and the government, or number 'quitting' the CCP) is clearly not reputable or justified.

You should know by now that the teachings, and the criticisms of teachings, are not totally 'neutral'. Moreover, your editing of my suggested compromise on the FG main Wiki entry would suggest, still, some intolerance of criticism. After all, who enjoys criticism? Nevertheless, it's necessary for balance. Returning to the original point, yes, the criticism section needs to be rewritten, but if you can demand pro-FG teachings bias be on the Wiki entry temporarily, why can't you tolerate anti-FG teaching criticism bias on the Wiki entry temporarily too? Isn't this inconsistent? This is why I reverted NOT because it was the ultimate solution, but because it was a work (by other editors, not me) in progress. Jsw663 12:18, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

If Samuel was the "critic" it would need to be cited to something he has published in a publication that qualified as a reliable source. The guidelines are really clear. Look up that part of the policies and read it please. I can't give you the link now cause I've got to go. Here the teachings should simply be presented in a neutral and dry tone, in the passive voice, directly paraphrasing what is in the books. This is not pro or con, it is just a recounting of the primary sources taking into account its context and due weight to various aspects. All these things can be discussed and decided upon sensibly without difficulty. Check out WP:A and there should be a link to the stuff about reliable sources which you ought to read to know what I mean. Also, if there is some stuff to work on that is below wiki-standards then it should be worked on until it conforms to policies, right? But that is a separate issue really, and we are talking about separate kinds of matters I think. All this can be worked out intelligently. I would like to extend my thanks to you for being very agreeable in your disposition and discussing these things nicely. I welcome a productive and cooperative working relationship, and one that strictly following policies and guidelines, into the future. --201.230.128.175 03:51, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Copyright issues

Some time ago, I tagged the article {{quotefarm}}. Unfortunately, the huge chunks of block quotes which caused me to tag it are still in the article. So please fellow editors do not be surprised when I will shortly delete the entire mass of block quotes, substitute a {{copyvio}} template in the interim. Shortly thereafter, I will attempt to reinsert concise carefully reconsidered and non-POV text extracted therefrom, paying attention to WP:UNDUE, a policy which certainly does not seem to be at all adhered to here within the group of FG articles. Ohconfucius 02:06, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Merger proposal

The two articles seem to cover very similar precepts under different names. If the copyvio content is deleted in both these articles, the merger can take place without any burden on article size. Ohconfucius 02:27, 13 August 2007 (UTC) letS —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.77.155.232 (talk) 20:20, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Overhaul

Hi, I just learned how to edit on Wikipedia. This page is currently a mess, I am working on a new version which I am going to replace soon. thanks. – — … ° ≈ ≠ ≤ ≥ ± − × ÷ ← → · § Randy1412Randy1412 (talk) 04:51, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

I think this is excellent, well done. I have made some small changes, and put some Chinese terms in. It needs a WP:Lead section, and I think some minor rearranging, but is definitely a very big improvement. --Asdfg12345 22:54, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

ref problem

The <ref name=kar /> is broken, could somebody please fix it? Thank You. --89.35.149.202 (talk) 07:46, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

It's totally weird that that ref is broken. I have looked at it carefully and tried to fix it, it's a complete anomaly.--Asdfg12345 12:17, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

OK, now it's fixed. A reference above it was not closed, and this impacted the next reference definition. --HappyInGeneral (talk) 12:28, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Tags

I've tagged this article for a few reasons:

1. It is almost devoid of wikilinks which would provide contextual help and help build the web.
2. It appears to be written from an advocative, rather then descriptive, tone.
3. The introduction is opaque to those who are unfamilar with the subject.

When these issues are addressed, the article should be untagged. Chris Cunningham (talk) 13:50, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

yeah someone just rewrote it. It would help to identify the parts which are advocative rather than descriptive. Specific instances are needed--please help.--Asdfg12345 15:55, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

I think point 1 and partially point 3 is solved. See here: [1]. --HappyInGeneral (talk) 16:24, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

We could still do with more work on point 1, I feel. I don't believe that the intro is clear enough yet. Chris Cunningham (talk) 17:20, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

some notes

apart from hearing what Chris has to say, which will be useful, some things I can think of:

• a proper, normal introduction according to WP:Lead, and explaining in more secular terms what Falun Gong is.
• making some sections into subsections, since this would categorise the ideas better
• thorough copyedit of language, style, tone
• general attempt to give more background/introduction to some of the concepts

um there are some other issues, and this is a tricky topic. A new editor seems to have written the whole thing anew. It's definitely an improvement, in any case. It may be easy both to allow an article like this to enter the realm of advocation, yet equally easy to mistakenly accuse it of such, simply due to the content itself, even if it were presented in a very neutral way. I think what's here now is a solid basis which can be trimmed up and polished. There are definite improvements. I want to do this sometime soon; we'll see how it looks in a week or so.--Asdfg12345 16:32, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

PS: I just see another editor has put in links etc., this is good. --Asdfg12345 16:32, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Yep, it's rapidly getting better. let's see how things work out. Chris Cunningham (talk) 17:20, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

discussion of lede

Dilip, please see WP:LEDE. I think the version you are proposing is unreasonably large. The lede should provide the essential information for the article, not trying to fit everything in. The lede needn't elaborate on the key points. I think another one or two sentences could be put in about xinxing cultivation and the emphasis on morality, but the version you want seems far too long. (You also introduced a grammatical error into the first sentence.)--Asdfg12345 10:29, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Dubious claim about karma

The claim in the article that Buddhist karma is strictly about reward and punishment is incorrect. The Falun Gong claim that all karma is negative, that all karma is the source of suffering, is precisely the same view as in Buddhism. It is a bit confusing, though, as to how this same section conflates this teaching with the Christian doctrine, "you reap what you sow," which is the primitive notion of reward and punishment. So, it's a bit confusing how the article contradicts itself -- that is, David Ownby's own observations are self-contradictory. What exactly is meant by "readily traceable" to the Christian teaching? Did karma originate in Christianity? It doesn't make much sense. ☯  Zenwhat (talk) 00:12, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

isn't there like 'good karma' and 'bad karma' in Buddhism? I think this is what it means. There's no 'good karma' and 'bad karma' in Falun Gong, just karma and virtue, and karma manifests only as negative returns for doing bad things. I think Ownby is just making a pithy observation in comparing Falun Gong to christianity. I think 'readily-traceable' just means that the connection is obvious, or like, they are quite similar. How do you reckon to make it so anyone who reads it does not get confused?--Asdfg12345 02:39, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

What the article says is that the terminology used is different. In Buddhism the term "karma" means both the consequences of both good and bad actions - when you do a good deed you get good karma and bad deed brings bad karma. Good karma leads to god rewards and bad karma leads to suffering. In Falun Dafa the term Karma or Ye Li refers to Bad Karma and the term Virtue or De refers to Good Karma. Just my understanding. Dilip rajeev (talk) 19:31, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Actually Karma is just cause and effect in standard Buddhist practice. As such it is value-neutral.Simonm223 (talk) 13:13, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Does anybody believe that the New York Times isn't a valid source?

I found a quote of Li Hongzhi on the New York Times. It was removed. I would like to know why. I mean, come on, the Epoch Times is referenced as a source in FLG articles. The New York Times is one of about the three most respected newspapers in the world! I would like to know a single valid reason why quotes from Li Hongzhi, quotes of things he said to his australian followers no less, printed by the New York Times are not seen as valid for an article on the teachings of the FLG. Please don't give me an essay on forebearance and acceptance and all that. My two questions are simple: 1) Do things Li Hongzhi says to his congregants on the topic of metaphysics count as Teachings of the Falun Gong? 2) Does the New York Times count as a valid source? If the answers to these questions are yes and no or if I get no on-topic answer I am putting the quote back in.Simonm223 (talk) 13:18, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

No, the NYT is a valid source. As I wrote to Dilip on the FG talk page: Dilip, The New York Times does reach Wikipedia's reference standards. That Ownby and Schechter do, too, is not a reason to not allow the NYT as a valid source. The quotation may therefore be included in context. PerEdman (talk) 09:35, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks PerEdman. If you still need it the date of reference is April 30, 2000. I'm putting it in the section on karma and rebirth as it refers to teachings Mr. Li has provided on post-life fate and its relationship to FLG practice. If there is a different part of the teaching section that you feel it would fit better in I am open to moving it. But this information should be included somewhere. Simonm223 (talk) 13:08, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Please let me clarify. The material I listed is sourced from the new york times quoting Li Hongzhi it is NOT a fringe perspective nor does it need to be academically sourced. It is what Li Hongzhi said. So please stop reverting it. That is a clear violation of WP:NPOV.Simonm223 (talk) 14:27, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

If NYT "quotes" Li Hongzhi, and quotes him wrong, I'm not sure the best way of handling that. If the journalist doesn't include the thing in quotes, then it's just the journalists words. Maybe that could be qualified as "according to blah journalist," and some other notes for context. If the journalist says something that does not appear in the teachings, that could be pointed out. I don't see any grounds for excluding NYT as a source here, but there are other sources as well, so a variety of views can be presented. I think that's okay. --Asdfg12345 21:05, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

I find Dilip's remarks quite persuasive, actually. He has identified some important policy points which make qualifications about when opinion articles are useful and relevant and when they are not. This is quite important. In the end I would suggest some general language that Li's views on this and other topics have been criticised by some journalists, but that Falun Gong claims his remarks have been misunderstood (per faluninfo.net, for example). I think that is a fair compromise between noting that such fringe interpretations exist, without giving undue weight. The real research from scholars like Ownby, Porter, Zhao, etc., carries far more weight and is much more useful than throwaway opinions from journalists--I think it's just about balance and context, and making sure we are presenting something useful and accurate to the reader.--Asdfg12345 21:25, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Discussion on this from Talk:Falun Gong

I've seen quotes from Li Hongzhi where he has said that children of mixed 'race' are "unclean" and where he has stated that the after-life is racially segregated. I have also heard second hand accounts stating that he has further said that the racially segregated after-life is ranked with better post-death fates for certain ethnicities. I edit from work and most sites about ARGs are blocked so I can't effectively search for the quote. Could somebody lend a hand?Simonm223 (talk) 15:05, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Nowhere is any term with any connotation as "unclean" or anything even remotely carrying such connotation used. I am sure you would seen this claim made in some CCP related website - they can't find anything wrong with Falun Gong - so they resort to ridiculous misrepresentations, like these, to bolster their propaganda campaign.

Buddhists traditions and Daoist traditions ( and many Indian traditions as well ) have a world-view in which a hierarchy of dimensions are present - systems or ordering in a plane, never arising coincidentally, but as a natural, physical consequence of a deeper, higher dimensional ordering. All that is said, in passing, is that the ordering of this plane of the cosmos has to do with how more microcosmic, higher dimensional planes are ordered - and racial ordering here, as well, exists not by mere chance. Many inter-racial people practice cultivation - So Very Many. What is mentioned in the teachings is that mixing of races, on this scale, is a fairly recent phenomenon. It is also said that mixed race people can practice cultivation all the same, and it is said, very clearly, that it is neither their fault nor their parents' - but just has got to do with chaotic cosmic phenomenon beyond their control. Interracial marriages are, in fact, not uncommon among practitioners .

Dilip rajeev (talk) 21:50, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Falun Gong is not racist. Spit out the bait you accidentally swallowed. I've been practicing for eight years, and I've noticed that mixed-race marriages among practitioners (esp. Caucasians <-> Chinese) seem to be more common than in population at large. I have never heard a practitioner utter a racist slur. Moreover, I've seen hundreds of practitioners of mixed-race origin.

For more information, take a look at the following accurate description of Falun Gong's "stance" in these controversial issues [2]:

Knowing the democratic West to be a tolerant, pluralistic, and diverse place, Chinese authorities have sought to brand Falun Gong as contrary to these basic values. In a word, they’ve sought to cast it as “intolerant.” Several journalists have taken the bait.

The characterization is patently misleading, and rests solely upon an outsider’s uninformed interpretation of doctrine. It’s found to be at odds with lived practice.

Consider the first of the two major issues Chinese authorities cite: an alleged intolerance of homosexuality. (We can’t help but note the irony of China’s communist rulers having until recently banned homosexuality, labeling it a mental disorder.)

Gays, lesbians, and bisexuals are welcomed by the practice just like anyone else, and not accorded any different treatment. Whether they continue to live that lifestyle, or self-identify with that term, is solely a personal choice and not something anyone in Falun Gong would force upon the individual. Central to Falun Gong is the making of one’s own decisions.

Falun Gong’s teachings do suggest that certain behaviors, including homosexuality, generate more karma than others or are not conducive to certain aspirations in the practice. But this it is left at the level of teaching, and not a creed or regulation. How one understands a given teaching, and to what extent he or she applies it, is always a personal matter.

A second, related point that must be emphasized is that Falun Gong’s teachings on this and other matters do not equate to a “position statement” or “stance” on some social issue. They are intended solely for the individual aspirant, and to be applied to his or her own life; they are not meant to be applied to others, much less non-practitioners. Falun Gong does not have any position on what other people should or shouldn’t do with their lives. It simply offers its teachings on personal change to whomever is interested in its path to spiritual growth.

What holds true for homosexuality holds true for interracial marriage, if not more so. Falun Gong’s teachings have little to say about the matter. What several journalists have picked up on, prompted by Chinese state media intimations, is the presence of one passage in one book where Falun Gong’s founder mentions the issue in passing.

Regrettably the said journalists didn’t temper their own, outsider’s reading of that passage with investigation or evidence. They failed to check with any living, actual persons who do Falun Gong, preferring, seemingly, to not let a sensational reading of the passage be spoiled by evidence to the contrary.

Had they looked into the matter, they would have found their assumptions to be just that, assumptions. Many who practice Falun Gong have married individuals of a different race after taking up the practice. Of the 14 individuals who make up the Information Center’s staff, fully 4 fall into this category. If Falun Gong teaches racial segregation, it’s doing a poor job of it.

If the practice does not breed racial intolerance in the life of the individual, one might readily imagine how much less so it translates into a general “stance” on interracial marriage in society.

The two most frequently cited forms of “intolerance” end up suggesting, upon closer examination, just the opposite. Indeed, if anything, it would seem that something in Falun Gong is instead conducive to greater tolerance.

✔ Olaf Stephanos ✍ 18:17, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Essays on Falun Gong practice aside the truth is that I have read quotes from Li Hongzhi on the issue of racial segregation, as I said previously, I just can't find them right now. Please next time you don't have the information I requested it would be sufficient for you to say that you don't believe you have ever read such material. Furthermore please refrain from making personal attacks when you speak to me. It is unwelcome and inappropriate. Thank you very much. Simonm223 (talk) 19:26, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Found the quote. It was in the new york times in 2000 and was a quote of a statement made by Li Hongzhi in an interview in 1999. I have added the appropriate quote to the "Teachings of Falun Gong" page and will add balancing comments in order to maintain neutrality. As this is a direct quote taken from a source that IIRC does meet Wikipedia's reference standards I ask that it not be removed. I will endeavor to make sure the presentation is neutral.Simonm223 (talk) 11:37, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Simonm223, we're going to need a date reference ... wait, I just realized this is talk about different wikipage. Going to that Talk page now. PerEdman (talk) 09:37, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Academic analysis - Ownby, Schechter, etc. never mention anything to such an effect - and these works carry extensive analysis of the Teachings. They don't find anything suggestive of any form of racism or segregation. For a tabloid or a newspaper, such mis-characterization does not count for much. But for an encyclopaedic article, which ought to be of high enough quality to serve as an academic source, such far-fetched claims, unless supported by mainstream academia, in my opinion, are to be avoided. What is said in the teachings has to be understood in the context of over 2000 pages of teachings. If the teachings present, like many Indian and Chinese Traditions, a world-view of a Cosmic Ordering in which is present a hierarchy of material dimensions, and organization in this material dimension arising as a natural consequence of how the system is organized in higher, more microcosmic dimensions, and the teachings, in passing, mention something about racial ordering ( something that occupies just a para or so in over 2000 pages of the teachings ) in this plane arising as a natural consequence of a higher ordering - it has to be presented in the appropriate context - and not be exaggerated and presented in a distorted, out of context and misleading manner. A journalist might do this - sensationalism is part of his job, and he is no position to analyze things in a scholarly manner or to make an academic statement on the issue. But a true Scholar won't - as is evidenced by that prominent scholarly studies of the teachings do not make any such claims.

Dilip rajeev (talk) 20:46, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

In australia in 1999 Li Hongzhi told followers of his religion that children of interracial ancestry could only get into heaven through his graces. He said that there were separate heavens segregated by colour. How is this not racism?Simonm223 (talk) 15:38, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Dilip, The New York Times does reach wikipedia's reference standards. That Ownby and Schechter do, too, is not a reason to not allow the NYT as a valid source. The quotation may therefore be included in context. PerEdman (talk) 09:35, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia, being an encyclopedia, "is not an indescriminate collection of information". What is presented in the NYT article is but a particular journalist's characterization - who is by no means an expert on the topic. For outrageous claims like these - like that it is said mixed-race people are all "spawn" of this period ( which is a ridiculously misleading representation) - which completely conflicts with what academics say about Falun Gong; and is not supported by scholarly sources and also , by no means, the original source - we must exercise great caution, lest we end up misleading the reader. Highest quality scholarship available on the topic all tell us Falun Gong is a peaceful form of self-belief - what does a particular journalist's sensationalist comments count for, in the face of all that academic analysis?

"Isolated studies are usually considered tentative and may change in the light of further academic research. The reliability of a single study depends on the field. Studies relating to complex and abstruse fields, such as medicine, are less definitive. Avoid undue weight when using single studies in such fields. Meta-analyses, textbooks, and scholarly review articles are preferred to provide proper context, where available." - WP:RS .. This article obviously is not a study.. The claim made by the journalist is not even a study, is quite far-fetched and the tone of writing is very misleading as well. Remember, a journalist is no position to pass scholarly comments on the topic. We cannot include every journalist's interpretation and comments in an encyclopaedic article. Further the article, written in 2000 could easily have been influenced by CCP propaganda, which had then infiltrated many western news agencies, according to analysts like Schechter.

"Opinion pieces are only reliable for statements as to the opinion of their authors, not for statements of fact, and should be attributed in-text."..."For information about academic topics, such as physics or ancient history, scholarly sources are preferred over news stories. Newspapers tend to misrepresent results, leaving out crucial details and reporting discoveries out of context. For example, news reports often fail to adequately report methodology, errors, risks, and costs associated with a new scientific result or medical treatment."..."An individual extremist or fringe source[this is not a fringe source but the claim made is obviously a fringe theory] may be entirely excluded if there is no independent evidence that it is prominent enough for mention. Fringe and extremist sources must not be used to obscure or describe the mainstream view, nor used to indicate a fringe theory's level of acceptance." - WP:RS

Considering these wiki-policies, and the completely non-academic tone of the content being added, I am of the firm opinion that such sensationalist material ought not be added in without context. For the reasons I adumbrate here, I am keeping it out of the article for now.

Dilip rajeev (talk) 13:57, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Dilip the article in question was not a "journalist's characterization". It was a direct quote of statements made by Li Hongzhi.Simonm223 (talk) 14:18, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

See.. the article ended up misleading you as well. It is not a direct quote. Nor is it even a paraphrase. Using terminology, never found in the teachings like "spawn of" - if anything, it is a very biased and intentional/sensationalist mis-characterization. You may verify this for yourself. The lectures are available online. Dilip rajeev (talk) 14:31, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

(Unindent) No, Dilip rajeev, just no. You say "It's a characterization", Simonm223 points out that it is not. So you say "Oh, that's just the article misleading you!". I believe Simonm223 has an actual quote, and I do not believe you have more than one other source that says anything different. PerEdman (talk) 00:23, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Just because Mr. Li didn't write it down in Zhuan Falun doesn't mean it isn't part of what he taught when he said those things to his followers in australia in 1999. PS: If conversation must continue on this subject can we please do so in Talk:Teachings of Falun Gong?Simonm223 (talk) 14:44, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

The 1999 Lecture in Australia is available on FalunDafa.org as well. You may go through the lecture and verify for yourself.

Dilip rajeev (talk) 15:21, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

I think that the New York Times is a more reliable source than the religious group's website.Simonm223 (talk) 21:51, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

That is a very funny remark, Simon. The Falun Dafa website has all the stuff that Li has published. If it's not there, it hasn't been published. The New York Times doesn't have that stuff, obviously, and they obviously don't have some special access to Li, where they know other things he has said that have not been published. I'd like to see this responded to (i.e., that the spawn remark isn't in the teachings--there's direct proof of that, what do you say?), and secondly, the long argument that Dilip has raised, quoting policies and explaining why the remark doesn't qualify as appropriate. When discussing these things, we need to respond to what the other is saying. Please respond to the points Dilip has raised. My suggestion is a compromise, noting that journalists have raised criticisms, and that Falun Gong claims either willful or guileless misunderstanding.--Asdfg12345 22:17, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

(Unindent) What is funny/horrifying, Asdfg, is your claim that the Falun Dafa website has "all the stuff that Li has published", when Simonm223's source is not a published document, it is a quote from an interview. If what you claim was true, then we could just throw out all sources that are not present on the Falun Dafa webpage, but for obvious reasons, this being a wikipedia article, we cannot possibly do that. We must use all sources at our disposal, using wikipedia guidelines to discriminate between them.

What we cannot possibly do, is use the Falun Dafa webpage to make that discrimination, because this is Wikipedia, rather than Clearwisdom.net. PerEdman (talk) 00:23, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Are you saying that things Li Hongzhi says to his followers in a religious context only count as teachings if they are then published by his publishing firm? That makes little sense.Simonm223 (talk) 12:13, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

It is not the source I have a problem with - but the non-contextual manner in which the material is currently presented. WP:RS itself tells us: "Newspapers tend to misrepresent results, leaving out crucial details and reporting discoveries out of context." We need to present things in an academically sound manner. Also, the article nowhere claims it is a direct quote. Kindly address the WP:RS concerns I raise above. It is not the source in itself - but the source being a newspaper article, and what it claims not being supported by academia that concerns me. We need to form a consensus here on talk before adding the material in. And, if we must add it in let us do so in an encyclopaedic manner, providing appropriate context. Till then, I request you exercise restrain and to please not keep re-adding the content while discussion is underway.

Dilip rajeev (talk) 14:43, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Dilip rajeev, Please read MORE of the text in WP:RS, for example the part about allowing even for opinion pieces. Or even the start of the paragraph you chose to quote so selectively:

For information about academic topics, such as physics or ancient history, scholarly sources are preferred over news stories. Newspapers tend to misrepresent results, leaving out crucial details and reporting discoveries out of context. For example, news reports often fail to adequately report methodology, errors, risks, and costs associated with a new scientific result or medical treatment. -WP:RS

There will never be a complete context inside the wikipedia article itself - that is why we have references; so we do not have to reproduce everything on wikipedia. A wiki page cannot tell people what to believe, but it can show them the sources so that people can make up their own minds.

Nor can you read WP: guidelines as you read a holy writ. Just because WP:RS makes the reservation that newspapers can misrepresent results or report discoveries (this about scientific discoveries, nb) does not mean that you can just quote that part, out of context, as an argument against the quotation presented by Simonm223.

If you believe context is missing, add context but do it in the wikipedia spirit, and please don't just remove the claim. PerEdman (talk) 00:16, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

It is about academic topics ( not scientific topics) and this is clearly an academic topic.' There are several issues pointed out above - and they all need to be sufficiently addressed. For an academic topic, a newspaper report is one of the last sources one would look into - especially when its view conflicts with that of mainstream scholarship. Dilip rajeev (talk) 01:28, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

For reporting Li Hongzhi's words the New York Times constitutes a reliable source. Please stop with the straw-dog arguments and inappropirate reverts.Simonm223 (talk) 17:19, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

It would have made more sense, in terms of adding it to the article, if the remark opined one way or another on the topic of those teachings. It's actually just a snatch of poor journalism. The basic thing seems to be that these teachings are not a notable part of the corpus of Falun Gong teachings--is there any evidence to the contrary? Do we have a good source linking the notability of Falun Gong to these teachings? This would be useful stuff. Anyway, for now I think it's okay to simply mention it, along with Johnson's useful characterisation, which gives some context as well as drawing attention to the topic. --Asdfg12345 22:29, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

I would say it is incredibly notable that Li Hongzhi, the person from whom all FLG teachings descends, made racist metaphysical statements. How could you possibly consider this to be non-notable?!?!Simonm223 (talk) 13:05, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Racist metaphysical statements? Do you not see the contradiction in terms here? Also, it's only your own interpretation that his remarks are "racist" -- that's what you add to it, not the nature of his statements. Beside that, none of this matters because it's just our own argumentation and original research. The point is that such statements are barely related to the notability of the topic, as far as I can tell. Is Falun Gong famous because of this? No. The only reason they would be mentioned here at all, I guess, is that journalists have mentioned them. Notability claims stem from what reliable sources say, not from what we say. These things have been mentioned a few times, but they're just one small part of a whole corpus of teachings of thousands of pages. I don't think it's a deal to mention them. Mention them, it's fine. They're mentioned now and even contextualised. I don't see a problem.--Asdfg12345 18:22, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

If you don't remove the quote again there won't be a problem over that specific issue. All I ever wanted was for you to stop removing the quote.Simonm223 (talk) 18:28, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Rewriting the quote and including unproven and unverified and uncited statements such as that the author was a FLG critic is NOT a move. If you read the article it's actually more critical of the PRC than of the FLG. Please don't try things like that. If you want to move without rewriting I will not revert.Simonm223 (talk) 18:48, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

He's a critic. I don't mind not saying he's a critic, but it's not a false statement. You can call it uncited and remove it, fine. I don't have a citation so I won't argue. My main problem is that it's not true that Li said the "spawn of the Dharma ending period" thing. (check search.freefind.com/find.html?id=46344703&pageid=r&mode=ALL&n=0&_charset_=UTF-8&bcd=%C3%B7&query=spawn&Search.x=0&Search.y=0&Search=+Find+ a search of the site). The next part of the quote is left intact. The last part of the quote was "have no place in heaven without Li's intervention," which also doesn't seem accurate (search.freefind.com/find.html?oq=spawn&id=46344703&pageid=r&_charset_=UTF-8&bcd=%C3%B7&scs=1&query=intervention&Find=Search&mode=ALL). You're welcome to call me on third party sources that I introduce which aren't accurate--just show how they aren't and make it good. At the moment the note sums up the journalists view without introducing any inaccuracies. What do you say? (Note: could not embed the links, some problem, just copy and paste into browser, and maybe add a http:// )--Asdfg12345 18:59, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

The 'spawn of dharma end times' comment is very relevant. Please stop trying to exclude information that people should be able to see.Simonm223 (talk) 19:00, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit conflict] I've explained myself point by point; please do me the same courtesy. Wikipedia needs some kind of instant messaging function!--Asdfg12345 19:02, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

How is it "relevant"? How do you respond to the fact that this is not at all found in the teachings? Should we have another sentence explaining this? It's the same with the intervention statement. If you want to put them in, then we will have to include the fact that such statements are not found in the teachings. You take your pick.--Asdfg12345 19:02, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Your arguments for it's falseness are baseless - derived from FLG hosted transcripts. Unless you have the NY Times printing a retraction... or unless you have evidence that Li Hongzhi successfully brought libel action against the Times. Do you?Simonm223 (talk) 19:05, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

The Times does not claim that those were things that Li directly told the paper. It just says he says them. Everything published by Li is in the falundafa.org website. If it's not there, unless a newspaper claims he told them directly, then we cannot find the source. Since the newspaper makes a reference to a statement to Australian practitioners in 1999, it's clear that their source is not from first-hand listening, but from what was published by the Falun Gong website. As I say, if we have those two precise things quoted, there needs to be a sentence that a search of the Falun Gong website returned zero results for those search terms. The other option is to paraphrase the quote. As I say, please choose which you would prefer. You understand what I'm saying, right?--Asdfg12345 19:09, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Would be nice to sort this out now, if possible. Since you did not like the paraphrase approach, after a period of grace I'll append the sentences with search links, assuming you prefer that resolution.--Asdfg12345 19:15, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Li said it, the Times reported it. The rest is immaterial. The quote stays.Simonm223 (talk) 19:15, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Interesting problem. Here's what Olaf wrote on the talk page:

The New York Times article is explicitly referring to the Australian lecture in 1999, therefore it is the stated original source. Apart from what is available on falundafa.org, Falun Dafa does not have any additional lectures. Every interpretation has been made on the basis of these same lectures, transcribed word-for-word from Li Hongzhi's speech. PerEdman seems confused about "the word of Li Hongzhi during an interview"; this is not what the New York Times article is talking about. If there is an obvious discrepancy between the lectures and any derivative sources, which one do you think is correct? And if we choose to include such text from a derivative source, how should we articulate this discrepancy in the Wikipedia article? ✔ Olaf Stephanos ✍ 07:38, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

What complicates the matter, further to the two points above (that the "spawn" comment and the "intervention" comment are not found in any of Li's teachings), is that the quote attributed to Li from the Australian 1999 lecture, is not said by him in that lecture at all. Look here -- this is the only lecture given in Australia in 1999, and the quote simply isn't there. This is the source that Craig Smith claims he got his quote from, but upon inspection it is found to be mistaken, or perhaps fabricated. Li has certainly made remarks on this subject, but not as Smith portrays them. I'm not sure why you find it so hard to believe that the journalist got it wrong, or just added his own ideas in--journalists do such things. What we have is an important discrepancy between a claimed original source and the actual original source. If the quote is to include these mistaken parts, the discrepancy must be pointed out.--Asdfg12345 19:58, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Since you won't accept any paraphrasing of the quote in question--which is demonstratibly inaccurate--I've simply added the (referenced) note about those words not appearing in the teachings, and non-existence of the quote attributed to Li, and Faluninfo.net's remark on the issue.--Asdfg12345 20:17, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Unacceptable. The fact is that the absence of the quote from faluninfo.net is NOT anything resembling proof that Li didn't say what he is quoted as saying. Again I ask you for a retraction from NY Times or proof of Libel litigation between Li and NY Times over this 'quote'Simonm223 (talk) 20:23, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Point accepted. It's not proof he didn't say it. Just like NYT is not proof that he did say it. But it doesn't turn up in the database of teachings, and that we can say. Let's allow readers to make their own conclusions. --Asdfg12345 20:27, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Actually the NY Times article IS proof he said what he said. Because they quoted him. And did not retract the quote and were not sued for Libel.Simonm223 (talk) 20:30, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

No, it's proof that they published that article quoting him saying that. It's not proof that he said it. That's a fairly simple concept, right? I won't revert your recent removal of the quote; I would consider that edit warring. I've been happy to go back and forth for now, because there has always been some haggling and changes. Now you have stopped that and are simply removing sourced information. Since the three searches from Falundafa.org are of a different nature than the direct quote from Faluninfo.net, I'll restore the latter and leave the former out. If you remove the latter again, I will not put it back. Next, since you keep stopping any attempt to paraphrase any part of the quote or provide any clear attribution, I am going to put the whole thing in quotation marks, for the purposes of clarity. Finally, I'm going to start a third opinion process about the discrepancy between what Li is quoted as saying in Australia 1999 and what he doesn't say there. I'm sure similar things have come up in other wikipedia articles, and that there is some precedent (say, for in such cases to simply quote what the conflicting views are and leave it at that, rather than for editors to try to establish the truth of the various claims for themselves). Note, that I am not asking for something proving that Li didn't say something, just as the NYT is not proof that he did. My point is merely to establish what each says. Let's take it to a third opinion. --Asdfg12345 20:34, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

It's not notable what your organization's webpage doesn't say. It is notable what the NY Times does say. This is simple.Simonm223 (talk) 20:37, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

It really doesn't take much thought to see that this is a misleading statement in this context. A list of things that falundafa.org (it's not "my organization" thx) doesn't say would not be notable. It is notable, however, that a quote attributed to Li from a particular lecture does not actually appear in that lecture. This is a case of a secondary source wrongly attributing a primary source. All I am seeking is that this discrepancy be pointed out. It's obvious that the "spawn" and "intervention" remarks are the journalist's own phrasings, too--but since he attributes them to Li, it is also relevant that there is no other record of Li saying them. All I'm seeking is to have this information included; that is the most objective way to deal with this issue. Let's get some third opinions; I'll be interested for precedents on this, because as I say, I'm sure it's happened on wikipedia more than once.--Asdfg12345 20:46, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

I will only be satisfied if the third party is not a FLG appologist. Until then I will aggressively defend the article AND the quote therein.Simonm223 (talk) 20:52, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Verifiability#Self-published_and_questionable_sources_as_sources_on_themselves. In an article about Falun Gong's teachings, the only website where Falun Gong practitioners go to read Li Hongzhi's lectures is a highly notable primary source. We're not talking about removing the New York Times quote. But as there is discrepancy between the sources, we are entitled report it. This is fully consistent with the policies.

Also, Wikipedia:Verifiability#Reliable_sources says: "The appropriateness of any source always depends on the context. Where there is disagreement between sources, their views should be clearly attributed in the text." ✔ Olaf Stephanos ✍ 21:00, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

No need for aggression, we're all working on the same thing here. I created a section for commentary here. I hope you don't define as "FLG appologist" anyone who would say it is reasonable to provide the note about this discrepancy... By the way, as I've made clear, I am not seeking to break your quote, merely to note that the quotation attributed to Li is inconsistent with what Li is recorded as saying. --Asdfg12345 21:14, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

just one more thing, tbh it seems like such a silly point of dispute. It's like someone writes in a newspaper that such and such book says some quote; and in the end the book doesn't say that quote, and it turns out the journalist just made it up. So just quote the journalist if they managed to get their piece into NYT, and then simply note that the quote doesn't appear in the book. I don't see the issue, in the end. Let's see what others think.--Asdfg12345 21:17, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Based on this I'm restoring the deletes references.--Asdfg12345 18:15, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

That was highly irrelevant.Simonm223 (talk) 19:28, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

What are you talking about? You totally need to respond to this. This is an issue of wikipedia policy and respecting concensus and guidelines. I'm reverting. You just have to learn to live with it.--Asdfg12345 21:32, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Simonm223 I have made a post on the edit warring noticeboard about your conduct. The current situation is as follows: you are repeatedly removing text that has been supported by three editors (including myself), who have each referred to policy and made argumentation for keeping it. You have no referred to any policy, have stopped explaining what is wrong with the text (except the broad term "POV-pushing"), and have just repeatedly gone ahead with reverts. Here's the report.--Asdfg12345 22:36, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

RfC on the issue

The question here has to do with verifiable sources, legitimate sources and the insertion of POV. The FLG supporters argue that the New York Times is not a reliable source for information on things Li Hongzhi has said. I say that the New York Times is a reliable source and feel it is not notable that a Falun Daffa webpage which purports to contain transcripts of the interview does not include these comments. I assert that the Falun Gong may have edited their transcripts for PR purposes, something supported by the fact that the New York Times has not printed a retraction and Li Hongzhi has not brought libel charges against them for that statement. I have not removed statements derived from Falun Gong sources when those statements state what the website does say. Rather I have simply removed editor commentary on what is not said.Simonm223 (talk) 12:17, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

The Falun Dafa webpage does not purport to contain "transcripts of the interview." This dispute has absolutely nothing to do with what Li Hongzhi said to the journalist. The NYT article refers to Li Hongzhi's lecture in Australia, which is publicly available on the website. Are you intentionally trying to mislead, or have you not realised what we're arguing about? Do you understand the policy reference I made? "Where there is disagreement between sources, their views should be clearly attributed in the text." Can you spell "Dafa" correctly? So many questions, so few answers. ✔ Olaf Stephanos ✍ 15:35, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

The argument from ASDFG12345 has been that the Falun Daffa webpage has a transcript of the australia lecture which does not include Li Hongzhi making the questionable comments attributed to him in the New York Times article. As far as I'm concerned the only reason that would be notable is in commenting on the fact that the Falun Gong is aware that Li Hongzhi's comments on a racially segregated afterlife would not play well in the west. As such I find the internal source to be very questionable in veracity compared to the original quote in the New York Times. Despite this I have left up statements made by the Falun Gong site with regards to the New York Times quote. I just have refused to let you cut the "spawn" issue from the post and have deleted editorial commentary on the absence of certain terms from the Falun Gong site records. The edit log will support my position if anyone watching cares to look. In fact I'd say that the edit log speaks to the core of this conflict much more concisely than the pages of FLG rhetoric now on this talk page. To be blunt, unlike some (but not all) of the people involved in this dispute, my account is not essentially a single-use account devoted to the Falun Gong and I have neither the time nor the inclination to spend hours a day reading through the reams of text typed by pro-FLG supporters over this issue. This is my defense for their claims that I have not responded on the talk page to their satisfaction. However they have consistently failed to get a third party review of the data. After they offered to do so they posted a very vague (and not entirely accurate) enquiry on the reliable sources notice board, got an equally vauge reply and then tried to claim that as third party justification for POV edits. I am tired of this dispute. I was directed here by a third party a few weeks back and, being interested in China and being interested in Religions I came by and found that the Falun Gong sites were, in general, a train wreck of POV. They advocate for the FLG, block sources that portray the FLG in a negative light, even when valid, use weasel words almost constantly, and give undue weight to pro-FLG sources, including FLG webpages and a very small number of academics that support them. I tried to help. The result was this... mess... which is the same result whenever a disinterested third party tries to fix the FLG articles, it would seem, according to the archives.Simonm223 (talk) 16:00, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Simonm223, some of the things you have said are misleading. I never said NYT was not a reliable source. I'm not interested in the rest of your comments, I think they're also inaccurate, but whatever. This is a bit silly, because the dispute is actually very simple. Since I already summed it up very clearly, I'm copying the language here. If you believe there is a problem with this, please explain:

The problem boils down to this: how does wikipedia handle discrepancies between a claimed original source and that actual original source? For example, the New York Times claimed that someone said something at a certain time, but the official record does not show this. Specifically, Craig Smith, in his article, quotes Li Hongzhi as saying, in his 1999 lecture to Australian practitioners of Falun Gong, that "The yellow people, the white people, and the black people have corresponding races in heaven." A search of the database (search.freefind.com/find.html?id=46344703&ics=1&pid=a) of Falun Gong teachings does not turn up this quote. Nor does a search of the lecture in question. Two other remarks attributed to Li by Smith are also not present in the database of Li's teachings. [caveat: for the sake of clarity, I'm not claiming what Li has or hasn't said, I'm only pointing to the discrepancy in sources, not making some objective comment.]

The article currently includes the paragraph from the first page of Smith's article quoted in full. After this quotation, I sought to add a sentence which said "The words "spawn," "intervention" and the quote attributed to Li do not appear in the online database of Falun Gong teachings, however." This was removed by another editor as "not-notable." Prior to this I had sought to paraphrase the parts of the quote that were apparently inaccurate, but the other editor was unsatisfied with this, and preferred or insisted that the paragraph be quoted fully.

What is the precedent for treating cases where there is a discrepancy between what a secondary source claims a primary source said and what that primary source actually said? I would have thought to simply say "NYT says X. Falun Gong website says Y," and leave it at that, but this approach is being disputed. What is the precedent?

Again: there are two sources which say different things (or, one doesn't say things that the other says it does, same difference) -- what to do? The WP:RS policy, which has been quoted a million times now, says "The appropriateness of any source always depends on the context. Where there is disagreement between sources, their views should be clearly attributed in the text." What's the problem? (finally, again, the other option is to simply paraphrase the quote so it doesn't include the things falundafa.org source shows as nonexistent. I don't mind which approach is taken, though this would make sense, for brevity.) Finally, the idea that originally the lecture had these comments and that later they were removed is a conspiracy theory. I don't even know how to respond to it. Whatever the case, it can't be proven--we can't even investigate it, so it's basically irrelevant.--Asdfg12345 21:21, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Simonm223, if you have no reliable source for your outlandish conspiracy theory, you can do nothing about it. I find it ridiculous, but what I think doesn't really matter. There is no way you can act upon your own speculation, not provide a reference to back it up, and blank content from the article based on your hypothetical cover-up behind the scenes. If such a thing would have happened, why can't you find even one single source to discuss it?

I will briefly comment on your other accusations: the articles do not contain weasel words (or if they do, point them out); they accurately represent the viewpoint of the most notable researchers in the field; there are not many links to FLG published sources, and even when they are found, they're not used as secondary sources. The articles mainly rely on academic third party references, and give them due weight in proportion to their relevance and status. You can keep ranting about this for as long as you want, but all you say is empty talk if you don't prove your point by reliable sources. ✔ Olaf Stephanos ✍ 22:46, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Simonm223 please respond when you get a chance. --Asdfg12345 07:14, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Characterising my concern about the neutrality of a Falun Gong website in reporting on the Falun Gong as an "outlandish conspiracy theory" is precisely the sort of misrepresentation I see almost every day on these talk pages from FLG single-use-account members and those who are very nearly so. And the "viewpoint of the most notable researchers in the field" include a single pro-FLG academic from Montreal, a Canadian politician with no specific expertise in the field, and the Epoch Times - a newspaper owned by the FLG. Meanwhile interviews of Li Hongzhi and quotes of Li Hongzhi taken from journalists working for publications such as Time and the New York Times are deleted, distorted or "contextualized" by cutting key sections of the quotation "to make it more punchy" and then following it with a FLG sourced disputation of the quote frequently up to twice the length of the original statement. If you care to look at the history of the article in question this is clear.Simonm223 (talk) 13:36, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Simon, please cut the rhetoric and deal with the issue at hand. --Asdfg12345 15:34, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Okay, one more thing: Ownby did years of fieldwork with Falun Gong practitioners, he has got a bunch of articles in peer-reviewed journals, a bunch of book chapters, and his own book on the subject. He's an expert on the subject, and maybe the most qualified out there. Not sure how he counts as "pro-FLG." Along with responding to the current issue (see above), maybe you could substantiate this claim. As mentioned in previous notes, Kilgour is a notable public figure, has written a report on the subject, regularly speaks on it at conferences around the world, has had columns on the subjects published in newspapers, is someone newspapermen go to to ask about the subject, etc.--not sure what else one would need to do to be considered an expert on the topic. Maybe you could help explain what else he would need to do to be considered an expert on the topic. Lastly, the Epoch Times isn't being cited in this article I don't believe. It would be regarded as a self-published source on this topic. Finally lastly, that's an inaccurate characterisation, and please respond to the issue. I'm gonna repost the thing on the RS noticeboard. Since you haven't pointed out what was wrong with the question, I'm going to assume nothing is wrong with it. If you would like to reframe it, please just add your remarks underneath. Will link to it in a moment.--Asdfg12345 16:21, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Repost.2C_need_opinion.2C_Teachings_of_Falun_Gong_dispute -- please see. I expect that if you find my summary of the dispute lacking that you will supplement it with your own understanding and explanation.--Asdfg12345 16:31, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Ownby is given undue weight WP:UNDUE My concern is not so much with the inclusion of Ownby as it is with the exclusion of other sources. As I have referenced, repeatedly, in this discussion. The over-use of Ownby, of the highly flawed Kilgour anti-china propaghanda and of the FLG-mouthpiece, Epoch Times, are secondary to the concerns I have over these exclusions. Simonm223 (talk) 16:42, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Agree that Ownby is overused, I would like that to be remedied also. Your note about Kilgour is obviously unfounded--find some sources or drop it. About the Epoch Times sources, where is this being wrongly used? In any case this source is cited it should be sparingly, when needed, and treated as any self published source. Please give examples and let's look at them. Otherwise, please respond to the noticeboard thing or it will be considered that you had your chance (again) to characterise the dispute as you wished and didn't take it. --Asdfg12345 16:53, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

I did respond on the notice board. I referred them here. Once again you are latching onto my secondary concerns and disregarding my primary concerns - the deletion of valid statements under a pretext that they are not valid by highly pro-FLG users, including yourself, Olaf Stephanos, Dilip Rajeev and Happy In General.Simonm223 (talk) 17:04, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

(the deletion of which valid statements?)--Asdfg12345 22:39, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Just look at the history log.Simonm223 (talk) 14:28, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

No, give us the diffs you are talking about. You have made a direct accusation against named editors, and the burden of proof lies on you. ✔ Olaf Stephanos ✍ 14:35, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Olaf the proof is visible in the history log. Unlike some of those I have named I am not a single-purpose user. I don't have the time to go back through the history log and point out every instance where FLG member-editors have deleted viable information or categorized experts (EG: every cult expert ever mentioned) as non-expert or non-reliable. The neutral third parties this RfC was founded to invite to comment are perfectly able to read the log of edit history and see for themselves what has been done. In fact that is what I have been asking for all along. Simonm223 (talk) 15:09, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

What I've been asking all along is strict adherence to policies and guidelines, transparent arguments, and direct proof. Comments from any third parties are welcome. So called "cult experts" with personal websites just don't qualify, period, unless they meet the clear-cut requirements in WP:RS. Are you getting the point? If you want to suggest one of those guys, please evaluate the source against that policy page, and explain the issue to other editors by directly quoting it. Thank you.

You come across as someone who is not here for constructive editing, but to right what you perceive as great wrongs. You have personally attacked against me and others by repeatedly calling us "single purpose accounts", while you've failed to give us references to reliable sources. Take a look at Wikipedia:Tendentious_editing#Characteristics_of_problem_editors: You often talk about single purpose accounts in article discussion. Remember to comment on content, not on the contributor. I have never attacked against your militant atheism and pro-Marxism, even though you are explicit about your beliefs on your user page, and I see some ideological patterns in your edit history. If you have something against my edits, fine, let's take a closer look at them by raising some tangible issues on the table. Don't expect to circumvent your responsibilities as an editor by saying you don't have time. None of us would really have time for this. ✔ Olaf Stephanos ✍ 08:36, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I am an athiest and a marxist. That doesn't change the fact that what I have tried to achieve here is a fair and balanced article rather than the nonsensical mishmash of PR and POV that we have right now in the FLG articles. I have responded to your questions repeatedly but you keep insisting I have not. It's getting old.Simonm223 (talk) 14:06, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

(Unindent) "Olaf the proof is visible in the history log." Simon, no that answer is not acceptable. Basically you are saying that you know it's your fault but I'm not telling see Fear,_uncertainty_and_doubt#SCO_vs._IBM. This is wikipedia Simon, please refrain using uncertainty and doubt to spread your propaganda here. Olaf asked you prof, you can either provide it, or drop the issue. "I have responded to your questions repeatedly", just by stating that you have, you actually did not. Please provide diffs. --HappyInGeneral (talk) 07:23, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Just commenting as to the tag issue. It seems to me that it is justified its use on the article given the discussion--LexCorp (talk) 18:58, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Can you explain why? Maybe point to some wikipedia policies, make some references, that is wrong because, etc? If you don't do that then you are just keeping things vague and spreading, perhaps unknowingly I can agree to that, but non the less spreading FUD. --HappyInGeneral (talk) 07:23, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Simon, your edit patterns seem to suggest taht you want the material presented without context, in a misleading way. It was repeatedly pointed out that the source is a news article, and wikipedia cautions us newspapers are likely to misrepresent things - and they are not the preferred aource in academic or scientific topics. This source is clearly an academic one. When Asdfg attempted to provide context, you blanked that material out.

The way you present it is, by no standard, academically sound. Further, you have not answered any of the concerns I raised regarding this above. Your "replies" just slickly avoid the concerns pointed out. I request you to kindly address the issues, and make your rationale clear before you add the stuff in. Out of context, unencyclopedic characterizations of things are obviously not helpful and are not welcome. Dilip rajeev (talk) 22:28, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Taken at face value, the NYT should be considered a reliable source in almost any situation. I do not know much about Falun Gong other than what I read in the media. I do know that what has been said in the media has often been conflicting given that, it is important that whatever is put in this or any article should have a proper context included with the addition. This probably means more work for the person adding to the article, but that is what it is going to take. With that in mind, I must say that I found this article very difficult to follow. After reading it, I am left with more questions about what Falun Gong is about than less.Elmmapleoakpine (talk) 23:21, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments. Questions like? --HappyInGeneral (talk) 07:39, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

To answer Simon's original question, I certainly wouldn't trust an op-ed piece in the New York Times on the subject of a disputed translation from the Chinese. Now, I don't see anyone explaining how the translator could have gotten it wrong, and I find it odd that nobody seems to have mentioned the language issue before (why not, if it can really explain the problem?) But if in fact the allegation concerns the linked lecture on the FG website, then logically the group must dispute the translation, because their own translation says nothing like this. If we include the Smith version, we should try to get a clear picture of the dispute and spell it out there in the article.

Remember too that frequently editing other articles does not rule out bias, whether we're talking about Chinese Marxists or Falun Gong members on Wikipedia. Dan (talk) 19:09, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Just to clarify about all this: the whole dispute could have been avoided if Simonm223 did not insist on including the full quotation of the NYT piece, which was inaccurate in referring to its cited primary source. I don't mean to make a personal remark, but this is simply the dynamic. He insisted on that, and the next thing was to include a reference to the primary source about the things it was claimed to have said but (apparently) did not say. This was taken to a community board twice and affirmed on both occasions. The deal is done, and this shouldn't be in dispute anymore. One other option is to actually paraphrase the NYT quote as originally suggested, or for another disputant to take the issue to a board again, if they want the reference to the primary source removed (I just reverted PCPP's removal of it, also threatening some sort of administrative action if it were restored). Sorry, just to clarify. I'm not a bare-knuckles kinda guy, but honestly, this is a waste of time at this point.--Asdfg12345 05:36, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

I am aware that the FLG makes unfounded claims that the NYT article misquotes Li. However there is no proof that this is the case; no retraction from the NYT, no pending lawsuits, not even a direct statement from Li himself on the issue. The issue could be avoided if the FLG was not so adamant about trying to use Wikipedia as a propaghanda tool.Simonm223 (talk) 12:47, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

This was ruled twice on the relevant noticeboard. If you wish to dispute that I suggest following the dispute resolution process rather than reverting. I understand that tendentious editing etc. is no longer to be tolerated on these pages.--Asdfg12345 16:55, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

And the website information was left in. THe ruling did not apply to the inclusion of word searches which clearly violate WP:ORSimonm223 (talk) 17:41, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Please see the two notes on it.--Asdfg12345 18:06, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Information from the website was left in, as per those discussions, for weeks. The only stuff that has been pulled, the same stuff I pulled today, violates WP:OR; it's a text search of a FLG website for goodness sake! Simonm223 (talk) 18:33, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Since you, at least in word, have acknowledged that the community noticeboard discussions are meaningful, let me reiterate what they said exactly. I would have thought you would have looked at them by now. All this discussion, it uses time. Copied below (emphasis mine):

Reliability does not care if a source is Primary or Secondary. Both types of sources can be reliable and both types can be unreliable. Before answering your question... this sounds very like someone is playing "gottcha" with quotes to make a point... consider this: does this quote really need to be discussed in the article at all. Is it crucial to the article to mention it? (in other words... would it harm the article to simply ignore the entire issue?) If the answer is that it does need to be mentioned, then you are correct in saying that it is best to mention what both sources say without saying which is correct. See WP:NPOV. Blueboar (talk) 21:46, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

In other words... we have a classic case of "he said, she said" between two sources that in this instance should be considered equally reliable. According to WP:NPOV, when two equally reliable sources disagree, we should present what both sources say, giving them equal weight. So, something along the lines of "Craig Smith in the NYT quotes Li Hongzhi as saying 'X'. The Falun Gong website quotes him as saying 'Y'", without inserting our own judgement as to which quote is "correct", is the right approach here. Blueboar (talk) 17:14, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Simonm, we can not take the lack of a demand for retraction as evidence that the NYT accurately quoted him (some people don't go about demanding a retraction when they are misquoted). Nor could we take a demand for retraction as evidence that they did misquote him (some demands for retraction are unwarrented, and simply issued to save face). About the only "evidence" that could be conclusive here would be an audio tape of the lecture, demonstrating that he did or did not utter the words attributed to him. Barring that, the only thing we can say with certainty is that the NYT says he said X while the FG website says he said Y. Blueboar (talk) 20:54, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

It is clear that the decision to include both sources was supported on the community board, and the dispute (about NYT saying words that the records apparently do not show he said at those times) was clearly narrated and responded to with reference to policy. Notably, the uninvolved editor only reiterated what I had already said here, but anyway. I am going to, again, restore the text. I again warn you that continuing to edit in this way (like, if you revert again) will result in some kind of administrative action on my part.--Asdfg12345 05:00, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

As this isn't an article where I intend to do much editing it, I would comment that the above views by Blueboar are sensible, and in line with my understanding of the relevant policies and guidelines. I take no sides as to whether the text being battled over conforms to the recommended treatment when inserted in the article. Ohconfucius (talk) 05:16, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

If you took no sides on that, then why did you undo it? The discussion is very clear. Please let's not play games.--Asdfg12345 05:37, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

This is getting nasty, but no, I'm not playing games. I changed my mind and decided to look at it, but it still doesn't mean I'm taking sides. If you looked at my edit carefully, I did not "undo". I removed exactly one sentence and its associated "references", which are not references in any meaningful sense. There were several other sentences I left untouched. If "yellow heaven" etc is not there in the text, you cite another piece of text which refutes it. What you don't do is point the reader to to their own online search of faluninfo, because it seems to be a misuse of the cite function; it is clearly WP:SYN. Ohconfucius (talk) 05:55, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

I do not mean to be nasty. I hope you understand that the only interpretation I was faced with is that you were saying you agree with the content of the third party assessment from the community board, but do not see how it relates to this, and yet in the same stroke make a change to the article that would indicate that you did not, in fact, agree with the essence of that discussion. That is obviously inconsistent contradictory, but now you have said something else which I don't understand. I will try my best to refrain from any kind of comment that could be regarded as personal from now on. About this topic, there is a demonstratable difference in what the primary source says and what the NYT article says it says. There are two ways to resolve this. The first is to paraphrase the NYT source so it does not contradict the source; the second is to keep it and mention that it is inconsistent with the source. The only way of doing that is by sourcing that these words do not exist in the database of teachings. It's the same as if someone said Li Hongzhi didn't say something which he said--a direct reference could be given to him saying that, if that was appropriate (honestly, I think it really is ridiculous that the discussion has come to this extent. Honestly. The NYT thing should just be rephrased. We are arguing over nothing) -- but in this case it is a source which says he said something he didn't say, and I know of no other way than showing that discrepancy.

This gives me an idea. We are at the chain-jammed-in-crank part of the bold, revert cycle. I'm going to paraphrase the NYT thing, putting the ball in someone else's court. I look forward to when this discussion is but the dimmest of memories.--Asdfg12345 06:07, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

I've read the NYT article, and would say that it could feasably be differences attributable to culture and translation. However, it's infinitely more difficult to prove the existence of something than it is to disprove. It is difficult to disprove what Li reportedly said in the interview - we don't know what language it was conducted in or how the journalist arrived at the conclusion he did, so it's too steps too remote. One solution is to bring out the text of ZF to contrast the NYT article. Ohconfucius (talk) 06:18, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

metaphysical race comments weren't in the cited lecture at all (aus1999). It's just sloppy journalism. I hope things are resolved now.--Asdfg12345 06:20, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

(Undent) As we discussed (extensively) in early july, there is no valid basis for deleting parts of the quotation just because the FLG doesn't admit Li said those things. Please stop; this particular, protracted, edit war is not helping improve the article.Simonm223 (talk) 15:08, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

I've outlined above the two ways this issue could be resolved: either paraphrase the NYT so it doesn't introduce inaccuracies, or include the Falun Gong viewpoint which expresses that there are inaccuracies. You have resisted both attempts, and it is unclear why. This seems to a show a total unwillingness to compromise, presuming you understand what this dispute is about. I'll attempt another formulation for clarifying the relationship between what NYT says Li said and what the Falun Gong website says Li said. Please consider the overall situation. If you insist on the full quote (and I've heard no particular reason for doing so, and even the third party view expressed above suggests it's not advised) then the discrepancy must be mentioned--yet you are blocking every attempt to list the discrepancy. What gives? OC, since you have stepped into this, please consider sharing your thoughts, too. This situation strikes me as somewhat unreasonable.--Asdfg12345 16:58, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Let me reiterate again: this article should be a reliable and accurate explanation of the teachings of Falun Gong. Where there is a direct contradiction--which is different to an issue of interpretation--between what a source said Li said and what he is recorded as saying, either the inaccuracy should not be introduced, or the discrepancy should be briefly noted. It's very, very simple, and this is firmly within the spirit of wikipedia policies. We are writing an encyclopedia reference work here, so things should be at a high standard. Simonm223, the ball is in your court now. I believe continuing to refuse to actually engage in the real issue here will be detrimental for you in the long run, for example, if an arbitration enforcement case were to be opened, where your conduct would be examined. So far, you have refused to heed a third party recommendation, and you have also continually resisted a collaborative attempt to resolve the issue, even as there are a number of possible ways of resolving it. I strongly recommend you think twice before reverting again.--Asdfg12345 17:07, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

I edited your revision for tense and grammar and included a single "according to the falun gong" to the data where you were presenting the flg position as if it were fact. Otherwise I left it as is. As it now stands I am satisfied. If you try to remove part of the NYT quote again I will not be.Simonm223 (talk) 17:33, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

I am pleased that this was resolved amicably.--Asdfg12345 19:56, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

• I'd just like to make an observation: an article written by Jay Nordinger was cited in the 'Persecution' article. The piece write about Jiang Zemin's experience in a 'novellish' and metaphorical/metaphysical fashion. Asdfg argued strongly to retain it. Now we have had fierce arguments about a similarly 'novellish' piece in the NYT, which resulted in a huge ruckus and heavy edit-warring. All I can say is that I'm glad it's resolved. Appears ironic tto me. Ohconfucius (talk) 06:54, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

regarding the image

This is the edit summary: "sorry OC. I do not mean to be argumentative on every point. I do not see how this is promotional. If some uninvolved editors see it as promotional, that is fine, I just don't think it's an issue, and don't want to spend time digging up another image."

more: if you find another reasonable image, please replace it, I would be happy to indulge (what I see as) such trifles. It's just that I think the article requires images to help the reader along, for a number of reasons, and I don't want to spend time looking for and uploading them when the job has already been done. I don't see how this image is promotional. I don't want promotional images in the article. It's a nice capture, that's fine, but it's just too people meditating. Very picturesque, you might say. It's an illustration of the practice. If there's a consensus (from some other than the usual suspects) that this is promotional, we would not want that, because it would undermine the credibility of the article to an extent. As I say, any other reasonable picture will be accepted. My dispute here is very practical. --Asdfg12345 05:42, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

• I'm not sure I like the sound of "If there's a consensus (from some other than the usual suspects)"... Hardly seems fair, as you would be discounting the views of all established editors who do not believe FG should santise its own image or promote itself on WP. I'm not going to war with you over it. I'm sure that now that editing here is no longer an exclusive FG club, it will be removed in due course. Ohconfucius (talk) 05:51, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Vassyana made it clear to begin with that disputes should be taken to community boards. That's what I meant. I'm not going to pretend that people do not have their own views on this topic, and that they will not influence specific discussions such as this. Your referring to "FG sanitising its own image or promoting itself on WP" is a clear example. This kind of commentary and attitude is what we should avoid, and instead simply outline our own views on the specific topic, rather than speculating those of others, and then when we cannot agree make recourse to a wider audience. You could simply explain how you find it promotional, for example. If it's just the vibe, well then that's a simple disagreement. In that case, for you to replace it with a reasonable image of your own choosing, I think is fair enough, since you wish to remove an image from the article, and it obviously needs illustrations. I'm really not trying to get into a big argument here. I don't care if you don't like the pic, just put a new one in. --Asdfg12345 16:53, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

I see you did that already, great! --Asdfg12345 16:54, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

faluninfo.net and the race issue

I reviewed the FLG reference that pro-FLG users insisted on including as a rebuttal to the NYT article. I have modified the section accordingly. All new material is derived directly from the FLG source. There is no synthesis. If you want to use the faluninfo.net source I would suggest not trying to delete these recent additions. Simonm223 (talk) 19:02, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

For my use of the word "segregated" to describe "separate but equal" heavens based on race please see: Separate_but_equal. It was the language employed by the united states to describe racial segregation! Simonm223 (talk) 14:33, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree that such euphemisms shouldn't be copied over; thus, I moved it outside the quotation-marks. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 18:52, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

I hadn't realized it was within a quote.Simonm223 (talk) 19:06, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Excessive Quoted Material

This article (excluding the final Controversies section) is more than fifty percent (50%) quoted material (4,362 of 8605 words).
--Trelawnie (talk) 14:09, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Quotations is a means for Falun Gong to borrow legitimacy from 'third-parties' when they see that their own legitimacy has been compromised. Basically means, "I didn't say it! Scholar X said it." Colipon+(Talk) 15:47, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Colipon, your bitterness and cynicism is astonishing. --Asdfg12345 23:22, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Controversies

There is no doubt in my mind, having read the page, that many of Falun Gong's teachings would be regarded as controversial (at least among my peers). But I have encountered some irregularities with the sourcing, again. I refer to the final paragraph of the lead, and the section entitled "controversies." Here are the problems I found, along with some ideas for responding to them.

• In the lead, the claim that Falun Gong is homophobic links to "Downtown Express," which is part of a "Community of Newspapers" that included Gay City and others. I do not mean to disparage this cause - I myself take an interest in questions of human sexuality, and am sympathetic to concerns of religious intolerance - but I wonder whether a small publication of this sort is an appropriate source for a scholarly article, particularly in making prominent claims that are not backed up by mainstream scholarship. Moreover, the article is referred to five times, as much as one of Benjamin Penny's pieces. Surely there must be a better source for this. I would defer to mainstream scholarship on points of contention in Falun Gong beliefs.
• The lead also says Falun Gong has been criticised as pseudoscience, and this is referenced to p. 166 of Ownby. On that page, however, this claim does not appear, but a general discussion of the attacks on qigong during the mid 1990s. It could be extrapolated that Falun Gong was also criticised as pseudoscience, and that criticism was certainly made, but it doesn't appear on p. 166 of Ownby.
• It's unclear how Palmer's observation that parts of Falun Gong doctrine appear messianic, moralistic, and apocalyptic (and who wouldn't agree?) are actually criticisms. If these are merely aspects of Falun Gong doctrine, and Palmer points this out, should that be characterised as "criticism"? I don't think so. I would suggest this be otherwise framed. Palmer does not suggest he means it as a criticism, so it's unclear why it should be presented on Wikipedia as such.
• The first part of the controversies section seems informative, but a few things stand out. The first is, what is the significance of these teachings to the people who believe in them? At the moment it seems a bit tabloidish. The assumption appears to be that the reader will consider them weird and move on. A more valuable input would be some explanation as to what place these teachings hold in the minds of followers, and how they have been interpreted by scholars. What we have here at the moment, while a good start, is still a little crude.
• The final sentence of the lead of the controversies section was shown on the main discussion page to have been a synthesis.
• The section "Views on homosexuality" appears to be an almost complete synthesis, referring only to Li's teachings and the Downtown Express piece. If it was necessary to bring these sources together to have a section, that means Wikipedia editors have decided how to frame it and what its importance is, rather than deferring to scholarly authorities. The words "homosexuality" do not appear at all in the Index of Ownby, Palmer, or Schechter, Tong, or Chang's books. This tells me that it is a tiny minority view. I would be pleased to be shown otherwise - religious intolerance should be unmasked - but I have seen no evidence that scholars regard that to be the case here. By omission, the contrary appears to be so.
• The same appears to be the case for interraciality. The secondary source used is an article by a New York Times reporter, the other two are both primary Falun Gong sources. Consulting Ownby, it seems clear that this is an almost irrelevant belief for the Falun Gong. He mentions it in passing. The significance of these beliefs in the overall body of Falun Gong beliefs needs to be explained, because at the moment it remains quite unclear. If these issues have not been discussed in the sources the way that they are currently discussed in Wikipedia, that means there is a synthesis taking place.
• Ditto for "apocalypse." It becomes clear from sources on the main page that scholars of Chinese religion do not think this important. But the argument used to show its putative importance here appears to be a single quote from an individual follower.
• My suggestion is, and this is contingent on new evidence in response to what I wrote above, to compress the size of the section, get rid of the subheadings, and defer to scholars in discussing these controversial beliefs. I wouldn't refer to Downtown Express, nor to Craig Smith of the New York Times. The former appears to be a small-time rag, and the latter provides more heat than light. The purpose should be exposition and explanation, rather than soundbites and ridicule. A similar discussion has been had on the Ching Hai page, and funnily enough, on the Michel Foucault page. There needs to be clear explanation for how these things are significant to the subject, and if such is not forthcoming, it means they are not significant and can be mentioned more briefly. The long elaborations from primary sources appear odd. I don't know how it happened that the section in its current form came to be, but it doesn't accord with proper scholarship, in my view. It would be perfectly OK for a blogger to assemble this type of montage, but presumably our standards of research are much higher than that.

Apart from the above the page has a lot of other problems, including whole repeated paragraphs, high-schoolish prose, a sense of gushiness in extolling the virtues of FLG, and extreme verbosity. The Sound and the Fury (talk) 15:07, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

What you are seeing on this page is the inevitable result of years of Falun Gong advocacy and other editors, disgusted by this, adding material that they think would 'balance out' the article to make it more NPOV. I take no position on whether this was done correctly, all I know is that I have avoided touching this "Teachings" article because I was afraid of abuse from the Falun Gong cabal. I have archived a page on the criticism of Falun Gong - which was deleted, moved, trimmed, and deleted again; I saved it because there are some sources on there that could be of use when discussing Falun Gong's controversies, and I urge you to take a look at it. Colipon+(Talk) 15:54, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Colipon, we have seen enough to declare that it was never in your interests, nor in the interests of other anti-FLG editors, to create anything that resembles a neutral article. Me, Asdfg12345 and others raised many of these issues a long time ago. How come the above criticism is suddenly more valid than ours?

TheSoundAndTheFury, Zujine and others have had little to say about the article content that makes Falun Gong seem approachable and does not dehumanise its practitioners. How come the first "outsiders" who really seem to know something about Falun Gong research are pointing their fingers at the work of your cabal? You are even willing to admit that the pages are a result of "disgust" and "adding material that [...] would 'balance out' the article", and now you "take no position on whether this was done correctly"! Basically you're saying that substandard, unprofessional methods are acceptable, as long as they paint Falun Gong in an unfavourable light. Moreover, on your personal user page, you still dare to claim that "FLG SPAs" have taken over the articles and assumed their ownership.

What TheSoundAndTheFury has pointed out are merely some cherrypicked expressions of completely inexcusable behaviour. Each and every bit of these articles will be scrutinised in the near future. The soldiers of your total war ([3] [4] [5] [6]) have done everything in their power to make the articles conform to their preconceived notions, and now that the light of reason has started flooding in, they have retreated from the discussion and have not made the slightest effort to excuse themselves.

"This is the way the world ends; not with a bang but a whimper." ✔ Olaf Stephanos ✍ 23:03, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Completely agree. And in the above remark, Colipon distances himself from the state of the article that he is in large part responsible for, if not directly then indirectly. TheSound, and anyone else, please be aware that the page Colipon refers to was compiled by Samuel Luo and his partner, Thomas Brown, who were both indefinitely banned from wiki for ideological struggle. Further, it was deleted by consensus, because it's nothing but innuendo and anti-Falun Gong propaganda. I suggest staying away. --Asdfg12345 23:28, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

I have introduced some of the changes indicated by TheSound, or, rather, my understanding of them. May others evaluate my work and proceed with what they see as necessary. ✔ Olaf Stephanos ✍ 00:06, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't think TheSound's observations on the sourcing and argumentation were meant as an invitation to restart old battles. That said, I agree with his analysis of the problems, and Olaf Stephanos seems to have stepped forward with removing some of the sub-par content.

I'm not so much a beliefy kind of person, so maybe someone else can check out the page devoted to controversies that Colipon refers to, and dig up the best sources for representation here. Otherwise, the article needs a working over generally; it exhibits all the issues indicated above and more. —Zujine|talk 02:27, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't mind The Sound scrutinizing these articles at all. He has done a very commendable job with these articles so far. I don't care if he deletes the entire controversies section if he finds the sourcing has been inappropriate. You will see that I never opposed him scrutinizing any sections of any article, and also have offered to work with him on other qigong related articles that don't have as much controversy so I don't have to face constant abuse from Falun Gong SPAs. Comments like the one above was precisely what got you banned, Olaf, and I kindly ask you to withdraw it.

I also wanted to respond to Asdfg's claim that I am "responsible" for the state of the article. I don't recall editing this article much at all. Most of it is clearly jargon and a quotefarm. I specifically said above I have always tried to stay away from this article (I have made a grand total of 3 edits on this article in its entire history, one of which was minor, compared to Asdfg's 119 edits, I can't help it but think that accusation is quite hypocritical). I will be happy to edit this article if only users without a conflict of interest edit it. Otherwise the Falun Gong cabal is free to have a free run with it. I will not be reverting anything for my own sanity. Colipon+(Talk) 13:56, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Colipon, please allow me to clarify. What I meant was that you participated in, and to some extent led, if I may put it that way, a concerted campaign to discredit Falun Gong on Wikipedia. Adequate sourcing and other policies were thrown to the wind in pursuit of that agenda. That's what I meant with my remark, and I think you know that. Valid input was dismissed based on who said it, and not what was said—maybe that was partly driven by an intense dislike (dare I say hatred) that you have developed toward Falun Gong and Falun Gong practitioners. You are avoiding that now and turning it around into something else. Anyway, I'm not going to harp on this. What's done is done. I'm just glad that there are now some serious efforts to enforce the wiki content policies. And I apologise if my remarks have come across as mean. But you have consistently played down the persecution Falun Gong practitioners are subjected to—going so far as attempting to have that page deleted—and generally adopted a dehumanising discourse towards Falun Gong. I find all that extremely distasteful. --Asdfg12345 14:37, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Amen to that. I am not blaming Colipon for the state of this particular article. However, if some of these new editors had never appeared, and I or Asdfg would have presented exactly the same criticism, it would have been mocked, marginalised and dismissed through sheer anti-intellectualism. It doesn't seem to matter that I have a Master's Degree that is directly relevant to the topic area, or that many of the high-quality sources introduced by Asdfg attest to sophisticated research and knowledge in the subject. The way our elaborate arguments have been treated by the anti-FLG editors is not too far from the treatment of "class enemies" in a Communist state. I can only speak for myself, but this is the root cause of my "comments like the one above". ✔ Olaf Stephanos ✍ 17:44, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Changes by User:PCPP

The parts changed by PCPP are variations on the theme that was discussed in some depth above. PCPP gives no response to that debate, does not explain how his inclusions are pertinent, why they're notable, etc. He is merely using bad sources to push a point. ✔ Olaf Stephanos ✍ 22:45, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

I am thoroughly tired of this. Someone please revert him and add your voice to the RfC, for the sake of the encyclopedia and normal peoples' sanity. It's not even a question, at this stage, whether the content has merit. It's about having the most basic wikiquette of engagement, discussion, etc., none of which PCPP seems capable of. --Asdfg12345 23:18, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Well, my sanity is not in danger, but as with the Falun Gong edits I do not like this behaviour. There is a lot of discussion about this above, why did PCPP ignore it? The points TheSound raises are entirely legitimate: if these are notable issues, they should be in scholarly sources. Religious groups pushing an anti-homosexual agenda should not be able to hide from public discourse, but that is obviously not the case here. Trying to make something that has appeared in a few local newspapers sound like a significant controversy is tendentious editing.

If there are quality sources explaining the significance of Falungong's beliefs on sexuality and providing interpretations, I never found them during the course of my research. Just now I opened to Palmer's exposition of Falungong beliefs, which doesn't soft-pedal, and I couldn't find mention of homosexuality. Like any quasi-fundamentalist belief system, Falungong clearly regards homosexuality as 'immoral'; but that is different from having a public agenda. The low-quality sources brought forth so far do not show how it is a notable part of the Falungong teaching. —Zujine|talk 13:18, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

I might add that I believe it should be mentioned somewhere in the article that Falungong regards homosexuality etc. as 'violating the standards of morality', or whatever language they use (I have forgotten). Nobody should try to avoid this point. —Zujine|talk 13:21, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

The homosexuality issue is noticeable because they were actually controversy and active protests over the issue, and an attempt by San Francisco legislators to nominate LHZ for a Nobel Peace Prize was rescinded. I agree with the removal of the interracial children and apocalypse issue, however.--PCPP (talk) 14:43, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

I will leave it to someone else to repeat the major points, but let's put it this way: it's original research to dig through primary sources and pull out a few select quotes to show a POV. The article on the teachings of Falungong should discuss the teachings roughly in the same way that reliable sources discuss them - roughly. That doesn't include cherrypicking quotes from the primaries to push a point. Secondly, the Bay Area reporter isn't a reliable source on a religious group (as a "San Francisco gay, lesbian and bisexual political newspaper" that "offers commentary on local social, sexual, and economic issues") - just like Orthodox Christian Weekly isn't a reliable source on the 'depravity' of homosexuality. This should be obvious.

The bottom line is that no major writers on Falungong have found this worthy of much note at all, and often of zero note. Until that is shown otherwise it will remain a tiny minority view. Pushing the point with partisan sources and cherrypicked quotes from Li's doctrine will not win friends or influence people. —Zujine|talk 15:22, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

How so? It's these passages by Li that caused criticism of FLG by the LGBT community, and as demonstrated by the articles, they do have significant social impact. Academic notability is not the only guideline on the inclusion of material, as FLG's views on homosexuality significant press coverage. And you're systematically dismissing The Bay Area Reporter because of LGBT focus, when in fact the article only covered the event and in fact interviewed several FLG practitioners. --PCPP (talk) 16:07, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

You are now admitting to an original synthesis by a combination of cherrypicked quotes with an LGBT source to make a point. You have not responded to one of the key arguments TheSound and Zujine put forward: if this was a notable issue, why was it ignored by Ownby, Palmer, etc.? There's no evidence that it has received "notable press coverage" at all. The homosexuality complaint is just another CCP tactic to smear Falun Gong's reputation. There is also no evidence that there has been a "significant social impact" or anything else showing real notability or significance. Dredging up a fringe newspaper article and combining it with cherrypicked quotes to make a point... I can only sigh. --Asdfg12345 16:33, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Original synthesis? LMAO I simply outlined the controversial passages by Li and the news articles that makes references to them, which in fact caused a significant political dispute. A simple search on Google news archive shows plenty of articles that reference FLG's views on homosexuality [7]. I'm sure the San Francisco LGBT is secretly planted by the Chinese Communist Party. Keep making excuses for your master's words.--PCPP (talk) 17:03, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

A few articles in a local LGBT rag does a "significant political dispute" make. Let's get that straight. Not a single scholar writing on Falun Gong, as far as I am aware, has thought this significant enough to even include in a book. There may be many articles on Falun Gong's views, but when they are blogs and local newspapers they don't count for anything. You have a pattern of using bad sources to push a point. In this case you are violating the rules by cherrypicking Li's quotes. Why don't you find some academic works that prove the point you want to push? It's so obvious that you are doing this in bad faith. The dispute is not notable, get over it please. --Asdfg12345 08:13, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

A quick look for journal articles:

D Schechter, Falun Gong's challenge to China: spiritual practice or "evil cult"?

Some of Li Hongzhi's viewspoints doesn't sit well with Western readers, such as when he blames "homosexuality and sexual freedom" for interfering with practitioners' cultivation...It upholds three main virtues - compassion, forbearance, and truthfulness - and warns against forms of moral "degeneration" such as rock music, drugs, and homosexuality.

E Davis, Encyclopedia of contemporary Chinese culture

The literature of Falun gong describes a world of moral morass for which the practising self can escape through a regimen that assures the mitigation of karmic debt of avarice, commodity fetishism, competition, dipsomania, divorce, homosexuality, and lust.

H Kavan, Falun Gong in the media: What can we believe? -

They also removed English translations of Zhuan Falun 11, a book in which Li makes several scientific slip-ups (such as mistaking a light year for a measurement of time) and offends potential supporters by condemning homosexuality and Buddhism...Further, as Deng and Fang (2000) observe, English translations of Li’s speeches have a less strident tone, they sometimes differ from the original Chinese in critical parts, and the most anti-gay, racist and anti-human scriptures have never been translated into English.

I Johnson, Wild grass: three stories of change in modern China

These three principles require people to live upright lives, to not lie and follow hetereosexual, monogamous lives. Homosexuality is dealt with in only one of Master Li's teachings, but he sharply criticized it, a stance that critics abroad have used to show Falun Gong's intolerant nature.

J Howell, Governance in China

Li fulminated against "degenerate influences" like homosexuality, television, sexual freedom, rock 'n roll, women's liberation, and also the aliens that are taking over humanity via cloning

J Miles, Chinese nationalism, US policy and Asian security

Yet the canonical writings of the cult's leader, Li. Hongzhi, are imbued with a sense of ethnocentric conservatism, with diatribes against homosexuality, feminism and modern fashions.

M Goldman, From comrade to citizen: the struggle for political rights in China

In addition to its exercises, the Falungong also advocated "truthfulness, benevolence, and forbearance" and comdemned drinking, smoking, and homosexuality.

N Porter, Falun Gong in the United States: An Ethnographic Study

I think that Li Hongzhi's teachings are generally morally sound (although that I'm not convinced that some of the things he says are immoral actually are, such as homosexuality, rock music, abortion, and so forth)...Bad deeds include, but not limited to: murder, homosexuality, and drug abuse

R Munro, Judicial Psychiatry in China and its Political Abuses

Possible examples of the latter include the sect’s underlying hostility towards homosexuality and its belief, as taught by Master Li Hongzhi, that human intelligence and civilization were originally brought to planet Earth by aliens from outer space.

Strategic Comments, China's battle with Falun Gong - The party's weaknesses exposed

Li's teachings rail against feminism, homosexuality, popular music and unconventional dress styles.

--PCPP (talk) 11:53, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Great. I absolutely agree that this is how it should be presented on wikipedia: it's a passing comment, along with a lot of other moralistic beliefs. Simple. That doesn't mean having a portion of the article dedicated to it. (by the way, I'm still rubbing my eyes: the first time PCPP has ever done any real research to back up his POV!) --Asdfg12345 14:25, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't see the terrible significance as claimed for this controversy. Sure it's 'controversial'. Falungong is a controversy magnet, and there are things like this happening all the time: this award is given, that one not given, this parade they are allowed to march in, that one not, this protest they cannot attend, that one they get kicked out of for being 'too political', and so on and so on. Recently there has been a controversy about a fine given to a Falungong follower in Taiwan: [8][9][10][11]. Coverage includes the two major English language newspapers in Taiwan, China Post and Taipei Times. In terms of coverage, that's more significant than a LGBT community publication that arguably has an ax to grind against conservative and moralistic religious groups.

That said, I would still mention it. PCPP got it mostly right with his last edit, in my view. I'm just going to rewrite it a bit to make it flow more smoothly.

I felt it necessary to point out that on the scale of things, this is obviously not a significant controversy. Homunculus (duihua) 15:21, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

While you're at it, would you be interested in trimming the rest of the article? It's just a huge quotefarm glorifying Falun Gong. Colipon+(Talk) 15:44, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

To tell you the truth, I did not even read it carefully. I am more interested in the political aspects of the Falungong issue. But I suppose simply deleting stuff from the page should be easy, if that's all that's required. I will read the article and take you up on that challenge (later, I should add). Homunculus (duihua) 16:28, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

A cleanup would certainly be welcome. But Colipon is extraordinarily cynical and quite bitter about this topic, so I would take the "huge quotefarm glorifying Falun Gong" remark with a grain of salt. Cleaning up redundancy is always to be welcomed. --Asdfg12345 15:51, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Orphaned references in Teachings of Falun Gong

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Teachings of Falun Gong's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "Ownbyworld":

• From Li Hongzhi: David Ownby, "The Falun Gong in the New World," European Journal of East Asian Studies, September 2003, Vol. 2 Issue 2, p 306
• From Falun Gong: David Ownby, "The Falun Gong in the New World," European Journal of East Asian Studies, Sep2003, Vol. 2 Issue 2, p 306

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 04:41, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

About the Oklo reactor

I see in the "Controversies" section, talk about Gabon Republic's uranium ore. This refers to the Oklo nuclear reactor. There isn't much information about it on the net. It doesn't mean though that it doesn't exist.

see: Oklo or Natural_nuclear_fission_reactor Scientists call it a "natural" nuclear fission reactor. It is estimated to be 2 billion years old.

So it's not a controversy, just a difference in understanding: is it Nature who created a nuclear reactor, or is it a civilization of past ages.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Brighter hearts (talk • contribs) 15:57, 13 November 2010 (UTC) 

Indeed a difference in understanding. The Sound and the Fury (talk) 04:54, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

New additions - source?

Regarding today's edits[12], I found that they lack citations. the article already had a problem of relying excessively on primary sources, and therefore I suggest we not compound the problem. Moreover, the interpretation that the edit gives—that Falungong was initially polytheistic and them became monotheistic—seems novel to me. Can we get a source?—Zujine|talk 01:51, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Re: New additions - source?

I've modified the latest article on the lord of Buddhas and have removed the un-referenced part. I found no evidence indicating that Falun Gong ever changed it's stance from polytheistic to monotheistic. In fact, in FLG texts, these very words were never used, and the issue was seldom discussed. However, there is an umpteen evidence that FLG does believe in a creator. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shivankmehra (talk • contribs) 17:14, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Science and Medicine

There is a philosophy given on Western medicine being discouraged, since working through an illness is better for Karma, in the Rebirth section. Would this not be better suited in the Science section since Western medicine is based more on science than a Karmic or Spiritual system? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.70.170.48 (talk) 07:48, 3 April 2012 (UTC)