< Talk:Falun Gong Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitextInline

Revision as of 16:07, 20 March 2006 editOlaf Stephanos (talk | contribs)3,152 editsm →People Differ← Previous edit		Latest revision as of 12:47, 20 November 2024 edit undoGonnym (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Template editors222,872 edits →Starting over, take Four hundred or so: clean upTag: AWB
Line 1:		Line 1:
	{{controversial}}		{{Calm}}
	{| class="messagebox standard-talk"		{| class="messagebox standard-talk"
	|]		|]
	|'''WIKIPEDIA IS NOT A FALUN GONG DISCUSSION FORUM! Please, add new messages pertaining to editing the FLG article at the bottom of this page'''		|'''WIKIPEDIA IS NOT A FALUN GONG DISCUSSION FORUM! Please, add new messages pertaining to editing the FLG article at the bottom of this page.'''
	|}		|}
			<font colour=red>It is suggested that new readers of this "talk page" read the archived discussions below. It is likely that an issue of concern has already been discussed. As a result, a would-be poster can save the Wikipedian community time and effort spent on otherwise rehashing an issue if this responsbility is undertaken. '''Please remember that this isn't the place to vent our spleens in condemnation or gush praise for Falun Gong itself as much as it is to comment on the actual article content'''. We don't want a puff piece for Falun Gong or ], neither do we want to ]ise them. If we have an objectively neutral, factual article one hopes the truth will speak for itself, however we may subjectively perceive it. </font>
			==Untitled==
	<font colour=red>It is suggested that new readers of this "talk page" read the archived discussion below. It is likely that an issue of concern has already been discussed. As a result, a would-be poster can save the Wikipedian community time and effort spent on otherwise rehashing an issue if this responsbility is undertaken. '''Please remember that this isn't the place to vent our spleens in condemnation or gush praise for Falun Gong itself as much as it is to comment on the actual article content'''. We don't want a puff piece for Falun Gong or ], neither do we want to ]ise them. If we have an objectively neutral, factual article one hopes the truth will speak for itself, however we may subjectively perceive it. </font>
	Archived discussion:		Archived discussion:
	*], ] ] - ] ]		*], 1 April 2003 - 29 May 2005
	*], 29 May 2005 to 30 July 2005		*], 29 May 2005 to 30 July 2005
	*], 31 July 2005 to 20 January 2006		*], 31 July 2005 to 20 January 2006
	*], 21 January 2006 to 2 March 2006		*], 21 January 2006 to 2 March 2006
			*], 3 March 2006 to 21 March 2006
			*], 22 March 2006 to 10 April 2006
			*], 10 April 2006 to 25 April 2006
			*], 25 April 2006 to 26 May 2006
			==Starting over, take Four hundred or so==
	== Recent edits ==
			All previous discussions have been archived. Shall we start by looking at the article bit by bit?
			Does anybody have suggestions to improve the opening paragraphs of the article, the ones that appear above the Table of Contents? ] 04:46, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
	There have been a lot of recent small edits that have introduced a lot of pro-FLG info. Most of it is OK by me, but the removal of older blocks of text and replacing them with copy that makes assertions of opinion on Misplaced Pages's behalf are going to be removed. Any assertions of opinions about FLG's effectiveness or spiritual superiority have to be ascribed to Li or FLG, not to the prose of the article. If it keeps up, I'll have to tag the article with an ] sticker until I can undo the damage. --] 14:25, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
			----
			'''Falun Gong''' ({{lang-zh|t=]]] |s=法轮功 |p=Fǎlún Gōng}}; literally "Practice of the Wheel of Law") is also known as '''Falun Dafa''' ({{lang-zh|t=&#27861;&#36650;&#22823;&#27861; |s=&#27861;&#36718;&#22823;&#27861; |p=F&#462;lún dàf&#462;}}; lit. "Great Law of the Wheel of Law") is a system of mind and body cultivation introduced by ] in 1992. Central to Falun Gong are the teachings of "Truthfulness, Compassion and Forbearance" and five sets of ] exercises (, and one ).)
			Falun Gong has been the focus of international controversy since the government of the ] began a nationwide suppression of Falun Gong on July 20, 1999 for its illegal activities. The Falun Gong came to the attention of the Chinese government when 10,000 practitioners protested peaceful at ] the compound of Chinese top leaders on April 25, 1999.
	It is requested most humbly that the article be reverted to the one on " 2:31 2 March, 2006 "... I had been working on re-structuring the article on the whole. As of now I am spending more time studying the teachings of Falun Dafa. I am putting in a lot of effort to ensure accuracy and comleteness. Kindly allow me a few days time before such drastic changes are made. It is requested that I may please be be given a chances to complete the re-structuring and then the article reverted if majority opinion is that it should be... I am putting in a lot of effort and time in the direction and I hope you will grant me time to complete my changes. As of now, kindly donot consider it a finished work. Thanking You.
	] 15:28, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
			After the crackdown, the number of Falun Gong practitioners in China was estimated by the government at 2.1 million . The number of practitioners claimed by Falun Gong is much larger, with 100 million followers worldwide including over 70 million in China.
	:Greetings. As I said, most of the changes were interesting and helpful, especially the awards and commendations sections, but the informative body of the text that was removed was worked out over a long period of time by a ] of people editing this article, and its removal without discussion will continue to be reverted. Please see the archived talk for this article. Everyone sees FLG with different eyes: the CCP sees it as an evil cult, traditionalists see them as a loopy "new religion" and FLG followers see Li as the ] of mankind. Misplaced Pages should not espouse any of these POVs, rather we have to simply report them dispassionately, without ] or advertising copy; see ]. Direct ] and "How-to" manuals for and about FLG don't really have a place in an ] article. No one "owns" WP articles, and as ] and I were discussing before, every point should be considered with such a long, controversial subject if the article isn't going to simply be reverted. As the script on every edit page says: '''Please note: If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly or redistributed by others, do not submit it.''' --] 17:07, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
			----
			:Well, it seems pretty good to me. Neutral, brief, and in line with other articles of a similar nature on WP. '''We''' shouldn't call FLG a "cult" (as has happened) nor call Li Hongzhi a living god in the intro, (as has happened with only the slightest exaggeration on my part). --] 18:02, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
			:*I just notice that the intro above is not the sameone on the article. Let's discuss the existing version instead. --] 18:16, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
	We must remember that Falun Gong is practiced by well over 100 milion practitioners world over . We cant casually call it " controversial qigong"- infact they are the majority and without argument the most popular system of qigong... we discuss the controversies in a section - the reader decides if it is controversial - we dont beat things into people's heads.
			:::That's because dilip, ONCE AGAIN, made changes before there was agreement. I'm getting fucking sick and tired of it. ] 18:27, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
	Not everyone agrees it is "controversial qigong" there are many Buddhist monks practicing Falun Gong..atleast a 100 million qigong practitioners wont agree with that... We must also understand that we are talking about a cultivation way and we must respect the fact that we are talking about faith. We cant casually talk about things - for instance tainmu is not said to be " in the pineal gland" but to be of material existance in other dimensions. I refer you to the lecture 2 of falun dafa (audio/ video lectures on falundafa website)
			:::I've just changed it back to what is in the article. ] 18:36, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
			::: I am sorry if I did something wrong I was trying to introduce the New York times figure. which was actually present in "the article". I wonder which is "the article" you are referring to.Anyway, Covenant, I leave it to you to decide wether saying Falun Gong was banned for illegal activities is correct or not and also wether to include the New York Times figure.] 19:17, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
	Buddhism talks about 49 levels of hell, Deva Mara, ghosts and spirits, or evil demons... can you start an article on Buddhist Beliefs saying... and it is not the hollywood concept of demons shayamuni talks about... a lot of context goes behind it.... The Ancient Gnostic Bible, "Pistis Sophia" says :
			::::Should it not be ''Falun Gong, also known as Falun Dafa, is...'' for proper grammar? ] 18:31, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
	Bartholomew said: “A man who hath intercourse with a male, what is his vengeance?”
			::::Yes. ] 18:36, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
			:::::Yes, that is correct. It is easy enough to change the existing version to the one above. What Dilip and other "pro-FLG" editors have consistently demonstrated IMO is an agenda regarding the uncritical promotion of FLG, as well converting as many other editors to their religion as possible. Until that agenda can be laid aside, their credibility for the purposes of an ] article (as opposed to a simple advertisement) is compromised, as far as I am concerned. --] 18:37, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
			FACTS are what I want in the article neither my opinion nor anybody else's. Is inclusion of the NY Times figure promoting Falun Gong? I dont understand. Please point out which non-factual/unsourced material I have tried to add . Thankyou.
	Jesus said: “The measure of the man who hath intercourse with males and of the man with whom he lieth, is the same as that of the blasphemer.
			] 19:21, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
			:Sorry for not being clear. "The article," when I use it in this context, is the first three paragraphs of the main Falun Gong article attached to this talk page. Use of NY Times figures is an appropriate, verifiable source, and seems to fit in with the rest of the last paragraph. I'll address the legallity/illegality issue further down this page in it's own section. ] 20:52, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
	“When then the time is completed through the sphere, the receivers of Yaldabaōth come after their soul, and he with his forty-and-nine demons taketh vengeance on it eleven years.
			===Suggestions for edits===
			Personally I'd prefer to see the second sentence of the second article say "alleged illegal activities." I'm not familiar with Chinese legal systems, but based on US perceptions one is presumed innocent until proven guilty. Since Falun Gong hasn't been put on trial, it all seems to be allegations at this point. ] 04:46, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
	“Thereafter they carry it to the fire-rivers and seething pitch-seas, which are full of demons with pigs’ faces. They eat into them and take vengeance on them in the fire-rivers another eleven years.
			Oh, and the last sentence of that same paragraph should read "peacefully" rather than "peaceful." Simple grammar. I'll leave it to others to debate the claims. ] 04:48, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
	“Thereafter they carry them into the outer darkness until the day of judgment when the great darkness is judged; and then they will be dissolved and destroyed."
			And remember, our comments should address only the article and NOT other editors motivations or beliefs or recent behaviour. ] 04:51, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
	How much sense would it make to discuss this section in detail in an encyclopaedia article on Gnosticism?
			:*Ok, I am ready to move forward too. The term “illegal activities” has been there for a while and editors from both sides seem to have no problem with it. So I say it should stay. What do you think? --] 07:07, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
			::I'm good either way. ] 07:23, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
	The gnostics, tantrism, hinduism and several other traditions talk about tianmu. for instance the gnostics say that the materially existing higher dimensions can be percieved through the faculty of the third eye. We dont see an article on hinduism or buddhism
	starting with so and so says there is a third eye in the pineal gland!
			"Falun Gong has been the focus of international controversy since the government of the People's Republic of China began a nationwide suppression of Falun Gong on July 20, 1999 for its illegal activities."
			Which illegal activities? I don't understand. All I have heard is the propaganda that CCP used to turn the chinese people agains Falun Gong. Here illegal activities should be removed. ] 08:09, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
	If we chose to disuss something on beliefs regarding extra terrestrials, what excuse is there not to discuss this paragraph
			Also, as I know it, Falun Gong actually was encouraged by the government before the persecuton. They invited Teacher Li to hold sessions etc. But after the number of practitioner grew to above 100 million, Jiang Zemin got jeaoulous because Falun Gong had more members then the CCP has, and made it illegal..starting the persecution. ] 08:20, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
	“If there were such an instrument through which we could expand and see the level at which all atomic elements or molecular elements could manifest in their entirety, or if this scene were observed, you would reach beyond this dimension and see the real scenes existing in other dimensions” –Zhuan Falun
			:So you acknowledge that it is illegal. This nullifies your first comment. Any other suggestions for edits? I'll give it another 16 hours, then we'll move on. ] 08:30, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
	and its striking similarity to what one of the fore-most scientists suggests might serve as an explanation for quantum behaviour
			Im sorry you misunderstood me, I didn't acknowledge that the movement itself does illegal activites. Rather that the CCP banned it in China, that means persecuting it. The movement itself has never been doing anything illegal, that would go against the principle of Kindness/Compassion. As it looks now, it looks like Falun Gong did illegal activities and then got banned, but that is completely wrong. Falun Gong was "banned" because of other reasons, it didnt do anything illegal. ] 09:27, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
			We dont have to speculate wether its "illegal" or not. The earlier version didnt say "illegal". Neither was the term "illegal" agreed upon in any talk page discussion. I dont think there is any need to spend 16 hours on that. Please see the intro. ( Changes: Mentions there is a supression - doesnt speculate wehter it is for "illegal" or "legal" activities. Introduced New York Times figure. (70 million) ) . Let us move on to deciding the proper subsections and the intro paragraphs. ] 12:35, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
	“…Thus (as is indeed shown by a more careful consideration of the Mathematical form of the quantum Laws involved here) each electron (elementary particle) acts as if it were a projection of a higher dimensional reality”- David Bohm, In Wholeness and Implicate order.
			:*These illegal activities should be spell out. I propose to add this sentence to the first paragraph: in the core of the Falun Gong belief system is a belief that the morally corrupt humankind is facing annihilation, only Master Li and his Falun Dafa can save the world. --] 18:01, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
			:::'''IF''' that is a factual statement, I have no problem with it being included. Would others care to comment on this proposed addition? ] 18:46, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
			This statement sums up the core beliefs of the Falun Gong, it should be included. --] 03:17, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
	The word demon is used in the sense - a being removed from the nature of the cosmos - zen shan ren.... For practitioners there is much higher meaning to this...A LOT of explanation must go into these terms and I am not joking... kindly go through the Falun Dafa teachings.... We are not just putting things out of context but what we are doing is out-right distortion and we dont even remotely suspect the extent to which we are doing it.
	] 17:49, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
			==Direct quotes from Li's biography & Miborovsky protecting the page==
			Sorry, I promised to devote more time to Misplaced Pages, but it hasn't worked out so far. I'm working and trying to finish some my studies at the same time. There's one issue I've requested repeatedly: I asked Samuel Luo to provide direct quotes from Li's biography, so that we can put them into quotation marks. He has not replied.
	When you say it is "based on the religous belief of Li Hongzhi".... let me ask you - how do we know it is so? 100 million differ.... How do you know it is not handed down? ... We say it was first taught in 1992 by Li Hongzhi. Anything else is assumption and Distortion. {{unsigned|User:Dilip rajeev}}
			Another thing I find peculiar is that Miborovsky has locked the page, even though he has been involved in editing the article in the past, and he is by no means impartial. I don't know whether this conforms to Misplaced Pages policies. Shouldn't we always ask for an outsider?
	:Well, the 100 million number is only one claim. There can be an argument made that more people do some form of ] or even ] everyday, but we can't really know for sure. And of course FLG is controversial, just ask the current Chinese govt.! We don't say that controversy is justified, we are saying that it exists, and it does exist, there is a lot of evidence of controversy in our external links section if nothing else. Many, many people take exception to Li Hongzhi's public statements. As I've mentioned before, even the popular American television show ] had its main character call FLG practitioners "weirdos". I have studied FLG, Buddhism, Taoism, Christianity, etc. and Li's claims that his teachings are superior to the religious teachings of others are typical of claims made by religious leaders trying to win converts, and place his movement firmly in the religious arena. The language of Li's public lectures, and his claims of spiritual supremacy for himself in his lectures and publications is blatantly religious. How do we know that it is handed down? Li doesn't name his teachers. Misplaced Pages cannot say or even imply that Li has any spiritual authority beyond his own group, and the article must stay scrupulously neutral. To discuss disputed points, we should list them numerically and go over them one by one. Even if we don't agree, perhaps we may find some language to report things that we can agree on. --] 18:05, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
			---] 11:56, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
			Welcome back, Olaf. Yeah, even when locking the page. why lock a page he prefers?
	from a dialectical perspective, instead of saying controversial system of qi-gong why not say well acclaimed- as it has the greatest number of practitioners and has recieved around a thousand awards from over the world... far greater than any other system of qi gong has...several renowned qi-gong experts have spoken in praise of Falun Gong:
			If we can look at the history ,
			(cur) (last) 00:14, 25 May 2006 Miborovsky m (Protected Falun Gong: ok that's it, apparently everyone insists on being revert-happy )
			(cur) (last) 23:57, 24 May 2006 Yueyuen (anyone compares these two version can see that. You should talk with others before making big changes, I am not the only one complaining, check your mail box)
			(cur) (last) 23:52, 24 May 2006 Fnhddzs (ok. but where is not neutral? nothing were simply deleted. If you see things not factual, please feel free to edit)
			:Fnhddzs: Please don't repeat that false claim. You and Dilip most certainly had deleted important material--the entire set of individual subsection summaries for all those subsections which were in the Criticism and controversy page. You have admitted as such in previous discussion and even offered to allow them to be put back, but now you are again making this false claim. --] 18:35, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
	... Master Da Liu. ...born 1906 in Kiangshu province, China and started learning TaiQi with several masters. In the early 1950´s he came to USA and he was the FIRST TaiQi teacher in America, he wrote several books about Ta Qi, meditation and I-Ging.
			We can notice the Miborovsky locked the page 17 minutes after the Yueyuen's version. It is clear that during 17 minutes I did not even want to revert the page. There was virtually no need to lock the page for the sake of stopping revert war. ] 15:54, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
	In the age of 95 Master Da Liu made following statement:
	"I had been teaching Taichi and studying various Qigong practices for more than 40 years when I started looking into Falun Dafa. I now tell all my students to practice Falun Dafa."
			:]. -- <font color="#FF0000">'''Миборовский'''</font> <sup>]|]|]|]|]|]!</sup> 16:31, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
	Shao, Xiaodong considered by the acedemic community to be one of the world's foremost "experts" on Qi Gong who was The academic counselor of therapeutic Qigong for China Qigong Science Research Society and China Human Body Science Society... is himself a Falun Dafa practitioner as according to him, Falun Gong is an "advanced cultivation Dafa (Great Way)"
			:I remember seeing that Miborovsky had posted something like a one hour warning before he locked the page, so I don't see what the problem is in terms of timing. To me, all revert wars are counter-productive regardless of which version happens to exist when the page is frozen. As to who has the authority to freeze a page...last time it was an administrator we never heard of, and this time it was Miborovsky. On multiple occassions I have posted a question to this group asking if there was support for asking for formal mediation. I understand that any one of us can request that action, but I don't want to request mediation on my own. We talk about abiding by Misplaced Pages rules, and I do my best to honor them, but one rule of Misplaced Pages ettiquette is constantly violated, which is that when an editor asks a question, she/he deserves to get an answer. Why is it that Fire Star has been the only other editor ever to respond to my proposal of seeking mediation? --] 18:26, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
			::Sorry. I guess I just keep hoping that if we keep at it, if we act like adults, we can do this. At the moment, however, I'm about ready to call in a babysitter/mediator. And Miborovsky (''did I get it right that time?'') was responding to a request I made to have the article locked again. ] 18:39, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
			::Covenant, In a sense you have already been acting as our unoffical mediator and I appreciate all your judicious efforts at reaching consensus. Under normal circumstances your efforts would work. But I am convinced...and I don't want to make this sound like a personal attack...that some of the Falun Gong practitioner/editors on this board will never accept a reasonable reporting of critical views of the Falun Gong no matter how much discussion we have, or how many changes we agree to in terms of use of sourced material, etc. Keep in mind, Li makes standing up for his Dafa a condition for salvation for his disciples. --] 18:50, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
	... My point is we dont have to label falun gong "controverial". We are discussing the controversies and people can judge for themselves. Keep the article objective. An encyclopaedia article is not a place ot go over disputed quotes "on by "one" and ignore the other intricate and profound teachings. It is IMPOSSIBLE to bring into picture all the context behinnd even one quote- disputed or otherwise.
			:::This is similar to problems we have with articles on such subjective subjects, though. Especially such a well publicized one. If you look through the page histories of articles like ] and ] you'll see similar editing patterns, if not on such a large scale. The Suma Ching Hai article is interesting because she makes almost exactly the same claims about the system she teaches that Li Hongzhi does about his, as well as her insistence that her followers can only progress with her personal intervention, again very like Li. --] 04:11, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
	An article on chritianity wouldnt keep emphasisng the controversies surrounding the church and list one by one each disputed "quote" from the bible.. we must respect faith.... the article must give an over-all unbiased view on the the practice. Not talking about whether it is Li Hiongzi's religious belief or otherwise. We are making it very clear, that it was introduced by Li Hongzhi... on the otherhand, authoritatively emphasizing it is based on "Li Hongzhi's religious beliefs" is putting in personal notions into the article.
			::::In other words, don't give, have patience, and eventually we'll get there? I'll try to keep that in mind. :-) ] 04:34, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
	] 18:28, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
			:::::Yes, exactly. You (and others) are doing fine work here. After coming back from my artificially imposed break I've had relatively little to do text-wise as you have all been doing a thorough job on the article, IMO. The stuff I had prepared was already covered when I came back, but I've had a few talk page discussion with some other editors here about how I see such emotional issues. People feel very personally about their schools and teachers. Keeping cool heads and always leading discussion back to the issues is the way forward. --] 16:13, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
			:*Olaf, I do not remember you asking for Li’s direct quote. Anyway these quotes are provided in the origin section. --] 04:32, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
			::They are not direct quotes. Please write here the entire chapters from which they are taken, preferably in English. I don't have the biograpy at my disposal, so maybe you could write all of it to see if there's anything else we could include. Like the names of Li's masters - I heard they're in there, too. Otherwise, please provide a link so that we can check the accuracy of the comments on his biography. --] 06:35, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
	100 million, infact, is is a 1998 estimate.. Some recent estimates put the number well over 200 million...
			:*You are right, I paraphrased his claims, just check again. Like I pointed out before it was published as an appendix in all Chinese Zhuan Falun published before 1999. I don’t have the time to translate his statements. Here is an article which translated many of his statements. It is funny that you should ask me for it, since you are Li's disciple. --] 07:07, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
	This statement is also Inaccurate :
	"exercises".."said by them to develop high levels" .... Never is it said in any of the Falun Gong books that exercises are to develop "gong"... Refer the Lecture Videos... to understand the purpose of the exercises...
			What we are doing is working. By protecting the article, changes can be made only after discussion and agreement. I don't think we need a formal mediator now, ]is doing a pretty good job. --] 04:44, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
	:Any religion/religious movement/qigong/whatever that has controversies surrounding it is controversial. Falun Gong does. As Falun Gong people are wont to attack Christianity, here are four full articles that are entirely about controversies about the church and the bible.
	#]
	#]
	#]
	#]
	:-- <font color="#FF0000">'''Миборовский'''</font> <sup>]|]|]|]|]|]!</sup> 23:42, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
			== Structure and Outline ==
	::We can't have this become an ad for FLG. As I've mentioned before, there are many well meaning, enthisastic FLG followers who would have the article read "FLG is universally loved by everyone and ''Master'' Li is the saviour of mankind!" but that just isn't going to happen, I'm afraid. We do have to discuss every point, that is the way consensus for this kind of article works. We can report the awards and acclamations, but we also have to report the criticisms and controversy, we will not pretend they don't exist. It isn't about respect, much more important to Misplaced Pages are the the interests of '''neutrality''', many people revere Li and FLG, seeing them as beneficial to health and of high moral standards, many other people see them as racist, manipulative lunatics with pretensions to a xenophobic theocracy. We have to mention both. --] 13:57, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
			We need to move fast with the edits and scrutinize the data on the subpages.
			*1. Origins
	== Falun Dafa and Qigong ==
			*2. Falun Gong teachings
			*:{{main|Falun Gong teachings}}
			*:summary
			*3. Controversies about the teachings of Falun Gong
			*:{{main|Controversies about the teachings of Falun Gong}}
			*:summary
			*4. Falun Gong Awards and their questionable importance
			*:{{main|Falun Gong Awards and their questionable importance}}
			*:summary
			*5. Falun Gong Organization
			*6. Chinese Government's "crackdown"
			*:{{main|Chinese Government's (persecution) of Falun Gong}}
			*:summary
			*7. Falun Gong outside of China
			*:{{main|Falun Gong outside of China}}
			*:summary
			*8. References
			*9. External links
			:*9.1 Falun Gong sites
			:*9.2 Critical sites
			:*9.3 Other sites
	Seems that in the above articles some people seem to claim all qigong and qigong practitioners as some how belonging to Falun Dafa.... which they do not. That might be why numbers are so inflated. In the words of the great detective Joe Friday... "Just the facts... m'am".] 19:56, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
			This is what was, suggested by covenantD last time. I had introduced a section called Theoretical and epistemological studies. I think the organizational aspects ( The way falun gong is organized ) also fits under the sub-heading "Theoretic and Epistemological studies on Falun Gong". "Origins" is now called history and Timeline. ( To describe better the content in the sub-page).
	== Neutrality==
			] 12:44, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
	Fire Star, It is hoped that we all will refrain from pouring in our own POV into the article. The earlier edition was accepted, in majority opinion, to be more un-biased and neutral and as much as it was agreed upon to be a better base. I was watching the edits you added - Facts cannot and must not be presented in a manner that distorts the the context behind it. Subjective interpolation must be avoided. I appreciate the neutrality you have shown throughout and it is hoped that you will continue doing so.
	:It was? There is a long history here of anti- and pro-FLG people coming by and doing drive by edits to rewrite the article either extremely negatively or positively. Neither is acceptable. I'd say it is about 50-50. To insist that there is no controversy over FLG when there most certainly is much documentation of such seems like an attempt at advertising. See ]. And to say that I am demonstratiing a POV without providing evidence goes against our ] policy. As I've mentioned before (and it was rejected by Dilip rajeev), I'm happy to work with anyone; list your concerns, and we'll address them one by one. --] 14:38, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
	I dont think Fire star has intentionally introduced his POV into the article. I must emphasize that he has maintained an objective stand-point and that it is to be appreciated. I do request him to put time into studying Falun Gong teachings(I am doing the same) so that accuracy is not sacrificied in the name of verbal/surface neutrality-- I have this concern regarding certain paragraphs. Further, I understand that I hadnt discussed/justified the changed I had made, in detail, in the talk section...
			And here are the summaries I suggested:
	] 15:02, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
			'''History and Timeline'''
			Main article: Falun_Gong,_History_and_Timeline
	== Discussing Requested Changes ==
	1.
	In my opinion,
	"is a controversial system of qigong based on the religious beliefs of its founder".
	is better changed to "is a system of qigong introduced by Li Hongzhi..."
			Falun Gong, also known as Fălún Dàfă (法轮大法), was introduced to the public by Li Hongzhi on May 13, 1992, in Changchun, China. Invited by Qigong organizations from each area, during the period from 1992 to the end of 1994, Mr. Li traveled to almost all major Chinese cities to teach the practice. In the next few years Falun Gong quickly grew in popularity around the world. As of now, the practitioners are present in more than 80 countries and the books have been translated to over 40 languages.
	for these reasons:
	1. We dont have to make assumptions regarding wether the system is based on "the religious beliefs" of Li Hongzhi or not. The term "based on religious beliefs of" is a vague term with so many connotations behind it. Further its a POV.
			'''Beliefs and teachings'''
	---> "introduced by Li Hongzhi" makes it clear that it was "introduced by Li Hongzhi".
			Main article: Falun Gong teachings
	2. Misplaced Pages doesnt have to introduce the system as " a controversial system". We are clearly discussing the controversies in the later sections of the article. Should Falun gong be introduced to the un-informed reader as a "controversial" system? Shouldnt we be discussing the controversies, objectively, rather than emphatically declare Falun gong to be "a controversial system" to the reader? We must be careful about it and remember that even renowned masters of qi-gong arts like Master Da Liu (who introduced tai-chi to America ) differ on the issue:
			Central to Falun Dafa are the five meditative exercises and the teachings known in traditional Chinese culture as the "Fa" (Dharma), or "Dharma and principles" – that are set forth in the book Zhuan Falun. Falun Gong teaches that what it calls the "Buddha Law" can be summarized in three words – Zhen 真, Shan 善 and Ren 忍, which translate approximately as 'truthfulness, benevolence (or compassion), and forbearance'. The process of cultivation is thought of to be one in which the practitioner assimilates himself or herself to Zhen 真, Shan 善 and Ren 忍.
	At the age of 95 Master Da Liu made following statement: "I had been teaching Taichi and studying various Qigong practices for more than 40 years when I started looking into Falun Dafa. I now tell all my students to practice Falun Dafa.
			The teachings and principles of Falun Gong are captured in two main books written by Li Hongzhi: Falun Gong ( Law Wheel Qi Gong) and Zhuan Falun (Turning the Law Wheel). Falun Gong is an introductory book that discusses qigong, introduces the principles and provides illustrations and explanations of the exercises.
	:Thank you for your kind words. I'm positive we can find language that we are all happy with if we consider these things together.
			'''Research into health benefits of Falun Gong'''
	:How about:
			Main article: ]
			Research conducted by Quan Zhen Li, Richard Johnson, et al says "Drastic system-level changes of gene expression were detected in PMNs of Falun Gong practitioners, while little changes were detected among non-practitioners..." and that genes among the practitioners manifest links to PMN functions in anti-viral immunity, apoptotic property and possibly longevity based upon a much more economical balance of protein synthesis and degradation. Surveys conducted on practitioners show improvements in health, the most extensive being a Falun Gong health survey conducted on 12,731 Beijing practitioners in 1998.
	*1."is a system of qigong introduced by Li Hongzhi..." then followed by "and has generated some controversy, particularly in regards to the Chinese govt."
			'''Chinese Government's Persecution of Falun Gong'''
	*2. The controversy is one of the most notable features of FLG's public profile for most people. More people practise orthodox Buddhism, but you don't hear about them as much because they aren't being persecuted (as much) by the CCP. My compromise suggestion would be to mention the controversial nature of FLG's relationship with China and other religions later in the introduction.
			Main article: Persecution of Falun Gong
	:FLG isn't being singled out, if you look at the ], or ] or ] pages (and hundreds of others) you'll see that there is an awful lot of controversy surrounding all of these subjects. What I mean is that we don't mean it in a pejorative sense, we aren't taking exception to FLG, but we are reporting that others do. Think of it more as one more bland fact, along with the list commendations and human rights organisations involved and religious issues, about a huge international phenomenon. Cheers, --] 19:24, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
			In July 1999, the Chinese government started a nation-wide supression of Falun Gong.The United States Congress Resoution 188 states:
	Certainly. I accept your suggestion.... but arent we starting the very next paragraph... with "The government of the People's Republic of China began a nation-wide suppression of Falun Gong on July 20, 1999.".. so would it be re-dundant? just some thoughts... I will think about how to phrase the statement well. I mean - my idea of a good article is one in which we present the fact as such and let people decide... there should be good flow and and little redundancy. We must be able to get ideas across without beating it into the reader's head. The fact that the very next paragraph talks about the falun gong being supressed in China brings the central controversy into picture.
			<blockquote>
	minimal edit:
			"Falun Gong is a peaceful and nonviolent form of personal belief and practice with millions of adherents in the People's Republic of China and elsewhere."
	"an empty yet conscious state of mind concept taken from Taoism" has been changed to "A taoist Term for an Empty yet conscious state of Mind" which i think is a better way of phrasing the sentence.
			</blockquote>
			<blockquote>
			"the Government of the People's Republic of China has forbidden Falun Gong practitioners to practice their beliefs, and has systematically attempted to eradicate the practice and those who follow it"
			</blockquote>
			<blockquote>
			Jiang Zemin's regime has created notorious government `610' offices throughout the People's Republic of China with the special task of overseeing the persecution of Falun Gong members through organized brainwashing, torture, and murder;
			</blockquote>
			<blockquote>
			"official measures have been taken to conceal all atrocities, such as the immediate cremation of victims, the blocking of autopsies, and the false labeling of deaths as from suicide or natural causes."
			</blockquote>
			According to the Falun Dafa Information Center (FDI), there are, as of March 12, 2006, 2,840 verified cases of Falun Gong practitioners dying in police and government custody in mainland China, giving rise to allegations of torture and police brutality. The report also alleges that hundreds of thousands of Falun Gong practitioners have been detained, with more than 100,000 sentenced to forced-labor camps. Moreover, there are more than 30,000 documented cases of persecution.
			'''Theoretical and Epistemological Studies'''
	== changes to morality section==
			Main article: Theoretical and Epistemological studies on Falun Gong
	---------
	In the morality section:
	Title "Morality" changed to "Emphasis on Good Moral Nature" -- Which is more descriptive...
	Falun gong doesnt have any "set of moral standards" for practitioners:
			The content of Li Hongzhi's books include commentaries on questions that have been raised in China's qigong community. Falun Gong's teachings tap into a wide array of phenomena and cultural heritage that has been debated for ages. It is noteworthy that the definitions of many terms usually differ somewhat from Buddhist and Daoist traditions.
	"Of course, if we want to lose ordinary people’s different desires and meet the standard for a true cultivator, and if we want to achieve that instantly, then it’s not easy. You have to do it gradually. You hear what I say, “do it gradually,” and you say “Teacher told me to do it gradually, so I’ll just take my time.” But that’s not right! You have to be strict with yourself, but we do let you improve gradually. If you achieved it instantly today, you’d be a Buddha today, and
	that’s just not realistic." -Zhuan Falun
	"If you are always
	compassionate and friendly to others, if you always consider other people when you do
	things, and whenever you have issues with other people you first think about whether
	they can take it or whether it will cause them harm, then you won’t have any problem.
	So, when you cultivate you should follow high and even higher standards. "
	-Zhuan Falun
			'''Criticism and Controversies'''
	"
	Li Hongzhi claims that according to Buddhism( The Diamond Sutra, this is the “Dharma Ending Period” and that “Nobody should blame others for it, as everyone has added fuel to the flame.”
	"
	This sentence has absolutely has no meaning!!!
			Main article: Criticism and controversies about Falun Gong
	sentence, restructured, and "claims" changed to "points out"
			Criticism and controversies about Falun Gong abound. These include, for example, difference between Falun Gong and Qi Gong, controversies on Li as a savior or supernatural entity, claims about preventing catastrophes and cosmic explosions, controversies on Fa-rectification, debatable significance of Falun Gong awards and recognitions, Falun Gong and sexual orientation, allegation of profiting from Falun Gong, controversies about cult and ethics.
	From the Diamond Sutra ( sect. 6 in the translation by A.F. Price and Wong Mou-lam).
			'''Falun Gong outside China'''
	The time following Buddha Shakyamuni's demise is divided into three periods:
	.... the Perfect Age of the Dharma, lasting 500 years, when the Buddha's teaching (usually meditation) was correctly practiced and Enlightenment often attained....the Dharma Semblance Age, lasting about 1,000 years, when a form of the teaching was practiced but Enlightenment seldom attained... and then the Dharma-Ending Age begins...
	-------------------------
	God!!! I found this while searching for material from Buddhist Scriptures to justify argument that this is the Dharma Ending Age.... It sent a shiver through my spine...
			Main article: Falun Gong outside China
			The persecution of Falun Gong practitioners has been regarded by most Western governments as a major international human rights issue. As of December 2005, 61 lawsuits have been filed in about 30 countries charging Jiang and several other senior officials with genocide, torture, and crimes against humanity for their roles in the treatment of Falun Gong in mainland China. (need citation) The Chinese government is accused by Falun Gong and many human rights groups of violating the United Nations Convention Against Torture (UNCAT), also ratified by China.
	'''"Alas! In the evil time '''
			Falun Gong practitioners are often seen on the streets in major metropolitan areas, directly informing the public of the pesecution of practitioners in China.
	'''Of the Dharma-Ending Age,'''
	'''Living beings' blessings are slight,'''
			--------------------
	'''It is difficult to train them.'''
	'''Far indeed from the sages of the past!'''
	'''Their deviant views are deep.'''
	'''Demons are strong, the Dharma is weak;'''
	'''Many are the wrongs and injuries.'''
	'''Hearing the door of the Thus Come One's sudden teaching,'''
	'''They hate not destroying it as they would smash a tile.'''
	'''The doing is in the mind;'''
	'''The body suffers the calamities.'''
	'''There's no need for unjust accusations that shift the blame to others.'''
	'''If you don't wish to invite the karma of the unintermittent ,'''
	'''Do not slander the Thus Come One's Proper Wheel of Dharma. "'''
	'''-Gautama Buddha'''
	'''(SE 62-63)'''
	http://www.drba.org/dharma/btts/9xxentrydetail.asp?wid=89'''
	paragraph after paragraph, Buddha Gautama's words in the sutra( given in the website above)seemed to be about Falun Dafa.. "shocking " is the only word I can say now... I will discuss the article later.. after I regain my composure!!!
	... if you go through the falun dafa texts ... you will see that the main reason why Falun Dafa practitioners spend a lot of time clarifying the truth about the situation in China is that they want to save people who have been 'poisoned' by the CCP's stories from bringing upon themselves terrible karma by having negative thoughts against the Dharma and slandering the Dharma... There is just too much to talk about... I guess I'll leave it at that..... study the books of Falun Dafa and read the Sutra.. you'll be shocked beyond words..
	{| class="messagebox standard-talk"
	|]
	|'''WIKIPEDIA IS NOT A FALUN GONG DISCUSSION FORUM! Please, add new messages pertaining to editing the FLG article at the bottom of this page'''
	|}
			Please suggest improvements/ changes to the summaries and also summaries for other sections . Remember factual accuracy is what we should strive to achieve. Where should the awards section go? We really dont want a huge section on the main page..and there isnt enough material to warrant a new page... what about the epistemological studies page? Can we put the awards section there?
			] 13:04, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
			===Suggestions===
			// Suggestions go here
	--------------------		--------------------
			==A Query on available research material==
	Fire Star, I think we have been knowingly sacrificing too much accuracy ... and deviating from the truth... by phrasing sentences like "Falun gong's CLAIMS of torture"... while the united nations, united states congress and many other international bodies agree on the issue...
			Hi. I've been following this webpage for a while since I believe Dilip and Omido posted on Asiafinest.com a while back about the immolation bit. I myself is a man of science. (being an resident MD in the US.) I am interested in these claims of healing illnesses by FLG practitioners and if they test up to the scrutiny of a scientific study. Science being a tool rather than a religion, just measures observable differences between 2 subgroup. The human body is quite unique in certain ways because it's known to have mental/bodily links which means with a better mindset you tend to do better with illness in general. So I'm not denying the benefits of mediation, exercise, and the well being one feels being in a group. I propose a study done between 2 subgroups of people both practicing qigong and one of them being FLG practitioners.)If anyone can provide me with links of these "claims" by these so called MDs, PhDs, and scholars, it will be most appreciated.
			] 17:32, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
			:Greetings. As far as Misplaced Pages is concerned, we have a policy of ]. It isn't up to us to prove or disprove FLG in any light, some of the discussion on this page notwithstanding. If those sorts of studies interest you, however, there are links to demonstrable results obtained by medical studies done of ] teachers and students listed at that page. --] 17:52, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
	.. we have been presenting Falun Gong's teachings in such a way that it terribly and intentionally distorts the context behind it...turth matters much more than surface neurality.. and we have to live upto our responsibity...
			Hi. :) ..You can find some sources on this page:
			http://en.wikipedia.org/Research_into_health_benefits_of_Falun_Gong
	The campaign of persecution has been... carried out by government officials and police at all levels, and has permeated every segment of society and every level of government in the People’s Republic of China."
	United States Congress
	(Resolution No. 188
	Unanimously Passed 420-0)
			The quote I wrote earlier was from:
	"Jiang’s horrific form of genocide is a terror that does not just destroy lives, but destroy faith… It is a terror that must be brought to justice."
			http://www.walkyourpathwell.net/wholeelephant/submolecularbiology.html
	Georges-Henri Beauthier
			A paper by Tongwen Wang, Ph.D., Molecular Biologist, American Cancer Society Scholar. He can be contacted at wangt@thewholeelephant.org . He must be able to provide you with details on studies conducted( or being conducted) in the field...
	Renowned Human Rights Attorney
			A research paper by Quan-Zhen Li(PhD), Richard Jhonson, et al. can be found here on.. details of people in the control group are also mentioned in the paper...
			http://pkg.dajiyuan.com/pkg/2005-04-08/genomic%20profiling.pdf
			] 17:55, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
			:*Plenty of practitioners in the US claiming that their serious illnesses have been miraculously cured by their Master and by practicing the falun gong. If you can examine one of these cases it might answer some of your question. --] 18:10, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
	"At least 43 psychiatric hospitals all over China are being used to detain and torture practitioners...We know some of the drugs the hospitals force on sane individuals in an attempt to destroy their will and spirit... we know of the widespread use of psychotropic drugs by ordinary police in jails, brainwashing centers, and labor camps."
	Abraham L. Halpern, M.D.
	Professor Emeritus of Psychiatry, New York
	Medical College; Former President of the
	American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law
			: The paper by Quan-Zhen Li is quite interesting but admittingly somewhat of a contraversial subject. I can see his bias though when he went thru in his historical background an almost advertisment-like cap of FLG. His paper is exactly what I was looking for in terms of methodology, background information, and conclusions though. He does not states to say anything truly contraversial except the use of FLG practitioner instead of another qigong group. Although he infers in his conclusion that it's probably qigong and not FLG exclusively that made these changes to the neutrophils. I would love to know if the "control" also do any specific exercise or mediation regiment or religious background as well. The improvement in immune system could be attributed to exercise, mediation, etc as previously stated. The study does leave many questions unanswered though.
	“The Communist Party must vanquish Falun Gong… How could it be possible that the Marxist theory we endorse and the materialism and atheism that we believe in can’t vanquish what Falun Gong propagates? If it were true, wouldn’t we become laughing stocks?”
	-From a letter written by the then President of China, Jiang Zemin to Senior Communist Party Officials on April 25 1999
			Addressing Tongwen Wang's article you gave me. I was disappointed by it personally. He wishes to drive in a new theory rather than to test it. As a scientist, you are taught to come up with a hypothesis and then with testing and reporting of those observation do you actually put out a theory. A lot of what he said about cancer dynamics is correct but he seems also to have tunnel vision. Which I will give examples of: "But if our body is the perfect product of natural selections, then how can we still have so many loopholes left in the system to allow so many different types of cancers to exist?" As per him, he think we're at our "perfect" state which most or almost all scientist, MD's will argue against. We are not perfect as by all these disease (not only cancer) that our modern medicine has to fight against dispite our "perfect" state. While the 2nd point/conclusion he reached I agree with. The third point he tries to make a social comparasion between biology and society which works in different ways. He might as well have been giving a lecture on social problems. That article I will leave as a ranting of a biochemist turn socialist.
	Also see the United Nations Report on the Persecution of Falun Gong...
			] 19:24, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
			== Dilip is still deleting key subsection summaries in his proposed outline ==
	Let us atleast not put these undisputed things as if to say falun gong practitioners are making up fancy tales of torture..
			I see that Dilip is still pushing for a main page structure which omits all the sub-section summaries and links in the Criticism page (which had previously been agreed to.) This would destroy any reasonable balance on the home page. No one is saying that there has to be a 50/50% split between the controversial topics and the non-controversial topics, but the net result cannot promote Falun Gong (eg: the health curing benefits and the awards section) at the expense of the controversies and criticism. As some of us have said repeatedly, the Dilip/Fndhzzs version amounts to blatant promotion of the Falun Gong. I actually did a word count of the frozen version of the article and found out that: it's total length is 8,292 words. Of that, 720 words, or 8.6% of the total are used for the existing sub-section summaries. We can even reduce the summaries further if we want, but under no circumstances will we ever reach a consensus on not having the critical subsections summarized separately on the home page.
	-----------------
			Concerning the Falun Gong awards section, it would fit nicely into the Falun Gong outside of China section.
	I have, in the light of discussions made eariler changed, made changes to the introduction - changing the text that declares falun gong's system of Qi Gong controversial... to a much more neutral one...
			Here's a sample of what how Criticism and controversies section can look:
	Statement Inaccurate... relation ship between chi karma and diseases discussed in the "Cultivation of Mind and Body" section... Exercises are not said to develod gong... purpose of the exercises also discussed in section "Cultivation of Mind and Body" ..
	"Falun Gong's ]-like practises are said by them to develop high levels of &#21151;, ''g&#333;ng'', which Falun Gong practitioners use to mean "high level energy" (this is an unconventional use of the word, which in ] means "merit" or "achievement" and by extension is part of compound terms describing a disciplined regimen.) Falun Gong adherents make the claim that ''g&#333;ng'' possesses healing properties, and that &#27683; '']'' (which means "breath") only suppresses or postpones illness. See also: ], ]."
			==Criticism and controversies about Falun Gong==
	Many occurances of "Li Claims".. most changed to "Li Hongzhi states"... "claims" has derogatory connotations. Refering to a person by the first name is not acceptable in western culture...
			Criticism and controversies about Falun Gong abound.
	----------------
	Fire Star,I wanted to discuss these two paragrahs with you:
			===Difference between Falun Gong and Qi Gong===
	"In 2002, Li claimed that after spreading Falun Gong for ten years....So it has to do with high-level beings as well. If this situation is to be turned around, it has to begin from high levels."
			{{Main article|Criticism and controversies about Falun Gong#Difference between Falun Gong and Qi Gong}}
			Critics of Falun Gong point out that while using established Qi Gong terms for cultivation practice, Li’s version applies new meanings to the traditional terms. Deng and Fang (2000) state that Falung Gong differs from all other Qi Gong practices “by rendering a drastically different interpretation of ‘gong’ (energy) and it’s causality.” In Falun Gong, a practitioner is able to accumulate De (德, dé, virtue) through his or her own cultivation efforts, but needs the direct intervention of the master in order to evolve the De into cultivation energy.
	Hundereds of such concepts are discussed in the lectures... why pick out a few sensational sounding ones and put it in lime-light? Moreover so much context goes into it... they are unequivocably distorting the meaning behind the teachings... |for instance what is meant by alien beings has been discussed in detail in another lecture...arent we ignoring the conext behind it completley.. very different from the hollywood concept....
	ANd They sound almost childish!!!!... Like saying :he said "..." and "...." and "..." see what they believe in....
			===Li as a savior or supernatural entity===
	The concept of pre-historic civilizations, tainmu etc has been touched upon in a neutral way in the next paragraph.... the material seems redundant and doesnt flow along with the text... AND WAS CLEARLY ADDED BY SOMEONE WITH A STRONG POV
			{{Main article|Criticism and controversies about Falun Gong#Li_as_a_savior_or_supernatural_entity}}
			Although Li has never directly said he is God, critics point out that he assumes the role of a divinity by virtue of his claimed supernatural powers. In addition to being the exclusive savior of mankind during this "Dharma ending period," Li promises his disciples that they themselves will become gods some day. He has numerous ''fashen'' (law bodies) which also exercise "great supernatural power," cure illnesses and know what the practitioners are thinking at all times.
	I am removing the two paragraphs... you may revert the changes if you think it requires further disussion....
	'''The discussed changes have been made...'''
			===Claims about preventing catastrophes and cosmic explosions ===
	:Hello everyone. I put them back, Li does say those things, unfortunately, and they are illustrative of the context which will interest outsiders about FLG's conceptual world. See the section on aliens at the ] article, for example. As for the word "claims" being derogatory, you have to read ]. For a blatant example; Li says there are aliens, yet he can't produce an alien for examination, hence Li's statements are a claim. There may indeed be aliens somewhere, but he doesn't have one, so we cannot know if he is correct or not in his assumptions, hence the word "claim." This is common Misplaced Pages usage for religious articles. --] 14:51, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
			{{Main article|Criticism and controversies about Falun Gong#Claims_about_preventing_catastrophes_and_cosmic_explosions}}
			Li's predictions of cosmic disasters and his claims to be able to prevent them are matters of some controversy. On several occasions Li has predicted cosmic explosions which have not happened. Some critics argue that Li borrowed these ideas from popular science fiction writers in the West, pointing out that such writings have been reported in Chinese media as “scientific facts.”
	Hmmm.. Friend, the I request you to please read through the texts of Falun Dafa... The Quote is by no means representative of Li Hongzhi or the beliefs of Falun Dafa. It is an intentional distortion. and those are not even quotes... but statements plucked out from here and there with a clear intent of defaming Falun Dafa... what about the context that goes behind.. and the required explanations. We must touch upon the concepts in a neutral manner and the next paragraph does that. I am not removing any existing information.
			===Fa-rectification: Li’s version of the apocalypse?===
			{{Main article|Criticism and controversies about Falun Gong#Fa-rectification: Li’s version of the apocalypse?}}
			Whether Li’s teaching that his Dafa (great law) is judging all sentient beings amounts to an apocalyptic prediction is a matter of some debate. Practitioners strongly reject the apocalyptic label, while commentators generally come to an opposite conclusion. Maria Chang (2004) writes:
	The statement regarding gong was removed as it is not correct. Falun Gongs books doesnt say so. The purpose of the exerxises is very different.... I am removing the incorrect statemnt on "gong"... simply because it is not true... I refer you to the video/audio lectures on the Falun Dafa Website..
			"Just as human civilizations had been destroyed in the past because of immorality.l.. Li is convinced that the moral decadence of our times is leading to another apocalypse. His writings and speeches are replete with references to the 'Dharma-ending period' of 'the apocalypse,' the 'Great Havoc,' and the 'end times' (''mojie''). With the end days approaching, Li has set about disseminating Falun Dafa so as 'to provide salvation to mankind….in this final period of the Last Havoc.'"
	-Dilip
			===Debatable significance of Falun Gong awards and recognitions===
	:And I am going to put it back. An instance of FLG's idiosyncratic use of the word gong is here: . Please do not continue to unilaterally revert text that has a long history in the article. --] 15:04, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
			{{Main article|Criticism and controversies about Falun Gong#Debatable significance of Falun Gong awards and recognitions}}
			There is some controversy about how meaningful Falun Gong’s many municipal awards and recognitions are and how they are used to promote the Falun Gong.
	Te very reference you gave me says:
			Falun Gong expert Patsy Rahn (2000), states they “are documents routinely obtained by groups from public officials in the US for public relations purposes” and may be used to mislead people in China into believing “that the American government supports Master Li and his Falun Gong practitioners.” Noah Porter (2003) argues that these awards are not always easy to get, citing one example from Tampa, Florida.
	" This is the principle for cultivating at high levels. Strictly speaking, the gong potency that determines one’s level isn’t developed through performing exercises but through xinxing cultivation. Improving xinxing is easier said than done. Cultivators must be able to put forth great effort, improve their enlightenment quality, bear hardships upon hardships, endure almost unendurable things, and so on. Why haven’t some people’s gong grown even though they have practiced for years? "
			===Falun Gong and sexual orientation===
	So tell me -is the statement accurate.? Allow me to edit it to improve accuracy. I am not replacing it.
			{{Main article|Criticism and controversies about Falun Gong#Falun Gong and homosexuality}}
			Li has made statements condemning ], describing a homosexual as having a "dark heart, turning demonic." However, homosexuals can practice Falun Gong if they "correct this bad behavior" . The teachings of Falun Gong are seen as ] by critics, while defenders of the Falun Gong dispute whether statements made by ]'s founder are fairly interpreted.
	"In religious cultivation in the past, Buddhists taught Emptiness—not thinking about
	anything, and entering the Gate of Emptiness. And Daoists taught Nothingness—having
	nothing, wanting nothing, and seeking nothing. Cultivators used to talk about, “Putting
	the mind on practicing, not putting the mind on getting gong.” So you cultivate in a state
	of nonaction and just focus on cultivating your character, then you’ll be making
	breakthroughs in your level, and you’ll definitely have whatever you should. If you can’t
	let go of something, isn’t that an attachment? Here we’re teaching such high-level Laws
	right at the outset, so of course the demands on your character are high. And that’s why
	you can’t come to learn the Law wanting to get something. "
	-Zhuan Falun
			===Allegation of profiting from Falun Gong===
	:The point is the use of the word ''gong'' itself, FLG's usage is unique. Traditional Chinese medicine, qigong or martial art all uses it the same way, always as part of a compound qualifying something else. FLG uses it a different way. That won't be acknowledged in FLG literature. Standard uses include:
			{{Main article|Criticism and controversies about Falun Gong#Making_money_from_Falun_Gong}}
			Some critics charge that Li hypocritically made money from the Falun Gong movement although Falun Gong practitioners said Li Hongzhi has not accepted donations from students of Falun Gong.
	功夫 gōng fu /skill/art/kung fu/labor/effort/
			==We need a paragraph or two==
	功绩 gōng jī /feat/
			Tomanada, we need a paragraph or two. It is alright if it runs half a page but please try to avoid sub-sections. Try to make it reasonably sized. I agree that the awards and recognitions can go under Falun Gong outside China.
			] 19:30, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
			:Dilip, we need a main page which summarizes the whole truth about the Falun Gong, which includes sub-section summaries from the criticism section. How can you possibly argue that there should be separate main page sections promoting the unproven healh-benefits of the Falun Gong, its awards and recognitions and a biased report on what you call the persecution, while the teachings on homosexuality, Li as god and savior, the Fa-rectification, and so forth are relegated to one overall-page summary. I know you don't like reporting the Master's teachings on Fa-rectification, homosexuality, mixed-race people, etc, but they are important. In fact, the Fa-rectification teaching is Li's most important teaching at this time...plus his claim that he is turning his practitioners into gods. Interesting that you would so srongly resist giving a promonent place to those teachings. But then again, the Master tells you not to talk about the Falun Gong to ordinary people at the higher levels, right? --] 19:44, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
			If you insist that we need to keep the subtitles for the criticism section, you may. But please try to keep it as short as possible. Keeping things both here and there would interfere with the edit process and inundate the need for sub-pages... Futher, it might keep readers from going through material in the sub-pages... please try to make sure it is proportional in size.. as other sections wont carry sub-titles.
	功课 gōng kè /classwork/
			] 20:04, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
			Tomananda, you state that his health-benefits are unproven, then what do you call all those critics that you use? Like Deng, Fang and Maria Hsia Chang, who are they? As I see it, they are nothing more than ordinary people saying their own opinions and understanding, these so called "critics" can't be used in your anti-FLG material. These all "commentators say" "critics say" will all be removed because they are nothing more than personal opinions. ] 20:20, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
	功劳 gōng láo /contribution/meritorious/credit/
			:Omido, you need to aquaint yourself with some policies, such as ]. It clearly states, "Verifiability in this context does not mean that editors are expected to verify whether, for example, the contents of a New York Times article are true. In fact, editors are strongly discouraged from conducting this kind of research, because original research may not be published in Misplaced Pages. Articles should contain only material that has been published by reliable sources, regardless of whether individual editors view that material as true or false. As counterintuitive as it may seem, the threshold for inclusion in Misplaced Pages is verifiability, not truth." So your determination to remove verifiable sources is wrong and against policy. Part of what we will accomplish here is to agree on which sources meet the criteria of a ''reliable source''.] 20:42, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
	功率 gōng lǜ /power(the output of an engine)/
			I think Omid was mentioning the quality of the source. What does wiki say on that?
	功率恶化 gōng lǜ è huà /power penalty/
			] 20:56, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
	功能 gōng néng /function/
			Coventant, so If I make a homepage, and say on that homepage that Falun Gong is really good and say alot of good things about Falun Gong and why I think they way I do, can I publish it in the wikipedia article too? In that case let me take countless articles from pro-FLG sites and post them. These so called "critics" called Deng, Fang and Maria Hsia Chang I think should not be on the article, because what they say is only their own personal thoughts. As Ive understood it, the reason for the articles on wikipedia is to offer people a chance too make their own thoughts and understandings regarding things. If we citate people from this or that website and write down what others think, how could that give a chance to other people to make their own opinion? Its like forcing opinions into others, as I see it, these critics he used should not be used. If he uses them, I can use all the positive things people has said too right? and believe me I can find 10 times more positive things that people has said about Dafa, that is for sure. Those sources he used is really not reliable, that is what I am trying to say. ] 22:26, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
	功能集 gōng néng jí /function library/
			:Short answer: no you couldn't. The key phrase here is '''reliable sources.''' For more on this, see ].
	功能群 gōng néng qún /functional group/
			:Longer answer: A lot of WP policies have to be considered in tandem to make any sense. Verifiability and reliable sources are two that have to be taken together. I fully intend to make sure that we look at each and every source to make sure it's appropriate for the context. Some, like the New York Times, are pretty obviously considered reliable for most things, while others, like Falundafa.org, may only be appropriate for certain purposes. I'm sure that some of them will be found lacking and have to be removed. Quite honestly, I haven't contemplated a lot of them yet because in my mind we're not ready for that. We haven't even gotten through the first three paragraphs. When we do start considering sources, rest assured that I'm going to be one of the toughest critics :-) ] 22:53, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
	功效 gōng xiào /(n) efficacy/
			==Legality/Illegality of the FLG ban in China==
	:I will have a go at the paragraph here in a bit to see if we can get it in a way that you'll like better, so check back. --] 15:49, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
			It has come to my notice that this website, , has mentioned the reason FLG is illegal. Over here: . Unfortunately I couldn't find an English version of the article and I don't have knowledge on the laws in China. Before people start yelling "propaganda website", don't forget that the laws are at least cited out. --] 19:41, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
	I've been thinking about it too... we can point that out....we must try to improve accuracy as there is a whole section in the Book Zhuan Falun titled "Why doing Exercises doesnt increase gong"... Falun gong's concept of transforming de to gong is more similar to concepts found in cultivation ways like Universal Gnosticism... the usage is certainly quite different and falun gong literature doesnt hide that..
			The United States Congress Resolution 188 passed unanimously (420-0) states:
	---
			<blockquote>
	I had made minor change to the morality section.. and was about to revert it myself..
			'''Whereas this policy violates the Constitution of the People's Republic of China as well as the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights;'''
	... thought i must discuss it with you...
			</blockquote>
			The ban itself could be called "illegal" looked at with international laws. Then we will have to say :''China illegally banned Falun Gong.''
			] 19:48, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
			: My understanding is that prior to the big Beijing protest, Falun Gong practitioners had staged a series of illegal protests in media stations throughout the country. During those earlier protests, some of the practitioners had been arrested. In fact, one of the Falun Gong's demands was to have those people released from jail. So it is clear that there had been illegal activity prior to the Beijing protest. To say otherwise is to fly in the face of historical accuracy.
	What about changing "Falun Gong includes a set of moral expectations for practitioners to emulate." to "Falun Gong lays emphasis on Good Moral Nature" ?
			:And for those who argue that Falun Gong practitioners should be allowed to stage disruptive protests anywhere they want in China, I point to the recent illegal protest staged by a female Falun Gong practitioner using her Epoch Times press pass to gain access to the White house lawn. There are limits to free speech, even in the US. Let's get real about this. --] 19:54, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
			Rough jist of it:
	There are no sets of moral codes... so current statement is inaccurate...The previous version " Practitioners are required to set high moral standards for themselves", though accurate, may sound POV for someone who has not studied FG ... SO ""Falun Gong lays emphasis on good moral nature" -i think would be a good description..
			#social organisations cannot conduct commercial activities
			#social orgarnisations must be registered
			#protests that 1. violates basic principles of the constitution 2. endangers national sovereignty 3. incites racial hatred 4. endangers public safety will not be allowed
			#citizens cannot protest outside their cities of residence
			#disruption of publics safety include disrupting daily running of commerce, production and education, spreading lies, rumours and disrupting social order
			#organising protests/marches that do not have approval, refuse to comply with approved times, locations, routes, refuse to disperse, endanger public safety is liable to be jailed for less than 5 years
			#organising cults that use superstition that destroy national laws and executive policies, or cause the death of others is liable for 3-7 year jail time, extreme cases 7+ years.
			-- <font color="#FF0000">'''Миборовский'''</font> <sup>]|]|]|]|]|]!</sup> 20:17, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
			#
			:Based on what I read here, I still contend that "alleged illegal activities" is probably the best wording we can find for the opening paragraphs. It acknowledges that accusations without making a determination on whether they are valid or not in light of international law. If people feel that strongly about it, and I'm sure they do, we can go into more detail elsewhere in the article or on a subpage. ] 20:58, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
	:The problem is we have to say it neutrally. If we (Misplaced Pages) say "good" or "high" morals we are making a judgment, asserting that FLG possesses same. If there are no moral codes taught by FLG at all, then we can delete the sentence entirely. If FLG says "high morals" or "good morals" or even "conservative morals" somewhere, then we have to feature it as a quote, and source the quote. It is a notable feature, and perhaps there is some variance between what FLG teaches in various books? --] 05:11, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
	...please see section "continuing discussion"...
			:*'''The Chinese government provided two major justifications for banning the Falun Gong 1) The unnecessary death of 1,404 practitioners who abandoned their needed medical treatment in following the group’s teachings. 2) Its many illegal protests against critics and later government institutions which caused a threat to social stability. '''
	==Attempts of edit from Behind Firewall??==
	Olaf Stefanos, I have reservations on you calling the poor guy an "agent provocateur" and "vandal", I think he is behind the great firewall and desperately wants to speak out.... seems he tried editing the page through proxy but all quotes became something like \' .... and then he ended up replacing the whole article with
			:Article 36 of the Chinese constitution permits the banning of religious groups under certain circumstances. It states: Citizens of the People's Republic of China enjoy freedom of religious belief. No state organ, public organization or individual may compel citizens to believe in, or not to believe in, any religion; nor may they discriminate against citizens who believe in, or do not believe in, any religion. The state protects normal religious activities. ''No one may make use of religion to engage in activities that disrupt public order, impair the health of citizens'' or interfere with the educational system of the state. Religious bodies and religious affairs are not subject to any foreign domination.
	"Broters and sisters, I need your help. My internet can not go to Misplaced Pages, and Editing from proxy does no help. It turns all \' to \\\'.
			:China’s banning the Falun Gong is in accord with International laws such as the “International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights” and the “Declaration on the Elimination of All Forms of Intolerance and of Discrimination Based on Religion or Belief.” Both of these laws call for the protection of religious freedom, however, they also both have the same clause allowing for limitations on religious expression under certain circumstances. “Freedom to manifest one's religion or beliefs may be subject only to such limitations as are prescribed by law and are necessary to protect public safety, order, health, or morals or the fundamental rights and freedoms of others.” With freedom comes responsibility. These international laws permit governments to hold those who exploit religious freedom responsible.
	Here there are lots of text and links sponsored by the CCP, I thank it if you remove them."
			:Under the protection of the First Amendment, American religious freedom seems to be absolute, with cults and hate-preaching groups like the KKK enjoying legal status and protection. But not all western democracies are as permissive of religious freedom as the United States. Enabled by the anti-cult law, France, a nation with a long democratic tradition and respect for religious freedom, permits the government to dissolve a cult-like organization and jail its leader. These legal actions can only be taken when an organization commits offences like “deceptive advertising, frauds, and falsifications” and “intentional or unintentional prejudice to the life or the physical or psychological integrity of the person.” Other western democracies like Canada and Spain also have “hate speech” laws that outlaws speech promoting hatred or violence based on religion or race.
	... then he himself(?) reverted the whole page back...
			:US politicians would denounce any country for limiting religious freedom but that does not mean these countries, in this case China, violates international laws.
	Friend, if u r reading this... you may discuss your concerns with us on the talk page...
			:Going back to our discussion, to say that the Chinese government banned the falun Gong for “alleged illegal activities” is inaccurate. We can argue whether the group did violate those laws, but it was banned because the government believed it “violated the Chinese laws.” How about using “violated the Chinese laws” instead? --] 04:21, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
	:I know. I noticed this, and if this "poor guy" is reading, I apologize. I just thought that his edits were silly vandalism (but I didn't actually call him a vandal, it was the other IP/person reverting). It seems he didn't intentionally want to mess up the article. I will assume better faith from this day on. ---] 05:44, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
			I can post here material from Congress Resolution, Amnesty International and HRW to United Nation Reports, and over 61 lawsuits filed by leading international Human Rights attorneys around the world. But I think that is necessary. Let us not deviate too much from the discussion of the material. In my opinion, the legality or illegality of the supression neednt be mentioned in the introduction. The previous version of the article stated: "Falun Gong has been the focus of international attention since the government of the People's Republic of China began a nationwide suppression of Falun Gong on July 20, 1999. Concerns were triggered especially when 10,000 practitioners assembled in peaceful protest at the Central Appeal Office at Foyou street, outside Zhongnanhai.".
	::There's way more Falun Gong-sponsored links in this article than "CCP-sponsored" ones. Even if he does make a successful change we'd probably end up reverting his edit due to POV. -- <font color="#FF0000">'''Миборовский'''</font> <sup>]|]|]|]|]|]!</sup> 07:14, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
			] 07:13, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
			:One problem with the latter quote: I think the world was aware of Falun Gong ''before'' the clampdown. ] 07:26, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
	==Continuing Discussion on Edits==
	.
	.
	There really isnt any difference between the teachings in the books... only that a superficial understanding may make it seem like there is... Infact the word "moral" is rarely used... It is xinxing or mind-nature that is emphasized.. now that a section by the name is there in the wikipedia... we somehow need to ensure accuracy...
	A quote from Zhuan Falun:
	"
	"If you are always
	compassionate and friendly to others, if you always consider other people when you do
	things, and whenever you have issues with other people you first think about whether
	they can take it or whether it will cause them harm, then you won’t have any problem.
	So, '''when you cultivate you should follow high and even higher standards'''. "
			Samuel Lou, there is no evidence that Falun Gong did violite any law at all, its only what the CCP says, and we all know the nature of the CCP... ] 07:57, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
	That is why I wrote "Falun Gong requires practitioners to set high moral standards for themselves"...
			Here's some revised wording:
	I will go through all the books in greater detail...
			:Falun Gong has been the focus of international attention since (date), when 10,000 practitioners assembled in peaceful protest at the Central Appeal Office at Foyou street, outside Zhongnanhai. Prior to that, the Falun Gong had staged protests against it’s media critics all over China which were deemed in violation of Chinese laws and resulted in the arrest of practitioners. On July 20, 1999 the government banned the Falun Gong for allegedly causing the unnecessary death of 1,404 practitioners who abandoned their needed medical treatment in following the group’s teachings and for it’s many protests which were considered a threat to social stability.
	"Falun Gong's qigong style practises are said by them to develop high levels of 功, gōng, which Falun Gong practitioners use to mean "high level energy" (this is an unconventional use of the word, which in Mandarin Chinese means "merit" or "achievement" and by extension is part of compound terms describing a disciplined regimen.)"
			I believe Etaonosh is correct that the world became aware of Falun Gong before the ban...it was that protest in Zhongnanhai that brought them to world attention. So I have reversed the chronology. Also, it's clear that there was a violation of Chinese law prior to the Zhongnanhai protest, otherwise there wouldn't have been the demand to release practitioners who had been arrested. So all of this needs to be summarized briefly. I think the above does it. --] 08:12, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
	Why not change it to....
	"Falun gong uses the word gong to mean "high level energy" which is an unconventional use of the word (In Mandarin Chinese it means "merit" or "achievement" and by extension is part of compound terms describing a disciplined regimen)."
			:Specifically speaking, what triggered the Zhongnanhai incident was the Tianjin incident. On 1999, April 11, FLG members protested against the publisher which published He Zuoxiou's "I Don't Agree Teenagers to Practice Falun Gong", an article which criticized the movement. 45 members were arrested near the end of the protest. --] 10:13, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
	I see that this para has been removed from the beliefs section... while it is central to falun gong's view on qi gong... while three or four sensational sounding statements from the whole sets of lectures running to around 1000 pages have been projectes....
			Tomananda, the above is not good enought. Why? Because you can't just give the version of the CCP.
	"Li Hongzhi states that the term "qigong" is of recent origin. That originally such disciplines had names like "The Dhyana of Vajra", "Ninefold Immortality Elixir method" and "Dafa of Cultivating Dao" and that the lowest level things of some cultivation ways, the things for healing and fitness, were brought out to the general public under the name "qigong". According to the QiJournal, It wasn't until 1953, when Liu Gui-zheng published a paper entitled "Practice On Qigong Therapy", that the term qigong (ch'i kung) was adopted as the popular name for this type of exercise system. Prior to that date, there were many terms given to such exercise, such as Daoyin, Xingqi, Liandan, Xuangong, Yangshengong, etc. ""
			You can't say "allegedly causing the unnecessary death of 1,404 practitioners who abandoned their needed medical treatment". This is from no verifiable source, its just lies and propaganda used by the CCP. I think it is okey to say something like: "The CCP accused Falun Gong for the death of 1,404 practitioners who abandoned their needed medical treatment. Falun Gong practitioners strongly reject these accusations and say that these accusations is a way for the CCP to turn the chinese people against Falun Gong and justify their persecution of Falun Gong. There is no evidence of 1,404 practitioner dying from not taking their medicine."
			If you only say: "allegedly causing the unnecessary death of 1,404 practitioners who abandoned their needed medical treatment"
	:I like this: "Falun gong uses the word gong from Falun Gong: 功, pronounced gōng, to mean "high level energy" which is an unconventional use of the word (In Mandarin Chinese it means "merit" or "achievement" and by extension is part of compound terms describing a disciplined regimen)." If FLG literature doesn't use the words "moral" or "morality" much, neither should we, I'd say. --] 19:56, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
			This makes it sound like it is true, and it isn't, it's just lies used by the evil CCP.
			/] 11:27, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
			:''1 : asserted to be true or to exist <an alleged miracle>
	== On the use of "gong" ==
			:''2 : questionably true or of a specified kind : SUPPOSED, SO-CALLED <bought an alleged antique vase>
			:''3 : accused but not proven or convicted <an alleged gangster>''
			: Please explain how "allegedly causing...." makes it sound it is true. It's just your personal opinion. As for personal opinions, please refer to the previous section where you can find what you said.
			:--] 15:02, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
			The CCP propoganda has even "alleged" Falun Gong practitioners are CIA agents and such things have appeared in Chinese media. It is alright to say they have "alleged" but not in the introduction and not in a manner that tries to justify the inhuman persecution. We'd rather give more importance to what the Amnesty Internation, HRW or the United Nations say on the persecution.
	Although the use of "gong" is somewhat unconventional as compared to how it most often is used in compound words, as noted in the text, I'd like to add that this use still is rather conventional within qigong systems, where "fa-gong 发功" (a verb-noun compound not found in my Chinese dictionaries) is a quite common term (but possibly with meanings differing from school to school). Now the unconventionality of the use is, to my mind, not so strange with qigong itself being such a recent assemblage/label, but I suggest that the meaning about its FLG use be edited so as to accord this unconventionality of the use to qigong thinking in general instead of as something unique to FLG. Certainly there is no need to make FLG appear more strange than it already is/is seen as? ] 20:43, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
			I'd prefer statements from international organizations in the introduction rather than a made up "excuse" for torturing tens of thousands, including children and women, to death. I would like to hear a better excuse for that than "somebody didnt take medicine".
			] 15:26, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
			Wow "evil" I've only seen this word used in recent history by religious fanatics (GW Bush included.)
	== Li's Dafa is the essential part of Falun Gong, not the exercises!==
			Well you can't say that the chinese communist party has been good exactly can you? They have a history of killing innocent people, and in 50 years it is estimated that 60-100 million chinese people have died a unnatural death by the CCP, in my opinion that qualifies for evil...
	This is a re-post of an earlier post on 3/5/06 which no one responded to:
			"evil" is a mild word to use. What do you call taking people from their homes and torturing them to death and then threatening their families with further persecution if they speak out? Tell it is not "evil" to families left devastated.
	NEED TO REVISE INTRODUCTORY SECTION
			'''May 26, 2006. Brussels (EFGIC) - Following a three-day visit to Beijing, the Vice President of the European Parliament, Edward McMillan-Scott, called the Chinese Communist leadership a "brutal, arbitrary and paranoid system"'''
			The sad fact is that some confuse the CCP with China. They desperately want to be part of the crime, they want to support, defend and coverup the atrocities.
			] 15:50, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
			:We can argue the moral term "evil" to death but this is not the scope of this article so I would stop. In clear facts, FLG did break chinese laws so it was made illegal in China. Pretty much ends the discussion. <small><span class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) </span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned -->
	The recent round of edits on this piece have totally distorted the over-all presentation of what the basics of Falun Gong are. After mentioning the "five sets of meditation exercises" in the first paragraph, the piece now launches directly into a lengthy discussion of the history of the Falun Gong in China. The first sentence does, at least, mention the word "Falun Dafa"...but then fails to go on to explain the difference between Falun Gong (which are the meditation exercises) and the Falun Dafa (which is Master Li's great law). It is fundamentially inaccurate to represent the Falun Gong as merely a set of mediation exercises. Master Li has told his practitioners that if all they do is the exercises, then they can't be considered Falun Gong practitioners. Thus the Falun Dafa...and Master Li's absolute insistence that all his disciples protect and defend the Dafa...is the core of Falun Gong.
			:: It doesnt end any discussion. Dalai Lama is wanted dead or alive for his "illegal" activities by the CCP. I'd prefer what the US congress resolution, HRW, Amnesty International, The European Parliament and prominent Human Rights Attorneys say in the introduction. '''"The CCP, violating international Laws and its own constitution, illegaly banned Falun Gong and has systematically attempted to eradicate Falun Gong practitioners through organized torture and murder"''', please point out anything non-factual. Not that I want to discuss these things in the introduction.. but because you keep wanting to label the insane persecution "legal" and allow the murderers to label the victims "illegal".
	Here's my suggested addition:
			::] 18:03, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
			::That is ofcourse only your understanding.
	Central to "Falun Gong" is five sets of meditation exercises (four standing, and one sitting). ''More important than the meditation exercises, however, is Master Li's Dafa, or "great law." Central to "Falun Dafa" is belief in Li's God-like role as the exclusive savior of mankind in this "Dharma ending" period. If a Falun Gong practitioner were only to do the exercises, but fail to live up to Master Li's Dafa, that person would no longer be considered a practitioner by the Master. Falun Gong practitioners are promised the possibility of becoming Gods as long as they stand up for the Dafa. Master Li has stated that his Dafa created all beings in the cosmos, so in a sense Master Li himself can be considered a creator God.''
			::/] 16:37, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
			:::It is pretty well established that the CCP has ruthlessly suppressed the FLG, using murder and torture, at least. It is also pretty well established that Li Hongzhi turned tail and left his followers in China to face the suppression without the aid of his ''soi-disant'' divine intervention. So perhaps it isn't a good guy/bad guy thing, and we will impede agreement on the article by making it one. --] 16:40, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
	''Also central to the Falun Dafa is the idea that Master Li protects all his disciples, but that if they fail to live up to the requirements of his Dafa he will withdraw his protection and their bodies will be returned to those of ordinary persons...sickness, old age and even death will return to them. If practitioners live up to the Dafa, they are promised salvation, while non-practitioners who criticize the Dafa, corrupt people, homosexuals and the "dregs" of humanity can expect to be eliminated by Master Li's great law in a process called “Fa-rectification.”''
			::::Christian monks have been persecuted in History. Buddhist Monks have gone through unspeakable hardships. The sages of vedic India went through boundless hardships. Many western cultivators have died really bad deaths. Gnostic cultivators have been tortured to death. This has happened through out history and scriptures give the reasons. The Buddhist scriptures emphatically affirm that this will happen in this period( which according to the scriptures is the "Dharma Ending Period"( which caries no apocalyptic meaning an only signifies a period of time when the morality of mankind is very low...). (See, for instance: http://www.drba.org/dharma/btts/9xxentrydetail.asp?wid=89 )
	Critics of the Falun Gong in the West argue that because of the relationship of dependency that Master Li establishes between himself and his followers, using a variety of manipulative techniques, the Falun Gong should be thought of as a cult rather than just a new religious movement. A number of prominent American cult experts, including ] and ], have stated that Master Li meets the classic definition of a manipulative cult leader.
			::::It is no co-incidence that even after spending a major fraction of the nations budget on trying to persecute Falun Gong and resorting to the most horrible and insane atrocities, the CCP hasnt been able to achieve its ends. Li Hongzhi was in United Sates from 1997 he moved so that the government may not feel cocnerned about the number of practitioners in China.
	If the Misplaced Pages piece on the Falun Gong is going to have any claim of objectivity, it must also represent the views of its critics. I am proposing that something like the above be added to frame the discussion at the beginning of the piece. As an alternative, it would be ok to just add the first two paragaphs (which are hypenated) and then add a new section on the controversial aspects of Falun Gong (similar to the treatment of Scientology by Misplaced Pages).
	--] 02:56, 10 March 2006 (UTC)		::::] 17:16, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
			:::: ? major fraction of it's national budget? Links please. I don't know why people keep bringing up apocolpyses/ dharma ending days... The christians were into it during the 1000 AD, 2000 some people thought the world was going to end, the Garland group a few years ago as well, now the FLG too? Anyways sorry I'm going off topic. This is about the legality of the ban. ] 17:33, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
	:If you can provide citations to the Sanger and Hassan publications, they should certainly be mentioned in the article, and also at ]. --] 15:43, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
			::::No. The Dharma Ending only means end of the Dharma ( Law / Morality ).. Its a Buddhist term.. not Falun Gong's. It has absolutely nothing to do with any apocalypse!..
	Steve Hassan has an article on FLG , I like the part where he asks about the numbers of members in North America.
	--] 21:52, 15 March 2006 (UTC)		] 18:58, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
			:* the article is called "I Don't Recommend Teenagers to Practice Qigong." the article was not directed at the FAlun Gong, Mr. He only gave a example about one of his colleague became psychotic after practicing the FAlun Gong. This article was published in a small magazine owned by a university; it was protested by 7 thousand plus practitioners. The company called the police who then ordered the practitioners to leave, when these practitioners refused to obey order four hundred police forced the evacuation and arrested about a dozen practitioners. The protest was illegal because it had no permit and was an intimidation to suppress critic. --] 17:34, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
	==Article will stay Objective and continue to get more Objective==
			:*Clearly we must report this protest, or media protests in general, which were presumed (or alleged) to be in violation of Chinese law. Even in the US, where there is an absolute "presumptioin of innocence" the press reports people being arrested or indicted for allegedly committing crimes all the time. Dilip, I appreciate your passion when talking about the "persecution," but keep in mind there's an entire page devoted to that topic. Right now, for this paragraph, we just need to agree to language which reports what led up to the ban in China.
			Words like "alleged" seem absolutely correct to me, so it's just a question of building the best sentence to convey these thoughts. --] 17:43, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
	Objectivity is not plucking out a few quotes... distorting it out of context and presenting it... Neither is it talking about every self-proclaimed experts stand-point...The current introduction to Falun Gong... mentions the concepts and even mentions the most controversial quotes ( according to practitioners-out of context).... this is not a place to criticize or praise Falun Gong... ... if you are to go by the opinion of every single person in the introduction... we will have a lot to say...
			I have followed the ban closely; I don’t think this statement “the CCP has ruthlessly suppressed the FLG, using murder and torture” is based on facts. Yes torture and death of practitioners did happened, but there is no government policy to torture and murder. I believe these were acts committed by individual brutal prison guards. But the government can be condemned for not holding investigation into the deaths and punish the perpetrators. --] 17:45, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
	Right from Master Da Liu among the most reputed Tai chi Masters in America( who introduced tai chi to america, author of several books on tai chi and qi gong) who says he asks all his students to study falun dafa.... youfu Li a Martial arts exprt and tai chi professor who considers Falun Dafa to Be a Great Way of cultivation of Buddhahood... The previous academic counsellor to China qigong research society who himself a falun gong practitioner..
			There a wikipedia policy saying "No Original Research." And what you say contradicts what teh international bodies say on the matter.
	many prominent chi gong masters...the governor of canada... atlanta... ambassador mark palmer... prominent human rights attorneys...
			] 19:30, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
			I agree with Firestar's assessment. Truth is just what he said. No need to be apologetic on what the CCP did. The government should punish those guards that did it because they are responsive for those guards. There should not be a debate on the legality of the ban either.
	For instance, Special Rapporteur of the UN Commission on Human Rights ,UN director on reports of torture - 70 year old Theo van Boven speaks very strongly againt CCP's perecution of Falun Gong...according to him.. reports say that Mr. Xiao was "subjected to the so-called “water dungeon”… locking a naked person into a small iron cage with spikes on all sides. The cage is then lowered into filthy water up to the victim’s chest or neck in a completely dark room. The victim may be locked in the cage for days or even weeks, and urine and feces are excreted into the water.”
			] 17:52, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
			:*I don’ think the word “alleged” works. How about this “The government banned the Falun Gong for its violation of Chinese laws but the group denies any wrong doing”? The government’s charge against the group and its rebuttal can be introduced in the body of the article. --] 17:52, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
	Theo Van Boven is also a winner of several reputed awards... could we quote him too?... no... we cant quote every single person.. we will only quote what honoured international authorities say... not every self proclaimed expert..
			:: I think "alleged" is wrong here too. They broke chinese law. Now is the law just or not is a whole different matter. But a law was broken. So why hide around the bush. ] 18:12, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
	.. dis-information has been CCP's mot powerful ally in the persection... why would they block even the wikipedia article if they had nothing to hide? we would not allow such dis-information and distortions - used tctfully by the CCP to inundate hatred among the masses to creep into the article...
			Quite interesting.. you torture people to death people then harass their families, rape women, kill kids and then label them "illegal" and then accuse them for "breaking laws". Welcome to the civilized world. I insist that we mention what the international bodies say in the introduction.
	there are a million people saying a million personal things falun gong... we take an objective stance. quoting information first hand.. and we refuse to use your words to label people.. or to put quotes out of context...
			] 18:24, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
			:Dilip, unless you are claiming that FG practitioners were tortured before the ban, your entire statement above is inaccurate because it assumes a sequence of events that didn't happen. First, thousands of Falun Gong practitioners staged illegal protests at media stations all over China insisting that your Master's teachings never be criticized. Some of those media protests resulted in arrests and all of them had the effect of suppressing the freedom of speech of Falun Gong critics, such as that professor who wrote that academic article which so bothered Li Hongzhi. So the practittioners, at the urging of Master Li (to show his power?), continued protesting and demanding that the arrested people be released, that the publishers issue retractions and that the government proclaim that Falun Gong is good. Then, after all these illegal activities took place, the Chinese government officially banned the Falun Gong and, to use your terminology, the "persecution" began. Please understand that I am not justifying the torture or persecution of anyone, but I do insist that the history be told correctly. There are two sides to this story.--] 19:01, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
	Falun Dafa is cultivaion Practice... such beliefs donot exist in Falun Dafa... The Master protects disciples and a master is one who has complete his cultivation... similar beliefs are found in Buddhism... gnosticism... and all cultivation ways... we refuse to distort content.
			The un-informed reader doesnt know that the Chinese laws require people to be put in prison for 10 years and tortured for practicing Qi Gong. I'd prefer what the US congress resolution, HRW, Amnesty International, The European Parliament and prominent Human Rights Attorneys say in the introduction. '''"The CCP, violating international Laws and its own constitution, illegaly banned Falun Gong and has systematically attempted to eradicate Falun Gong practitioners through organized torture and murder"''', please point out anything non-factual. I dont think anybody with a conscience would want to coverup those crimes. I actually dont want to go into such details in the introduction but am forced to suggest it as some editors who ( I really dont know why) want to make it look like Falun Gong commited "illegal" activities and was thus banned.
	I have personally gone through all the public lectures of Falun Dafa ... i dont find things even remotely close to what you talk about in any of the lectures...
			] 18:24, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
			]please provide a link for the statment you are citing. --] 18:25, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
			We are getting off topic. Here's a revised paragraph incorporating the suggestions so far:
	-Dilip Rajeev
			::*Falun Gong has been the focus of international attention since April 25,1999, when 10,000 practitioners assembled in peaceful protest at the Central Appeal Office at Foyou street, outside Zhongnanhai. Prior to that, the Falun Gong had staged protests against it’s media critics all over China. At Tianjin, 7,000 practitioners had protested against an academic article which was critical of the Falun Gong, resulting in the arrest of 45 practitioners. On July 20, 1999 the government banned the Falun Gong for its violation of Chinese laws, but the group denies any wrong doing.--] 18:28, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
	== Continuing Discussion ==
	Fire Star.. I am replacing the sentence on Gong with your suggestion... we have a whole section to deal with if we are to change the word "Morality"... yet we have the responsibilty to not sacrifice on accuracy... friend, could you go through the books and lectures of Falun Gong? I suggest, from personal experience, that going through the lectures in chronological order mt help understand them faster... mt help us do this job better.. thanx...
			I dont agree. I insist that we mention what the international bodies say in the introduction. '''"The CCP, violating international Laws and its own constitution, illegaly banned the peaceful practice of Falun Gong and has systematically attempted to eradicate Falun Gong practitioners through organized torture and murder"''', please point out anything non-factual.
	I changed "high level energy" to "cultivation energy" ... which is first hand translaion from the book Falun Gong....
			] 18:41, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
	Fire Star, The paragraphs below... do they flow with the article... the concepts like tianmu are mentioned in the next paragraph... mixing of races is discussed in the next section.... and anthrolpological beliefs have also been discussed in the next paragaph....
			As I have read, the torture and killings are not just about a few guards that did this or that. Many many practitioners that made it out alive from the concentration camps or brainwashing camps has spoken out and told, that the CCP offers you to renounce your faith in Dafa. That means, you sign your name on a paper which means that your don't believe in Falun Gong anymore, if you do this, they will release you very fast without touching you...and if you don't they will torture you with all kind of methods until you sign under. Its been reported that alot of practitioners were chocked with electric batoons in the face for 8 hours because they didnt renounce their faith in Dafa, and also they wont let you sleep for many many days, they also give criminals bonuses if they torture practitioners. After the torture, the practitioners were barely alive, and still they didn't want to give up their faith in Dafa.
	"In 2002, Li claimed that after spreading Falun Gong for ten years, some of humanity's predestinations had been averted, including a "comet catastrophe" and "the third world war."
			Also, witnesses, doctors and other people have stepped forward saying that the government are doing organ transplant on LIVE Falun Gong practitioners because the CCP knows that Falun Gong practitioners have very good health and rarely get sick. After the transplantation they throw the body into a crematorium to destroy all evidence. One more thing to notice, is that after the persecution began in 1999, the organ transplant business in China has gone up by 3000 %. Today, in China it takes two weeks at most to get a new organ...in other countries it takes at least two years. Also investigators have called hospitals doing the transplants pretending wanting to buy, and the hospitals sometimes said the organs was from live Falun Gong practitioners. This persecution is evil beyond words. ] 18:37, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
			The organ transplant from live people has been covered by a UK Channel with under-cover cameras.
	In some of his published lectures, Li states that aliens, gods and demons exist, humans have a "celestial eye" in their pineal gland (tianmu, also known as the "third eye"), that Earth has been influenced by extraterrestrials , and that remains of unknown prehistoric civilizations can still be found, for instance, in the bottom of the oceans. According to some sources, Li also explains that mixed-race people are instruments of an alien plot to destroy humanity's link to heaven. "By mixing the races of humans, the aliens make humans cast off gods," he said in a lecture in Switzerland. These same sources claim that he made a statement: "by embedding their technology and science in human bodies, aliens control their thoughts". However, this is one of the several instances where the alleged direct quotes cannot be traced back to Li. In his Switzerland lecture, Li stated: "The way alien beings get human beings to shake free of the gods is to mix the races, causing human beings to become rootless people, just like the plant hybrids people make nowadays." And further, "They have formed a layer of their body within the human body." According to Li, humans are not to be blamed for this: "There are other reasons why they dare to do this sort of thing. It has happened because the Fa of the universe has deviated and gods no longer look after things. So it has to do with high-level beings as well. If this situation is to be turned around, it has to begin from high levels."
			] 18:41, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
			:*Tomananda, the protest on April 25,1999, was held outside of Zhongnanhai, China's leadership compound not the Central Appeal Office at Foyou street. --] 18:42, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
	-Dilip Rajeev
	:First off, as a courtesy to the rest of us, people should sign their discussion so that we know who we are discussing with. Secondly, I think the info flows fine, the thing is that Li said these things in the course of his teaching, so they are germane to an article on what he teaches. If he didn't want to seem sensational (and perhaps a bit potty to some people) he shouldn't have said them, I suppose...--] 16:13, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
			]I asked you to provide a link to the report from the Us congress not the FAlun Gong --] 19:08, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
			The text of the resolution ( Concurrent Resolution 188 - passed unanimously (420-0) by the U.S Congress) is available on ''several'' websites including the website I mentioned earlier.
	== Li Hongzhi as an Authoritarian Cult Leader==
			] 19:20, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
			Interested in how they came up with the conclusion that it was illegal according to China's constitution as well. ] 19:17, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
	Fire Star, thanks for inviting me to document the representations I made in paragraph three of my proposed addition to the introduction. Here they are:
			== Third Revision of Target Paragraph on the Ban ==
	Cult experts speaking about Li Hongzhi:
			Responding to requests from Samuel and Dilip, I propose the following paragraph which aims to summarize, as briefly as possible, both POV's about the history and legality of the ban in China.
	1. Steven Hassan is a leading American cult counselor who wrote: ''Releasing the Bonds: Empowering People to Think for Themselves'' (Sommerville, Mass: Freedom of Mind Press, 2000) He has made several comments about Li Hongzhi.
			:Falun Gong has been the focus of international attention since April 25,1999, when 10,000 practitioners assembled in peaceful protest outside Zhongnanhai, China’s leadership compound. Prior to that, the Falun Gong had staged protests against it’s media critics all over China. At Tianjin, 7,000 practitioners had protested against an academic article which was critical of the Falun Gong, resulting in the arrest of 45 practitioners. On July 20, 1999 the government banned the Falun Gong for its violation of Chinese laws, citing the unnecessary deaths of 1,404 practitioners, some of whom had abandoned their needed medical treatment in accordance with Li Hongzhi’s teachings and the threat to social stability caused by the Falun Gong’s many protests. However, the Falung Gong denies any wrongdoing, pointing to declarations made by several international bodies. In particular, the Falun Gong cites US House of Representatives Resolution 188 which it helped to write in 2002. That resolution claims that the CCP itself has violated international laws and its own constitution; and has attempted to eradicate Falun Gong practitioners through organized torture and murder.
	a) Founder Li Hongzhi “comes very much out of the cult extreme, the authoritarian stereotype.” Quote from San Francisco Chronicle article 12/18/05 at:
			We need to remind ourselves that this is just a summary. Anything longer than this would be inappropriate for this introductory section in my opinion. --] 20:03, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
			This reads more like a summary to the crackdown of the Falun Gong section. Anyway, a few changes is needed in my opinion. Below is a revised verion:
	b) Mr. Hassan wrote a rather long statement about why he has “grave concerns about the personage of Li Hongzhi, head of Falun Dafa and his organization” on his own website.
	His statement really needs to be read in its entirety to get the full meaning of where he stands on the Falun Gong. It appears in a section called “Notes from Steve Hassan 12/02” at the bottom of this web page:
			Falun Gong has been the focus of international attention since April 25,1999, when 10,000 practitioners assembled in peaceful protest outside Zhongnanhai, China’s leadership compound. Prior to that, the Falun Gong had staged protests against it’s media critics all over China. At Tianjin, 7,000 practitioners had protested '''''illegally''''' against an academic article which was critical of the Falun Gong, resulting in the arrest of 45 practitioners. On July 20, 1999 the government banned the Falun Gong for its violation of Chinese laws, citing the unnecessary deaths of 1,404 practitioners, '''''most''''' of whom had abandoned their needed medical treatment in accordance with Li Hongzhi’s teachings and the threat to social stability caused by the Falun Gong’s many '''''illegal''''' protests. However, the Falung Gong denies any wrongdoing, pointing to declarations made by several international bodies. In particular, the Falun Gong cites US House of Representatives Resolution 188 which it helped to write in 2002. That resolution claims that the CCP itself has violated international laws and its own constitution; and has attempted to eradicate Falun Gong practitioners through organized torture and murder. --] 20:12, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
			Samuel, can you prove the protests was illegal? I heard it was legal... /] 20:37, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
			Easy, it was held without a permit. --] 21:12, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
	2. Dr. Margaret Singer was probably the world’s most respected pioneer and scholar on the subject of destructive cults. In 1996 she published her landmark book: '' Cults in Our Midst: the Hidden Menace in Our Everyday Lives''. She passed away in 2003.
			:*No, how you know it was held without a permit? I heard it was legal. Premier Zhu,Rongji interviewed with them. ] 23:48, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
			::Frankly speaking Zhu Rongji interviewing with protesters says nothing about the protest itself. Illegal protests were held by people after the Presidential Election in Taiwan, officials still came to meet the protesters. Also according to one of the 4.25 Zhongnanhai protesters Zhu Rongji didn't mention or question whether the protest was permitted. --] 00:10, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
	a) Quote from New Times article:
			It suprises me that the US House of Representatives has the right of a ] on deciding whether something is constitutional or not. Last time I checked, they don't. --] 22:40, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
	“Some will say it’s not but Falun Gong looks like a cult to me,” cult expert Margaret Singer told New Times reporter Joel Emgardio wveral years ago. “My criteria is a self-appointed person with secret knowledge to share, who gets his followers convinced he is the pipeline to the eternal good life. Doesn’t that sound like Master Li?”
			:You're correct, the House does not have that kind of authority. US House resolutions do not have the force of law. They are essentially symbolic, and are usually drafted by lobbyists of one sort or another and just presented to legislators for ratification. The fact that something is stated as fact in a US House resolution does not mean it's a fact. Even when the congress passes actual laws, most congressmen don't read them. So it's quite easy to get inaccurate statements slipped into a resolution. It's part of the brilliance of Li Hongzhi's PR strategy to have figured out how easy these things are to get and then have his followers pursue them all of the country. Then, the same practitioners get to point to these resolutions as proof of how good Li Hongzhi's teachings are. Quite cynical, don't you think? --] 22:58, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
	See: Joel P. Emgardio, “Spiritual CULTivation,” New Times, Los Angeles, March 23-29, 2000.
			:PS: By way of example, check out US House Resolution 29, "Commending Jared & Jerusha Hess and the City of Preston for the Production of the Movie 'Napolean Dynamite'" here: I have never heard of this film or the city of Preston. I had to read further to find out that Preston is a city in the rural state of Idaho. I doubt if more than a handful of the congresspeople who signed this resolution have ever actually seen the film they praised in the resolution. You get the idea.--] 23:10, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
			Tomanada, This is a Hon. Concurrent Resolution passed unanimously( 420-0) by the Congress. Why do you argue this is not a "law"? That sounds really mis-informed. ] 12:18, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
	b) Quotes from San Francisco Chronicle:
			:Um, hello? Since when did the legislative of the US has rights to make "laws" for China? Are you using a Ming sword to behead a Qing official? Definition of ]. --] 16:24, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
	“If you want a good description of a cult, all you have to do is read what they say they are” said Margaret Singer . a longtime crusader against authoritarian religious groups. They actually say ‘Don’t Think.’ Just recite the master’s teaching.”
	…
			: Still interested on how they came to that conclusion. I want the facts. Not some declaration by some people that might or might not have any idea what they are signing. ] 23:38, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
	Falun Gong critics at the conference say that they have nothing against the exercises but charge that the movement’s founder, Master Li Hongzhi – now living in exile in New York – leads an authoritarian sect that is breaking up Chinese families, discouraging devotees to seek medical care and misrepresenting its true teachings.
			::I get the point. So it's like those "awards" and "days" they make such a fuss about. Anyway, I took the trouble to look up the original process and text from the Library of Congress. The records of discussion can also be found in there.. It would be another example to put in related FLG topics on Misplaced Pages. Back on topic, I think the current version is good enough. The fact of persecution or not is irrelevant to the laws China cites. Governments use anti-Sodomy laws to persecute gay and lesbian people, but it doesn't change the fact that people were arrested by these laws. --] 23:52, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
	….
			:Unfortunately, we can't tell how they came to their conclusions. The web link which Yenchin provides is missing some information. It lists four "Witness prepared statements" in support of the resolutioin (two dated 6.27/01 and two dated 8/1/01) and states that "some documents may contain partisan views," but when you click on those links it doesn't take you to the documents. Perhaps they've been archived? It would be interesting to see them. I suspect they largely contain claims made by the Falun Gong, such as the claim that the ban is in violation of the Chinese constitution, which never were investigated or verifified by the House committee which dealt with the resolution. --] 00:26, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
	Singer said she has been contacted 44 times by concerned relatives of Falun Gong members, 35 of them of Chinese background. “Their children have begun talking to them in memorized jargon, reading from the words of Master Li,” she said.
			== Criticism page ==
	See: Don Lattin, “Falun Gong Derided as Authoritarian Sect by Anti-cult Experts in Seattle,” San Francisco Chronicle, April 29, 2000
			While we have been discussing structure and sources on this main Talk page, practitioners Dilip and Fnhddzs have attacked the ''Criticism and controversies'' page with a series of edits (from 6:28 to 7:17 on 28 May), deleting, among other things, all of the Deng and Fang quotes. This is an outrageous breach of good faith. Is this the prelude to another revert war? Should other editors start going into the ''Falun Gong teachings'' or ''Persecution pages'' and do to these Falun Gong practitioners what they have just done to us? Or should we exercise restraint and ask for administrative intervention? I opt for the latter and request that if it is within Misplaced Pages policy to do so, both Fnhddzs and Dilip receive some kind of sanction. After all of this discussion, and two previous revert wars brought to us by Fnhddzs and Dilip, to have this happen is truly outrageous. What is the point of our continuing along this path if such a blatant subversion of our cooperative editing process goes unpunished? --] 21:25, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
	Although Western cult experts have yet to come to a common agreement on exactly how to define a cult, most agree that there are common characteristics that are employed by the cult leaders themselves. By almost any reasonable standard, Master Li’s manipulative style of leadership fits that bill. There are many examples in Master Li’s own words of how he does this, and I would be happy to compile a documented list of those quotes for a separate posting.
			:Tell you what, Tomananda. If it happens again, why don't you just revert with a note to take it to the talk page. I think we're getting bogged down too much in the interpersonal comments. I'll back you up in reverting things that haven't been properly discussed. ] 06:01, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
	The important point here is that we cannot rely on the representations made by Falun Gong practitioners about what the Falun Gong is all about. Practitioners conceal the “higher teachings” of Master Li Hongzhi because he commands them to do so. In a very recent speech in San Francisco (available on a Falun Gong website) Master Li stated:
			:OK with me. Dilip just did the same deletes in the Criticism and controversies section that Fnhddzs did earlier. I did a revert. What he is doing is deleting all of the Deng and Fang quotes in various sections which were discussed two weeks ago and are being discussed again. Rather than wait for a group decision (and actually, as far as I'm concerened we already decided this one), Dilip has simply done the reverts. --] 07:10, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
	“So when you clarify the truth you absolutely must not speak at too high of a level. Right now when you clarify the truth you only need to talk about the persecution of Dafa disciples, how the evil party has been violating the human rights and the freedom of belief of the Chinese people, how historically the evil party has persecuted the Chinese people and the people of the countries belonging to the wicked Communist bloc, and how it is persecuting Dafa disciples today in the same way. And that's enough. As for high-level cultivation and gods, you shouldn't talk about those things.” Teaching the Fa in San Francisco, 2005 (Lecture Portion), November 5, 2005.
			== Misplaced Pages policy on citing self-published sources ==
			Tomananda, what is your assumption of good faith? ?
	Fire Star: Can I go ahead and post the three paragraphs I proposed in my earlier post called '''"Li's Dafa is the essential part of Falun Gong, not the exercises?" ''' I know it will be subject to futher editing, but it would make the process easier for all of us.
	--] 22:58, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
			As I mentioned a while ago, xys.org is a personal website hosted by the biochemist Fang, Shimin or .
	:Fine with me. It could even be its own section of the article. I believe we have a responsibility to use sources from inside '''and''' outside FLG at Misplaced Pages. FLG's ardent devotees have a tendency IMO to often use ] to present what they do in a less sensational light, to make them appear more "mainstream" or at least apolitical, which they demonstrably aren't. That cult experts would be alarmed at what Li has said doesn't surprise me. On a personal note to Dilip, I am well versed in Buddhism, Taoism, qigong and neigong myself, and when I see evidence that FLG can do what I can do, then I will be impressed enough to study its exercises. So far, to my knowledge at least, they haven't demonstrated any remarkable abilities in the demos I've seen or in the practitioners I've dealt with, rather the opposite. Faith is fine, but we can't report their abilities as proven fact. --] 23:54, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
			<blockquote>
			Self-published sources in articles about themselves
			</blockquote>
			<blockquote>
			Material from self-published sources, and other published sources of dubious reliability, may be used as sources of information about themselves in articles about themselves, so long as:
			</blockquote>
			<blockquote>
			* It is relevant to the person's notability;
			* It is not contentious;
			* It is not unduly self-serving;
			* It is not contradicted by reliable, third-party published sources;
			* It does not involve claims about third parties, or about events not directly related to the subject;
			* There is no reasonable doubt about who wrote it.
			</blockquote>
			<blockquote>
			Self-published sources may '''never''' be used as sources of information about another person or topic.
			</blockquote>
			<blockquote>
			A Misplaced Pages article about an unreliable newspaper should not — on the grounds of needing to give examples of their published stories — repeat any claims the newspaper has made about third parties, unless the stories have been published by other credible third-party sources.
			</blockquote>
			] 23:42, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
			I '''strongly''' request wiki amdmins give Tomananda sanctions !!!!!! for his ignoring wiki's policy, for his slanders and personal attacks !!!!! ] 23:51, 28 May 2006 (UTC) How could wiki allow such a senior wikipedian at large? ] 23:53, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
	== Sources for new paragraphs in introductory section: ==
			Fnhddzs: The question of using private web pages as sources was discussed at length in the ''Criticism and controversies'' talk page. When we left it, some of the editors had agreed to a standard proposed by Covenant which would require that the private web page be a copy of something presented elsewhere (in the case of Deng and Fang, that would be an academic conference). Also part of that discussion was the recognition that Covenant's standard would allow the inclusion of some of your pro-Falun Gong stuff, including but not limited to the Lili Feng material and other medical reports.
	'''Dilip:''' You must not have read very far. Here are my sources for the first two paragraphs I added to the introductory section. I already sited my sources for the last paragraph in the earlier post. Let me know if I have left anything un-covered. Most of these sources are in the form of a PDF or DOC file on a Falun Gong website, and I don't know how to provide them as a link. If you can help, that would be fine.
			You have violated good faith by deleting substantial portions of the material on the ''Criticism and controversies'' page without first obtaining consensus on the talk page. We can revisit the discussion of standards for self-published sources...in fact, that is our intent in the present discussion. But you cannot unilaterally delete this material. --] 00:02, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
			PS: I just tried to go back in the archives to point to this prior discussion, but the archives for Talk Criticism and controversy seem to be missing. Can someone help? --] 00:13, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
			All Falun gong websites are private, if Deng and Fang's website does not meet the standard then all material from FAlun Gong private websites have to go too. --] 00:40, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
	Central to "Falun Gong" is five sets of meditation exercises (four standing, and one sitting). More important than the meditation exercises, however, is Master Li's Dafa(1), or "great law." Central to "Falun Dafa" is belief in Li's God-like role as the exclusive savior (2) of mankind in this "Dharma ending" period. If a Falun Gong practitioner were only to do the exercises, but fail to live up to Master Li's Dafa, that person would not be considered a Dafa disciple (3) and thus not a candidate for salvation. Falun Gong practitioners are promised the possibility of becoming Gods (4) as long as they stand up for the Dafa. Master Li has stated that his Dafa created all beings in the cosmos (5), so in a sense Master Li himself can be considered a creator God.
			]there is no justification for you to delete critical material from the criticism page. You are again being warned. --] 00:43, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
	Also central to the Falun Dafa is the idea that Master Li protects all his disciples, but that if they fail to live up to the requirements of his Dafa he will withdraw his protection and their bodies will be returned to those of ordinary persons...sickness, old age and even death will return to them (6). If practitioners live up to the Dafa, they are promised salvation, while non-practitioners who criticize the Dafa, corrupt people, homosexuals and the "dregs" of humanity can expect to be eliminated by Master Li's great law in a process called “Fa-rectification.” (7)
			:Fnhddzs: I forgot to mention that criticizing your editing practices does not constitute a personal attack. You and Dilip have a history of doing significant deletions without discussion and have already provoked two revert wars. It becomes tiring to have to deal with those violations over and over again. The request is simply to discuss major changes before doing deletions. --] 01:36, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
	Critics of the Falun Gong in the West argue that because of the relationship of dependency that Master Li establishes between himself and his followers, using a variety of manipulative techniques, the Falun Gong should be thought of as a cult rather than just a new religious movement. A number of prominent American cult experts, including Margaret Singer and Steven Hassan, have stated that Master Li meets the classic definition of a manipulative cult leader.
			== Repost from Talk Criticism page on the issue of using private web sources ==
	Sources:
			I located part of the earlier discussion on this topic:
	'''1. Master’s Li’s Dafa:'''
			'''I'm going to be looking for a slightly higher standard for something that appears on a website; I want it to be a reproduction of something presented elsewhere, whether a conference or a newpaper or a book or a lecture or something. Just a personal paper on a website is going to be met with raised eyebrows.'''I want to point out that there is a blockquote provided by Dilip that I want to have included, that seems to agree with the premise that words and phrases carry different meaning. I think it provides balance to the allegation by essentially saying, "sure, it's different, but that's the way it has to be." CovenantD 04:29, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
	“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
			Both of the sources that I mentioned above--Deng and Fang's academic article and the expose from Li's earliest followers--meet your proposed standard (the private website version of the expose is a reproduction of an official report submitted to the China Qi Gong Research Society). I assume the Lilli Feng material would meet your proposed standard as well. There may be unusual situations in which we need to allow other types of private web site sources, but if we encounter that kind of situation we can discuss that particular case on its own merits. For now, in order to make some progress, I approve your standard, at least on a provisional basis.
	'''2. Li as exclusive savior:'''
			(break..new editor speaking)
	a) “If I cannot save you, nobody can do it.” Zhuan Falun, 2nd, edition. p. 160 on-line document at: http://www.clearwisdom.net/emh/index.html
			I also share your concern about too many quotes from Li affecting the readability of the article, but they are probably the best source of material for actual teachings. As long as they're kept short and to the point...
			Samuel, it depends on the context in which ClearWisdom and other Falun Gong sites are used. If it's being used as a source on Falun Gong teachings, I'd say it meets "primary source" criteria. If it's being used to highlight something else, like persecution, then another, independent source should be found and used to avoid the controversy of "questionable" sources. (I'm not expressing my opinion, merely reflecting what others have expressed, hence the quotation marks.) CovenantD 17:53, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
	b) “Because I come precisely to offer salvation to all sentient beings, if I am not responsible to you, reading such things will bring danger to you. Therefore, I must take care of you.” Falun Dafa Lecture (Sydney Australia), p. 20.
			Fair enough, I remember practitioners used a personal statement from clearwisdom.net in “Financial and business aspects of the Falun Gong” section. The following is the statement in question: “Li refused the house according to the practitioner who bought the house in this letter . The house which Mr. Li admitted to living in in the report was at least partially paid for by James Pang, ‘who was among Mr. Li's first followers in the U.S. and helped rent the Queens apartment for Mr. Li.’” According to wikipedia standards and what you are saying here, this statement will have to go. --Samuel Luo 19:37, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
	c) “I am the only person in the world who is teaching orthodox Fa in public. I have done something nobody did in the past and opened such a large door in the Dharma-ending time.” Zhuan Falun, 2nd edition. p. 101
			That bit is no longer in the article, so it's a bit difficult for me to comment on it. I seem to remember thinking that the entire section needed work to provide balance since it seemed to be reverted back and forth a lot. CovenantD 21:15, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
	'''3. Studying the Dafa, not the exercises, is the essence of Falun Gong'''		''Infact, what was used appeared in the letters to the editor section of the wall street journal''.
			] 08:23, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
	“Why do I tell you to study, read and memorize Zhuan Falun? It is to guide your cultivation practice! As to those who only do the exercises but do not study the Fa, they are not disciples of Dafa whatsoever.” “What is Cultivation Practice?” (September 6, 1996) Essentials for Further Advancement, English Version.
			Earlier on, Ed Poor and Olaf had also voiced their opinions which amounted to saying that a broad application of this rule might be best, since it would allow material that is not available any other way. (Did I summarize that correctly, guys?) In any case, we must discuss this before deleting any material and, as I said before, if we're going to apply a new "get tough" policy, it will also necessarily lead to the deletion of some of the pro-Falun Gong material. --] 00:50, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
	'''4. Promising to make his practitioners Gods:'''
			== Getting back to main topic: target paragraph for the introduction section ==
	This thought appears throughout most of Li’s more recent speeches. It’s a comment that usually elicits a lot of applause from his devoted disciples. For example, in a speech in 2003, Li said:
			We can talk about the source issue, but shouldn't forget the text re-writing we began. Here's the latest version of the target paragraph which seems to be picking up support (see comments above):
	“I will also save you and turn you into Gods…since you'll become Gods at levels that high, I have to give you the honors of Gods at levels that high and all the blessings that you need.” Los Angeles Lecture (February 15, 2003)
			:Falun Gong has been the focus of international attention since April 25,1999, when 10,000 practitioners assembled in peaceful protest outside Zhongnanhai, China’s leadership compound. Prior to that, the Falun Gong had staged protests against <strike>it’s</strike> its media critics all over China. At Tianjin, 7,000 practitioners had protested illegally against an academic article which was critical of the Falun Gong, resulting in the arrest of 45 practitioners. On July 20, 1999 the government banned the Falun Gong for its violation of Chinese laws, citing the unnecessary deaths of 1,404 practitioners, most of whom had abandoned their needed medical treatment in accordance with Li Hongzhi’s teachings''',''' and the threat to social stability caused by the Falun Gong’s many illegal protests. However, the Falung Gong denies any wrongdoing, pointing to declarations made by several international bodies. In particular, the Falun Gong cites US House of Representatives Resolution 188 which it helped to write in 2002. That resolution claims that the CCP itself has violated international laws and its own constitution; and has attempted to eradicate Falun Gong practitioners through organized torture and murder.
	'''5. Li’s Dafa created all beings:'''
			We need to hear from more editors on the above wording. --] 01:13, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
	“Dafa is the Fa (Law) of the cosmos, and Dafa has created all beings in the cosmos.”
	“Using at Will” (June 28, 200) in Essentials for Further Advancement II, item 12.
			What the US Congress says is not what Falun Gong practitioners say or "cite" in "particular"! That is what the Congress says. Similarly we will have to look at what the United Nations say too.
	'''6. Master Li protects his disciples (but also threatens them if they should not live up to the standards required by his Dafa:'''
			] 06:57, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
			:So Dilip, what you're supposed to do at this point is actually suggest a wording change, rather than just make a comment about what you don't like about the existing wording. --] 08:50, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
	a) “My Fashen (law body) knows everything. He knows everything on your mind, and he can do anything. He will not take care of you if you do not practice cultivation, and he will help you all the way to the end if you practice cultivation.” Zhuan Falun, 2nd edition,
	p. 170.
	b) “In recent years some practitioners suddenly died; some of them died precisely because they did such things (plagiarized Li’s Dafa). Don’t think your master might do something to you. You should know that there are numerous guardian Gods of the Fa at various levels whose very duty is to protect the Fa. Furthermore, demons won’t leave you alone!....Once you are reduced to the level of an everyday person, no one will protect you and demons will also take your life.” “Dafa Can Never be Plagiarized” (September 22, 1996) in Essentials for Further Advancement I
			:Content-wise it seems pretty good, but I've corrected spelling/grammar.
			:The ending is weak, perhaps because the reasoning of individuals involved in the actual events was weak. If I rob a bank, I am guilty of a felony regardless of whether the police department has been committing its own set of felonies -- and vice-versa. If the reasoning of CCP and FLG advocates is on the "pot and kettle" level, then so be it. If, on the other hand, there are real challenges to the legitimacy of charges (e.g., arguing that one must break unjust laws and then one must take the consequences) then it does individuals involved a disservice (and does not reflect a NPOV) to omit mention of them. ] 02:15, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
	'''7. Master Li’s Dafa “weeding out” people in the Fa-rectification'''
			===My Suggestion===
	'''a) weeding out the critics:'''
			What I want to point out is, this is an introduction to an article on Falun Gong - not why the CCP started to persecute Falun Gong. An introduction to Falun Gong is really not the place discuss, in detail, the events leading to the persecution. There are scholars( for instance, Julie Ching (2001)) who opine that even the protests were orchestrated by Government agencies. We really cant discuss things in detail in the introduction. My suggestion for the introduction is:
			<blockquote>
			Falun Gong (Traditional Chinese: 法輪功; Simplified Chinese: 法轮功; Pinyin: Fǎlún Gōng; literally "Practice of the Wheel of Law") is also known as Falun Dafa (Traditional Chinese: 法輪大法; Simplified Chinese: 法轮大法; Pinyin: Fǎlún dàfǎ; lit. "Great Law of the Wheel of Law") is a system of mind and body cultivation introduced by Li Hongzhi in 1992. Central to Falun Gong are the teachings of "Truthfulness, Compassion and Forbearance" and five sets of meditation exercises (four standing, and one sitting meditation).) The system has been growing in popularity world-over with the teachings translated to over 40 languages and practitioners present in over 80 countries.
			</blockquote>
			<blockquote>
			On July 20, 1999 the People's republic of China began a Nation-wide Supression of Falun Gong. This has been considered a major Human-rights violation world-over.
			</blockquote>
			<blockquote>
			There being no concept of organization of membership in Falun Gong, the exact number of practitioners is not known. Falun Gong websites state a figure of 100 million practitioners worldwide including over 70 million in China. After the supression began, the Chinese government presented a figure of 2.1 million. A figure of 70 million was quoted in two NY Times articles before the crackdown began. According to the articles, this figure was the estimate of Chinese government.
			</blockquote>
			Please point out anything non-factual or irrelevant to the introduction.
			] 16:20, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
	“Let me tell you, when this Fa-rectification matter is over, humankind will enter the next stage, and those people and beings who in their minds think that the Great Fa of the cosmos isn’t good will be the first weeded out.” “Teaching the Fa at the Great Lakes Fa conference in North America (December 9, 2000), p. 1.
			== Source issue ==
	'''b) weeding out the evil people, including homosexuals:'''
			It is ridiculous that you have hesitation on citing the public U.S. government publication, instead you guys seem not to have hesitation on citing the biochemist's self-publicated sources on his personal website. I don't understand the bias hidden on mind of guys here.
			Tomananda said the xys.org source is a reproduction of a conference paper. What is the proof of that? How to get the conference paper? It is not verifiable. ] 05:26, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
	“All the evil beings in the world will be knocked down into hell when the Fa rectifies the human world, and for all eternity they will pay for the sins they committed.”
	“A Suggestion” (April 10,2001) in Essentials for Further Advancement II
			:The US gov't publication is of course a good source. It just needs to be put in the proper context. The conference paper is a bit more problematic because of the verifiability issues. It would be nice if we could reference something directly tied to the conference or the organization that put it on, just so we know that it is what it claims to be. That would alleviate any doubts. ] 05:56, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
	Note: Since homosexuality is one of the world’s ten evils, and homosexuals have “dark
	hearts, turning demonic” there’s no question that practicing homosexuals will be “weeded out” by Master Li’s great “Fa-rectification.” See: “The World’s Ten Evils”
	(July 7, 1998)
			:Just keep in mind that the US government has a POV too. (Let's hope the NSA doesn't check up on me at night.) -- <font color="#FF0000">'''Миборовский'''</font> <sup>]|]|]|]|]|]!</sup> 07:11, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
	See: http://falundafa.org/book/eng/HongYinVB.htm#_Toc110877614
			That is not just what the US Government says. From the Amnesty International to the European Union and the United Nations .
	'''c) weeding out the "dregs" of humanity:'''
			] 08:17, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
			::And I'm pretty sure Amnesty International and the EU and the UN all have their own POVs. -- <font color="#FF0000">'''Миборовский'''</font> <sup>]|]|]|]|]|]!</sup> 08:21, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
	"Once the saved ones have attained the Fa and left, the dregs of humanity and degenerate world that are left behind will be weeded out." ''Essentials for Further Advancement II'', item 28
			I think it's real sad that Tomananda can use material from Deng and Fang homepage, that is just personal opinions from private people. In that case, let me get all the pro-FLG comments from personal websites I can find, including people talking about their experience after practicing Falun Gong, how they benefited and how happy they are, and how wonderful Falun Gong is. I don't see any reason at all how personal websites can be allowed. Frankly, these Deng and Fang's opinions doesn't mean anything, why are their opinions so important? It is up to the reader to decide what to think after he reads all the material. All Deng and Fang does is to slander things they don't understand, what, is the meaning of that? Admin, what is your comment on this case? /] 08:15, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
	'''d) weeding out a great many people:'''
			__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
	“The number who will be weeded out is large and terrifying. At the beginning people will still feel shocked, while by the end they'll be numb to it. What kind of state will a person be in when he sees dead people strewn everywhere on the street?” “Teaching the Fa at the 2003 Atlanta Conference” (November 29, 2003) Q & A section.
			''The Two Tales of Falun Gong'' on-line document is an updated version of a paper presented at the April 28-29, 2000 annual conference of the American Family Foundation held in Seattle, Washington. The foundation is now called the International Cultic Studies Association. I will reference this information in a footnote. I have contacted the organization to find out what they can provide to verify the article's authenticity.
	--] 03:04, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
			Since we have apparently decided to take a tough stance on sources, I will start challenging sources that appear in the pro-Falun Gong edits as well. Two problems immediately come to mind:
	== Terribly out of context ==
			*The health claims made by Dr. Lilli Feng (were they presented at a conference or published elsewhere?)
			*The Julie Ching (2001) article quoted in the ''Persecution section'', with a link only to the Rick Ross website.
			:: The paper by Quan-Zhen, Richard Johnson et al has appeared in several journals including JACM. It was done by reputed researchers in the field. Including Researchers from micro array core, Beynora institute and Baylor College
			::] 11:06, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
			::: That paper by Quan_zhen I've looked at and also what you wrote on the medical benefits. You took the findings out of context and distort the findings. It's first a Pilot study which just means it's a preliminary stuff/a search and probe type of study. Not a ground-breaking study or anything of the sort. Secondly the study's conclusion suggests qigong in general (and not only FLG) improves neutrophil functions. I believe a rewrite of that section will help clarify things and take some of the bias out of the health benefit page.
			] 12:42, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
			is a version of the paper that appeared in JACM. The original research was titled "An ancient cultivation practice Falun Gong improves neutrophil functions and causes system-level gene regulation " and specifically says Falun Gong.
			] 20:36, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
			Also, there is a significant amount of material that amounts to original research that will have to be deleted from some of the sections. For example, the following representations in the ''Teachings section:''
	What you say seem like a joke made in a very bad taste to me. You are terribly distorting everything. Do some justice to your own conscience!!! The term "evil beings " never refers to human beings!!!! Evil is considered very different from the human... the things that manipulate human mind to do bad deeds.... humans are considered inherently good!!! Concept of achieving buddhahood/godhood through cultivation doesnt carry the fairy tale concept of "god"... God is used in the sense a being who has achieved consummation/perfection through cultivation... For instance...
			*Practitioners encourage studying the books or listening to the lectures, first-hand, to gain a good understanding of the principles and the cultivation system. All teachings, Exercise instruction videos and Lecture Videos are available for free download from www.falundafa.org
			*It is generally believed by practitioners that Falun Gong requires in-depth and repeated study of the books, especially Zhuan Falun, in order to gain a good understanding of its content. Practitioners point out that their own understanding keeps deepening with the repeated study of the books, and also comes from as well personally experiencing the "miraculous" effects of Falun Gong practice, including health benefits.
	"“My Fashen (law body) knows everything. He knows everything on your mind, and he can do anything. He will not take care of you if you do not practice cultivation, and he will help you all the way to the end if you practice cultivation."....
			::: This statement, in my opnion, really doesnt deserve a reply. If you are that adamant I will get a confirmation from www.falundafa.org - thats the primary source.
			] 11:06, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
	... the statement is there in all cultivation practices... masters of a school, through their faculties, guides the cultivators in cultivation...they are said to guide cultivators in cultivation... it has got absolutely no meanings to the effect you imply... read the paragraps surrounding it... HOW COULD YOU ATTRIBUTE SUCH A MEANING TO THE QUOTE???!!!... In Zhuan Falun II Li Hongzhi also talks about people who are practicing cultivation whithout they themseles not knowing it...
			Plus unsourced material in ''The Tianamin Square self-immolation incident'' such as:
	...to understand the concepts of cultivation ways... I refer you to the website www.gnosis-usa.com ...
			*The campaign of government criticism begun in 1999 was considered by most observers to be largely ineffectual until January 2001,( unsourced POV) when persons whom the government claimed were Falun Gong practitioners. And:
			*Falun Gong practitioners emphatically denied that the people who set themselves on fire could have been actual practitioners, since suicide is completely against Falun Gong's principles. (unsourced POV) And:
			*Falun Gong members believe that the incident is an attempt of the Chinese government to turn public opinion in China against Falun Gong to rally support for government crackdown. Falun Gong practitioenrs claim that their Master forbids suicide but have not yet provide any such statements.
			:: Change "Falun Gong members" to IED, FDI or UN Reports and I will give you a source. By the way the section didnt origianlly say "Falun Gong members" it was a recent change by some editor.
	... the concepts are very similar... and it has nothing to do with what you speak about... and it is not something unique to falun dafa....
			:: ]
	... further you are putting every little thing out of context.... a 100 million people would emphatically disagree with the connotations you give to those satements... you dont even understand the vocabulary used in the teachings ... which is only understood by studying all th books
			For instance, The International Education Development Bureau's (IED) report, announced at the United Nations, states:
	... Apparently you have not studied any of the books!!! I have read every single paragraph you quoted... I cant understand why ...neither do I know if it is intentional...but you are quoting everything terribly out of context...
			<blockquote>
			''"This government took out this so-called self-immolation incident that happened on January 23, 2001, in Tiananmen Square and used this as evidence against Falun Gong. We have reached the conclusion after watching a videotape on this incident, that this incident has however been completely orchestrated by the government.''
			</blockquote>
			] 12:30, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
			:*There is no such thing as IED "Bureau". Various FLG articles and websites keep on confusing readers that this ] is a branch under the United Nations and furtherly leap the logic that the UN has investigated the incident.
	.... We cant introduce Falun Gong based on opinions / interpretations of teachings.... there are just too many...
			:*The IED website has no mention of their investigation on the incident videotape. At best this is just another unbased claim. To state more clearly: IED hasn't explained how they investigated, and what convinced them to believe the incident was staged.
			:--] 14:10, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
	== You Are Concealing the Core Beliefs of Falun Gong ==
			::IED's statement to the Sub-Commission on the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights at the United Nations in August, 2001
	Dear Practitioner: I give a long list of Li Hongzhi's quotes and you call them my opinions? The truth is that you are avoiding talking about what is probably the most important part of Master Li's teachings: the idea of '''Fa-rectification'''. I noticed that after the practioners' last big round of edits on the Misplaced Pages piece, the word Fa-rectification had been totally deleted. Why is that?
			] 22:00, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
			::::Yes, I'm fairly aware on the "where" and "when" of the report. However, IED has never formally published a report on their investigation. Which is the "how". How were they convinced that the incident was staged? There is no mention of these details on the Sub-Commision report, as well as their own website. At best this only shows their opinion, it doesn't help a further understanding of the incident. --] 23:10, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
	You might be interested in knowing that a review of all of Master Li's speeches in 2005 reveals that the word ''Fa-rectification'' appears almost twice as often as the word ''Cultivation''.
	And in all those same speeches you will find the word ''Gong'' only once.
			:::I'm the editor on the "FLG members believe...crackdown". The original text was "observers", which I don't need to point out that none of these observers were cited. At best from what I see in "False Fire" and other FLG articles, FLG members argue that the Tiananmen Square incident is meant to incite a negative view on FLG. As ridiculous as this sounds (martyrs, anyone?), these points can be found from FLG. So I only changed "observers" to "FLG members" to reflect this fact. --] 11:56, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
	The point I am making is this: '''Fa-rectification''' is a core concept of the Falun Gong, much more important than the meditative exercises. To simply say I am quoting things out of context will not work. I am at least as familiar as you are with Master Li's teachings. I challenge you to go back to the Master Li quotes I have listed above and explain to me what their meaning is other than what I have entered.
	The corrupt people of the world are going to be weeded out by Master Li's Fa-rectification, while Falun Gong practioners are going to be saved, even turned into Gods. Is that not correct?
	It is what your Master teaches, and unless you are willing to repudiate at least some of the Master's teachings...are you?...I have to conclude that you are being evasive about your own beliefs.
			More unsourced material from the ''Persecution'' section:
	What are your own thoughts on the '''Fa-rectification''', anyway? Do you think people are already being "weeded out" in Master Li's Fa-rectification? When Master Li said in New York in 2003 that the SARS epidemic was "the first round of cleansing" how would you explain that way of thinking?
			*Falun Gong practitioners have affimed that the people seen in the video were not actually practitioners.
	When he said that SARS was "Heaven punishing people" what people was he referring to? Any why, exactly, should these people be punished?
			:: source Falun Gong related website including FDI, FOFG, Clearwisdom.net
			*Falun Gong practitioners went to Tianjin College of Education, which published the magazine, and related governmental agencies and held peaceful protests.
	By the way, you didn't sign your post.
	--] 06:05, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
			Two paragraphs from the persectution section which are either not sourced at all, or cite one of Falung Gong's own websites:
			*Some practitioners were arrested and were, according to reports, beaten by the police. Several days later, for 12 hours on April 25, about 10,000 people gathered at the Central Appeal Office at Foyou street, outside Zhongnanhai, the headquarters of Chinese Communist Government and lined up along a 2 km stretch. They held no signs and chanted no slogans. Premier Zhu Rongji met with some representatives of the practitioners and promised to resolve the situation within three days. The practitioners dispersed peacefully after they received word that Zhu had agreed to their requests. Nevertheless, it was widely reported by the Chinese media that Falun Gong practitioners organizing a protest in the heart of the Chinese Communist Party alarmed many senior leaders, particularly Jiang Zemin. According to some estimates, at this time there were more than 100,000 Falun Gong practitioners in Beijing alone. Some analysts claimed that about 70 million people practice it, which is more than the number of members in the Chinese Communist Party (about 60 million people). (footnote goes to a Falun Gong website, which cannot be used to verify this kind of information.)
	== Violation of Misplaced Pages Etiquette==
			:: I can give sources. There are many. These are not controversial material.
	Fire Star: Please explain what is happening here. An anyonymous editor has deleted my edits, which you approved and which I have fully documented in the discussion above. This seems like bullying to me. Rather than deal with the text as text, making line-by-line edit recommendations, there's a generalized response from a practitioner which really doesn't deal with the Li Honzhi quotes. Can you revert the text to what it was after my update? If not, there is absolutely no objectivity in this article. As you yourself observed above, this Wickipedia article is in danger of becoming an advertisement for the Falun Gong.
			::] 11:06, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
			*The Falun Dafa Information Center, a website which "endeavors to compile, cross-check, organize and publish" reports about the government crackdown on Falun Gong, has confirmed that at least 2,840 (March 2006) Falun Gong practitioners have died while in police or government custody. (cannot use Falun Gong’s own website to verify this information.)
			:: source is Falun Dafa Information. FDI is a registered human rights organization, I understand.
	--] 06:31, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
	:Ah yes, those things happen. My suggestion is to revert and place "see talk page" in the ]. Discussion here is the way to avoid a revert war. --] 14:07, 11 March 2006 (UTC)		:::With Gail Rachlin and Zhang Erping in it. Seems like another FLG clone website. --] 12:17, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
			A cursory review of the material submitted by pro-Falun Gong editors indicates that more unsourced or unverified material will come to light as we progress. But for now, can the other editors please respond to the above problems in the existing edits as soon as possible? If we don't hear back in a couple of days, I will delete the problem sections and sources. --] 08:38, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
	== Nobody is concealing anything. Everybody is invited to go through the books. I myself have been going through it. ==
			See tomanda, the material you are talking about here is nothing controversial - there is no comparing it with the kind of material you insist on introducing. Your statements, seem to suggest to me a threat to vandalize the article unless your material is unconditionally approved. Sorry, The Misplaced Pages doesnt work like that. And you say the article was submitted at the "American Family Foundation".? See, I would better appreciate it if the article had appeared in an academic journal.
	Friend,
			] 11:06, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
			Well, with all due respect. This article is about Falun Gong. FalunDafa.org doesn't promote Falun Gong, it only tries to offer people information about Falun Gong, information about what Falun Gong is...and then people themself can decide what they want to think about Falun Gong. It doesn't say on Falun Gong websites: "Falun Gong is really good, come and learn" does it? But your critics tries to make people think negative thoughts about Falun Gong, but the Falun Gong websites, which you call "pro-FLG websites"...gives people a chance to form their own opinions and understand what they want to understand..that is the main difference I think. Your critics force their own opinions on others, while other websites doesnt say good or bad things, they just offer people to have their own understanding. I think the big problem with you is, that you really believe that anything that isn't critical or negative is positive and adverstisement. That is why it is really hard to come to any conclusion with you. But the truth is, it isn't positive or negative. Also, this article is about Falun Gong, what Falun Gong is and how it works, so why can't we use websites that offers people information of Falun Gong? Such as the lectures or the book Zhuan Falun. (which FalunDafa.org does)
	Fa- rectification is not a "practice"... it is part of cultivation...The closest phrase I can find to it is the Hindu concept of "Dharma Punastaapana"... The dharma/teachings (Fa) rectifies the practitioners own heart... eliminating all evil within and the evil within the cosmic space encompassed by his bodies( not the physical body).... evil doesnot mean "evil people" ... there is ABSOLUTELY NO SUCH CONCEPT... EVIL refers to aggregates removed from the nature of the cosmos(zen shan ren) that control human thinking .... for instace ancient hindustani scriptures say... "you may hate sin... but never hate the sinner"...
			] 10:26, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
			Also, if you say all those things have to be removed, then I say the whole critics and contreversies section have to be removed, because as I see it, the whole section is "critics say" "critics point out" "Fang says" "Chang says". Absoloutly everything in the critics and conreversies section seem to be unsourced and based on personal opinions. ] 10:36, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
	See what Li Hongzhi says about homosexuality:
	"You are wantonly indulging your thoughts. Your thoughts, like the ones I just mentioned, are not actually you. The mentality that makes you homosexual was driven by postnatally-formed bad things. But you yourself were numbed by them and went along with them and wallowed in the mud. You need to find yourself again and stop doing those filthy things. Gods view them as filthy."
			If you are saying it that way even Falungong teaching material eventually are unsourced. Li made up the stuff from his brain. Ideas are not necessarily fact and opinions to address these ideas can't be sourced to a fact. It's the opinion of a few learned individual that makes sense to us that we use to defend our stance. We can only write what's out there and the ideas currently circulating in the media. If the argument has been resolved then there is no problem. If the ideas are not resolved than both side gets put into the contraversy part. You can't stifle the critics by saying there is no source because ideas have no source beside the people that wishes to put out the idea. You can of course use reasoning to support both side of the argument. ] 13:16, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
	...we see that homosexuality is strongly opposed in all traditions including gnosticism( see quote above from pistis sophia) and Buddist scriptures.. homosexuality is bad... doesnt mean homosexuals are!!!!!! ... hatred is bad.. doesnt mean who ever has felt hatred is!!!
			Well, not really, Falun Gong teaching material isn't unsourced, because in that case you can say that Tai Chi, Bagua, Christianity, Buddhism, and Daoism is unsourced. You can even say God and people who believe in God are unsourced right? Well it isn't exactly like that, because it is individual belief. Falun Gong has a belief in something, for example that Truth-Compassion-Forbearence is a path to ones higher self. If it is like that or not, the reader can decide for themself. Nobody say it is or isn't like that. But what the critics that Tomananda uses say is: "It isn't like that, it isn't like that because I don't believe in it." This means that they are forcing their own opinions on others, do you understand what I mean?
	... all cultivation ways clearly distinguish between aggregates that manipualte human thoughts to make them accumulate karma and the person himself.... They also point out that some of the greatst cultivators have arisen from the sinnrs of the past...
			Falun Gong practitioners only show people what they believe in, what others want to believe is up to themself. Thanks for your understanding. /] 14:57, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
			You are beginning to sound like a commercial again. You don't need to repeat your Truth-Compassion_forbearance lecture again. I can add 3 word together and still get the same thing. Loyalty-Duty-Honor US armies' motto? Anyways as I've stated religion/cults/etcs are all ideas and sometimes you can't have a "source" the way you want it. When someone criticize an idea, you don't necessarily have to have a "source" the way you want it. FLG is an idea and so is the criticism to FLG teaching.
	.. we see that in the teachings, cultivators are asked.. never to harbour even the slightest trace of hatred against the police men who torture them in prison... not to see it with human thoughts... to see that they themselves are being manipulated by the "evil"...
			] 03:50, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
			An idea cannot cause ''"Drastic system-level changes of gene expression"''. Repetitive motion or relaxation or yoga is not known to alter gene expressions. Please note that the study by Quan-Zhen Li, Richard Johnson et al which states ''"the genes that are regulated in a consensus fashion among the practitioners can be grouped into several functional clusters, which are directly linked to PMN functions in anti-viral immunity, apoptotic property and possibly longevity based upon a much more economical balance of protein synthesis and degradation"''.. an "idea" cannot really achieve all this. I myself have witnessed recovery from disease which I can only describe as "miraculous".
	... The content you are trying to add is terribly inaccurate.... pulling out a few quote from here and there and attributing to them meaning that were never intented is....
			] 08:00, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
			----
	-Dilip Rajeev
			Falun gong teachings online are online version of the paper copy. Also self-published sources have no problem to be cited to talk about themselves. ] 05:07, 30 May 2006 (UTC) Please look at ] 05:09, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
			The cases cited above do not involve practitioners talking about themselves. For example, in one of the self-published papers on a personal website Dr. Lili Feng makes claims of health benefits for people who practice Falun Gong. And in other examples cited above, there are claims of fact concerning events in China. --] 08:48, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
	Let me also add that the "anonymous_user"... is not really anonymous... that is his user name!!!... he is a user with several stars....
			== Text that needs to be deleted, verified or re-written ==
			We cannot have a double standard on the issues of sources or the prohibition against original research. Dilip has recently deleted all quotes from the Deng and Fang paper presented at the 2000 Seattle, Washington conference of the American Family Foundation because the present citation is to a private website. While the Deng and Fang paper (once verified) will meet the source standard previously proposed by Covenenant and agreed to by several other editors (see above discussion), there are significant portions of pro-Falun Gong edits which do not meet that standard. Unless agreement is reached on some kind of compromise standard among all the editors, we will have no other choice than to delete a significant amount of material from the auxiliary pages. Here is a partial list:
	== The Quotes from Li Hongzhi Say What They Mean==
			1. Medical claims from Dr. Lili Feng and others contained in: “An Ancient Cultivation Practice Falun Gong Improves Neutrophil Functions and Causes System-level Gene Regulation” This is a self-published source and there is no evidence that the paper was presented at a conference or published elsewhere. The paper appears at: The home page is clearly a private Falun Gong web page at:
			This material currently on page called: ''Research into health benefits'' of Falun Gong in the main page at: ]
	Dilip,
			2 Surveys conducted on practitioners which report unusually high cure rates of disease for those who practice Falun Gong. A private website (Falun Dafa Australia) is provided as the source:
	I notice in your response you avoid making reference to Li's many quotes on Fa-rectification,
	and prefer instead to draw (inacccurate)analogies to other religions. Li Honhzi is a lot clearer than you are in his meaning, especially when it comes to Fa-rectification and practitioners becoming Gods. If you choose not to acknowledge these things publicly, there's little I can do about it. After all, Master Li does say to his practitioners "you absolutely must not speak at the higher levels" when talking with ordinary people. (San Francisco,2005) Why should I expect anything different from you now?
			This material is currently appears in section called ''Research into health claims'' on the main ] page.
	As it stands now, there is no balance or objectivity in the Misplaced Pages piece. If the anonymous user you refer to has several stars and absolute editing powers, then God bless him.
			3. Report from Dr. Lili Feng, a Falun Gong practitioner, claiming that Falun Gong exercises boost the immune system and significantly increase life expectancy.
	So let's pretend that the Falun Gong Misplaced Pages report is complete and balanced, without explaining the concept of Fa-rectification in detail, or without having a section on the very real contorversies about Master Li's teachings (by which I mean other than relations with China.)
			This material is currently reported in the section called ''Research into health claims'' appearing on the main ] page. No citation is provided, but I believe the source for this material is one of Falun Gong’s own websites. If Dr. Feng’s research was not presented at a conference or published somewhere other than a Falun Gong website, it must be removed based on the new Dilip standard for sources.
	Some people will go to Misplaced Pages and believe what they read. Others will recognize the self-promotion for what it is.
			4. Self-reported claims about what Falun Gong practitioners do and believe: For example, material reported in the section called ]:
	--] 07:39, 11 March 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. All teachings, Exercise instruction videos and Lecture Videos are available for free download from www.falundafa.org
	==Explaining some context==
	You say that the San francisco lecture says:
	"must not speak at too high a level" .. (you changed the wordings of the quote... but..)let me ask you - what was the context??? isnt it when letting others know about the persecution in China!!!!.... putting it so much out of context is really nothing more than a joke made in grotesque taste!!!
			*It is generally believed by practitioners that Falun Gong requires in-depth and repeated study of the books, especially Zhuan Falun, in order to gain a good understanding of its content. Practitioners point out that their own understanding keeps deepening with the repeated study of the books, and also comes from as well personally experiencing the "miraculous" effects of Falun Gong practice, including health benefits.
	I must also say that practitioners would point out there is a lot more context to the quotes than what I point out.... ... many would be able to address the issues you have raised in much greater depth and clarity... I respect faith and I apologize to those practitioners who are reading this... further, to understand the context even superficially requires studying the teachings in great depth.... so I wont be able to share with you completely all the context I am aware of... there are pages to be written on each quote if you are have an understanding that can atleast be referred to as "an understanding"...but I will try to... pls read through in detail...
			Dilip states that the primary source for this material is , but that is a private website and the material, even if it exists as Dilip claims, amounts to original research. Editors who are Falun Gong practitioners cannot maker personal representations about what other practitioners, in general, do or believe. This topic was discussed at great length more than a month ago in the context of Li’s views on homosexuality.
	1.
	There is no concept of "A God" in cultivation ways... and the aim of cultivation practice is achieving "buddhahood"...Gautama was Mr Gautama before he completed his cultivation and he taught what he had enlightened-to to save people... taught them a path to Buddhahood( or godhood or perfection)...a cultivation way... He taught HIS OWN DHARMA... th dharma he had enlightened to.. Gnostics believe Jesus practiced cultivation in the cultivation way of "The Great Arcanum" ( see www.gnosis-usa.com )... incarnated his christ (achieved buddhahood/ perfection ) and taught what he had enlightened-to to save people... and that masters/buddhas in the gnostic school tkes care of cultivators in that school.... guiding them inn cultivation...
			5. Unsourced material which makes claims about what actually happened during the Tianamin Square self-immolation indicent:
	“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
			*The campaign of government criticism begun in 1999 was considered by most observers to be largely ineffectual until January 2001,( unsourced POV) when persons whom the government claimed were Falun Gong practitioners. And:
	2.
			*Falun Gong practitioners emphatically denied that the people who set themselves on fire could have been actual practitioners, since suicide is completely against Falun Gong's principles. (unsourced POV) And:
	Usually cultivation ways require people to leave the "mundane world".. go through unspeakable hardships and the path is considered almost impossible to walk... the Katha Upanishad (ancient vedic scripture) calls the path of cultivation "The Razor's Edge"... cultivation in a Dafa is considered to be the easiest.. one that be can walked without leaving the mundane world.... and a Dafa is only revealed because of profound historical reasons... If a being cant cultivate to perfection in Dafa... it is considered almost impossible for him to walk the path... his endurance is considered far from adequate...
			*Falun Gong members believe that the incident is an attempt of the Chinese government to turn public opinion in China against Falun Gong to rally support for government crackdown. Falun Gong practitioenrs claim that their Master forbids suicide but have not yet provide any such statements.
	“If I cannot save you, nobody can do it.” Zhuan Falun, 2nd, edition. p. 160 on-line document at: http://www.clearwisdom.net/emh/index.html
			This material currently appears in the page called ]. An editor added the comments about unsourced POV) some time ago, but without a response from any of the pro-Falun Gong editors. Dilip states he can re-write this material and provide verifiable sources, and other editors have commented, but so far no alternative text has been proposed.
			6. Additional unsourced or unverified material appearing in the page called ]:
	... The dharma is taught to offer salvation to sentient beings... to show them a path (which they themselves must walk) to achive perfection( in every sense of the word)... Like I said before all cultivation ways require the Master to carefully guide the disciple and protect him.... compare similarity with buddhist and gnostic reaching... Gautama Buddha offered salvation to all sentient beings.. he is said to have protected the path of cultivation for his disciples.... All traditions say that it is impossible to cultivate without protection from high level masters.... Gautama Buddha himself said he had masters guiding him and protecting him during cultivation... Li Hongzhi has also said that had masters guiding him in his path of cultivation...
			*Falun Gong practitioners have affimed that the people seen in the video were not actually practitioners.
	“Because I come precisely to offer salvation to all sentient beings, if I am not responsible to you, reading such things will bring danger to you. Therefore, I must take care of you.” Falun Dafa Lecture (Sydney Australia), p. 20.
			Dilip says he can provide sources for this claim, but they all appear to be Falun Gong’s own websites. This does not
	c)
			meet the standard of verification that is needed.
			*Falun Gong practitioners went to Tianjin College of Education, which published the magazine, and related governmental agencies and held peaceful protests.
	When a Dharma is taught there are profound reasons... The orthodox Fa is not causually taught....
			What source, other than a Falun Gong website, verifies that the protest was peaceful? We know that 45 practitioners were arrested during this protest and it is likely that they were disrupting the normal course of business at this magazine publisher’s office, at the least.
	“I am the only person in the world who is teaching orthodox Fa in public. I have done something nobody did in the past and opened such a large door in the Dharma-ending time.” Zhuan Falun, 2nd edition. p. 101
			7. A paragraph about the Zhongnanhai protest alleging that practitioners were beaten by the police and that the Chinese media reports of the protest were incaccurate. Material in the page called ] is either not sourced at all, or cites one of Falung Gong's own websites:
			*Some practitioners were arrested and were, according to reports, beaten by the police. Several days later, for 12 hours on April 25, about 10,000 people gathered at the Central Appeal Office at Foyou street, outside Zhongnanhai, the headquarters of Chinese Communist Government and lined up along a 2 km stretch. They held no signs and chanted no slogans. Premier Zhu Rongji met with some representatives of the practitioners and promised to resolve the situation within three days. The practitioners dispersed peacefully after they received word that Zhu had agreed to their requests. Nevertheless, it was widely reported by the Chinese media that Falun Gong practitioners organizing a protest in the heart of the Chinese Communist Party alarmed many senior leaders, particularly Jiang Zemin. According to some estimates, at this time there were more than 100,000 Falun Gong practitioners in Beijing alone. Some analysts claimed that about 70 million people practice it, which is more than the number of members in the Chinese Communist Party (about 60 million people).
	Regarding what Buddhism says on "Dharma-Ending time":
			This paragraph, which clearly represents a POV about what happened, does not have any source other than a Falun Gong website.
	"Alas! In the evil time
			8. A subsequent paragraph in the same section which claims that 2,840 Falun Gong practitioners have died while in police or government custody in China.
	Of the Dharma-Ending Age,
			*The Falun Dafa Information Center, a website which "endeavors to compile, cross-check, organize and publish" reports about the government crackdown on Falun Gong, has confirmed that at least 2,840 (March 2006) Falun Gong practitioners have died while in police or government custody.
	Living beings' blessings are slight,
			The source provided for this information is one of Falun Gong’s own websites. If this claim cannot be verified by a non-Falun Gong source, it must be deleted.
	It is difficult to train them.
			9. In a subsequent paragraph, a sentence reporting unverified practitioners’ claims that practitioners are not encouraged to avoid, by practice, most conventional medicine:
	Far indeed from the sages of the past!
			*A frequent argument made by Chinese scientists is that followers are encouraged to avoid, by practice, most conventional ]. Falun Gong practitioners point out that no such incident has been reported outside China and that such accusations surfaced only after the persecution started.
	Their deviant views are deep.
			Even if this claim of practitioners came from a verifiable source other than a Falun Gong website, it is directly contradicted by the Master’ own teachings:
	Demons are strong, the Dharma is weak;
			:Taking medication during cultivation implies that you do not believe in the disease-curing effects of cultivation. If you believed in it, why would you take medication? Falun Gong, revised edition, Chapter Five, Questions and Answers, p. 82.
			10. In a subsequent paragraph, an unverified claim that the Falun Gong is not “political”
	Many are the wrongs and injuries.
	Hearing the door of the Thus Come One's sudden teaching,
	They hate not destroying it as they would smash a tile.
	The doing is in the mind;
	The body suffers the calamities.
	There's no need for unjust accusations that shift the blame to others.
	If you don't wish to invite the karma of the unintermittent ,
	Do not slander the Thus Come One's Proper Wheel of Dharma. "
	-Gautama Buddha (SE 62-63)
	http://www.drba.org/dharma/btts/9xxentrydetail.asp?wid=89
	According to buddhism (Gautama Buddha ) this is the Dharma Ending period in which all the teachings would cease to exist and a Great Way would spread . Hinduism calls this the kali yuga... gnostics also have very similar beliefs regarding the matter... I refer you to the above link to a Buddhist website.. which says this is the Dharma Ending Period... According to the Buddhist scripture the time period during which the orthodox Fa would spread again is characterized by several things including the reversal of Yin and Yang.. which according to chinese belief started in the 60s... according to gnostic belief it started on February 4th 1962....
	3.
	Dafa is cultivation ... studying Zhuan falun... which is considered by practitioners to encompass great inner meaning and to constantly guide the practitioner in letting go of all attachments like hatred, lust,greed, jealousy .. studying Zhuan Falun IS considered central to progressing in cultivation... we say that in the beliefs section...buddhist monks study the scriptures a lot... why? it guides them in cultivation... always having the teachings in mind helps the practitioner assimilate to zen-shan-ren... and let go of all bad things in his own mind.... exercises are to strengthen energy mechanism that continually transform ones benti.. the teachings guide the practitioner in cultivation...
	“Why do I tell you to study, read and memorize Zhuan Falun?
	'''It is to guide your cultivation practice!''' As to those who only do the exercises but do not study the Fa, they are not disciples of Dafa whatsoever.” “What is Cultivation Practice?” (September 6, 1996) Essentials for Further Advancement, English Version.
	4.
	Achieving "god-hood" is letting go of all bad aggregates/attachments and achieving perfection... according to gnosticism, when all the bad aggregates are removed the WILL is freed to great extent.... and higher faculties emerge.... cultivation ways believe that the human is not a biped mammal with intellect... they say there are much higher faculties in the levels of the being which can be freed when one completes cultivation... and the person is said to have achieved godhood or perfection.... Li Hongzhi also makes clear that perfection can ONLY be acheived by cultivating oneself... Zhuan Falun makes it very clear that it is not achieved by belief or by praying... only through arduous cultivation...
	“I will also save you and turn you into Gods…since you'll become Gods at levels that high, I have to give you the honors of Gods at levels that high and all the blessings that you need.” Los Angeles Lecture (February 15, 2003)
	5. All taditions believe that it is the Dharama that guides the evolution of the cosmos... the law that guides all cosmic changes.... the law that can guide a cultivator in his course of cultivation... the law that has manifestations at all levels...Dafa means the Great Dharma...
	“Dafa is the Fa (Law) of the cosmos, and Dafa has created all beings in the cosmos.” “Using at Will” (June 28, 200) in Essentials for Further Advancement II, item 12.
	6.
	This absolutely is no threatening or anything of that sort!!!! Where did you get that idea from???.... It says that the master protects and guides the cultivator in cultivation; all the way to the end.... I request EVERYBODY reading this to please read the chapter/page containing the quote from Zhuan Falun
	“My Fashen (law body) knows everything. He knows everything on your mind, and he can do anything. He will not take care of you if you do not practice cultivation, and he will help you all the way to the end if you practice cultivation.” Zhuan Falun, 2nd edition, p. 170.
	In all traditions... distorting/slandering the Dafa is considered the Greatest sin a sentient being can make.... see previous quote by Gautama Buddha too.. Buddha shayamuni sas that he who distorts the Dharma would have to go through 49 levels of Hell. In Pistis Sophia Jesus Christ says that he who slanders a true teaching will have to suffer the "49 demons"...
	“In recent years some practitioners suddenly died; some of them died precisely because they did such things (plagiarized Li’s Dafa). Don’t think your master might do something to you. You should know that there are numerous guardian Gods of the Fa at various levels whose very duty is to protect the Fa. Furthermore, demons won’t leave you alone!....Once you are reduced to the level of an everyday person, no one will protect you and demons will also take your life.” “Dafa Can Never be Plagiarized” (September 22, 1996) in Essentials for Further Advancement I
	7. 'Evil' doesnot refer to the true self of the 'person'!!pls see next section an prvious post i had made.....according to all traditions, Slanderng the dharma is said to bring upon oneself terrible karma... and if a person's words cause a being to lose his oppurtunity to cultivate the sin is considered unforgivable in the gnostic tradition....see buddhist belief in quote above...
	“Let me tell you, when this Fa-rectification matter is over, humankind will enter the next stage, and those people and beings who in their minds think that the Great Fa of the cosmos isn’t good will be the first weeded out.” “Teaching the Fa at the Great Lakes Fa conference in North America (December 9, 2000), p. 1.
	b)
	Pls see my prev post.. "evil beings" are evil beings that manipulate human minds to sin... never humans...
	"You yourself are a primordial self that is unchangeable."...."When one breaks his frame of thought, he will easily feel and perceive his good temperament, disposition, fundamental nature and character which have formed his real self."..."One's Chief Spirit will not change because of the notions it has produced. Chief Spirit will not have its nature changed because of the notions it has produced. The human nature can be buried in, covered with or entirely surrounded by various notions and different kinds of karma and cannot show itself, but it will not change." -Zhuan Falun II
	“All the evil beings in the world will be knocked down into hell when the Fa rectifies the human world, and for all eternity they will pay for the sins they committed.”
	“A Suggestion” (April 10,2001) in Essentials for Further Advancement II
	Note: Since homosexuality is one of the world’s ten evils, and homosexuals have “dark hearts, turning demonic” there’s no question that practicing homosexuals will be “weeded out” by Master Li’s great “Fa-rectification.” See: “The World’s Ten Evils” (July 7, 1998)
	See: http://falundafa.org/book/eng/HongYinVB.htm#_Toc110877614
	c) ... what is meant by "dregs" of humanity? beings that harm mankind... and what is the "degenrate world"??
	"Once the saved ones have attained the Fa and left, the dregs of humanity and degenerate world that are left behind will be weeded out." Essentials for Further Advancement II, item 28
	d) All traditions predict huge catastrophies and epidemics during this time... no suffering is considered to be of co-incidential nature... karma is considered to be of material reality in higher dimensions and when mankind's karma reaches terrible extents huge catastrophies and epidemics are said to manifest... that is considered to be the nature of the cosmos... by all traditions.. be it hinduism, gnosticism, buddhism or zoroastrainism... falun dafa lectures say that the immense catastrophies predicted in the ancient scriptures are non-existant....
	“The number who will be weeded out is large and terrifying. At the beginning people will still feel shocked, while by the end they'll be numb to it. What kind of state will a person be in when he sees dead people strewn everywhere on the street?” “Teaching the Fa at the 2003 Atlanta Conference” (November 29, 2003) Q & A section.
	"Fa- rectification is not a "practice"... it is part of cultivation...The closest phrase I can find to it is the Hindu concept of "Dharma Punastaapana"... The dharma/teachings (Fa) rectifies the practitioners own heart... eliminating all evil within and the evil within the cosmic space encompassed by his bodies( not the physical body).... evil doesnot mean "evil people" ... there is ABSOLUTELY NO SUCH CONCEPT... EVIL refers to aggregates removed from the nature of the cosmos(zen shan ren) that control human thinking .... for instace ancient hindustani scriptures say... "you may hate sin... but never hate the sinner"...
	See what Li Hongzhi says about homosexuality: "You are wantonly indulging your thoughts. Your thoughts, like the ones I just mentioned, are not actually you. The mentality that makes you homosexual was driven by postnatally-formed bad things. But you yourself were numbed by them and went along with them and wallowed in the mud. You need to find yourself again and stop doing those filthy things. Gods view them as filthy."
	...we see that homosexuality is strongly opposed in all traditions including gnosticism( see quote above from pistis sophia) and Buddist scriptures.. homosexuality is bad... doesnt mean homosexuals are!!!!!! ... hatred is bad.. doesnt mean who ever has felt hatred is!!!
	... all cultivation ways clearly distinguish between aggregates that manipualte human thoughts to make them accumulate karma( referred to as evil) and the person himself.... They also point out that some of the greatest cultivators have risen from the sinners of the past...
	.. we see that in the teachings, cultivators are asked.. never to harbour even the slightest trace of hatred against the police men who torture them in prison... not to see it with human thoughts... to see that they themselves are being manipulated by the "evil"...
	... The content you are trying to add is terribly inaccurate.... pulling out a few quote from here and there and attributing to them meaning that were never intented is...
	-Dilip rajeev
	== One More Time ==
	Dilip,
	You've gone off on a tangent. Here are the two paragraphs I wrote:
	Central to "Falun Dafa" is belief in Li's God-like role as the exclusive savior (2) of mankind in this "Dharma ending" period. If a Falun Gong practitioner were only to do the exercises, but fail to live up to Master Li's Dafa, that person would not be considered a Dafa disciple (3) and thus not a candidate for salvation. Falun Gong practitioners are promised the possibility of becoming Gods (4) as long as they stand up for the Dafa. Master Li has stated that his Dafa created all beings in the cosmos (5), so in a sense Master Li himself can be considered a creator God.
	Also central to the Falun Dafa is the idea that Master Li protects all his disciples, but that if they fail to live up to the requirements of his Dafa he will withdraw his protection and their bodies will be returned to those of ordinary persons...sickness, old age and even death will return to them (6). If practitioners live up to the Dafa, they are promised salvation, while non-practitioners who criticize the Dafa, corrupt people, homosexuals and the "dregs" of humanity can expect to be eliminated by Master Li's great law in a process called “Fa-rectification.” (7)
	You've offered a lot of extraneous comments, but you have failed to say what of the above you find
	incorrect. For example, do you disagree with my statement that "Falun Gong practitioners are promised the possibility of becoming Gods as long as they stand up for the Dafa." The Master says:
	"I will also save you and turn you into Gods…since you'll become Gods at levels that high, I have to give you the honors of Gods at levels that high and all the blessings that you need.” Los Angeles Lecture (February 15, 2003)
	So what is wrong with my sentence, if anything?
	And by the way, do you believe you are already a God...or on your way to becoming a God? You know, I have been told by some practitioners who are married (hetorsexual) that their spouse has said to them they are a God. But these marriages usually wind up breaking up. Are you married?
	Is your wife a Falun Gong practitioner? You know, one of the complaints about Falun Gong is how it breaks up families.
	--] 11:03, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
	:Questioning each others beliefs is off point a bit. We should stick to discussing the article. --] 14:33, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
	==Please go through Falun Dafa books==
	I am not going "off-tangent". I pointed out why your statements are inaccurate ... and that you are (intentionally or otherwise) putting the quotes out of context...
	Buddhist concept of cultivation is cultivation of buddhahood... "Buddha-hood" is achieved through cultivation--never by "standing up" for anybody!!! where did u get that idea from....??? A falun gong practitioner is a cultivator- nothing more; nothing less.
	My concept of "god" is so very different from yours!!... I request you to please study the books and lectures of the gnostic cultivation way... www.gnosis-usa.com ... you will understand what cultivation ways mean by the concept "god" ...I have never seen any practitioner who has claimed themselves to be gods!!! I have seen Falun Dafa practice bringing peace, joy and health to innumerable families... I am yet to see a family break up because of Falun Dafa... i just happenned to read this article.. I request you to patiently go through the entire article... health survery conductd by reputed researchers show a 99% improvement rate in mental health with Falun Gong practice and a CURE rate of 58%!!!
	You may also interact with me over my email id... dilip_rajeev@msn.com
	Friend, when you so emphatically want to put foward Falun Gong as a mind control cult ( i cant understand Why!!!).. please see that one of the world's greatest authorities on physchiatry - Abraham L. Halpern, M.D. (Professor Emeritus of Psychiatry, New York Medical College
	Former President, American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law) .. is himself a Board Member of Friends of Falun Gong ....
	:Again, please sign posts, as you are editing from a rotating IP it is hard to follow sometimes. The issue isn't that any of us think FLG is a cult, it is that Steve Hassan and his colleagues do. It also doesn't matter what any of us think of God or gods. Whether the cult experts take Li's statements out of context or not isn't our problem, they are notable, verifiably documented critics and should be in the article. We can provide the context of what FLG stands for and what its critics believe about them, the reader has to make up their own mind, we don't make it up for them. This is the controversial nature of FLG that I was on about earlier, a lot of people are wary of Li and his public position. We have to report that. --] 14:14, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
	== Newly Introduced Paragraphs==
	The newly introduced paragraphs in the "beliefs" section:
	"Another feature of Falun Dafa is promotion of Li's role as the exclusive savior of mankind in this "Dharma ending" period. If a Falun Gong practitioner were only to do the exercises, but fail to live up to Master Li's Dafa, that person would not be considered a Dafa disciple and thus not a candidate for salvation. Falun Gong practitioners are promised the possibility of becoming Gods as long as they stand up for the Dafa.
	Also found is the idea that Master Li protects all his disciples, but that if they fail to live up to the requirements of his Dafa he will withdraw his protection and their bodies will be returned to those of ordinary persons and that sickness, old age and even death will return to them. If practitioners live up to the Dafa, they are promised salvation, while non-practitioners who criticize the Dafa, corrupt people, homosexuals and the "dregs" of humanity can expect to be eliminated by the great law in a process called “Fa-rectification.”"
	Has been edited to improve accuracy and bring it closer to what is said in the books... Please see Zhuan Falun... and the quotes below..
	Falun Dafa is said to be the only "orthodox Fa" being taught during the . Also found is the idea that Master Li protects all disciples during cultivation and that a person may be considered to be a disciple only if he cultivates his xinxing(mind-nature) in accordance with the teachings of Dafa. It is said that while a cultivator can achieve a disease free state; birth, old-age, sickness and death are just "facts of life" for ordinary people. And thus, a person can only be helped if he can elevate his mind-nature to the level of a cultivator.
	If practitioners cultivate in accordance with Dafa, it is said that the goal of cultivation practice- Buddhahood can be achieved. It is also said that the cosmic firmament, from very high levels, has deviated from the Fa(]) and that all levels are being rectified by the Fa(]) in the process of Fa-rectification. Slandering the Fa(Dharma) is considered an act that brings terrible ] on oneself. It is also said that those who slander the Dafa, the "dregs" of humanity and others who have accumulated a lot of karma are likely to be eliminated when the Fa(]) rectifies the human world.
	-------------
	Never has it been said that "homosexuals" and "corrupt people" are to be eliminAted in Fa rectification... the word "salvation" is rarely used ... it iS the concept of achieving Buddhahood ...... The concept of Fa- Rectification concisely presented before it is dicussed...
	it is only said that birth old age sickness and deaths are "facts of life" and manifestations of the Fa at this level... never anything to the effect that if a person stops practicing, old-age, sickness and "even" death ...I HAVE BEEN REPEATEDLY TRYING TO SAY THAT THERE IS AN ATTEMPT(DELIBERATE or OTHERWISE) TO COMPLETELY DISTORT WHAT IS SAID IN THE BOOK... I cant understand how this person would miss the word "birth"!!!
	and ' "dregs" of humanity ' CHANGED TO ' "dregs of humanity" '(position of the quote)
	.... something else of importance that I wanted to point out.... the para added lately said "Falun Gong practitioners are promised the possibility of becoming Gods as long as they stand up for the Dafa."!!!
	....
	this lecture from Frankfurt germany , emphatically says:
	'''If any of you sitting here can’t cultivate your xinxing (mind/heart-nature) to the''' ''' point of Consummation, then I can’t do anything about it either '''
	'''FROM LECTURES IN EUROPE(Germany):'''
	" Since Jesus had such great abilities and his father was Lord of the Caucasians, couldn’t he do whatever he wanted? Why did he spend so much effort on Earth persuading people to do good, telling people principles of the truth, and suffering so much for human beings? And at that time he also had to endure suppression and sabotage from other religions. Why then bother to do things the way he
	did? It means that even though he had such great abilities, he still had to rectify the human heart
	in order to save a person.'''If any of you sitting here can’t cultivate your xinxing to the''' ''' point of Consummation, then I can’t do anything about it either '''. I can teach you the principles of the Fa, I can help you evolve gong, I can eliminate a portion of your karma for you, I can protect you, and I can do a huge range of things for you that you don’t know about but that are necessary when you Consummate and afterwards. But if your heart doesn’t change and your mind doesn’t
	elevate, then all of that is in vain. That’s what I mean when I say that if a person’s heart doesn’t
	change, even a Buddha can’t help him. "
	'''From Zhuan Falun....'''
	"We emphasize one point: If you cannot relinquish the attachment or concern for illness, we
	cannot do anything and will be unable to help you. Why is this? It is because there is such a
	principle in the universe: Ordinary human affairs, according to the Buddha School, all have
	predestined relationships. Birth, old age, illness, and death exist as such for ordinary people. Due
	to karma resulting from past wrongdoing, one has illnesses or tribulations; suffering is repaying a
	karmic debt, and thus nobody can casually change this. Changing it means that one would not
	have to repay the debt after being in debt, and this cannot be done at will. Doing otherwise is the
	same as committing a bad deed. ".........
	"Why can this be done for a practitioner, then? It is because a practitioner is most precious,
	for he or she wants to practice cultivation. Therefore, developing this thought is most precious. "....
	.."Therefore, once a person wants to practice cultivation, his or her Buddha-nature is considered to have come forth. Such a thought is most precious, for this person wants to return to his or her original, true self and transcend the ordinary human level.
			*CCP claims that the practice has deviated its focus from engaging in spiritual cultivation to engaging in politics, basing their opinions on the existence of numerous websites disparate from, yet in support of, Falun Gong (such as ). Due to an implication derived from its core principles, the teachings of Falun Gong are said to forbid any political involvement, and practitioners claim to have little interest in power or politics, the large number of protests to the crackdown notwithstanding. Falun Gong's supporters, such as '']'', tend to be conservative and anti-]. Kangang Xu, a Falun Gong speaker, is the Chairman of the paper's board.
	Perhaps everyone has heard this statement in Buddhism: “When one’s Buddha-nature
	emerges, it will shake ‘the world of ten directions.’” Whoever sees it will come to give a hand
	and help this person out unconditionally. In providing salvation to humankind, the Buddha
	School does not attach any condition or seek returns, and it will help unconditionally.
	Accordingly, we can do many things for practitioners. But for an everyday person who just
	wants to be an everyday person and to cure his or her illness, it will not work."
	] 17:25, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
			This unsourced material also violates Misplaced Pages’s policy against original research and NPOV. Editors cannot report the views of Falun Gong practitioners in this way to refute the claim of the CCP that the Falun Gong has turned “from engaging in spiritual cultivation to engaging in politics.” The second sentence contains a non-sequitur (the stuff about the conservative nature of the Epoch Times) as well as an unverified claim concerning an alleged implication deriving from Falun Gong’s core principles that is said “to forbid any political involvement.” Actually, the exact opposite is true: Li Honghzhi demands that his practitioners do everything they can to publicly undermine the CCP, with the explicit goal of reducing membership in the party by millions of people. (These numbers are updated in the Epoch Times, the paper Li’s disciples created to validate Li’s teachings. In the name of “validating the Dafa” Falun Gong practitioners are required to pursue Li’s political objective of overthrowing the Chinese Communist Party. This is an absolute requirement for one to be considered a Dafa disciple during this “Fa-rectification period” and Li reminds his practitioners of this requirement in all his lectures.--] 21:53, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
	Fire Star,
	Please donot replace the factual verion of the paragraphs in the beliefs section with a POV version. i was thinking it is an edit conflit... I am the praragraphs with the factual version. Please see to it that it is not reverted... Tibetan tantrism, lamaism, shakyamunis teachings are all considered cultivation ways in falun dafa... it is never said that falun gong is the only cultivation way!!See my above post too...
	-Dilip Rajeev
			Tomanda,Misplaced Pages doesnt work like that. We dont copy content sentence by sentence from websites. Please remember that the health survey mentions the researchers and medical institutions involved.
	Florid prose ==
			I am taking the from discussion on the criticism page:
	The rewrite of Tomananda's latest paragraphs that I have reverted twice now introduces language that implies (among other things) that any criticism of FLG is "slander". That itself is a POV. I feel that the language should be left in the drier version, instead of the version that reads like an FLG advert. --] 17:02, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
			As for the research paper by Richard Johnson et al, it is a scientific medical paper. Solid genome profiling done by experts in the field from Microarray Core, Center for Immunology at University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center , Baylor College of Medicine and Benaroya Research Institute at Virginia Mason. I will get you a list of journals in which the paper has appeared these include the JACM. A similar, version of the paper that appeared in JACM is: http://pkg.dajiyuan.com/pkg/2005-04-08/genomic%20profiling.pdf ( not exactly the same paper but drawing upon results from genome profiling done on Falun Gong practitioners and the micro-array analysis of gene expression levels of PMNs in Falun Gong practitioners.) Another source for the paper is http://www.asianresearch.org/articles/2397.html
			] 22:10, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
			This specifically is what I would like to point out. What we are looking at is research material by experts in the field. We are interested in what Steve Hassan says but what is presented at a family association conference, in which anybody (including you and me) may present their opinions, is of little significance to an encyclopaedia article. For instance, Samuel presented something at that "conference", can we use that? Certainly not. No personal offense intented I am just pointing out that wikipedia standard dont allow such material. For instance, practitioners present their experiences in Fa conferences around the world. Many practitioners are prominent medical scientists, martial artists, professors and so on.. We can get an opinion from the professors in the Falun Dafa practice groups of Yale or Harvard ... but we really cant present all their opinions here.... what qualifies as a paper, in my understanding, is something accepted by the academic community or something that has appeared in a reputed journal.
			] 22:10, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
			:Sorry Dilip but your post fails to address the specific problems cited in items #1-10 above, and I don't remember saying anything about the Richard Johnson source you talk about, or for that matter anything about Samuel's presentations at annual AFF conferences. Right now, I request that you focus on the actual issues I have raised. --] 22:24, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
	Fire Star,
			The research was done by Quan-Zhen Li, Richard J. Johnson, Gabriela E.Garcia, Ping Li, Tongwen Wang, and Lili Feng
	I used the word slander becaue that is the word used in the lectures... it is NOT SAID ANYWHERE THAT "CRITICIZING" The Dharma would bring a lot of karma on the inividual.... the word used in the lectures is "SLANDER"... i think "slander" and "criticism" are different....
			] 22:47, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
			I also want to point out that there is no need to vandalize the whole article saying not every sentence is copied from other websites. But since you insist, I will provide the sources. Consider for instance these :
	:But the version you are putting in doesn't have the word slander in quotes. Without quotes, it has to be a ], and "criticizing" is a neutral description of behaviour to be punished by "Fa-rectification". The wording is going to have to be changed. You have said in edit summaries that it isn't "remotely factual" yet Tomananda has done a pretty good job of documenting these things to be what Li has said. FLG practitioners may see what Li has said many different ways, but unless the interpretation is published elsewhere (and even then it will be one interpretation of many) we shouldn't have it in the article. --] 19:06, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
			Leavy, Mark J. Note. Discrediting human rights abuse as an "act of state": a case study on the repression of the Falun Gong in China and commentary on international human rights law in U.S. courts. 35 Rutgers L.J. 749-823 (2004)
			The Harvard Human Rights Journal.
			Investigation Reports on the Persecution of Falun Gong, v.1. Hyde Park, MA
	Fire Star,
			or What the paper titled "The Perseuction of Falun Gong" by Chandra D Smith from the Rutgers Journal of Law says:
	Criticism and slander are different things. The lectures say slandering the dafa is an act that brings karma on oneself... we say in the beliefs section that slandering the dahma is considered....
			http://www-camlaw.rutgers.edu/publications/law-religion/new_devs/RJLR_ND_66.pdf
	I am not talking about interpretations. A quote has no meaning outside the "context"... If you just read the pargraph surrounding the quote or the chapter it is in, you will understand what I am talking about... and you may verify for yourself by reading the books...
	"not even remotely factual" is to put it mildly.. let me please point out a few things....
	Tomananada says according to Falun Gong, one can achieve comsummation (he uses the word salvation) by "standing up" for falun gong!!! it is repeatedly said in the lectures only by cultivating one's xinxing can you go forward in cultivation... and even praying or hoping for things to go well in cultivation is considered futile:
	"If any of you sitting here can’t cultivate your xinxing to the point of Consummation, then I can’t do anything about it either..." - Lectures in Europe
	It is said in the lectures that while a cultivator can achieve a disease free state; birth, old-age, sickness and death are just "facts of life" for ordinary people. And thus, a dis-ease free state can be achieved only if a person can elevate his mind-nature to the level of a cultivator.
	but tomananda puts it as :
	"if they fail to live up to the requirements of his Dafa he will withdraw his protection and their bodies will be returned to those of ordinary persons and that sickness, old age and even death will return to them."
	you wont find anything of that sort in the lectures!!! and pls note the "even death" part!!!
	== ] ==
	I have added a request for comment at the above link in order to solicit further input on this apparent impasse. --] 17:14, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
	== Response to Request for Comments ==
	Fire Star: I am happy with your most recent edit Revision 3:16 13 march 2006. However, I have spent most of today composing a long response to your request for comments which winds up with slightly different wording, but the same meaning. Either version (your's or mine) is fine with me. I'm very sorry for adding so much length to the discussion page:
	Revision as of 16:15, 12 March 2006
	Line 37:
	1. Paragraph One, sentence one:
	'''Another feature of Falun Dafa is promotion of Li’s roles as the exclusive savior of mankind in the “Dharma ending” period'''.
	Sources:
	a) “Except for the demons that will deceive you, nobody else will teach you and you will not be able to practice cultivation in the future. If I cannot save you, nobody else can do it.” Zhuan Falun, 2nd, edition. p. 160 on-line document at:
	http://www.falundafa.org/book/eng/lecture8.html#4
	b) “Because I come precisely to offer salvation to all sentient beings, if I am not responsible to you, reading such things will bring danger to you. Therefore, I must take care of you.” Falun Dafa Lecture (Sydney Australia), p. 20.
	http://www.falundafa.org/book/eng/xnjf1.htm
	c) “Some people say, ‘If I believe in Jesus, I will be able to go to heaven.’ I say that you won't. Why not? It is because people nowadays do not understand the true meaning of what Jesus said.” Falun Dafa Lecture (Sydney, Australia), p.4
	http://www.falundafa.org/book/eng/xnjf1.htm
	d) “The Dharma taught by Sakyamuni was provided for ordinary people of the extremely low levels two thousand five hundred years ago, who just evolved from the primitive society with simple minds. The Dharma-ending Period that he referred to is today. Now people can no longer practice cultivation with that Dharma. Even monks in temples cannot save themselves in the Dharma-ending period, let alone offer salvation to others.” Zhuan Falun, 2nd print edition, p.13
	Comment:
	The words ''save'' (in the soteriological sense) or ''salvation'' were spoken by Master Li 40 times in the Sydney speech alone.
	2. Paragraph One, sentence Two:
	'''If a Falun Gong practitioner were only to do the exercises, but fail to live up to Master Li’s Dafa, that person would not be considered a Dafa disciple and thus not a candidate for salvation.'''
	Source:
	“Why do I tell you to study, read and memorize Zhuan Falun? It is to guide your cultivation practice! As to those who only do the exercises but do not study the Fa, they are not disciples of Dafa whatsoever.” “What is Cultivation Practice?” (September 6, 1996) Essentials for Further Advancement, English Version.
	http://www.falundafa.org/book/eng/jjyz51.htm
	Comments:
	1). In order to make the edit correspond exactly with Li’s words (see 4b), I would agree to change “fail to live up to the requirements of the Dafa” to “do not follow the requirements of the Fa.”
	2) I do not object to substituting the word consummation for salvation, but then this would require defining the word consummation. Since salvation is the more general word, understood by everyone, I argue that it works better in this very short summary.
	3. Paragraph One, sentence Three:
	'''Falun Gong practitioners are promised the possibility of becoming Gods as long as they stand up for the Dafa.'''
	Sources:
	a) “I have truly borne for you the sins you committed over hundreds and thousands of years. And it doesn't stop at just that. Because of this, I will also save you and turn you into Gods. I have spared no effort for you in this process. Along with this, since you'll become Gods at levels that high, I have to give you the honors of Gods at levels that high and all the blessings that you need to have at levels that high.” (Applause)
	Fa-Lecture During the 2003 Lantern Festival at the U.S. West Fa Conference (February 15, 2003)
	http://clearwisdom.net/emh/articles/2003/2/27/32713.html
	b) “A Dafa disciple who fails to achieve the effect of the safeguarding and upholding Dafa has no way of reaching Consummation.” “Fa-Rectification Period Dafa Disciples,” Same source as C below:
	c) “Dafa disciples are magnificent because you are here at the same time as the period of Master’s Fa-rectification and are able to safeguard and uphold Dafa. If what you do is no longer worthy of a Dafa disciple, think about it, if under the greatest mercy since the beginning of Heaven and Earth and under Buddha’s infinite grace you still can’t do well, how could there be another chance?” “Fa-Rectification Period Dafa Disciples,” Essentials for Further Advancement II, item 40
	http://www.falundafa.org/book/eng/jjyz2_40.htm
	Comments:
	1). Li’s promise to turn his practitioners into Gods appears fairly frequently in his more recent speeches. It’s a comment that usually elicits a lot of applause from his devoted disciples. Who wouldn’t want to be turned into a God?
	2). “Safeguarding and upholding the Dafa” is an essential requirement that Master Li puts on his practitioners. He speaks about it frequently. In these quotes, he explicitly associates that requirement with both “reaching consummation” and being “worthy of a Dafa disciple.”
	By replacing my wording with the statement that a person can be considered a disciple “only if he cultivates his xinxing (mind-nature) in accordance with the teachings of the Dafa” practitioner Dilip is engaging in apologetics (to use Fire Star’s term). It is essential to explicitly state Li’s larger teaching that you must also “safeguard and uphold the Dafa” in order to be considered his disciple.
	3) In keeping with the spirit of making the summary words agree with Li’s own words, even when they are not directly quoted, I would agree to changing “stand up for the Dafa” to “safeguard and uphold the Dafa.”
	4. Paragraph Two, sentence one:
	'''Also found is the idea that Master Li protects all his disciples, but that if they fail to live up to the requirements of his Dafa he will withdraw his protection and their bodies will be returned to those of ordinary persons and that sickness, old age and even death will return to them.'''
	Sources:
	a) “Practitioners will gain protection from my Law Bodies (fashen) when they accept my Falun Dafa teachings and genuinely practice cultivation. As long as you persevere in practicing cultivation, my Law Bodies will protect you until you reach Consummation. Should you decide to stop cultivating at some point, my Law Bodies will leave you.”
	The Great Consumation Way of Falun Dafa (translation updated April 2001)
	http://www.falundafa.org/book/eng/dymf_1.htm#8
	b) “If you do not follow the requirements of the Fa, you are not a practitioner of Falun Dafa. Because you want to be an everyday person, your body will be reset to the level of everyday people and the bad things will be returned to you.” “Issue of Pursuit,” Zhuan Falen, Third Edition,,Internet (March 2000)
	http://www.falundafa.org/book/eng/lecture2.html#5
	c) “If you follow the right way in cultivation practice, nobody will dare to touch you casually. Besides, you have the protection of my Fashen (law body), and you will not run into any danger.” “What Has the Teacher Given to Practitioners,” Zhuan Falen, Third Edition, Internet (March 2000):
	http://www.falundafa.org/book/eng/lecture3.html#8
	d) “Falun Gong cultivators look quite different in age from everyday people—they do not look their actual age. So the primary features of cultivation methods that cultivate both mind and body are: prolonging life, deterring aging, and lengthening people’s life expectancy.” “Characteristics of Falun Gong Cultivation in Falun Gong” in Falun Gong (4th translation edition, April 2001)
	http://www.falundafa.org/book/eng/flg_2.htm#3
	'''Here are some examples of “bad things” that are removed, but can return to you:'''
	-- illness and aging: While you are cultivating “you will look like an ordinary person from the appearance. The only difference is that you will appear younger than those who are your age. Certainly, the bad things in your body will, first of all, have to be removed, including illnesses.” Zhuan Falun, Third Edition, Internet (March 2000)
	http://www.falundafa.org/book/eng/lecture1.html#7
	-- death for those who plagiarize Li’s Dafa: “In recent years some practitioners suddenly died; some of them died precisely because they did such things. Don’t think your master might do something to you. You should know that there are numerous guardian Gods of the Fa at various levels whose very duty is to protect the Fa. Furthermore, demons won’t leave you alone!....Once you are reduced to the level of an everyday person, no one will protect you and demons will also take your life.” “Dafa Can Never be Plagiarized” (September 22, 1996) Essentials for Further Advancement I.
	http://www.falundafa.org/book/eng/jjyz55.htm
	Comments:
	1. I would agree to change “fail to live up to the requirements of the Dafa” to “do not follow the requirements of the Fa.”
	2. The above quotes fully establish the idea that Li and his Fashen (law bodies) protect
	Falun Gong practitioners. It is an essential teaching. In fact, virtually all of the benefits that a practitioner gets from cultivating are at some point dependent upon the direct intervention of Master Li. He installs a Falun (rotating law wheel) in the abdomen of each of the practitioners, which is necessary for cultivation. His Fashen knows everything on a practitioner’s minds, but will not take care of that practitioner if he does not practice cultivation. And in the karma-elimination process, although a practitioner
	can get rid of a lot of his karma by his own cultivating efforts, he cannot eliminate all of his karma without the direct help of the Master.
	3. The above quotes also clearly establish the idea that through cultivation, and with Master Li’s help, practitioners can reap benefits such as having illness removed, deterring aging and prolonging life.
	4. While practitioner Dilip is correct in pointing out that a practitioner must also cultivate
	his xinxing (mind-nature) as part of the practice, he fails to acknowledge the essential role of Master Li. Although Li has never claimed to be God, he does claim powers that only a God could have and, when pressed, many practitioners will admit to thinking of him as God. But they are told by Li not to talk to ordinary people about Gods or the higher level teachings. Li said exactly that last year at a speech in San Francisco. The reason why writing an objective piece about the Falun Gong is so difficult is because practitioners hold back their core beliefs. Yes, it is all available on the internet...but how many people have the patience to ferrit it all out?
	5. Paragraph Two, sentence two:
	'''If practitioners live up to the Dafa, they are promised salvation, while non-practitioners who criticize the Dafa, corrupt people and the “dregs of humanity” can expect to be eliminated by the great law in a process called “Fa-rectification.”
	'''Sources:
	a) weeding out people who don’t think the Dafa is good:
	“Let me tell you, when this Fa-rectification matter is over, humankind will enter the next stage, and those people and beings who in their minds think that the Great Fa of the cosmos isn’t good will be the first weeded out.” “Teaching the Fa at the Great Lakes Fa conference in North America (December 9, 2000), p. 1.
	b) weeding out “evil beings”
	“All the evil beings in the world will be knocked down into hell when the Fa rectifies the human world, and for all eternity they will pay for the sins they committed.”
	“A Suggestion” (April 10, 2001) Essentials for Further Advancement II
	http://www.falundafa.org/book/eng/jjyz2_25.htm
	c) weeding out “the dregs of humanity and the degenerate world”
	“Once the saved ones have attained the Fa and left, the dregs of humanity and degenerate world that are left behind will be weeded out.” Essentials for Further Advancement II, item 28:
	http://www.falundafa.org/book/eng/jjyz2_28.htm
	Comments:
	1. I would agree to change “live up to the Dafa” to “follow the requirements of the Fa” so that the wording will reflect Li’s words exactly.
	2. Concerning the categories of people who will be “weeded out” in Master Li’s Fa-rectification, I agree to word changes that will reflects Li’s words more exactly. The complete new sentence now reads:
	“If practitioners follow the requirements of the Fa they are promised salvation, while people who think that the Dafa isn’t good, the dregs of humanity and the degenerate world can expect to be eliminated by the Dafa in a process called “Fa-rectification.”
	'''A possible revised edit becomes:'''
	Another feature of Falun Dafa is promotion of Li’s role as the exclusive savior of mankind in the “Dharma ending” period. If a Falun Gong practitioner were only to do the exercises, but fail to follow the requirements of the Fa, that person would not be considered a Dafa disciple and thus not a candidate for salvation. Falun Gong practitioners are promised the possibility of becoming Gods as long as they safeguard and uphold the Dafa.
	Also found is the idea that Master Li protects all his disciples, but that if they fail to follow the requirements of his Dafa he will withdraw his protection and their bodies will be returned to those of ordinary persons and that sickness, old age and even death will return to them. If practitioners follow the requirements of the Fa they are promised salvation, while people who think that the Dafa isn’t good, the dregs of humanity and the degenerate world can expect to be eliminated by the Dafa in a process called “Fa-rectification.”
	--] 10:30, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
	== Violation of Misplaced Pages Etiquette ==
	Fire Star: I spent many hours documenting the two paragraph edit above using Li Honzhi wording throughout. It is an important and accurate reflection of Falun Gong beliefs, but one which Falun Gong practitioners don't like. As you know, Dilip had posted his own two paragraph version which
	can be considered apologetics and you had twice previously deleted his version through the use of revisions. Now I find a new Falun Gong practitioner has again re-posted the Dilip version using as his justification "descriptive version preferred."
	As I've said before, Falun Gong practitioners work hard to conceal Master Li's higher level teachings from the public. If you read Master Li's November, 2005 San Francisco speech you will see why:
	There are thousand of Falun Gong practitioners who could log on to Misplaced Pages every day and re-post the Dilip version over and over again. This would be nonsense. Instead of respondig to the justifications I have entered above, practitioner Aparna is simply trying to force a particular point of view.
	I've gone ahead and posted my version for the first time.
	Can you intervene to make sure proper Misplaced Pages edit is followed in this discussion?
	--] 19:07, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
	:Greetings. I do keep this page on my ], and I have recently posted a request for input at ]. That is just a first step. If we get buried, I will ask other administrators to step in, and they can protect the page, ban spammers, etc. I feel it is unethical for myself to exercise such functions because I have edited here so much. I appreciate what you've contributed, as well as others, because we do want a fair and neutral presentation. Dilip has compromised quite a bit, and I am always willing to, but I feel that verifiable information should not be removed or glossed over in any article. I'm helping out as a 3rd party in a dispute over at ] that may interest you. The dispute is a little different, but the religious nature of the article and how to deal with such a hotbutton diplomatically is always interesting! Regards, --] 21:26, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
	The San Fransisco lecture only says that practitioners must not talk "at too high a level" when telling people about the "persecution" in china. Falun Gong practitioners believe there are higher cosmic factors behind it. I dont see anything like you imply in the lecture.
	"Aparna" has only made the context behind the things you put in clear. I dont think she removed any information. I certainly would prefer a version that makes context clear and brings more facts to the reader over a POV.
	] 14:06, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
	== Generalized Apologetics is Not a Response to a Serious Revision ==
	So now it begins, a parade of Falun Gong practitioners editing in the same two paragraphs that Dilip entered some days ago, again and again, not once referring to the actual wording in the revision I submitted before Dilip replaced my two paragraphs with his, or the copious sources I have cited to justify that language (see item #24 above). This is not how a cooperative discussion about Misplaced Pages content is supposed to occur. Vital information to understanding what the Falun Gong really teaches has been systematically edited out by practitioners, and that should not be allowed to stand.
	Msriram, Aparna and Dilip: Why do you continue to reject my wording that comes directly from Master Li concerning his self-proclaimed role as savior; Fa-rectification and the people who will be weeded out; and how he promises to turn practitioners into Gods? A careful review of Master Li's statements will show that the language I have used reflects exactly what he has said in countless writings, recent speeches, the Essentials, and elsewhere. Fa-rectification and Li's role as the only Savior of mankind in this Dharma-ending period is core to the teaching and you know it. Yet you want to conceal any meaningful report on that. Why?
	Here's what Master Li said in his San Francisco speech:
	"So when you clarify the truth you absolutely must not speak at too high a level." He went on to tell practitioners they should only talk about the persecution in China and then concluded "As for high-level cultivation and gods, you shouldn't talk about those things."
	Yet in Misplaced Pages we must "talk about those things" if the piece on Falun Gong is going to have any pretense of objectivity and balance. Just because the Master wants you to focus on the persecution now, does not justify editing out the soteriological teachings of Master Li. Otherwise, the Misplaced Pages piece becomes nothing more than an advertisment for the Falung Gong's political agenda in China.
	If there is an administrator monitoring this discussion, I ask that you read through the postings above and weigh in on this debate. It doesn't make sense to revert over and over again the same two paragraphs.
	--] 03:08, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
	:Greetings, Tomananda. I don't oppose to mentioning these things in the article, but you don't seem to ] and acknowledge that other people have indeed tried to contextualize them, not simply "cover them up". For sure, their editions have not been entirely neutral, either, but instead of obstinately reverting the changes, each party should be open to suggestions. Certain questions do stir up emotional reactions, but we must strive towards objectivity and neutrality in any case. An editor isn't necessarily able to perceive his or her own bias. This applies to you, me, as well as any other contributor.
	:You say you've been studing Li Hongzhi's teachings in-depth, but you still seem to omit crucial aspects of the articles. Li has stated multiple times that specifically those who directly commit sins against the Buddha Dharma, support the persecution and choose the side of the Chinese Communist Party will be in serious trouble. Of course, people have different interpretations, and I think Li elaborates on the issue from multiple viewpoints. But considering the quotes below, for example, your additions are not sufficient, nor do they convey a neutral representation of his teachings.
	:I think the idea of "not speaking on too high level" has nothing to do with hiding the actual content of the teachings. ''If'' anybody is interested, he has access to all the material instantly. But if somebody's personal view of the world doesn't conform to Falun Dafa's teachings, he doesn't ''have'' to have anything to do with all this stuff about gods, cultivation and Buddhahood. How convenient - nobody's trying to convert you, and you're just asked to condemn the CCP's crimes against humanity, which is something that every moral person ought to agree with. But there are actually lots of muddle-headed individuals who have lost their conscience; just because they don't agree with the "high-level" content of Dafa, they actually believe that the persecution, imprisonments, torture, murders and are somehow ''justified'' or acceptable to a greater or lesser extent, and that is indeed dangerous (from Falun Dafa's point of view).
	:I think you should comment on the following quotes. Shouldn't we add these things to the article as well?
	::'''1.''' In the Fa-rectification, Master is actually saving all beings, not just the good ones; evil ones are of course included as well. I have often said that during the Fa-rectification I don't hold the past faults of any sentient being against him, and that I look only at a sentient being's attitude toward Dafa during the Fa-rectification. In other words, no matter which beings they are or how huge the mistakes and sins they committed in history, as long as they do not play a negative role with regard to the Fa-rectification, I can give them benevolent solutions and eliminate their sins and karma. That is the greatest mercy and true salvation. That's because in the universe positive and negative beings co-exist, and that is the principle of yin and yang and their mutual generation. (''Turning the Wheel Towards the Human World'')
	::'''2.''' It is for the purpose of saving all beings and saving the people in the world today that we help people to see the wicked CCP for what it is. Of course, no matter how the CCP tries to hide the evil face of its wicked gangster regime, once the world's people come to know it for what it is, they will realize that it is evil, and they will not cooperate with it anymore, choosing instead to withdraw from the Party. And that is when it ceases to exist. But that is not what we are trying to do--our goal is to save sentient beings. Many things here in the human world, here in the delusion, are hard to see for what they are, so it's a matter of how people look at and understand things. (''Teaching the Fa in the City of Chicago, 2005'')
	::'''3.''' When Dafa rectifies the Fa in the cosmos, things are carried out in a way different from in any cultivation form of the past, where would be responsible for only one particular type of being or the beings within only a certain range. Fa-rectification is to save all beings that can be saved, which includes all forms of life that are created by gods and are present in a person’s main body. What’s more, many people have undergone great hardships over the course of the long, drawn-out years, so how could they not be saved? Aren’t humans the primary beings in the Three Realms? Don’t all of the beings in the Three Realms need to be saved? Then this cultivation form as well as the foundation that the human race has laid and the suffering that it has gone through over the course of the long years of history—isn’t it exactly these things that have enabled human beings to gain the greatest mighty-virtue of all time? And shouldn’t these beings be deemed the most outstanding and considered first for salvation? When this human place is made the base point of Fa-rectification, isn’t it only fitting that the first priority be to set free this group of beings, human beings? (''Teaching the Fa at the 2005 Canada Fa Conference'')
	::'''4.''' Everything that Dafa disciples are doing today and everything in society you encounter, I can tell you, you are saving all beings. So no matter what kind of person you meet, what strata of society he’s from, or what profession he’s in, don’t think that you’re just going to him to explain the truth merely because evil is persecuting Dafa disciples. I’ll tell you, saving all beings is first and foremost, and clarifying the truth is the way to save people. When people understand the facts and find out how wicked the persecution is, people will naturally know what to do. And if afterwards you ask him to lend support and do something about it, that’s him choosing a future. So with those people who’ve been deceived in the persecution, all the more so, how could you not give them a chance? If you don’t tell them the facts they will lose their futures forever. (''Teaching the Fa at the 2003 Atlanta Fa Conference'')
	:Later I can search for more similar quotes related to these issues, if you wish, but right now I don't have time for intense scrutiny. I think it's obvious that a person's attitude towards the persecution is the only determining factor.
	:As for people's bodies being returned back to their original state if they don't cultivate according to Dafa, that might just be true. I'm really surprised to see the "supernatural" changes in a lot of people's bodies, including my own; sometimes, the practitioners' radiant appearance is truly eye-catching. They got it by cultivating in Falun Dafa, so I don't have problems believing that it might be gone if they decide to stop.
	:Humans becoming "gods" through cultivation practice isn't really a new idea, maybe it just seems unbelievable to a lot of folks. We're basically talking about forgotten cultural heritage. Besides, the concept of a "god" is not exactly the same in Eastern and Western traditions:
	::Suppose a man sitting here could do things without moving his hands and feet, the other people could not do even by moving their hands and feet - in those backward times , wouldn't people have called him a god? But actually, he's just a man with a cultivation achievement. (''Lecture 1, audio recording from Guangzhou 1994'')
	:I look forward to your comments, and I do believe we can reach a consensus. All the best to you, Tomananda!
	:---] 15:51, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
	== POV edits ==
	Tomananda,
	Friend, I think the quotes pointed out by Olaf Stephanos quite clearly show that Falun Gong doesnt have the kind of beliefs you talk about in the paragraphs. And I dont consider pointing out errors in the paragraph should be labelled should be labelled "apologetics". I am quite sure that you understand that too. The paragraphs are, as pointed out, inaccurate. I think we must keep the paragraph (either version) out of the text till we reach a consensus through further discussion. The content of the paragraph is not something that long term editors of this article (like Olaf Stephanos) agree with. I think the paragraph requires futher dicussion, and the consent of multiple editors.
	] 16:16, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
	Dilip:
	You are wrong. Every statement in the two paragraphs is supported by Master Li Hongzhi's own teachings and the citations for the quotes are provided in topic #24 above. You are avoiding acknowledging the truth of Master Li's teachings to the general public, and that is a component of apologetics as defined by Misplaced Pages. The two paragraphs in question were, in fact, a revision of my words done by Fire Star and entered by him at the place you now find them. Fire Star, as you know, is an editor.
	Fire Star: Please help. This kind of bullying by multiple FG practitioners is not fair, nor is there any reason in the argument. If there is a POV in my two paragrpahs, it is Master Li Hongzhi's point of view, which the practitioners don't want to be made public.
	--] 18:59, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
	:A POV doesn't only consist of what is said; it also involves what is '''not''' said, as well as what expressions are used. As I said, I don't oppose to mentioning these things in the article, but they must be contextualised by further information. Editing such a controversial article is not easy, and nobody should insert his or her contribution by fiat. I have nothing against a consensus. We're editors discussing an article, not "bullies". Regards, ] 19:40, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
	Olaf: The comment about "bullying" had to do with the succession of practioners who one after another simply replaced my edit, which had previously been posted on the discussion page for comments, with a radical revision done by Dilip. I have provided copious citations for my modest edit revision which, by the way, was placed where it now is by Fire Star. I have accepted that it can be relegated to the end of the Beliefs section, but I cannot accept that over and over again practitioners simply delete and replace it with their own two paragraphs, while also claiming what I have written is inaccurate. It is not.
	Perhaps the problem here is that no one wants to read through the long list of citations I provided above (see item #24) so in the spirit of cooperation I have added a Li Hongzhi quote to the text to support the first paragraph. I can certainly do a similar addtion for the second paragraph, but would appreciate any comments there are concerning the first paragraph.
	--] 20:57, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
	Olaf: Are you the same Finnish graduate student of cultural history and comparative religion who has done some postings on the homophobia of the Falun Gong at the sf.indymedia.org website? The person who posted on that website identified himself as a Falun Gong practitioner, saying "And I really think Falun Gong hit the bull's eye: in my opinion, this is the real thing."
	If you are one and the same person, can you really be objective as a higher level editor on this piece? Is it possible to get a second editor involved in this discussion, so that there's a real balance of opinions at the editor level?
	--] 22:39, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
	:Very succinctly, Li Hongzhi does indeed seem to promise that he is a universal saviour and that by following him precisely he can change you into a divine being. Also, not everyone who is sceptical of Li and FLG approves of what the CCP has done to them. Misplaced Pages isn't a place for FLG practitioners to explain away what Li has said, or to assert that FLG is orthodox Buddhist or Taoist teaching, or for anyone else to assert that the CCP is right and FLG had it coming. Editors with a pro-FLG POV are welcome to edit, but as the edit screen says '''If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly or redistributed by others, do not submit it'''. In any Misplaced Pages article, if other editors don't agree with what you are putting in, they are going to change it. I have modified Tomananda's prose somewhat on occasion, as people have modified mine. If someone were to come here and put in the article that Li Hongzhi is a baby-eating demon, I would take that out, too. If people really want their version in, the first step in a compromise is to include it without removing the work of others. That is much less likely to be completely removed than an edit at the expense of someone else. There is no gurantee that it won't at least be changed, of course. A friend of mine told me he didn't like Misplaced Pages because he thought it was like "writing in sand". That is how it must seem to people who feel attached to their writing. --] 23:04, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
	Tomananda,
	I dont think your strategy of saying anybody who differs with your view point is a falun gong practitioner is ... I read through the links you posted. I dont see anything like you are talking about. You even exaggerated the statements made by the cult experts!!
	] 18:16, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
	'''Aparna:''' You'll find all the sources for the cult experts in the discussion above at:
	:Actually, the bits taken out are pretty clearly referenced here: . I'm going to be reverting. --] 18:43, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
	== ... ==
	The quote is sourced. But the text of the paragraphs are far from being factual.
	] 20:00, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
	==Reply to Tomananda's accusation==
	You have been repeatedly making this accusation. And that is why I write this. It is only said in the lectures that the act of homosexuality is bad ( distinguish that from the person)... It is very clearly said that the person may cultivate if he can break out of that...
	...Infact all the traditions I know, be it Buddhism, Christianity, or Gnosticism dont consider homosexuality normal... In Buddhism, it is, by precept, '''PROHIBIDDEN'''( see below) for a homosexual to become a monk!! Does that mean buddhists are "homophobic"??
	...
	'''The Ancient Gnostic Bible, "]", considered by many scholars to be authentic''' '''teachings of Jesus Christ, says :'''
	Bartholomew said: “A man who hath intercourse with a male, what is his vengeance?”
	Jesus said: “The measure of the man who hath intercourse with males and of the man with whom he lieth, is the same as that of the blasphemer.
	“When then the time is completed through the sphere, the receivers of Yaldabaōth come after their soul, and he with his forty-and-nine demons taketh vengeance on it eleven years.
	“Thereafter they carry it to the fire-rivers and seething pitch-seas, which are full of demons with pigs’ faces. They eat into them and take vengeance on them in the fire-rivers another eleven years.
	“Thereafter they carry them into the outer darkness until the day of judgment when the great darkness is judged; and then they will be dissolved and destroyed."
	'''The Buddhist Scriptures Say:'''
	"The pandaka (Pali for "homosexual") had been ordained in a residence of monks. He went to the young monks and encouraged them thus, 'Come all of you and assault me.'
	"The monks spoke aggressively, 'Pandaka, you will surely be ... spiritually destroyed. Of what benefit will it be?" ...
	He went to some large, stout novices and encouraged them thus, 'Come all of you and assault me.'
	The novices spoke, 'Pandaka, you will surely be destroyed. Of what benefit will it be?'
	"The pandaka then went to men who tend elephants and horses and spoke to them thus. 'Come all of you and assault me.' The men who tend elephants and horses assaulted him.
	'''"The Blessed One then ordered the monks, 'Behold monks, a pandaka is one who is not to be''' '''ordained, ... and (pandakas) who have already been ordained must be made to disrobe.''' "
	'''A Conversation with A Gnostic Master:'''
	Question: A homosexual who regenerates is not a homosexual any more?
	Answer: Have you ever known any homosexuals, who in their life have truly, one hundred percent, stopped being homosexual?
	There are none, because they are degenerated seeds, they can not be remade, because they are rotten. It is like degenerated vegetable seeds, which do not germinate, even being sown in a very good soil and in the best conditions, they do not germinate because they are degenerated.
	So, there are also human seeds, human germs, which even being germs, are degenerated, and in any way they can be changed (or improved). Try to regenerate a seed, a vegetable germ, try to place it in perfect conditions to germinate, to see if it germinates after demonstrating that it is degenerated. Obviously it would not germinate. The same happens with the germs deposited in the sexual glands; a degenerated germ never germinates. A man can not come from it; he is a lost case.
	"Normally the infrasexuals of homosexuality and lesbianism enter into the submerged involution of the infernal worlds. Very rare are those cases in which (through supreme pain) they repent and in a new existence they are born amongst normal people. Those cases are very rare, they can be counted on the fingers of one hand, and we will still have some fingers left. "
	Question: Can in the next lives, a homosexual or a lesbian, get that (appropriate) condition? Can they change? Or are they going already into a complete involution?
	Answer: It could happen that, through great repentance and great pain, in a future existence, they could have a very normal body. After having passed through great pain, that is possible.
	Question: Master, I have a friend, who has committed herself to treat homosexuals to find out if she can regenerate them, and in her long experience as psychologist, she has never been able to regenerate any of them.
	Answer: Because it is completely impossible, they are degenerated seeds. Tell your friend not to waste her time foolishly. That is impossible, a degenerated seed, is degenerated.
	Many Western Inner Traditions call the homosexual the "The Male Vampire"... And Zoroastrainism.. one of the world's oldest religions .. says...
	""The man that lies with mankind as man lies with womankind, or as woman lies with mankind, is the man that is a Daeva ; this one is the man that is a worshipper of the Daevas, that is a male paramour of the Daevas"" -The Venidad
	I dont think I need to quote the Bible... or the teachings of Judaism.... Do all these traditions fall under your definition for being "homophobic"... ?
	'''Dilip:''' Your efforts to justify the intense homophobia of Li Hongzhi based on citing the anti-homosexuality teachings of other religions, while interesting, is not what is currently being discussed here. As far as I know, no one has proposed any edits to the Misplaced Pages Falun Gong page concerning homosexuality. I know that Master Li does not consider me human for being homosexual...I have a "dark heart, turning demonic" and my form of love does not "meet the standard of being human"....but so be it. I don't expect Master Li to be very sophisticated when it comes to issues of homosexuality having grown up, as he did, in rural China.
	If you really want to pursue an in-depth discussion about the homophobia of the Falun Gong as it relates to the teachings of other religions, I suggest we take this conversation off the Misplaced Pages discussion site all together.
	There was a very lengthy discussion about the homophobia of the Falun Gong at this site:
	Do you want to discuss this further there?
	--] 00:59, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
	:Disapproval of homosexuality is by no means exclusive to FLG. It is, however, a notable feature of FLG. If other groups also disapprove, then it is very likely to be mentioned at their articles too. In the articles, we shouldn't say FLG are justified or unjustified in their disapproval, just that they express it. Different people see things differently. Just as many will be disgusted by apparent intolerance, there are going to be very many readers who will approve of FLG's stance, I'm sure! --] 06:15, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
	== Pointing out POVs ==
	Tomananda, you are using too many manipulative tactics to influence other editors.
	1. Where is it said:
	"Also found is the idea that Master Li protects all his disciples, but that if they fail to follow the requirements of his Dafa he will withdraw his protection and their bodies will be returned to those of ordinary persons and that sickness, old age and even death will return to them."?
	In Zhuan Falun it is said:
	"If you cannot relinquish the attachment or concern for illness, we
	cannot do anything and will be unable to help you. Why is this? It is because there is such a
	principle in the universe: Ordinary human affairs, according to the Buddha School, all have
	predestined relationships. Birth, old age, illness, and death exist as such for ordinary people. Due
	to karma resulting from past wrongdoing, one has illnesses or tribulations; suffering is repaying a
	karmic debt, and thus nobody can casually change this. Changing it means that one would not
	have to repay the debt after being in debt, and this cannot be done at will. Doing otherwise is the
	same as committing a bad deed. "
	Let me ask you: where is it said that stopping cultivation practice would result in "even death" returning to the practitioner.
	2. "Falun Gong practitioners are promised the possibility of becoming Gods as long as they safeguard and uphold the Dafa."
	From Lecture in Frankfurt, Germany:
	" Since Jesus had such great abilities and his father was Lord of the Caucasians, couldn’t he do whatever he wanted? Why did he spend so much effort on Earth persuading people to do good, telling people principles of the truth, and suffering so much for human beings? And at that time he also had to endure suppression and sabotage from other religions. Why then bother to do things the way he did? It means that even though he had such great abilities, he still had to rectify the human heart in order to save a person. '''If any of you sitting here can’t cultivate your xinxing to the point of Consummation, then I can’t do anything about it either''' . I can teach you the principles of the Fa, I can help you evolve gong, I can eliminate a portion of your karma for you, I can protect you, and I can do a huge range of things for you that you don’t know about but that are necessary when you Consummate and afterwards. But if your heart doesn’t change and your mind doesn’t elevate, then all of that is in vain. That’s what I mean when I say that if a person’s heart doesn’t change, even a Buddha can’t help him. ""
	Isnt it very clearly said that one can achieve (godhood) consummation only by cultivating one's mind-nature??
	3. "requirement of Dafa"
	Where do you get that term from? and what are these "requirements" you speak about??
	Let me keep the paras out till issues are resolved the version to be put in agreed upon.
	] 20:10, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
	'''Dilip:''' We all have our POV's. The point here is that you have deleted the two paragraphs once again which is not in the spirit of cooperative article building. You'll notice that Fire Star has reverted the text back to the earlier version. You must by now also be aware that I have provided multiple sources for every thing that I included in those two paragraphs. You also continue to mis-represent what I have said. For example, I never said that death would result merely from stopping Falun Gong cultivation. Here's the Master Li quote:
	'''Death for those who plagiarize Li’s Dafa:''' “In recent years some practitioners suddenly died; some of them died precisely because they did such things. Don’t think your master might do something to you. You should know that there are numerous guardian Gods of the Fa at various levels whose very duty is to protect the Fa. Furthermore, demons won’t leave you alone!....Once you are reduced to the level of an everyday person, no one will protect you and demons will also take your life.” “Dafa Can Never be Plagiarized” (September 22, 1996) Essentials for Further Advancement I.
	So there you have it: if you do something really bad, like plagiarizing Master Li's Dafa, he withdraws his protection and warns that the demons will get you. These types of threats by Master Li against practitioners who do not live up to the requirments of his Dafa constitute, in my own point of view, "undue influence" in the legal sense. The practitioners are made to be fearful of what will happen to them if they should stray from Master Li's control. It's the old carrot and stick approach: do what my Dafa requires of you and I will turn you into Gods, but disobey the Dafa and I will no longer protect you from all those demons.
	--] 01:25, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
	== Response to Olaf's Post Above ==
	Olaf,
	You say I don’t seem to “assume good faith” on the part of Falun Gong practitioners in this editing process. As someone who has had a great deal of communication with Falun Gong practitioners over many years, I need to point out that if you view Falun Gong as an authoritarian cult, as I do, then the tendency of practitioners to conceal their core beliefs makes a lot of sense. I don’t think Falun Gong practitioners think they are doing any thing wrong when they do this, so it would be inaccurate to accuse them of not acting ”in good faith.”
	But at the same time, surely you can see in the series of communications above that there has been a stubborn resistance on the part of multiple practitioners to acknowledge even the basics of their beliefs. For example, something as simple as a statement that Li Hongzhi offers salvation to people in this Dharma ending period (forget for a moment ''which'' people can be saved), was never once acknowledged by Dilip or the other practitioners who followed after him. In fact, Dilip outrageously said that my edits weren’t even “remotely factual” and then proceeded to substitute two paragraphs of his own making in which no mention of Li Hongzhi’s role as savior is mentioned. This kind of behavior is typical for Falun Gong practitioners. On more than one occasion I have sat through a formal presentation of Falun Gong lasting more than an hour, and virtually no mention of Li Hongzhi has been made. Instead, we hear all about the health benefits of the exercises and words like “cultivation,” but no mention of the critical role Li Hongzi plays in cultivation and certainly no mention of “Fa-rectification.”
	My goal in making modest (in terms of length at least) edits is to insert into this
	article some facts about the teachings which, as you suggest, may make Falun Gong practitioners uncomfortable. Fire Star has stated that when we add something in an edit,
	we shouldn’t do that at the expense of another person. In other words, where there is a debate about what needs to be included, we should add rather than replace content.
	Using that as a guiding principle, I will suggest some additions to the two paragraphs that now appear at the bottom of the Beliefs section to accommodate some of you concerns.
	1. You point out that in ''Turning the Wheel Towards the Human World'' Li Hongzhi said that Fa-rectification is actually saving all beings, not just the good ones. I agree that some mention of this needs to be made, but not at the expense of other statements Li Hongzhi has made about Fa-rectification and the weeding out people who think that the Dafa isn’t good, “the dregs of humanity and the degenerate world.” Li Hongzhi has made many statements about Fa-rectification and the categories of people he says who will be “weeded out.” As with any prolific author, he sometimes seems to contradict himself. When that occurs, a good article will report the apparent contradictions, not hide them.
	2. You point out that Master Li states that it is for the purpose of saving people that “we help people to see the wicked CCP for what it is.” Although I know Li Hongzhi has said words to that effect, I do not believe that it belongs in the two paragraphs we are now talking about. Keep in mind that I had originally inserted a version of those two paragraphs in the introduction. When Fire Star modified the paragraphs slightly and inserted them at the end of the Beliefs section, it was an acknowledgment that some important teachings had been left out.
	In terms of the overall composition of the piece, we can either have a separate section on the controversies surrounding Falung Gong (see the Misplaced Pages piece on Scientology for a possible model) or we can continue using the overall organization we presently have. Under the present structure, I strongly argue that a discussion of the beliefs of Falun Gong must be presented independent of the situation in China, which is covered in great detail in other sections.
	Also, I need to point out that language such as “wicked” to describe the CCP is, itself, a point of view. There’s a counter argument that can be made about the status of Falun Gong practitioners in China along these lines: While we all condemn the persecution of Falun Gong practitioners for their beliefs, the ban of Falun Gong that was instituted by the government in 1999 was justified based on the need to protect society from Li Hongzhi’s dangerous teachings (eg: “sickness karma”) and the harassment by practitioners of Falun Gong critics. Although I make this point, I do not intend to pursue any edits along these lines, so there is no need for us to get into a debate in this area. I am just pointing out that in terms of over-all structure, the Beliefs section should not be bogged down with POV’s about the situation in China, since those POV’s are best handled in their own sections.
	3. In this item you get into some of the details of Li Hongzhi’s cosmology which, if fully presented in the Misplaced Pages piece, would probably best be handled in a separate section. But as to your basic point that “Fa-rectification is to save all beings that can be saved,” I think I responded to that idea in item # 1 above.
	4. You provide more of Li Hongzhi’s quotes here which demonstrate that his priority for practitioners at this time is for them to focus exclusively on the persecution in China when they are “clarifying the truth” and saving people during the Fa-rectification. You don’t need to find any more quotes along those lines, because I fully understand that this is, in fact, the priority. But priorities change, while the soteriological beliefs of the Falun Gong would remain, even if Li Hongzhi did achieve his goal of reducing membership in the CCP to zero. To argue that this is not a political goal of the Falun Gong because it also helps practitioners to reach salvation during Fa-rectification strikes me as nothing but weasel words, to use Fire Star’s formulation.
	In my own point of view, the Falun Gong is an authoritarian cult which uses the promise of salvation to achieve a political goal. However, I am not arguing that this point of view needs to be inserted into the Beliefs section of the Misplaced Pages article. But by the same token, I would hope that you would agree not to gloss over the essential teachings of Li Hongzhi concerning his role as the only savior of mankind during this Dharma-ending period. That is the basic teaching and it holds true regardless of what happens in China.
	--] 20:45, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
	== Fire Star: Please Intervene Again==
	Fire Star: Your revision at 18:45 17 March has been replaced with new words from Dilip, who continues to do what he accuses me of: replacing whole paragraphs, rather than discussing changes to existing text in this section. Again, I feel like I am being bullyed by a host of Falun Gong practitioners. Olaf made some substantive suggestions about possible additions to the Beliefs section which I have just responded to above.
	Please revert the text, again, to the earlier version.
	--] 21:00, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
	== Proposed Edit in ''Cultivation of Mind and Body'' Section==
	I am proposing the addition of a few sentences to explain "sickness karma" in the section entitled "Cultivation of Mind and Body." As with other core teachings, I was surprised that some mention of sickness karma was not already in the text. Rather than assuming lack of good faith, I will assume it was just an oversight.
	Although the teachings on "sickness karma" are quite controversial, I have crafted a presentation which, I believe, is devoid of bias or POV. To show the context, I have included the existing sentence in the affected paragraph in italics:
	''It is believed that though the purpose of cultivation practice is not healing and fitness, an illness free state can manifest even from the beginning stages of cultivation practice of mind and body and that this has directly to do with how much one can elevate one’s Xinxing (mind-nature).'' When sickness is experienced, practitioners are taught not to be attached to the idea that they are actually experiencing sickness in the traditional sense, but instead to think of sickness as an opportunity to eliminate karma. In Zhuan Falun , it is said:
	:“I will purify your body. The body purification will be done only for those who come to truly learn the practice and the Fa. We emphasize one point: if you cannot relinquish the attachment or concern for illness, we cannot do anything and will be unable to help you.”:
	Although practitioners are not told that they cannot take medicine when they are sick, they are challenged, as part of their cultivation practice, to avoid seeking traditional medical help in order to realize the karma-eliminating benefits of sickness. In Falun Gong , it is said:
	:“Taking medication during cultivation implies that you do not believe in the disease-curing effects of cultivation. If you believed in it, why would you take medication?”:
	--] 05:19, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
	::Simply reporting the sourced material, as you have proposed, seems fine. It gives some context to another bit of copy in the article about FLG's approach to medicine. --] 06:07, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
	==Not Apologetics==
	This is an article. Not a collection of quotes. Our purpose is to present an as accurate as possible article on Falun Gong. The contextual version is not apologetics. We try to explain to the greatest extent we can through the context behind any quote we put in. The editor himself must first arduously and in-depth study the teachings of the school. I had been doing the same so that we may have an encyclopaedia quality article here. The contextualized version explains a lot of things including what Fa-Rectification is. Most editors felt the other vesion is simply not accurate... We have some serious thinking to do. I donot plan to bent down and sacrifice a bit on accuracy ... Or to let the article go down a bit in quality.
	Tomananda, I didnt have any clue as to what your sexual orientation is( how was I to know?). If I knew I wouldnt have posted those quotes on homosexuality. I am terribly sorry. Friend, I would like to exchange something which I consider is of great and '''urgent''' importance with you over email... it is more than just about Falun Gong... my email id is dilip_rajeev@msn.com
	== Putting in Quotes Out of Context ==
	Fire Star, I am surprised that you support putting in all these out of context quotes... I am even more surprised that you fail to see that the person has a strong POV. With regard to sickness karma and its relation to medicine '''SO MUCH''' is said in the lectures.... To take an aribtrary line from it and put forward it as the belief of Falun Gong... ARE YOU DOING JUSTICE TO THE BELIEFS OF FALUN GONG WHEN YOU DO THIS??
	In regard to the previous paragraphs... it is not that you want it in there... or that I dont.. It is that '''majority''' of the editors preferred the contextualized version.... Yet, somehow the other version is in there!! ''' Nobody owns wikipedia'''. Do you call this a discussion?? Tomananda... I can only call your strategies perverted - I hope that you will be more upright.'''You deleted '''
	'''paragraphs from the orginal text''' and when I pointed that out... you start whining and present it as if I deleted your paras.... I wanted the editors to reach a consensus on which version to put in.. AND BY
	'''EDITORS I MEAN MAJORITY OF THE EDITORS''' I am replacing it with a contextualized version -which was better accepted.
	Let me emphasize this - When majority of the editors prefer a contextualized version, whining is not the way to get your version into the text.
	I repeat that your claims like "even death" would return to those who stop practice are nothing but abonimable lies. Yet they find their way into the article.
			For instance, this journal says:
	<blockquote>		<blockquote>
			''"As noted, Falun Gong was introduced to China in 1992. By 1998, there were approximately 70 million practitioners of Falun Gong in China."''
	When an everyday person gets sick and doesn’t go to the hospital or doesn’t take medicine, that doesn’t conform to the principles of everyday people, it doesn’t conform to the principles of this world, and people can’t accept it: “Of course a person needs to take medicine when he gets sick.” “Of course a person needs to go to the hospital for treatment when he gets sick.” This is how people deal with this, and it isn’t wrong. But as a cultivator you can’t confuse yourself with an everyday person. To put it a bit seriously, you’re no longer human. As I just said, humans have various emotions and desires, and live for emotion (qing). During the course of cultivation you are gradually taking these things more lightly and gradually letting go of them until you completely discard them. Humans live for these things, but you don’t. Could you be the same as a human? You aren’t the same. Since that’s the case, why don’t you apply high-level principles that aren’t the same as those of humans to evaluate problems and to evaluate yourself and the things you encounter? That’s the way it should be. That’s why I’ve told you that when we cultivators feel uncomfortable somewhere in our bodies it isn’t sickness. Yet what everyday people consider a sick state, and the state that’s reflected in a cultivator’s body when his karma is being reduced, are the same. It’s hard for everyday people to tell the difference. That’s why cultivation practice stresses enlightening (wu). If they weren’t the same, everyone would practice cultivation and the question of enlightening wouldn’t exist. If only wonderful things happened in a person’s body and even a little discomfort felt like what immortals feel, tell me, who wouldn’t cultivate? Everyone would, but then it wouldn’t count—it wouldn’t count as cultivation. Besides, people aren’t allowed to cultivate that way, as there would be no enlightening involved. So in cultivation you’re bound to be tested amidst the uncertainty of what’s true and what’s false to see how you deal with the matter at hand—to see whether you’ll regard yourself as a cultivator or as an average, everyday person. Isn’t this to see whether you can cultivate? Of course, you appear to be ordinary and no different from an everyday person on the surface, but you are in fact a cultivator.
	Yesterday I discussed Buddha Fa cultivation. Cultivation is the most important thing in the cosmos. A human being wants to ascend to a realm that high, and become an Arhat, a Bodhisattva, a Buddha, a Dao, or a God; '''if a human being with a body full of karma is to become a God,''' wouldn’t you say it’s a serious matter? Shouldn’t you view these matters strictly with a high standard and hold yourself to righteous thinking? If you still view these matters from an ordinary human perspective, aren’t you an ordinary human yourself? This is such a serious matter—enabling you to become a Buddha—yet you still regard yourself as human and still evaluate these things with human principles. Then it won’t work; you aren’t serious about it, so you can’t cultivate. Buddhas, Daos, and Gods aren’t like what today’s monks and today’s people think. As you know, Buddhas and Gods don’t have ordinary human emotion, nor do they have an ordinary human way of thinking or the notions that are in ordinary humans’ understandings of things. Their way of thinking is of a completely different realm, and they’re free of human concepts and notions of things. Now people have humanized Buddhas and Bodhisattvas, and think of them as if they had human emotions and humanness. When some people go to temples to worship Buddhas and burn incense, they don’t go there for cultivation or out of respect, but to ask for things—asking Buddhas with their attachments. Think about it, what a bad intention that is!
	Let me talk to you more about the relationship between taking medicine and eliminating karma. Just now I said that it is the karma accrued lifetime after lifetime that causes sickness. What is that karma? 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. So would you say that sickness is accidental? It can’t be understood by modern medicine or modern science, which can only understand the kind of phenomena that manifest in this surface dimension composed of the layer of the largest particles, which are formed by molecules. So it’s considered a sickness, a tumor, an infection somewhere, or something else; but today’s science can’t see the fundamental cause of people becoming sick, and it always explains with the limited reasons that can be understood by everyday people. Of course, when someone gets sick, it usually conforms to the principles at the level of this world, and there’s usually an external factor in this world that induces the sickness to manifest. Then it appears to really conform to the principles of this world. In fact, it’s just an external factor that makes it in conformity with the principles of this world or the state of this world. But the fundamental cause and the sickness don’t originate in this dimension. So when you take medicine now you’re killing this sickness or the virus at the surface. Medicine can truly kill viruses at the surface. Yet a practitioner’s gong is automatically destroying viruses and karma. But as soon as medicine kills the surface virus that has seeped over from other dimensions, the virus—karma—over on the other side will know, since everything is alive, and it will stop coming over. Then 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. So here I’ve explained to you the relationship. It’s not that people aren’t allowed to take medicine. When an everyday person gets sick he definitely needs medical treatment.
	But how do we cultivators deal with it? Aren’t we purifying your body? Like the annual rings of a tree, there is karma at the very core, and at every layer, life after life, of your body. When you practice cultivation, I keep pushing this karma outward from the center; I push, and push, and push, and push until I completely push the karma out for you. And not all of this can go through the surface of our bodies. You wouldn’t be able to bear it if all of it were to go through the surface of your body. Only a portion of it comes out through the surface. But you still feel that you’re suddenly getting sick, you find it terribly uncomfortable and painful, can’t bear it, regard yourself as an everyday person, and go take medicine. Then you can go ahead and take medicine, as we’ve never said that everyday people can’t take medicine. We only say that your enlightenment quality isn’t up to par and that you didn’t pass this test well. We have no rule that says you can’t take medicine when you practice cultivation—we don’t have a rigid rule like that. But I’m teaching you the principles of the Fa. You want to let out this karma, yet you take medicine and press it back in—how are we supposed to cleanse your body? Of course, we could push all of it out for you in other dimensions. But the Fa of this cosmos has a principle: You have to endure suffering in this regard when your karma is eliminated for you. You have to endure the same suffering you caused others before. But for cultivators, we can’t let you endure all of it in the same way, as you’d die and then you wouldn’t be able to cultivate. As a cultivator, after you reach Consummation you will repay the harmed lives with blessings. But you do have to endure the portion of mental pain. While enduring the part owed to others, you pay off the karma, because you suffer. Things aren’t isolated. While paying off the karma, you must regard yourself as a cultivator in the midst of the pain. When you don’t consider it sickness you truly have a high-level understanding of this matter, rather than an ordinary human way of thinking. Then haven’t your realm and mind improved in this regard? Isn’t that the issue? It’s a joke to think that one can improve in cultivation by doing the exercises alone. The exercises are a supplementary means to Consummation.
	</blockquote>		</blockquote>
			<blockquote>
			''"In protest, 10,000 members of Falun Gong gathered outside the Communist Party headquarters in Beijing on April 25, 1999. The members gathered outside the building peacefully, practiced their meditative exercises and then left"''
			</blockquote>
			<blockquote>
			''"In 2001, the Chinese government “sanctioned the systematic use of violence against the group, established a network of brainwashing classes and embarked on a painstaking effort to weed out followers neighborhood by neighborhood and workplace by workplace.”''
			-''Rutgers Journal of Law''
	'''Dilip:''' I did not delete paragraphs that were previously there. The two paragraphs that are at issue, placed at the end of the Beliefs section by Fire Star, were then replaced by your paragraphs. A mere check of the Misplaced Pages history will prove that to be the case. You are correct, no one owns Misplaced Pages, yet you act like you do. You also are engaging in name calling, using words like "perverted." Are you calling my actions perverted because I am a homosexual?
	In any case, there is a separate discussion going on with Olaf concerning the content of the second paragraph in question. I agreed with Olaf that some mention of Master Li's most recent statements on who gets saved in Fa-rectification should be added to that second paragraph. By simply deleting it, as you have once again done, you are not being cooperative in the editing process.
	Concerning the death quote, yes, Master Li does say that. I provided you with the citation. He also says that cultivation prolongs life, but that the effect only lasts while you are cultivating. Once you are returned to the status of an "ordinary" person, those life-prolonging benefits go away. Your quote above actually supports what I am saying. The Master is saying that ordinary people go to the hospital when they are sick, but cultivators shouldn't confuse themselves with ordinary people. As a cultivator, you are no longer human. But when you loose the status of cultivator (by not following the requirments of the Dafa), you return to human status and can no longer benefit from the life-prolonging and disease-curing effects of cultivation. This all seems quite understandable to me, why do you have a problem with it appearing in the Misplaced Pages article?
	By the way, one of the characteristics of cults is that cult leaders create a sense of separateness between the followers and the rest of society. Cult leaders offer their followers a special status...like Master Li telling his disciples they are no longer human...and perpetuate that wall of separation by saying that the rest of society really can't understand the high level or secret nature of their own beliefs.
	Another characteristic of cults is the practice of deception. In the case of Falun Gong, while it is true that all the teachings are there on the internet for everyone to read, most people trust that the practitioners themselves will report the complete story. So this Misplaced Pages article becomes important. It is an article that needs to tell the whole truth of Falun Gong beliefs and not gloss over the parts about Master Li's critical role in cultivation.
	Oops--I forgot to acknowledge that in your quote above Master Li does say practitioners will become ''Buddhas'', which I know is your preferred language. But the Master also says, repeatedly, that Falun Gong practitioners will be turned into Gods. He even uses ''God''
	in the quote you yourself provide above. (I hope you don't mind that I bolded that clause in your post.) To omit the word ''God'' or ''Gods'' merely because you want all of Falun Gong to sound like orthodox Buddhism...which it isn't...is, in itself, a point of view. I will acknowledge you for your consistency, however. Just as you don't want to see the word ''Gods'' appearing in this article, you also apparantly don't want to see the word ''salvation''.
	--] 17:16, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
	:We all have POV, some are pro, some are anti, even boredom with the subject is a POV - but we don't have to act on it. Quotes may seem out of context, but our linking features are to provide context. Where it gets dodgy is when we start to assert things that aren't in the public record. We should only say Li says "blah". If there is a controversy, we should actually name the groups that find FLG controversial, and provide links to their info. As well, if there is FLG apologetics providing context, we should ''also'' link to that. Also, not instead of. It is a balancing act. The drier the citations, the less emotional resistance they will engender, and the more likely it is that we will all be happy with the article in the end. We aren't supposed to argue the validity of any philosophy ourselves, we only have to give people the tools, all the tools, to research further if they want. That is why ]s are found in the reference sections of libraries. --] 19:26, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
	==Not Apologetics==
	This is an article. Not a collection of quotes. Our purpose is to present an "as accurate as possible" article on Falun Gong. The contextual version is not apologetics. We try to explain to the greatest extent we can the context behind any quote we put in. The editor himself must first arduously and in-depth study the teachings of the school. I had been doing the same so that we may have an encyclopaedia quality article here. The contextualized version explains a lot of things including what Fa-Rectification is. Most editors felt the other vesion is simply not accurate... We have some serious thinking to do. I donot plan to bent down and sacrifice a bit on accuracy ... Or to let the article go down a bit in quality... Allowing one bit of inaccuracy is as good as letting pages of inaccurate material inside... We need to revise the paras... especially so when so many editors consider it inaccurate..
	Tomananda, I didnt have any clue as to what your sexual orientation is( how was I to know?). If I knew I wouldnt have posted those quotes on homosexuality. I am terribly sorry... there exists bad things in all of us; eliminating those things is what is meant by cultivation... and schools of cultivation tell us that they are not of our true selves and that only by freeing ourselves of those aggregates (called egos in the Gnostic school) can one's true self rise up in its ineffable glory... The greatest cultivators have emerged from the sinners of the past.. It is only greater glory if one can completely rise above all those things.. the lotus grows in mud .. though you may call this a POV :) .. the red rose is more beautiful than the white one... I also want you to know that what the ancient cultivation ways tell us is not mere philosophy.. but a mathematically precise description of reality... which you may validate for yourself... there is far more to reality than what we think we know... the mammal intellect in itself is incapable of understanding higher teachings... but there are higher faculties in the human...
	Friend, I would like to exchange something which I consider is of great and '''urgent''' importance with you over email... it is more than just about Falun Gong... my email id is dilip_rajeev@msn.com ... could you kindly give me your e-mail id?
	] 09:35, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
	==Quote by Master Da Liu==
	Master Da Liu, being the first Master to introduce the West to QiGong and Tai Chi, and being the author of several books on qi gong and taichi.. and Falun Gong being considered a system of Qi Gong of the Buddha School, I would like to know what the editors feel regarding pointing out Master Da Liu's opinion on Falun Gong in the article..
	] 09:44, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
	== Proposed Edit on Fa-rectification ==
	Olaf has pointed out that the last paragraph in the Beliefs section does not report that Li Hongzhi's teachings concerning the Fa-rectication have changed over time. He now offers salvation to all people, good and bad alike. In order to address that concern, as well as provide additional context as requested by Dilip, I have expanded that paragraph as follows:
	'''Existing paragraph:'''
	Also found is the idea that Master Li protects all his disciples, but that if they fail to follow the requirements of his Dafa he will withdraw his protection and their bodies will be returned to those of ordinary persons and that sickness, old age and even death will return to them. If practitioners follow the requirements of the Fa they are promised salvation, while people who think that the Dafa isn’t good, the dregs of humanity and the degenerate world.
	'''Proposed New Text:'''
	Also found is the idea that Master Li has numerous Fashen (spiritual Law bodies) which protect practitioners from harm. These Law bodies “exercise great supernatural power and the mighty power of the Fa.” They surround practitioners at all times and know everything that is on their minds. Li Hongzhi states in the Zhuan Falun :
	<blockquote>
	“If you can really cultivate in the right way, nobody dares to touch you rashly. What’s more, you are under the protection of my Law bodies, so you will never be in any danger.”
	</blockquote>
	While protecting practitioners, the Master’s Law bodies also cure the illnesses for those who practice at the Falun Gong exercise sites. However practitioners are warned that if they fail to follow the requirements of the Fa, bad consequences will result. In Zhuan
	Falun Li Hongzhi states:
	<blockquote>
	“If you do not follow the requirements of the Fa, you are not a practitioner of Falun Dafa. Because you want to be an everyday person, your body will be reset to the level of everyday people and the bad things will be returned to you.”
	</blockquote>
	In addition to providing disease-curing benefits, it is believed that cultivation practice will actually prolong one’s life. But there is danger for those who might not live up to
	the Fa’s requirements. In Zhuan Falun Li Hongzhi states;
	<blockquote>
	“When you continually practice cultivation, you will constantly prolong your life. …There is a criterion, however, that the life prolonged beyond your predestined time to live is completely reserved for your practice. If your mind goes wrong a little bit, your life will be in danger because your lifetime should have long been over.”
	</blockquote>
	There are more serious dangers for those who directly violate the Dafa. For example, a practitioner who plagiarizes the Dafa is subject to the ultimate penalty of death. In The Essentials Li Hongzhi states:
	<blockquote>
	“Did you know that in recent years some students suddenly died? Some of them died precisely because they did such things. Don’t think that your master might do something to you….. Once you are reduced to the level of an everyday person, no one will protect you and demons will also take your life. It’s even useless to seek protection from other Buddhas, Daos, and Gods, as they won’t protect someone who undermines the Fa. What’s more, your karma will also be returned to your body.”
	</blockquote>
	If practitioners follow the requirements of the Fa they are promised salvation, or what Falun Gong also calls consummation. The idea of salvation for a practitioner has developed over time. In Li Hongzhi’s earlier teachings the focus was on an individual practitioner reaching consummation. In 1999in what many would consider an apocalyptic prediction, Li Hongzhi warned:
	<blockquote>
	“Mankind! Awaken! The vows of Gods in history are being fulfilled. The Dafa is judging all beings. What path a person takes in life is his own choosing. One thought a person has might determine his future.”
	</blockquote>
	Underlying this prediction is the teaching that the entire cosmos is undergoing a process called “Fa-rectification” – a kind of spiritual cleansing in which corrupt people will be eliminated, leaving behind only those who are worthy according to Dafa standards. In 2001 Li Hongzhi made clear that this Fa-rectification would target people based on their moral qualities, or xinxing:
	<blockquote>
	“Moreover, when an Enlightened Being descends to the world, it is usually at a time when people’s morals are declining day by day, when people’s sins and karma are enormous, or when people’s morality is degenerate. Once the saved ones have attained the Fa and left, the dregs of humanity and the degenerate world that are left behind will be weeded out.”
	</blockquote>
	It is still believed that one’s moral quality is an essential component of Falun Gong cultivation. However, in responding to the persecution of practitioners in China after the ban of 1999, Li Hongzhi has apparently opened up the categories of people who can be saved. In his more recent lectures and writings, he has stated that all human beings, not just the good ones, can be saved during the Fa-rectification process. In 2005
	Li Hongzhi stated:
	<blockquote>
	“In the Fa-rectification, Master is actually saving all beings, not just the good ones; evil ones are of course included as well. I have often said that during the Fa-rectification I don't hold the past faults of any sentient being against him, and that I look only at a sentient being's attitude toward Dafa during the Fa-rectification. In other words, no matter which beings they are or how huge the mistakes and sins they committed in history, as long as they do not play a negative role with regard to the Fa-rectification, I can give them benevolent solutions and eliminate their sins and karma.”
	</blockquote>
	In order to be saved one must not have “a bad attitude” towards the Dafa which apparently means that one must side with the Falun Gong in its fight with the Chinese government concerning the alleged persecution of practitioners. In the same lecture Li Hongzhi states:
	<blockquote>
	“It is the CCP itself that chose to make Dafa its enemy. From the moment it proclaimed that it must defeat Falun Gong, the evil spirit of the CCP and the CCP's wicked, base group that has been persecuting Dafa disciples in the human world were condemned to death by all of the cosmos's gods.”
	</blockquote>		</blockquote>
			Infact the above paper in itself substantiates most of the content in the paragraphs you picked out. Please go through it. I will provide detailed sources if you insist.
	--] 10:57, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
			] 22:10, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
	==It is the Wierd commentary==
	Absurd. Anybody can be a Falun Gong practitioner provided he lets go of all his bad traits and fundamentally changes himself - otherwise just by labelling himself so he is not.... you put it as if some criteria for being a practitioner has been '''suddenly''' relaxed... I dont have a problem with putting all the quotes in. '''It is the wierd commentary you add to them.''' I would be glad to have your email id, as there is a lot I want to discuss with you. Fire Star, I request you that you be wary that people donot put in absurd POV( the above material i dont think is just a POV..) content into the article -- and use a couple of quotes from here and there to fool the un-informed.
			: Dilip, your post above doesn't address the specific issues of verificable sources and no original research which I raised. I would like to see us cooperate, which means that if you can refrain from deleting the Deng and Fang quotes in the Criticism section for now, I will refrain from deleting all the problem material mentioned above in items #1 through 10. If you can provide verificable sources for some of the material above (other than using Falun Gong's own websites) that would be great. In other cases, some of those sentences need to be re-written and I am sure we will wind up with some that just need to be deleted. But for now I'm willing to give you a little time to respond before doing any edits in those three pages. Thanks.--] 23:06, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
	Further, the article is already far larger than the recommended size for a wikipedia article.
	] 12:00, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
			''''Moderators, is it in-line with wiki etiquette to threaten to vandalize the article unless material is unconditionally aproved?''' It is not what you or I feel. The wuestion is wether the material meets wiki standards. And we are not concerned about copying material line for line from other websites... And Misplaced Pages sets standards on the kind of material that can be used has a source... a personal opinion submitted at a family conference cannot act as a source.
	== Olaf and Dilip ==
			] 04:42, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
			The Rutger's Journal oF Law:
	I have posted a shortened version of the above and I consider it to be a compromise from my earlier, two paragraph version. I've tried to accomodate what Olaf documented concerning the change in Li Hongzhi's teachings on Fa-rectification. I am open to amended language there, but I am not open to concealing the basics about Li Hongzhi turning practioners into Gods (a word he uses almost constantly, as opposed to your use of Buddhhood), his protection of practitioners, or his earlier formulation of Fa-rectification which includes categories of people being weeded out.
			http://www-camlaw.rutgers.edu/publications/law-religion/new_devs/RJLR_ND_66.pdf
			This journal infact, in itself, can act as a source for almost all of the above mentioned material:
	I orginally said all of this in two short paragraphs but you, Dilip, complained that I had not provided context. Now I have. Most of the content in this piece is highly favorable to the Falun Gong. It even includes questionable health claims, such as those of Lili Fong. As Fire Star has said repeatedly, edits should not be done at the expense of other people's writing. Dilip, your repeated attempts to delete certain vocabulary and ideas...all part of Master Li's teachings...is really troublesome. An enclyclopedia needs to cover all the basics of a religion,
			<blockquote>
	not just those aspects you are proud of. And what could be more basic and important than Li Hongzhi's idea of Fa-rectification and who it effects? If anything, some of the other puff pieces, such as the awards section, could be taken out.
			''"As noted, Falun Gong was introduced to China in 1992. By 1998, there were approximately 70 million practitioners of Falun Gong in China."''
			</blockquote>
	Dilip, concerning your comments on homosexuality, you and Li Hongzhi do not know what you are talking about. It is not appropriate to get into a discussion on this topic on this site, but suffice it to say that homosexuality is a God-given trait just as heterosexuality is. You are wrong in asserting all religions condemn homosexuality. Some do, some don't. If you want to debate with me on that topic, please do a posting on the SF.indymedia.org website.
	--] 12:37, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
	It is not my aim to argue homosexuality. I responded against your accusations. "Lili Fong" is a Phd at Baylor College... well respected by the academic community.. I am also willing to present statements ( which you may call "highly favourable") by a reputed French Neuro scientist. If presenting the truth as the truth causes Falun Gong to appear good - then it should...Tomananda, I hope you donot manipulate Fire Star's good faith. I am sure he wouldnt allow a single edit that you have put into the article had he read all the material of Falun Gong in-depth.. which I am sure he will do when he can get the time.
	In response to the issue you raised: You may argue that hatred, greed, karma, the murderer's mentality and everything was made by "god".. there exists suffering in the cosmos.. beings are given free-will but when they act against the nature of the cosmos, they accumulate karma... and karma , the traditions say, is the cause of suffering... homosexuality is only considered an act that brings terrible karma on oneself... see discussion on homosexuality on the page... http://www.gnosis-usa.com/forum/lofiversion/index.php?t261.html ( which answers the issue you raised in-depth) ... there is order in the cosmos... suffering itself becomes benevolent when you want to go back...
	Friend, I request you , in utmost sincerity, to address the same question here on the forum http://www.gnosis-usa.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=261 ( starting a new thread...)
	] 13:24, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
	] 13:15, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
	:I agree that what Tomananda put in does seem weird, but it seems weird to me because Li says these things. Condemnation of homosexuality is common in organised religion, so the most remarkable feature of Li's teachings for me are the theories on alien mind control a la ]. The quotes are sourced and laid out in a form that contains no condemnatory commentary. We have links to FLG websites if people are intrigued by any of the things put in the article. It is straightforward. The article size issue isn't a big one (no pun intended) apparently... --] 14:08, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
	You can make it sound wierd or beautiful- depending on your POV... depending on the quote you pull out... I could pull in a 100 quotes from the books add my own interpretation to it and add it to the article...
	Falun gong's concept of alien beings differs starkly from scientology's. Clubbing both together stems from a lack of understandig. Further, that is a central belief in scientology.
	] 14:15, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
	== Olaf responds ==
	Greetings, dear editors.
	I apologize for not having time to carefully evaluate the proposed changes and write a detailed commentary. There's just too much going on, and you seem to be really engaged in this issue. However, I wish you could all calm down a little bit, especially Dilip, who seems to reflect somewhat passionate emotional outbursts in his text, in my opinion. This is a friendly reminder! We all tend to get excited and even provoked every now and then. But I have to say that I disagree with Dilip regarding certain issues, and I can see why some of you feel he doesn't want the article to cover certain questions. However, I don't blame him for that, because I also see that the new additions are not entirely balanced interpretations of Li's teachings '''as a whole'''. Here in Misplaced Pages, if you feel somebody's editions aren't neutral or just, you can provide a better context and thus strive towards a NPOV. I have found that revert wars are practically a waste of time. Somebody's always going to disagree with you, and it's a vicious circle that makes people react even more fervently. It's better to leave the article in an unbalanced state for a while and do some research to eventually provide conclusive information and sources.
	'''Tomananda:''' Yes, I am the same person who posted on the Indymedia website. And I do practice Falun Gong. If you read through my previous discussions (mostly in ]), maybe you'll get understand my position better. I have talked about biases and subjectivity before, so I will not repeat myself here.
	Falun Gong is a terribly complicated issue, because many people absolutely cannot agree with its ontological and epistemological theories. Criticizing the master-disciple relationship is one good example: such things exist in all genuine cultivation practices, and Falun Gong is considerably less rigid in this regard. It's the sheer immensity of the phenomenon that makes it particularily suspicious to some observers. Personally, I think Falun Gong has nothing to do with an authoritarian cult. (Of course, if I did, I probably wouldn't practice it myself.)
	The most unfortunate thing is that sometimes people agree with the crackdown because they have strong opinions against "pseudo-science", "quackery" and "superstition". This applies to some so-called cult experts as well. We must remember that the scientific community's viewpoints on Falun Gong are incredibly varied, while ], for example, is denounced by practically everybody. Pointing out the opinions of some extremes (like ], for instance) or self-proclaimed and highly controversial "experts" with no academic education (like ]) is not sufficient, even though you certainly can mention them in an encyclopedia article, if you also tell about the criticism they have received. I intend to elaborate on this issue.
	If you feel that something absolutely cannot be true, it is sure to smell fishy to you, and you're prone to suspect a hidden agenda or conspiracy. I have enough self-reflectivity to admit that I cannot know whether ''everything'' about FLG is true. But I know it has supernatural effects on the human body that surpass the capability of modern science, and that's just about enough for me. Why, I look several years younger than before, I can see certain things in other dimensions, etc. And I know a lot of perfectly sane, well-educated practitioners with similar (or even more peculiar) experiences. How could I not find it worthwhile? I take Falun Gong seriously because the practice manifests a tangible reality, it's not just dogma or mind-blowing theories. Mind you, I do find some of Li's statements quite far out, but his method is indeed astonishing, and I'd like to hear what such a person has to say. Teaching an intricate system of qigong is not like teaching aerobics, and it's not a new Jane Fonda fitness video. Maybe he does know what he's talking about, maybe the truth is somewhere in between; who can say at this point? Interesting, isn't it?
	I've also studied authoritarian cults and ideologies, and I'm well aware of different manipulative techniques. Actually, I've probed quite deep into these issues in my studies. These things are not entirely within the scope of this article, so I won't discuss them here. Maybe we can exchange personal e-mails or move to some other discussion forum if you're interested in my points of view and why I disagree with your categorization of Falun Gong. But, as I said, first you could read what I've written here before. I can see from your discussions that you're a good writer, and I'm genuinely interested to hear what you have to say.
	When I have time, I will scrutinize your new additions into the article. I already browsed through them quickly, but there's just too many other things to take care of right now.
	Best regards,
	] 16:41, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
	'''Olaf:''' In additioin to what's said below, just a few comments in response to your personal observations above:
	--I think you know that my text was not "cricizing" the master-disciple relationship in Falun Gong, but rather reporting it. When I use words like "deception" in my discussion posts, I am referring to the common practice of Falun Gong practitioners to "conceal" (my word) that there even is a master-disciple relationship. I find this incredibly dishonest, but attribute it to the Master's teaching that when practitioners talk to ordinary people they must not talk at the higher levels.
	--Like you, I am busy. But I will read up on your prior posts as you suggest.
	--Concerning cult experts, I do not rely on Rick Ross in any way. However, Margaret Singer was a highly respected pioneer in the cultish studies community. Many people in that field do not agree with her theory of brianwashing, but by the same token no one who has followed her has been able to establish a consensus position on what constitutes "undue influence," "brainwashing," or "coercive manipulation." Meanwhile, Steven Hassan continues to have direct working experience with cult members and ex-cult members and his opinion matters. Having said that, I see your point of reporting other opinions. Maybe creating an entire section on "Critics of Falun Gong" is the way to go. But for now I have been focusing on putting into the Beliefs section material that I consider essential for any real understanding of the Falun Gong.
	--Since Dilip brought up the subject of homosexuality, I felt I had to respond, but I am not planning to do any edits in that section. He seems to be very attached to the idea of justifying the homophobia of the Falun Gong, but ironically at this point I would rather put that entire discussion on a back burner.
	--Right now, I feel frustrated at this continuing back and forth between me and Dilip. I sincerely hope he answers the questions I posed to him below.
	--I appreciate your openess to discussion, willingness to ackowledge divergent views and often insightful observations about the subject matter.
	--] 23:19, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
	== Fire Star: Please Revert Again ==
	Yesterday Dilip said that there was agreement of the editors about replacing the existing paragraphs at the end of the Beliefs section with his own revisions. Today we have just heard from two editors. Fire Star is not bothered by the text, it's use of quotes or it's connecting language.
	Fire Star comments: ''I agree that what Tomananda put in does seem weird, but it seems weird to me because Li says these things. . . . The quotes are sourced and laid out in a form that contains no condemnatory commentary. We have links to FLG websites if people are intrigued by any of the things put in the article. It is straightforward.''
	Olaf has now weighed in. He says: ''I will scrutinize your new additions into the article''. In an earlier post, Olaf said he did not have any objection to any of the insertions I had made, but he pointed out in a detailed post how it lacked important information, especially concerning Fa-rectification. In response to Olaf's commentary, I went back to the original sources and created a version to answer some of Olaf's concerns. I am totally open to more changes from Olaf about those revisions.
	Now today we have Dilip, once again, deleting all of this work and replacing it with his version
	which fails to report the whole story of Li Hongzhi's teachings.
	Dilip: Why are you uncomfortable reporting that Li Hongzhi says he offers salvation and is the only Savior for mankind at this time? Why are you uncomfortable reporting that as part of the master-disciple relationship in Falun Gong the Master protects his followers from harm? Or that his Fashen (Law bodies) play a key role in that protection, as explained in the Zhuan Falun? Why are you uncomfortable reporting that Li Hongzhi tells practioners they will be turned into Gods? Why do you insist that the only word that can be used for this idea is Buddha or Buddhahood?
	Please Fire Star: do another revert, and then we can go from there! I'm open to all kinds of compromises, but to engage in an edit war with Dilip rather than addressing my concerns that important content is being withheld is a waste of time and effort.
	Misplaced Pages etiguette asks that we answer each other's questions or concerns. Dilip: in the spirit of cooperation, are you willing to answer my questions above?
	--] 21:08, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
	:Make that one more. Dilip's "majority of editors" does not exist. -- <font color="#FF0000">'''Миборовский'''</font> <sup>]|]|]|]|]|]!</sup> 21:13, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
	::Very well, but you guys can revert, too. Now I'm done for another 10 hours due to ]. Since I do edit this page I'm not functioning as an admin, I'm just another editor. I think the contribution makes sense as it is, but if Dilip can contextualize it more without removing anything, that would be OK too. My main goal is to have a good, neutral article that people can live with. --] 03:09, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
	==Dilip Replies==
	First of all, we have a well agreed upon and readable version of the article here... we must make sure that it is not converted into a random(?) collection of quotes.... Then anybody can come and put in a 100 quotes..
	q.Why are you uncomfortable reporting that Li Hongzhi says he offers salvation and is the only
	Savior for mankind at this time?
	For A LOT of reasons including, but not limited to:
	1. First of all it is said in the book Zhuan Falun that Tibetan tantrism , Pure Land
	Buddhism etc are all true cultivation ways - i.e. they offer salvation
	2. It must be made very clear what Falun Gong mens by the word "God". Falun gong has an
	intricate set of teachings on higher dimensional realities (to put it loosely) a "god" being
	just a higher being, limited by his level... just like a human is limited by his
	level...even gods being able to move up by cultivation... gods considering higer beings as
	their gods... none of the beings knowing the ultimate truth of the cosmos and so on.... If
	you willing to let me write on all these things(concisely) I am willing to introduce term
	god... The teachings and beliefs of Falun Gong can only be accurately portrayed with
	context...
	3. Falun Gong's concept of "offering salvation" must be made clear... praciting falun gong
	doesnt automatically lead to salvation....
	"If any of you sitting here can’t cultivate your xinxing to the point of Consummation, then
	I can’t do anything about it either . I can teach you the principles of the Fa, I can help
	you evolve gong, I can eliminate a portion of your karma for you, I can protect you, and I
	can do a huge range of things for you that you don’t know about but that are necessary when
	you Consummate and afterwards. But if your heart doesn’t change and your mind doesn’t
	elevate, then all of that is in vain."
	"Without cultivating the heart, no one can make it.
	Conversion is a formality of everyday people. Are you a member of the Buddha School after
	conversion? Will Buddha then take care of you? There is no such thing. Even if you kowtow
	everyday until your head bleeds, or even if you burn bundles of incense, it is still
	useless. You must truly cultivate your heart to make it work."
	q. Why are you uncomfortable reporting that as part of the master-disciple relationship in
	Falun Gong the Master protects his followers from harm?
	If we can explain the concept of Fa-Shen, in detail and accurately before we touch upon
	them, then we may. We cannot irresponsibly use terms in an article... We are providing links
	to all the teachings of Falun Gong-- So we are not hiding anything and we are allowing the
	reader to read it in proper context. Again so much is said about Fa-Shen in the lectures...
	q. Why do you insist that the only word that can be used for this idea is Buddha or Buddhahood?
	First, it is a cultivation practice of the Buddha School, so what it cultivates is
	Buddhahood. Seondly, To make the aspect of cultivation involved clear... I prefer the term
	"cultivation of Buddhahood".. achieving buddhahood through cultivation... Inshort that term helps outline the context...
	When you write about Fa-rectification, you present it as if it is something for wiping out
	bad people.. The term fa-rectification must explained very clearly before it is used...
	attempt in the direction has been made the contextualized version....
	I am willing to explain the concept of Fa-Shen, Law Bodies etc with context and concisely if
	you think we must do so in the article. Plucking out random(??) quotes is not the way to do it. Kindy give me a few weeks time as I need to study oer a 1000 pages of material in-dpeth to come up with something that can be called factual..
	I want to ensure that things are explained accurtly and with context. For Instance, to explain the concept of Fa-Shen, one must explain the concept of higher
	dimensions... (Remember, this is an encyclopaedia article not a newspaper article) which is explained in pages of material in the books... just to pull out a few paras...
	"This cosmos is so vast and its structure is so complex. I’ve told you about the
	composition of dimensions. For example, matter is composed of molecules and even
	more microscopic particles. The dimension that we know of is also composed of these
	particles. Today, the particles known to science include molecules, atoms, neutrons,
	atomic nuclei, and electrons; and then there are quarks and neutrinos. What’s further
	down is unknown to today’s science. So what I’ve said is that the realm of each level of
	these particles is what we call the plane of that level. Actually, particles aren’t
	distributed on a plane; instead, within a given level, they exist everywhere—not on a plane.
	Humankind doesn’t have a term for it, so we’ll just call it a plane; this is the only way we
	can describe it. Right within that realm—within that layer of particles’ realm—a
	dimension is formed. Between particles are dimensions, and inside particles themselves
	are also dimensions. Yet particles can also make up particles of different sizes. Then,
	among the particles of different sizes that are composed of one particular particle are
	again dimensions. This is the concept of dimensions that I explained to you last time.
	I’ve always said that between atoms and molecules is a vast dimension. We
	humans live between the layer of the largest particles made up of molecules, and planets
	that we see, which are a layer of particles. Humans live in that dimension. A planet is also
	a particle. Going further, the Milky Way galaxy also has an outer shell. Might the Milky
	Way galaxy and the countless other galaxies spread throughout the cosmos form a
	dimension? They’re also interrelated. Then beyond the galaxies, there is still another
	cosmic expanse—then is this cosmic expanse a layer of particles? It sure is a layer of
	particles. The cosmos is incredibly vast—there’s simply no way to describe how vast it
	is. Furthermore, three thousand universes like the one we inhabit make up a larger layer
	of universe, which has an outer shell and is a particle of a universe of an even larger
	layer. Yet the particles I just talked about was expanding from just one point. As a matter
	of fact, particles of each layer are spread throughout the entire cosmos. Yet even what I
	just described are only two layers of universes and you already find it mind-boggling. In
	fact, the future humankind’s science won’t be able to know this, either—humankind will
	never be able to know things that high-level. Even with the extent we discussed to, that
	layer of particles is but a speck of dust—a tiny speck of dust—in this vast cosmos. Think
	about how enormous this cosmos is! This is the type of dimension I’ve been telling you
	about all along.
	Last time I again discussed the composition of dimensions. In addition to the type of
	dimensions between atoms and molecules and between planets and molecules, the atomic
	particles in each layer also make up particles of different sizes. Then between the layers
	of these different-sized particles are again dimensions. Take molecules, for example: We
	normally know that there’s a dimension between molecules and atoms. If atoms are to
	make up molecules, many atoms need to be arranged together to make up a molecule.
	Then, between a layer of larger particles composed of fewer atomic particles and [another
	layer of] larger particles composed of more atomic particles is yet another level of
	dimension. As I’ve said, molecules can form any thing at the outermost surface—things
	like what we humans can see, such as steel, iron, water, air, wood, and our human bodies.
	This is the layer of matter at the surface that humans can see, and it’s composed of the
	layer of the largest particles that are composed of molecules. Yet molecules also make up
	a second, counting downward, layer of particles that are slightly smaller than these
	largest molecular particles. They can also make up a third, counting downward, layer of
	particles—all of these are composed of molecules, because molecules can make up
	particles of different sizes. Then among them are also dimensions, so this cosmos is
	extremely complex. There’s more to this, because within each level of dimension there
	are also vertical ones, that is, dimensions of different levels. In other words, there are
	dimensions of different levels that are like the many layers of heavens understood by
	religions. In addition, in dimensions at different levels there also exist different unitary
	paradises. It’s extremely complex. I’ve only told you about a common phenomenon."
	== To many fallacies in Tomananda's version==
	There are too many fallacies in the text introduced. At one point, tomananda claims that the criteria for becoming a practitioner has been somehow loosened. The idea makes no sense when you measure it with the concept of cultivation practice found in Falun Dafa. See that from very early lectures, for example, this one from Germany says:
	<blockquote>		<blockquote>
			''"In protest, 10,000 members of Falun Gong gathered outside the Communist Party headquarters in Beijing on April 25, 1999. The members gathered outside the building peacefully, practiced their meditative exercises and then left"''
	"No matter what kind of person you are and no matter how many bad things you’ve done, I will
	look after you as long as you can truly cultivate with a sincere heart. If you don’t cultivate, then
	nothing can be done. "
	</blockquote>		</blockquote>
			<blockquote>
			''"In 2001, the Chinese government “sanctioned the systematic use of violence against the group, established a network of brainwashing classes and embarked on a painstaking effort to weed out followers neighborhood by neighborhood and workplace by workplace.”''
			</blockquote>
			<blockquote>
			''"Fearing the Falun Gong could prove to be a political threat, the Chinese government began a systematic and violent campaign against the spiritual movement. The Chinese crackdown on Falun Gong has proven to be rather successful. However, there is no evidence to suggest that Falun Gong began as anything more than a spiritual exercise. There is no evidence that Falun Gong had any political aspirations."''
			</blockquote>
			-''Rutgers Journal of Law''
			</blockquote>
			Tomananda, the fake slander from criticism has to go, you don't need to come with threats, they don't work on cultivators. We told you why it has to go, so it has to go. It's obvious that you are acting quite irrational and saying some wicked things. Well, so may be. /] 05:45, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
	From the very earliest lectures it is said that anyone may cultivate irrespective of the karma, if he can strengthen his will and has the heart for cultivation.
			:Yes, Dilip, it is a matter of how our editing meets Misplaced Pages standards and I have carefully laid out 10 specific problem areas in the edits which I believe do not meet Misplaced Pages standards. Unlike what you, Fnhddzs and Omido have just done...delete for the third time significant material from the Criticism page without discussion...I have not deleted anything on your Teachings or Persecution pages. Instead, I have asked you to respond to these issues, but your only response is a message accusing me of threatening to vandalize material, combined with a series of quotes which have no bearing on the specific edits in question. And now we have a new practitioner named Omido making personal accusations towards me and issuing grand statements such as "We told you why( the reasons) it has to go, so it has to go."
	The prolonging life quote is for extremely old people. You could only be hiding that intentionally as Zhuan Falun says that extremely clearly in the paragraphs/sentences before.
			:At this point I am one person having a dialogue with three Falun Gong practitioners who refuse to offer even a modicum of cooperation in the editing process--and two of you have provoked revert wars which resulted in freezing the article for weeks at a time. You also accuse me of of being irrational because I have introduced critical material into the article. This kinda makes me think about all those media people in China who were besieged with thousands of Falun Gong practitioners in their offices demanding that they retract all criticism of the Falun Gong. Did those thousands of allegedly peaceful and tolerant practioners in Tianjin use the same kind of rhetoric that Omido uses on me today: "We told you why it has to go, so it has to go." ?
	] 04:07, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
			:Mirabovsky,Fire Star, Covenant and the other editors: what shall we do next? --] 08:33, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
			Tomanda, look at your own edits. Omid's reply was to your apparent threat to vandalzie the article unless the material in unconditionally accepted. Omid, was only emphasizing that the reasons for scrutinizing such a source has been carefully explained... and there is no point in engaging in threats or attacks..
	== Another Violation of Misplaced Pages Etiquette ==
			] 08:48, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
	Aparna, we don't just delete entire sections of a text...especially one that is currently being discussed for possible revisons. It is yet another example of the bullying tactics that Falun Gong practioners engage in.
			_______________________________________________________________________________________________
	--] 06:20, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
			Well Tomananda, that is your way of seeing it. As I see it, we told you why it has to go. And you responded by saying "but Teachings and Persecution are also unsourced, if my critics have to be removed then teaching and persecution also have to be removed".
			by Tomananda: "...which means that if you can refrain from deleting the Deng and Fang quotes in the Criticism section for now, I will refrain from deleting all the problem material mentioned above in items #1 through 10."
	== Response to Dilip ==
			This sounds like a delete threat to me.
	First of all, we have a well agreed upon and readable version of the article here... we must make sure that it is not converted into a random(?) collection of quotes.... Then anybody can come and put in a 100 quotes..
	q.Why are you uncomfortable reporting that Li Hongzhi says he offers salvation and is the only Savior for mankind at this time?
	For A LOT of reasons including, but not limited to:
	1. First of all it is said in the book Zhuan Falun that Tibetan tantrism , Pure LandBuddhism etc are all true cultivation ways - i.e. they offer salvation
	<blockquote>
	You seem to be saying that you agree Li Hongzhi offers salvation (the first part of the sentence) but that you don’t agree that he is the only one offering salvation for mankind at this time.
	Yes, there are other cultivation ways which Master Li talks about in Zhuan Falun, but isn’t the larger point that Master Li makes in Zhuan Falun that he is the only one offering salvation to mankind during this period of Fa-rectification? That message, permeates his teachings. In Zhuan Falun he repeatedly contrasts the cultivation he teaches at the higher levels with those of other traditions. He even calls the original Fa taught by Sakyamuni “primitive” and says it cannot save the people of today. He also states in Zhuan Falun:
	“Today, we have made public to you such a great cultivation way, and I have delivered it to your doorstep. It will be up to you whether you can practice cultivation and make it…..If you cannot do it and cannot practice cultivation, you should not think about practicing cultivation from now on. Except for the demons that will deceive you, nobody else will teach you and you will not be able to practice cultivation. If I cannot save you, nobody else can.”
	</blockquote>
	2. It must be made very clear what Falun Gong mens by the word "God". Falun gong has an intricate set of teachings on higher dimensional realities (to put it loosely) a "god" being just a higher being, limited by his level... just like a human is limited by his level...even gods being able to move up by cultivation... gods considering higer beings astheir gods... none of the beings knowing the ultimate truth of the cosmos and so on.... Ifyou willing to let me write on all these things(concisely) I am willing to introduce termgod... The teachings and beliefs of Falun Gong can only be accurately portrayed withcontext...
	<blockquote>
	Yes, there are Gods at higher levels whom Master Li refers to, and different traditions have different ideas for what the word God means, but there is no need to explain all of Li Hongzhi’s cosmology to simply say he promises to turn his practitioners into Gods. Yes, the Gods Li refers to at the higher levels are limited (Li will teach them his Dafa after all) and I get all of that. But we do not need to introduce a great deal of complexity in this section to get the basic point across. If you can suggest a short clarifying phrase, or even a sentence, to qualify the meaning of the word God in this section, fine with me. But to recast the whole thing into an exposition of Master Li’s cosmology or his version of the creation myth would destroy the cohesiveness of these paragraphs. If you want to really expand on all that, I believe you should write up a separate section.
	</blockquote>
	3. Falun Gong's concept of "offering salvation" must be made clear... praciting falun gong doesnt automatically lead to salvation....
	"If any of you sitting here can’t cultivate your xinxing to the point of Consummation, then I can’t do anything about it either . I can teach you the principles of the Fa, I can help you evolve gong, I can eliminate a portion of your karma for you, I can protect you, and I can do a huge range of things for you that you don’t know about but that are necessary when you Consummate and afterwards. But if your heart doesn’t change and your mind doesn’t elevate, then all of that is in vain."
	"Without cultivating the heart, no one can make it. Conversion is a formality of everyday people. Are you a member of the Buddha School after conversion? Will Buddha then take care of you? There is no such thing. Even if you kowtow everyday until your head bleeds, or even if you burn bundles of incense, it is still useless. You must truly cultivate your heart to make it work."
	<blockquote>
	Here again, you are introducing a level of complexity that is not needed here. Of course Falun Gong cultivation does not automatically lead to salvation. And, yes, a very short description of what salvation means might fit in this context. But if you envision a lengthy exposition on salvation, then I think we are talking about something different than what is now being discussed. Keep in mind that Olaf intends to offer some additional context, too. Let’s at least attempt to proceed by modifying the existing text, rather than creating whole new sections…at least for now.
	</blockquote>
	q) Why are you uncomfortable reporting that as part of the master-disciple relationship in Falun Gong the Master protects his followers from harm?
	If we can explain the concept of Fa-Shen, in detail and accurately before we touch uponthem, then we may. We cannot irresponsibly use terms in an article... We are providing links to all the teachings of Falun Gong-- So we are not hiding anything and we are allowing the reader to read it in proper context. Again so much is said about Fa-Shen in the lectures...
	<blockquote>
	Again, I think it is a matter of length and overall cohesiveness. This is an encylopedia article, not a book. As Fire Star has suggested, additional context can always be provided though the external links. I would prefer that you suggest modifications to the wording I have proposed.
	</blockquote>
	q) Why do you insist that the only word that can be used for this idea is Buddha or Buddhahood?
	First, it is a cultivation practice of the Buddha School, so what it cultivates is Buddhahood. Seondly, To make the aspect of cultivation involved clear... I prefer the term "cultivation of Buddhahood".. achieving buddhahood through cultivation... Inshort that term helps outline the context..
	<blockquote>
	Sure, it is clear that you prefer the term Buddha or Buddhahood, but the problem is that Li Hongzhi uses the terms God and Gods in this context and that language needs to be reported as well. In fact, I am a bit surprised that you would want to alter Li Hongzhi’s words so much. It is almost as if you want to edit the teachings in such a way that the finished result does not reflect the original. Since you are a practitioner, that surprises me. Oddly, it appears that I care more about being faithful to Master Li’s formulations than you do.
	Also, there’s no reason why different sections can’t use their own vocabulary. Keep in mind that the two paragraphs that were added at the end began with words like: “It is also believed that….”
	<blockquote>
	q) When you write about Fa-rectification, you present it as if it is something for wiping out bad people. The term fa-rectification must explained very clearly before it is used...attempt in the direction has been made the contextualized version....
	<blockquote>
	Well,yes and yes. Master Li does describe Fa-rectification in those terms, so blame him, not me. And you already provided a pretty good sentence which briefly explains the the bigger picture: “It is also said that the cosmic firmament, from very high levels, has deviated from the Fa( Dharma ) and that all levels are being rectified by the Fa in the process of "Fa-rectification". I would reformulate that wording to appear as follows:
	Underlying this prediction is the teaching that the entire cosmos is undergoing a process called “Fa-rectification” – a kind of spiritual cleansing in which corrupt people will be eliminated, leaving behind only those who are worthy according to Dafa standards. It is said that the cosmic firmament, from very high level, has deviated form the Fa (Dharma)_ and that all levels are being rectified by the Fa in this process. In 2001 Li Hongzhi made clear that this Fa-rectification would target people based on their moral qualities, or xinxing:
	</blockquote>
	I am willing to explain the concept of Fa-Shen, Law Bodies etc with context and concisely if you think we must do so in the article. Plucking out random(??) quotes is not the way to do it. Kindy give me a few weeks time as I need to study oer a 1000 pages of material in-dpeth to come up with something that can be called factual.
	<blockquote>
	Again, I think you are making this more complex than it needs to be. Master Li himself introduces the idea of the Fashen fairly succinctly in Zhuan Falun and we don’t need to write a whole book about it. But, yes, I do think that the Fa-shen as a means of protecting practitioners (as well as knowing what they are thinking and in my point of view controlling them) is absolutely essential.
	</blockquote>
	I want to ensure that things are explained accurtly and with context. For Instance, to explain the concept of Fa-Shen, one must explain the concept of higher dimensions... (Remember, this is an encyclopaedia article not a newspaper article) which is explained in pages of material in the books... just to pull out a few paras...
	<blockquote>
	Please refer to my comments above. It sounds like you want to write an entire section on Master Li’s cosmology. While that’s fine with me, it is really not needed to get across the point that Master Li’s law bodies protect his practitioners. These ideas are not that difficult to grasp. Are you just trying to burry them in a mountain of irrelevant teachings? An encyclopedia article needs to present the basics, not all the details.
	</blockquote>
	--] 07:03, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
	== People Differ ==
	The point is - what you present as the "truth" is far from it. Moreover this is not the format required of an encyclopaedia article. An article should be an article. The quotes are all put out of context. There is no violation of wikipedia etiquette - on the otherhand you are casually messing up the article ignoring what is being pointed out by other editors. I am not deleting any information - just mis-information. I think others understand that too.
	] 12:14, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
	:But it is only your ''opinion'' that it is misinformation. Someone else may say that it seems like you are saying that anything that isn't approved by official FLG dogma is "misinformation." You are making a purely religious argument, not an argument based on material in the public domain. You can try to spin Li's comments, saying we don't understand them (again, a rteligious argument, assuming facts not in evidence), but they are still what they are, and he still said them. I'm for including them. --] 14:34, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
	::Of course, there is always the question of '''which''' quotes to select from all the texts we have at our disposal. These are obviously selected because of their controversial nature, but as I've said before, POV doesn't consist only of what is said, it also involves what is ''not'' said. By themselves, and without providing a comprehensive background for all the terms and axioms, they're simply confusing, and I can definitely understand why Aparna and Dilip are not satisfied. It's almost (not exactly, but almost) like saying "time travel is possible, according to quantum mystics" - but for a layman who is not familiar with quantum physics at all, such a statement is just balderdash. We should focus on what is ''implied'' by choosing particular quotes, and that's what this debate is all about, in my opinion.
			by Tomananda: "Instead, I have asked you to respond to these issues, but your only response is a message accusing me of threatening to vandalize material, combined with a series of quotes which have no bearing on the specific edits in question."
	::Shouldn't we also include FLG's theory on the structure of dimensions? How, exactly, Li thinks these ''fashen'' exist (e.g. he says they're born in the ''dantian'' when high-level cultivation practice is reached, etc.) And when we get here, shouldn't we also explain what is ''dantian'', and what other traditions have said about it? We get into a maze of definitions, gray areas, paradigmatic controversy... you name it. And the article gets way too long.
			answer from Dilip:
	::One important thing that isn't mentioned in the article is that a lot of FLG is commentary on the questions in the qigong community that have already been discussed for a few decades. The institutional field where Falun Gong emerged was '''not''' religion but "frontier science" or "alternative science" (or "pseudo-science", depending on your viewpoint). Did you know that according to ], there exists a "]" in the human body? How many laymen in the West would accept such a concept that is, however, taken quite seriously in certain Chinese scientific traditions? The same applies for the ] theory, et cetera, et cetera.
			"The Rutger's Journal oF Law: http://www-camlaw.rutgers.edu/publications/law-religion/new_devs/RJLR_ND_66.pdf
			This journal infact, in itself, can act as a source for almost all of the above mentioned material"
			As admins can see, Dilip answered his question, but he still says that Dilip responded with "...a series of quotes which have no bearing on the specific edits in question."
	::These are some of the reasons why I also think that your criteria for choosing the relevant quotes only reflect a certain POV (namely, "Falun Gong is an authoritarian cult"), and we must discuss the issue further. ---] 16:05, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
			by Tomananda: "Unlike what you, Fnhddzs and Omido have just done...delete for the third time significiant sections of the Criticism page without discussion..."
	== Presenting Links to appropriate material ==
	I think it would be much better and un-biased to just provide links to appropriate material.
	] 14:03, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
			This is a complete lie and you know it. We have discussed with you over and over again that the Fang and Chang and all those "critics say" quotes that you have been getting from personal sites should not be used in this article. You responded with things that you think should be deleted from the Teaching and Persecution section. Dilip gave you the sources for most of those points, and you still accuse him for many things. I think that it is not the right way to handle things, that is why I called you irrational. If you were offended, I apologize, it was not my intention to offending you /] 08:56, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
	I pointed out those praragraphs as an understanding of such material is needed for the reader to appreciate what the concept of Fa- Shen and higher dimensional realities as taught in Falun Gong is. If we cant do that in the article we can only provide links to appropriate material rather than define thiongs as we please.
	] 14:08, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
			== Mirabovsky: Can you issue a warning to the new practitioner/editor named Omido? ==
	Fire Star,
	That it is mis-information is not an opinion. You will understand it if you study the books. Think about it there are many tens of millions world over practicing Falun Gong including many top scientists, medical scientists, and even top most psychiatrists like Abraham L. Halpern, M.D.
	Professor (Emeritus of Psychiatry, New York Medical College, Former President, American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law) is a board member of FoFG. Do you think if the beliefs of Falun Dafa were like tomananda puts it all these people would practice cultivation in Dafa? Anybody may choose a 100 quotes to put into the article. But that is not what we mean by an article. I dont think everyone who differs with Tomananda is a practitioner.
			Mirabovsky, in the midst of all the above chatter, I have just discovered that Omido exeeded her/his three revert limit between 5:49 and 5:59 on 30 May in the Criticism page. Her/his series of edits were identified as vandalism by Ami Daniel and reverted to an earlier version. In essence, Omido deleted critical material that has been in the article for a long time, including material from Maria Chang who wrote the book: ''Falun Gong: The End of Days''. In doing these deletions you can discover in the History that she deleted the following wording at the end of a sentence: "while commentators generally come to an opposite condlusion. Maria Chang (2004) writes:" But evidently she/he missed that a block quote from Maria Chang's book followed. So the effect of that particular edit was to preserve a block quote, but delete the author's reference. So much for taking care of our sources citations in Misplaced Pages! Anyway, I think Omido deserves to get some kind of warning for her/his editing behavior...including, by the way, the accusations she/he made to me in an earlier post. --] 09:24, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
	] 15:14, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

---

Latest revision as of 12:47, 20 November 2024

Please stay calm and civil while commenting or presenting evidence, and do not make personal attacks. Be patient when approaching solutions to any issues. If consensus is not reached, other solutions exist to draw attention and ensure that more editors mediate or comment on the dispute.

WIKIPEDIA IS NOT A FALUN GONG DISCUSSION FORUM! Please, add new messages pertaining to editing the FLG article at the bottom of this page.

It is suggested that new readers of this "talk page" read the archived discussions below. It is likely that an issue of concern has already been discussed. As a result, a would-be poster can save the Wikipedian community time and effort spent on otherwise rehashing an issue if this responsbility is undertaken. Please remember that this isn't the place to vent our spleens in condemnation or gush praise for Falun Gong itself as much as it is to comment on the actual article content. We don't want a puff piece for Falun Gong or Li Hongzhi, neither do we want to demonise them. If we have an objectively neutral, factual article one hopes the truth will speak for itself, however we may subjectively perceive it.

Untitled

Archived discussion:

• /archive1, 1 April 2003 - 29 May 2005
• /Archive2, 29 May 2005 to 30 July 2005
• /Archive3, 31 July 2005 to 20 January 2006
• /Archive4, 21 January 2006 to 2 March 2006
• /Archive5, 3 March 2006 to 21 March 2006
• /Archive6, 22 March 2006 to 10 April 2006
• /Archive7, 10 April 2006 to 25 April 2006
• /Archive8, 25 April 2006 to 26 May 2006

Starting over, take Four hundred or so

All previous discussions have been archived. Shall we start by looking at the article bit by bit?

Does anybody have suggestions to improve the opening paragraphs of the article, the ones that appear above the Table of Contents? CovenantD 04:46, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

---

Falun Gong (simplified Chinese: 法轮功; traditional Chinese: 法輪功; pinyin: Fǎlún Gōng; literally "Practice of the Wheel of Law") is also known as Falun Dafa (simplified Chinese: 法轮大法; traditional Chinese: 法輪大法; pinyin: Fǎlún dàfǎ; lit. "Great Law of the Wheel of Law") is a system of mind and body cultivation introduced by Li Hongzhi in 1992. Central to Falun Gong are the teachings of "Truthfulness, Compassion and Forbearance" and five sets of meditation exercises (four standing, and one sitting meditation).)

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

After the crackdown, the number of Falun Gong practitioners in China was estimated by the government at 2.1 million . The number of practitioners claimed by Falun Gong is much larger, with 100 million followers worldwide including over 70 million in China.

---

Well, it seems pretty good to me. Neutral, brief, and in line with other articles of a similar nature on WP. We shouldn't call FLG a "cult" (as has happened) nor call Li Hongzhi a living god in the intro, (as has happened with only the slightest exaggeration on my part). --Fire Star 火星 18:02, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

• I just notice that the intro above is not the sameone on the article. Let's discuss the existing version instead. --Yueyuen 18:16, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

That's because dilip, ONCE AGAIN, made changes before there was agreement. I'm getting fucking sick and tired of it. CovenantD 18:27, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

I've just changed it back to what is in the article. CovenantD 18:36, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

I am sorry if I did something wrong I was trying to introduce the New York times figure. which was actually present in "the article". I wonder which is "the article" you are referring to.Anyway, Covenant, I leave it to you to decide wether saying Falun Gong was banned for illegal activities is correct or not and also wether to include the New York Times figure.Dilip rajeev 19:17, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Should it not be Falun Gong, also known as Falun Dafa, is... for proper grammar? Skinnyweed 18:31, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes. CovenantD 18:36, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, that is correct. It is easy enough to change the existing version to the one above. What Dilip and other "pro-FLG" editors have consistently demonstrated IMO is an agenda regarding the uncritical promotion of FLG, as well converting as many other editors to their religion as possible. Until that agenda can be laid aside, their credibility for the purposes of an encyclopaedia article (as opposed to a simple advertisement) is compromised, as far as I am concerned. --Fire Star 火星 18:37, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

FACTS are what I want in the article neither my opinion nor anybody else's. Is inclusion of the NY Times figure promoting Falun Gong? I dont understand. Please point out which non-factual/unsourced material I have tried to add . Thankyou. Dilip rajeev 19:21, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Sorry for not being clear. "The article," when I use it in this context, is the first three paragraphs of the main Falun Gong article attached to this talk page. Use of NY Times figures is an appropriate, verifiable source, and seems to fit in with the rest of the last paragraph. I'll address the legallity/illegality issue further down this page in it's own section. CovenantD 20:52, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Suggestions for edits

Personally I'd prefer to see the second sentence of the second article say "alleged illegal activities." I'm not familiar with Chinese legal systems, but based on US perceptions one is presumed innocent until proven guilty. Since Falun Gong hasn't been put on trial, it all seems to be allegations at this point. CovenantD 04:46, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Oh, and the last sentence of that same paragraph should read "peacefully" rather than "peaceful." Simple grammar. I'll leave it to others to debate the claims. CovenantD 04:48, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

And remember, our comments should address only the article and NOT other editors motivations or beliefs or recent behaviour. CovenantD 04:51, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

• Ok, I am ready to move forward too. The term “illegal activities” has been there for a while and editors from both sides seem to have no problem with it. So I say it should stay. What do you think? --Samuel Luo 07:07, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm good either way. CovenantD 07:23, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

"Falun Gong has been the focus of international controversy since the government of the People's Republic of China began a nationwide suppression of Falun Gong on July 20, 1999 for its illegal activities."

Which illegal activities? I don't understand. All I have heard is the propaganda that CCP used to turn the chinese people agains Falun Gong. Here illegal activities should be removed. Omido 08:09, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Also, as I know it, Falun Gong actually was encouraged by the government before the persecuton. They invited Teacher Li to hold sessions etc. But after the number of practitioner grew to above 100 million, Jiang Zemin got jeaoulous because Falun Gong had more members then the CCP has, and made it illegal..starting the persecution. Omido 08:20, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

So you acknowledge that it is illegal. This nullifies your first comment. Any other suggestions for edits? I'll give it another 16 hours, then we'll move on. CovenantD 08:30, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Im sorry you misunderstood me, I didn't acknowledge that the movement itself does illegal activites. Rather that the CCP banned it in China, that means persecuting it. The movement itself has never been doing anything illegal, that would go against the principle of Kindness/Compassion. As it looks now, it looks like Falun Gong did illegal activities and then got banned, but that is completely wrong. Falun Gong was "banned" because of other reasons, it didnt do anything illegal. Omido 09:27, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

We dont have to speculate wether its "illegal" or not. The earlier version didnt say "illegal". Neither was the term "illegal" agreed upon in any talk page discussion. I dont think there is any need to spend 16 hours on that. Please see the intro. ( Changes: Mentions there is a supression - doesnt speculate wehter it is for "illegal" or "legal" activities. Introduced New York Times figure. (70 million) ) . Let us move on to deciding the proper subsections and the intro paragraphs. Dilip rajeev 12:35, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

• These illegal activities should be spell out. I propose to add this sentence to the first paragraph: in the core of the Falun Gong belief system is a belief that the morally corrupt humankind is facing annihilation, only Master Li and his Falun Dafa can save the world. --Yueyuen 18:01, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

IF that is a factual statement, I have no problem with it being included. Would others care to comment on this proposed addition? CovenantD 18:46, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

This statement sums up the core beliefs of the Falun Gong, it should be included. --Samuel Luo 03:17, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Direct quotes from Li's biography & Miborovsky protecting the page

Sorry, I promised to devote more time to Misplaced Pages, but it hasn't worked out so far. I'm working and trying to finish some my studies at the same time. There's one issue I've requested repeatedly: I asked Samuel Luo to provide direct quotes from Li's biography, so that we can put them into quotation marks. He has not replied.

Another thing I find peculiar is that Miborovsky has locked the page, even though he has been involved in editing the article in the past, and he is by no means impartial. I don't know whether this conforms to Misplaced Pages policies. Shouldn't we always ask for an outsider?

---Olaf Stephanos 11:56, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Welcome back, Olaf. Yeah, even when locking the page. why lock a page he prefers? If we can look at the history , (cur) (last) 00:14, 25 May 2006 Miborovsky m (Protected Falun Gong: ok that's it, apparently everyone insists on being revert-happy ) (cur) (last) 23:57, 24 May 2006 Yueyuen (anyone compares these two version can see that. You should talk with others before making big changes, I am not the only one complaining, check your mail box) (cur) (last) 23:52, 24 May 2006 Fnhddzs (ok. but where is not neutral? nothing were simply deleted. If you see things not factual, please feel free to edit)

Fnhddzs: Please don't repeat that false claim. You and Dilip most certainly had deleted important material--the entire set of individual subsection summaries for all those subsections which were in the Criticism and controversy page. You have admitted as such in previous discussion and even offered to allow them to be put back, but now you are again making this false claim. --Tomananda 18:35, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

We can notice the Miborovsky locked the page 17 minutes after the Yueyuen's version. It is clear that during 17 minutes I did not even want to revert the page. There was virtually no need to lock the page for the sake of stopping revert war. Fnhddzs 15:54, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

WP:RFC/User#Use of administrator privileges. -- Миборовский 16:31, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

I remember seeing that Miborovsky had posted something like a one hour warning before he locked the page, so I don't see what the problem is in terms of timing. To me, all revert wars are counter-productive regardless of which version happens to exist when the page is frozen. As to who has the authority to freeze a page...last time it was an administrator we never heard of, and this time it was Miborovsky. On multiple occassions I have posted a question to this group asking if there was support for asking for formal mediation. I understand that any one of us can request that action, but I don't want to request mediation on my own. We talk about abiding by Misplaced Pages rules, and I do my best to honor them, but one rule of Misplaced Pages ettiquette is constantly violated, which is that when an editor asks a question, she/he deserves to get an answer. Why is it that Fire Star has been the only other editor ever to respond to my proposal of seeking mediation? --Tomananda 18:26, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Sorry. I guess I just keep hoping that if we keep at it, if we act like adults, we can do this. At the moment, however, I'm about ready to call in a babysitter/mediator. And Miborovsky (did I get it right that time?) was responding to a request I made to have the article locked again. CovenantD 18:39, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Covenant, In a sense you have already been acting as our unoffical mediator and I appreciate all your judicious efforts at reaching consensus. Under normal circumstances your efforts would work. But I am convinced...and I don't want to make this sound like a personal attack...that some of the Falun Gong practitioner/editors on this board will never accept a reasonable reporting of critical views of the Falun Gong no matter how much discussion we have, or how many changes we agree to in terms of use of sourced material, etc. Keep in mind, Li makes standing up for his Dafa a condition for salvation for his disciples. --Tomananda 18:50, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

This is similar to problems we have with articles on such subjective subjects, though. Especially such a well publicized one. If you look through the page histories of articles like Mahavatar Babaji and Suma Ching Hai you'll see similar editing patterns, if not on such a large scale. The Suma Ching Hai article is interesting because she makes almost exactly the same claims about the system she teaches that Li Hongzhi does about his, as well as her insistence that her followers can only progress with her personal intervention, again very like Li. --Fire Star 火星 04:11, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

In other words, don't give, have patience, and eventually we'll get there? I'll try to keep that in mind. :-) CovenantD 04:34, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, exactly. You (and others) are doing fine work here. After coming back from my artificially imposed break I've had relatively little to do text-wise as you have all been doing a thorough job on the article, IMO. The stuff I had prepared was already covered when I came back, but I've had a few talk page discussion with some other editors here about how I see such emotional issues. People feel very personally about their schools and teachers. Keeping cool heads and always leading discussion back to the issues is the way forward. --Fire Star 火星 16:13, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

• Olaf, I do not remember you asking for Li’s direct quote. Anyway these quotes are provided in the origin section. --Samuel Luo 04:32, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

They are not direct quotes. Please write here the entire chapters from which they are taken, preferably in English. I don't have the biograpy at my disposal, so maybe you could write all of it to see if there's anything else we could include. Like the names of Li's masters - I heard they're in there, too. Otherwise, please provide a link so that we can check the accuracy of the comments on his biography. --Olaf Stephanos 06:35, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

• You are right, I paraphrased his claims, just check again. Like I pointed out before it was published as an appendix in all Chinese Zhuan Falun published before 1999. I don’t have the time to translate his statements. Here is an article which translated many of his statements. It is funny that you should ask me for it, since you are Li's disciple. --Samuel Luo 07:07, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

What we are doing is working. By protecting the article, changes can be made only after discussion and agreement. I don't think we need a formal mediator now, CovenantDis doing a pretty good job. --Samuel Luo 04:44, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Structure and Outline

We need to move fast with the edits and scrutinize the data on the subpages.

• 1. Origins
• 2. Falun Gong teachings

  Main article: Falun Gong teachings

  summary

• 3. Controversies about the teachings of Falun Gong

  Main article: Controversies about the teachings of Falun Gong

  summary

• 4. Falun Gong Awards and their questionable importance

  Main article: Falun Gong Awards and their questionable importance

  summary

• 5. Falun Gong Organization
• 6. Chinese Government's "crackdown"

  Main article: Chinese Government's (persecution) of Falun Gong

  summary

• 7. Falun Gong outside of China

  Main article: Falun Gong outside of China

  summary

• 8. References
• 9. External links

• 9.1 Falun Gong sites
• 9.2 Critical sites
• 9.3 Other sites

This is what was, suggested by covenantD last time. I had introduced a section called Theoretical and epistemological studies. I think the organizational aspects ( The way falun gong is organized ) also fits under the sub-heading "Theoretic and Epistemological studies on Falun Gong". "Origins" is now called history and Timeline. ( To describe better the content in the sub-page). Dilip rajeev 12:44, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

And here are the summaries I suggested: History and Timeline

Main article: Falun_Gong,_History_and_Timeline

Falun Gong, also known as Fălún Dàfă (法轮大法), was introduced to the public by Li Hongzhi on May 13, 1992, in Changchun, China. Invited by Qigong organizations from each area, during the period from 1992 to the end of 1994, Mr. Li traveled to almost all major Chinese cities to teach the practice. In the next few years Falun Gong quickly grew in popularity around the world. As of now, the practitioners are present in more than 80 countries and the books have been translated to over 40 languages.

Beliefs and teachings

Main article: Falun Gong teachings

Central to Falun Dafa are the five meditative exercises and the teachings known in traditional Chinese culture as the "Fa" (Dharma), or "Dharma and principles" – that are set forth in the book Zhuan Falun. Falun Gong teaches that what it calls the "Buddha Law" can be summarized in three words – Zhen 真, Shan 善 and Ren 忍, which translate approximately as 'truthfulness, benevolence (or compassion), and forbearance'. The process of cultivation is thought of to be one in which the practitioner assimilates himself or herself to Zhen 真, Shan 善 and Ren 忍.

The teachings and principles of Falun Gong are captured in two main books written by Li Hongzhi: Falun Gong ( Law Wheel Qi Gong) and Zhuan Falun (Turning the Law Wheel). Falun Gong is an introductory book that discusses qigong, introduces the principles and provides illustrations and explanations of the exercises.

Research into health benefits of Falun Gong Main article: Research into health benefits of Falun Gong

Research conducted by Quan Zhen Li, Richard Johnson, et al says "Drastic system-level changes of gene expression were detected in PMNs of Falun Gong practitioners, while little changes were detected among non-practitioners..." and that genes among the practitioners manifest links to PMN functions in anti-viral immunity, apoptotic property and possibly longevity based upon a much more economical balance of protein synthesis and degradation. Surveys conducted on practitioners show improvements in health, the most extensive being a Falun Gong health survey conducted on 12,731 Beijing practitioners in 1998.

Chinese Government's Persecution of Falun Gong

Main article: Persecution of Falun Gong

In July 1999, the Chinese government started a nation-wide supression of Falun Gong.The United States Congress Resoution 188 states:

"Falun Gong is a peaceful and nonviolent form of personal belief and practice with millions of adherents in the People's Republic of China and elsewhere."

"the Government of the People's Republic of China has forbidden Falun Gong practitioners to practice their beliefs, and has systematically attempted to eradicate the practice and those who follow it"

Jiang Zemin's regime has created notorious government `610' offices throughout the People's Republic of China with the special task of overseeing the persecution of Falun Gong members through organized brainwashing, torture, and murder;

"official measures have been taken to conceal all atrocities, such as the immediate cremation of victims, the blocking of autopsies, and the false labeling of deaths as from suicide or natural causes."

According to the Falun Dafa Information Center (FDI), there are, as of March 12, 2006, 2,840 verified cases of Falun Gong practitioners dying in police and government custody in mainland China, giving rise to allegations of torture and police brutality. The report also alleges that hundreds of thousands of Falun Gong practitioners have been detained, with more than 100,000 sentenced to forced-labor camps. Moreover, there are more than 30,000 documented cases of persecution.

Theoretical and Epistemological Studies

Main article: Theoretical and Epistemological studies on Falun Gong

The content of Li Hongzhi's books include commentaries on questions that have been raised in China's qigong community. Falun Gong's teachings tap into a wide array of phenomena and cultural heritage that has been debated for ages. It is noteworthy that the definitions of many terms usually differ somewhat from Buddhist and Daoist traditions.

Criticism and Controversies

Main article: Criticism and controversies about Falun Gong

Criticism and controversies about Falun Gong abound. These include, for example, difference between Falun Gong and Qi Gong, controversies on Li as a savior or supernatural entity, claims about preventing catastrophes and cosmic explosions, controversies on Fa-rectification, debatable significance of Falun Gong awards and recognitions, Falun Gong and sexual orientation, allegation of profiting from Falun Gong, controversies about cult and ethics.

Falun Gong outside China

Main article: Falun Gong outside China

The persecution of Falun Gong practitioners has been regarded by most Western governments as a major international human rights issue. As of December 2005, 61 lawsuits have been filed in about 30 countries charging Jiang and several other senior officials with genocide, torture, and crimes against humanity for their roles in the treatment of Falun Gong in mainland China. (need citation) The Chinese government is accused by Falun Gong and many human rights groups of violating the United Nations Convention Against Torture (UNCAT), also ratified by China.

Falun Gong practitioners are often seen on the streets in major metropolitan areas, directly informing the public of the pesecution of practitioners in China.

---

Please suggest improvements/ changes to the summaries and also summaries for other sections . Remember factual accuracy is what we should strive to achieve. Where should the awards section go? We really dont want a huge section on the main page..and there isnt enough material to warrant a new page... what about the epistemological studies page? Can we put the awards section there? Dilip rajeev 13:04, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Suggestions

// Suggestions go here

---

A Query on available research material

Hi. I've been following this webpage for a while since I believe Dilip and Omido posted on Asiafinest.com a while back about the immolation bit. I myself is a man of science. (being an resident MD in the US.) I am interested in these claims of healing illnesses by FLG practitioners and if they test up to the scrutiny of a scientific study. Science being a tool rather than a religion, just measures observable differences between 2 subgroup. The human body is quite unique in certain ways because it's known to have mental/bodily links which means with a better mindset you tend to do better with illness in general. So I'm not denying the benefits of mediation, exercise, and the well being one feels being in a group. I propose a study done between 2 subgroups of people both practicing qigong and one of them being FLG practitioners.)If anyone can provide me with links of these "claims" by these so called MDs, PhDs, and scholars, it will be most appreciated. 24.189.163.169 17:32, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Greetings. As far as Misplaced Pages is concerned, we have a policy of no original research. It isn't up to us to prove or disprove FLG in any light, some of the discussion on this page notwithstanding. If those sorts of studies interest you, however, there are links to demonstrable results obtained by medical studies done of Taijiquan teachers and students listed at that page. --Fire Star 火星 17:52, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Hi. :) ..You can find some sources on this page:

http://en.wikipedia.org/Research_into_health_benefits_of_Falun_Gong

The quote I wrote earlier was from: http://www.walkyourpathwell.net/wholeelephant/submolecularbiology.html A paper by Tongwen Wang, Ph.D., Molecular Biologist, American Cancer Society Scholar. He can be contacted at wangt@thewholeelephant.org . He must be able to provide you with details on studies conducted( or being conducted) in the field...

A research paper by Quan-Zhen Li(PhD), Richard Jhonson, et al. can be found here on.. details of people in the control group are also mentioned in the paper... http://pkg.dajiyuan.com/pkg/2005-04-08/genomic%20profiling.pdf Dilip rajeev 17:55, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

• Plenty of practitioners in the US claiming that their serious illnesses have been miraculously cured by their Master and by practicing the falun gong. If you can examine one of these cases it might answer some of your question. --Yueyuen 18:10, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

The paper by Quan-Zhen Li is quite interesting but admittingly somewhat of a contraversial subject. I can see his bias though when he went thru in his historical background an almost advertisment-like cap of FLG. His paper is exactly what I was looking for in terms of methodology, background information, and conclusions though. He does not states to say anything truly contraversial except the use of FLG practitioner instead of another qigong group. Although he infers in his conclusion that it's probably qigong and not FLG exclusively that made these changes to the neutrophils. I would love to know if the "control" also do any specific exercise or mediation regiment or religious background as well. The improvement in immune system could be attributed to exercise, mediation, etc as previously stated. The study does leave many questions unanswered though.

Addressing Tongwen Wang's article you gave me. I was disappointed by it personally. He wishes to drive in a new theory rather than to test it. As a scientist, you are taught to come up with a hypothesis and then with testing and reporting of those observation do you actually put out a theory. A lot of what he said about cancer dynamics is correct but he seems also to have tunnel vision. Which I will give examples of: "But if our body is the perfect product of natural selections, then how can we still have so many loopholes left in the system to allow so many different types of cancers to exist?" As per him, he think we're at our "perfect" state which most or almost all scientist, MD's will argue against. We are not perfect as by all these disease (not only cancer) that our modern medicine has to fight against dispite our "perfect" state. While the 2nd point/conclusion he reached I agree with. The third point he tries to make a social comparasion between biology and society which works in different ways. He might as well have been giving a lecture on social problems. That article I will leave as a ranting of a biochemist turn socialist. 24.189.163.169 19:24, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Dilip is still deleting key subsection summaries in his proposed outline

I see that Dilip is still pushing for a main page structure which omits all the sub-section summaries and links in the Criticism page (which had previously been agreed to.) This would destroy any reasonable balance on the home page. No one is saying that there has to be a 50/50% split between the controversial topics and the non-controversial topics, but the net result cannot promote Falun Gong (eg: the health curing benefits and the awards section) at the expense of the controversies and criticism. As some of us have said repeatedly, the Dilip/Fndhzzs version amounts to blatant promotion of the Falun Gong. I actually did a word count of the frozen version of the article and found out that: it's total length is 8,292 words. Of that, 720 words, or 8.6% of the total are used for the existing sub-section summaries. We can even reduce the summaries further if we want, but under no circumstances will we ever reach a consensus on not having the critical subsections summarized separately on the home page.

Concerning the Falun Gong awards section, it would fit nicely into the Falun Gong outside of China section.

Here's a sample of what how Criticism and controversies section can look:

Criticism and controversies about Falun Gong

Criticism and controversies about Falun Gong abound.

Difference between Falun Gong and Qi Gong

Main article: Criticism and controversies about Falun Gong § Difference between Falun Gong and Qi Gong

Critics of Falun Gong point out that while using established Qi Gong terms for cultivation practice, Li’s version applies new meanings to the traditional terms. Deng and Fang (2000) state that Falung Gong differs from all other Qi Gong practices “by rendering a drastically different interpretation of ‘gong’ (energy) and it’s causality.” In Falun Gong, a practitioner is able to accumulate De (德, dé, virtue) through his or her own cultivation efforts, but needs the direct intervention of the master in order to evolve the De into cultivation energy.

Li as a savior or supernatural entity

Main article: Criticism and controversies about Falun Gong § Li_as_a_savior_or_supernatural_entity

Although Li has never directly said he is God, critics point out that he assumes the role of a divinity by virtue of his claimed supernatural powers. In addition to being the exclusive savior of mankind during this "Dharma ending period," Li promises his disciples that they themselves will become gods some day. He has numerous fashen (law bodies) which also exercise "great supernatural power," cure illnesses and know what the practitioners are thinking at all times.

Claims about preventing catastrophes and cosmic explosions

Main article: Criticism and controversies about Falun Gong § Claims_about_preventing_catastrophes_and_cosmic_explosions

Li's predictions of cosmic disasters and his claims to be able to prevent them are matters of some controversy. On several occasions Li has predicted cosmic explosions which have not happened. Some critics argue that Li borrowed these ideas from popular science fiction writers in the West, pointing out that such writings have been reported in Chinese media as “scientific facts.”

Fa-rectification: Li’s version of the apocalypse?

Main article: Criticism and controversies about Falun Gong § Fa-rectification: Li’s version of the apocalypse?

Whether Li’s teaching that his Dafa (great law) is judging all sentient beings amounts to an apocalyptic prediction is a matter of some debate. Practitioners strongly reject the apocalyptic label, while commentators generally come to an opposite conclusion. Maria Chang (2004) writes: "Just as human civilizations had been destroyed in the past because of immorality.l.. Li is convinced that the moral decadence of our times is leading to another apocalypse. His writings and speeches are replete with references to the 'Dharma-ending period' of 'the apocalypse,' the 'Great Havoc,' and the 'end times' (mojie). With the end days approaching, Li has set about disseminating Falun Dafa so as 'to provide salvation to mankind….in this final period of the Last Havoc.'"

Debatable significance of Falun Gong awards and recognitions

Main article: Criticism and controversies about Falun Gong § Debatable significance of Falun Gong awards and recognitions

There is some controversy about how meaningful Falun Gong’s many municipal awards and recognitions are and how they are used to promote the Falun Gong. Falun Gong expert Patsy Rahn (2000), states they “are documents routinely obtained by groups from public officials in the US for public relations purposes” and may be used to mislead people in China into believing “that the American government supports Master Li and his Falun Gong practitioners.” Noah Porter (2003) argues that these awards are not always easy to get, citing one example from Tampa, Florida.

Falun Gong and sexual orientation

Main article: Criticism and controversies about Falun Gong § Falun Gong and homosexuality

Li has made statements condemning homosexuality, describing a homosexual as having a "dark heart, turning demonic." However, homosexuals can practice Falun Gong if they "correct this bad behavior" . The teachings of Falun Gong are seen as homophobic by critics, while defenders of the Falun Gong dispute whether statements made by Falun Gong's founder are fairly interpreted.

Allegation of profiting from Falun Gong

Main article: Criticism and controversies about Falun Gong § Making_money_from_Falun_Gong

Some critics charge that Li hypocritically made money from the Falun Gong movement although Falun Gong practitioners said Li Hongzhi has not accepted donations from students of Falun Gong.

We need a paragraph or two

Tomanada, we need a paragraph or two. It is alright if it runs half a page but please try to avoid sub-sections. Try to make it reasonably sized. I agree that the awards and recognitions can go under Falun Gong outside China. Dilip rajeev 19:30, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Dilip, we need a main page which summarizes the whole truth about the Falun Gong, which includes sub-section summaries from the criticism section. How can you possibly argue that there should be separate main page sections promoting the unproven healh-benefits of the Falun Gong, its awards and recognitions and a biased report on what you call the persecution, while the teachings on homosexuality, Li as god and savior, the Fa-rectification, and so forth are relegated to one overall-page summary. I know you don't like reporting the Master's teachings on Fa-rectification, homosexuality, mixed-race people, etc, but they are important. In fact, the Fa-rectification teaching is Li's most important teaching at this time...plus his claim that he is turning his practitioners into gods. Interesting that you would so srongly resist giving a promonent place to those teachings. But then again, the Master tells you not to talk about the Falun Gong to ordinary people at the higher levels, right? --Tomananda 19:44, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

If you insist that we need to keep the subtitles for the criticism section, you may. But please try to keep it as short as possible. Keeping things both here and there would interfere with the edit process and inundate the need for sub-pages... Futher, it might keep readers from going through material in the sub-pages... please try to make sure it is proportional in size.. as other sections wont carry sub-titles. Dilip rajeev 20:04, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Tomananda, you state that his health-benefits are unproven, then what do you call all those critics that you use? Like Deng, Fang and Maria Hsia Chang, who are they? As I see it, they are nothing more than ordinary people saying their own opinions and understanding, these so called "critics" can't be used in your anti-FLG material. These all "commentators say" "critics say" will all be removed because they are nothing more than personal opinions. Omido 20:20, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Omido, you need to aquaint yourself with some policies, such as Misplaced Pages:Verifiability. It clearly states, "Verifiability in this context does not mean that editors are expected to verify whether, for example, the contents of a New York Times article are true. In fact, editors are strongly discouraged from conducting this kind of research, because original research may not be published in Misplaced Pages. Articles should contain only material that has been published by reliable sources, regardless of whether individual editors view that material as true or false. As counterintuitive as it may seem, the threshold for inclusion in Misplaced Pages is verifiability, not truth." So your determination to remove verifiable sources is wrong and against policy. Part of what we will accomplish here is to agree on which sources meet the criteria of a reliable source.CovenantD 20:42, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

I think Omid was mentioning the quality of the source. What does wiki say on that?

Dilip rajeev 20:56, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Coventant, so If I make a homepage, and say on that homepage that Falun Gong is really good and say alot of good things about Falun Gong and why I think they way I do, can I publish it in the wikipedia article too? In that case let me take countless articles from pro-FLG sites and post them. These so called "critics" called Deng, Fang and Maria Hsia Chang I think should not be on the article, because what they say is only their own personal thoughts. As Ive understood it, the reason for the articles on wikipedia is to offer people a chance too make their own thoughts and understandings regarding things. If we citate people from this or that website and write down what others think, how could that give a chance to other people to make their own opinion? Its like forcing opinions into others, as I see it, these critics he used should not be used. If he uses them, I can use all the positive things people has said too right? and believe me I can find 10 times more positive things that people has said about Dafa, that is for sure. Those sources he used is really not reliable, that is what I am trying to say. Omido 22:26, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Short answer: no you couldn't. The key phrase here is reliable sources. For more on this, see Misplaced Pages:Reliable_sources.

Longer answer: A lot of WP policies have to be considered in tandem to make any sense. Verifiability and reliable sources are two that have to be taken together. I fully intend to make sure that we look at each and every source to make sure it's appropriate for the context. Some, like the New York Times, are pretty obviously considered reliable for most things, while others, like Falundafa.org, may only be appropriate for certain purposes. I'm sure that some of them will be found lacking and have to be removed. Quite honestly, I haven't contemplated a lot of them yet because in my mind we're not ready for that. We haven't even gotten through the first three paragraphs. When we do start considering sources, rest assured that I'm going to be one of the toughest critics :-) CovenantD 22:53, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Legality/Illegality of the FLG ban in China

It has come to my notice that this website, , has mentioned the reason FLG is illegal. Over here: . Unfortunately I couldn't find an English version of the article and I don't have knowledge on the laws in China. Before people start yelling "propaganda website", don't forget that the laws are at least cited out. --Yenchin 19:41, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

The United States Congress Resolution 188 passed unanimously (420-0) states:

Whereas this policy violates the Constitution of the People's Republic of China as well as the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights;

The ban itself could be called "illegal" looked at with international laws. Then we will have to say :China illegally banned Falun Gong. Dilip rajeev 19:48, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

My understanding is that prior to the big Beijing protest, Falun Gong practitioners had staged a series of illegal protests in media stations throughout the country. During those earlier protests, some of the practitioners had been arrested. In fact, one of the Falun Gong's demands was to have those people released from jail. So it is clear that there had been illegal activity prior to the Beijing protest. To say otherwise is to fly in the face of historical accuracy.

And for those who argue that Falun Gong practitioners should be allowed to stage disruptive protests anywhere they want in China, I point to the recent illegal protest staged by a female Falun Gong practitioner using her Epoch Times press pass to gain access to the White house lawn. There are limits to free speech, even in the US. Let's get real about this. --Tomananda 19:54, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Rough jist of it:

1. social organisations cannot conduct commercial activities
2. social orgarnisations must be registered
3. protests that 1. violates basic principles of the constitution 2. endangers national sovereignty 3. incites racial hatred 4. endangers public safety will not be allowed
4. citizens cannot protest outside their cities of residence
5. disruption of publics safety include disrupting daily running of commerce, production and education, spreading lies, rumours and disrupting social order
6. organising protests/marches that do not have approval, refuse to comply with approved times, locations, routes, refuse to disperse, endanger public safety is liable to be jailed for less than 5 years
7. organising cults that use superstition that destroy national laws and executive policies, or cause the death of others is liable for 3-7 year jail time, extreme cases 7+ years.

-- Миборовский 20:17, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Based on what I read here, I still contend that "alleged illegal activities" is probably the best wording we can find for the opening paragraphs. It acknowledges that accusations without making a determination on whether they are valid or not in light of international law. If people feel that strongly about it, and I'm sure they do, we can go into more detail elsewhere in the article or on a subpage. CovenantD 20:58, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

• The Chinese government provided two major justifications for banning the Falun Gong 1) The unnecessary death of 1,404 practitioners who abandoned their needed medical treatment in following the group’s teachings. 2) Its many illegal protests against critics and later government institutions which caused a threat to social stability.

Article 36 of the Chinese constitution permits the banning of religious groups under certain circumstances. It states: Citizens of the People's Republic of China enjoy freedom of religious belief. No state organ, public organization or individual may compel citizens to believe in, or not to believe in, any religion; nor may they discriminate against citizens who believe in, or do not believe in, any religion. The state protects normal religious activities. No one may make use of religion to engage in activities that disrupt public order, impair the health of citizens or interfere with the educational system of the state. Religious bodies and religious affairs are not subject to any foreign domination.

China’s banning the Falun Gong is in accord with International laws such as the “International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights” and the “Declaration on the Elimination of All Forms of Intolerance and of Discrimination Based on Religion or Belief.” Both of these laws call for the protection of religious freedom, however, they also both have the same clause allowing for limitations on religious expression under certain circumstances. “Freedom to manifest one's religion or beliefs may be subject only to such limitations as are prescribed by law and are necessary to protect public safety, order, health, or morals or the fundamental rights and freedoms of others.” With freedom comes responsibility. These international laws permit governments to hold those who exploit religious freedom responsible.

Under the protection of the First Amendment, American religious freedom seems to be absolute, with cults and hate-preaching groups like the KKK enjoying legal status and protection. But not all western democracies are as permissive of religious freedom as the United States. Enabled by the anti-cult law, France, a nation with a long democratic tradition and respect for religious freedom, permits the government to dissolve a cult-like organization and jail its leader. These legal actions can only be taken when an organization commits offences like “deceptive advertising, frauds, and falsifications” and “intentional or unintentional prejudice to the life or the physical or psychological integrity of the person.” Other western democracies like Canada and Spain also have “hate speech” laws that outlaws speech promoting hatred or violence based on religion or race.

US politicians would denounce any country for limiting religious freedom but that does not mean these countries, in this case China, violates international laws.

Going back to our discussion, to say that the Chinese government banned the falun Gong for “alleged illegal activities” is inaccurate. We can argue whether the group did violate those laws, but it was banned because the government believed it “violated the Chinese laws.” How about using “violated the Chinese laws” instead? --Samuel Luo 04:21, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

I can post here material from Congress Resolution, Amnesty International and HRW to United Nation Reports, and over 61 lawsuits filed by leading international Human Rights attorneys around the world. But I think that is necessary. Let us not deviate too much from the discussion of the material. In my opinion, the legality or illegality of the supression neednt be mentioned in the introduction. The previous version of the article stated: "Falun Gong has been the focus of international attention since the government of the People's Republic of China began a nationwide suppression of Falun Gong on July 20, 1999. Concerns were triggered especially when 10,000 practitioners assembled in peaceful protest at the Central Appeal Office at Foyou street, outside Zhongnanhai.". Dilip rajeev 07:13, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

One problem with the latter quote: I think the world was aware of Falun Gong before the clampdown. Etaonsh 07:26, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Samuel Lou, there is no evidence that Falun Gong did violite any law at all, its only what the CCP says, and we all know the nature of the CCP... Omido 07:57, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Here's some revised wording:

Falun Gong has been the focus of international attention since (date), when 10,000 practitioners assembled in peaceful protest at the Central Appeal Office at Foyou street, outside Zhongnanhai. Prior to that, the Falun Gong had staged protests against it’s media critics all over China which were deemed in violation of Chinese laws and resulted in the arrest of practitioners. On July 20, 1999 the government banned the Falun Gong for allegedly causing the unnecessary death of 1,404 practitioners who abandoned their needed medical treatment in following the group’s teachings and for it’s many protests which were considered a threat to social stability.

I believe Etaonosh is correct that the world became aware of Falun Gong before the ban...it was that protest in Zhongnanhai that brought them to world attention. So I have reversed the chronology. Also, it's clear that there was a violation of Chinese law prior to the Zhongnanhai protest, otherwise there wouldn't have been the demand to release practitioners who had been arrested. So all of this needs to be summarized briefly. I think the above does it. --Tomananda 08:12, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Specifically speaking, what triggered the Zhongnanhai incident was the Tianjin incident. On 1999, April 11, FLG members protested against the publisher which published He Zuoxiou's "I Don't Agree Teenagers to Practice Falun Gong", an article which criticized the movement. 45 members were arrested near the end of the protest. --Yenchin 10:13, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Tomananda, the above is not good enought. Why? Because you can't just give the version of the CCP. You can't say "allegedly causing the unnecessary death of 1,404 practitioners who abandoned their needed medical treatment". This is from no verifiable source, its just lies and propaganda used by the CCP. I think it is okey to say something like: "The CCP accused Falun Gong for the death of 1,404 practitioners who abandoned their needed medical treatment. Falun Gong practitioners strongly reject these accusations and say that these accusations is a way for the CCP to turn the chinese people against Falun Gong and justify their persecution of Falun Gong. There is no evidence of 1,404 practitioner dying from not taking their medicine."

If you only say: "allegedly causing the unnecessary death of 1,404 practitioners who abandoned their needed medical treatment" This makes it sound like it is true, and it isn't, it's just lies used by the evil CCP. /Omido 11:27, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

1 : asserted to be true or to exist <an alleged miracle>

2 : questionably true or of a specified kind : SUPPOSED, SO-CALLED <bought an alleged antique vase>

3 : accused but not proven or convicted <an alleged gangster>

Please explain how "allegedly causing...." makes it sound it is true. It's just your personal opinion. As for personal opinions, please refer to the previous section where you can find what you said.

--Yenchin 15:02, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

The CCP propoganda has even "alleged" Falun Gong practitioners are CIA agents and such things have appeared in Chinese media. It is alright to say they have "alleged" but not in the introduction and not in a manner that tries to justify the inhuman persecution. We'd rather give more importance to what the Amnesty Internation, HRW or the United Nations say on the persecution.

I'd prefer statements from international organizations in the introduction rather than a made up "excuse" for torturing tens of thousands, including children and women, to death. I would like to hear a better excuse for that than "somebody didnt take medicine". Dilip rajeev 15:26, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Wow "evil" I've only seen this word used in recent history by religious fanatics (GW Bush included.)

Well you can't say that the chinese communist party has been good exactly can you? They have a history of killing innocent people, and in 50 years it is estimated that 60-100 million chinese people have died a unnatural death by the CCP, in my opinion that qualifies for evil...

"evil" is a mild word to use. What do you call taking people from their homes and torturing them to death and then threatening their families with further persecution if they speak out? Tell it is not "evil" to families left devastated. May 26, 2006. Brussels (EFGIC) - Following a three-day visit to Beijing, the Vice President of the European Parliament, Edward McMillan-Scott, called the Chinese Communist leadership a "brutal, arbitrary and paranoid system" The sad fact is that some confuse the CCP with China. They desperately want to be part of the crime, they want to support, defend and coverup the atrocities. Dilip rajeev 15:50, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

We can argue the moral term "evil" to death but this is not the scope of this article so I would stop. In clear facts, FLG did break chinese laws so it was made illegal in China. Pretty much ends the discussion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.189.163.169 (talk • contribs)

It doesnt end any discussion. Dalai Lama is wanted dead or alive for his "illegal" activities by the CCP. I'd prefer what the US congress resolution, HRW, Amnesty International, The European Parliament and prominent Human Rights Attorneys say in the introduction. "The CCP, violating international Laws and its own constitution, illegaly banned Falun Gong and has systematically attempted to eradicate Falun Gong practitioners through organized torture and murder", please point out anything non-factual. Not that I want to discuss these things in the introduction.. but because you keep wanting to label the insane persecution "legal" and allow the murderers to label the victims "illegal".

Dilip rajeev 18:03, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

That is ofcourse only your understanding.

/Omido 16:37, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

It is pretty well established that the CCP has ruthlessly suppressed the FLG, using murder and torture, at least. It is also pretty well established that Li Hongzhi turned tail and left his followers in China to face the suppression without the aid of his soi-disant divine intervention. So perhaps it isn't a good guy/bad guy thing, and we will impede agreement on the article by making it one. --Fire Star 火星 16:40, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Christian monks have been persecuted in History. Buddhist Monks have gone through unspeakable hardships. The sages of vedic India went through boundless hardships. Many western cultivators have died really bad deaths. Gnostic cultivators have been tortured to death. This has happened through out history and scriptures give the reasons. The Buddhist scriptures emphatically affirm that this will happen in this period( which according to the scriptures is the "Dharma Ending Period"( which caries no apocalyptic meaning an only signifies a period of time when the morality of mankind is very low...). (See, for instance: http://www.drba.org/dharma/btts/9xxentrydetail.asp?wid=89 )

It is no co-incidence that even after spending a major fraction of the nations budget on trying to persecute Falun Gong and resorting to the most horrible and insane atrocities, the CCP hasnt been able to achieve its ends. Li Hongzhi was in United Sates from 1997 he moved so that the government may not feel cocnerned about the number of practitioners in China.

Dilip rajeev 17:16, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

? major fraction of it's national budget? Links please. I don't know why people keep bringing up apocolpyses/ dharma ending days... The christians were into it during the 1000 AD, 2000 some people thought the world was going to end, the Garland group a few years ago as well, now the FLG too? Anyways sorry I'm going off topic. This is about the legality of the ban. 24.189.163.169 17:33, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

No. The Dharma Ending only means end of the Dharma ( Law / Morality ).. Its a Buddhist term.. not Falun Gong's. It has absolutely nothing to do with any apocalypse!..

Dilip rajeev 18:58, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

• the article is called "I Don't Recommend Teenagers to Practice Qigong." the article was not directed at the FAlun Gong, Mr. He only gave a example about one of his colleague became psychotic after practicing the FAlun Gong. This article was published in a small magazine owned by a university; it was protested by 7 thousand plus practitioners. The company called the police who then ordered the practitioners to leave, when these practitioners refused to obey order four hundred police forced the evacuation and arrested about a dozen practitioners. The protest was illegal because it had no permit and was an intimidation to suppress critic. --Samuel Luo 17:34, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
• Clearly we must report this protest, or media protests in general, which were presumed (or alleged) to be in violation of Chinese law. Even in the US, where there is an absolute "presumptioin of innocence" the press reports people being arrested or indicted for allegedly committing crimes all the time. Dilip, I appreciate your passion when talking about the "persecution," but keep in mind there's an entire page devoted to that topic. Right now, for this paragraph, we just need to agree to language which reports what led up to the ban in China.

Words like "alleged" seem absolutely correct to me, so it's just a question of building the best sentence to convey these thoughts. --Tomananda 17:43, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

I have followed the ban closely; I don’t think this statement “the CCP has ruthlessly suppressed the FLG, using murder and torture” is based on facts. Yes torture and death of practitioners did happened, but there is no government policy to torture and murder. I believe these were acts committed by individual brutal prison guards. But the government can be condemned for not holding investigation into the deaths and punish the perpetrators. --Samuel Luo 17:45, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

There a wikipedia policy saying "No Original Research." And what you say contradicts what teh international bodies say on the matter. Dilip rajeev 19:30, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Firestar's assessment. Truth is just what he said. No need to be apologetic on what the CCP did. The government should punish those guards that did it because they are responsive for those guards. There should not be a debate on the legality of the ban either. 24.189.163.169 17:52, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

• I don’ think the word “alleged” works. How about this “The government banned the Falun Gong for its violation of Chinese laws but the group denies any wrong doing”? The government’s charge against the group and its rebuttal can be introduced in the body of the article. --Samuel Luo 17:52, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

I think "alleged" is wrong here too. They broke chinese law. Now is the law just or not is a whole different matter. But a law was broken. So why hide around the bush. 24.189.163.169 18:12, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Quite interesting.. you torture people to death people then harass their families, rape women, kill kids and then label them "illegal" and then accuse them for "breaking laws". Welcome to the civilized world. I insist that we mention what the international bodies say in the introduction. Dilip rajeev 18:24, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Dilip, unless you are claiming that FG practitioners were tortured before the ban, your entire statement above is inaccurate because it assumes a sequence of events that didn't happen. First, thousands of Falun Gong practitioners staged illegal protests at media stations all over China insisting that your Master's teachings never be criticized. Some of those media protests resulted in arrests and all of them had the effect of suppressing the freedom of speech of Falun Gong critics, such as that professor who wrote that academic article which so bothered Li Hongzhi. So the practittioners, at the urging of Master Li (to show his power?), continued protesting and demanding that the arrested people be released, that the publishers issue retractions and that the government proclaim that Falun Gong is good. Then, after all these illegal activities took place, the Chinese government officially banned the Falun Gong and, to use your terminology, the "persecution" began. Please understand that I am not justifying the torture or persecution of anyone, but I do insist that the history be told correctly. There are two sides to this story.--Tomananda 19:01, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

The un-informed reader doesnt know that the Chinese laws require people to be put in prison for 10 years and tortured for practicing Qi Gong. I'd prefer what the US congress resolution, HRW, Amnesty International, The European Parliament and prominent Human Rights Attorneys say in the introduction. "The CCP, violating international Laws and its own constitution, illegaly banned Falun Gong and has systematically attempted to eradicate Falun Gong practitioners through organized torture and murder", please point out anything non-factual. I dont think anybody with a conscience would want to coverup those crimes. I actually dont want to go into such details in the introduction but am forced to suggest it as some editors who ( I really dont know why) want to make it look like Falun Gong commited "illegal" activities and was thus banned. Dilip rajeev 18:24, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Dilip rajeevplease provide a link for the statment you are citing. --Samuel Luo 18:25, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

We are getting off topic. Here's a revised paragraph incorporating the suggestions so far:

• Falun Gong has been the focus of international attention since April 25,1999, when 10,000 practitioners assembled in peaceful protest at the Central Appeal Office at Foyou street, outside Zhongnanhai. Prior to that, the Falun Gong had staged protests against it’s media critics all over China. At Tianjin, 7,000 practitioners had protested against an academic article which was critical of the Falun Gong, resulting in the arrest of 45 practitioners. On July 20, 1999 the government banned the Falun Gong for its violation of Chinese laws, but the group denies any wrong doing.--Tomananda 18:28, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

I dont agree. I insist that we mention what the international bodies say in the introduction. "The CCP, violating international Laws and its own constitution, illegaly banned the peaceful practice of Falun Gong and has systematically attempted to eradicate Falun Gong practitioners through organized torture and murder", please point out anything non-factual. Dilip rajeev 18:41, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

As I have read, the torture and killings are not just about a few guards that did this or that. Many many practitioners that made it out alive from the concentration camps or brainwashing camps has spoken out and told, that the CCP offers you to renounce your faith in Dafa. That means, you sign your name on a paper which means that your don't believe in Falun Gong anymore, if you do this, they will release you very fast without touching you...and if you don't they will torture you with all kind of methods until you sign under. Its been reported that alot of practitioners were chocked with electric batoons in the face for 8 hours because they didnt renounce their faith in Dafa, and also they wont let you sleep for many many days, they also give criminals bonuses if they torture practitioners. After the torture, the practitioners were barely alive, and still they didn't want to give up their faith in Dafa. Also, witnesses, doctors and other people have stepped forward saying that the government are doing organ transplant on LIVE Falun Gong practitioners because the CCP knows that Falun Gong practitioners have very good health and rarely get sick. After the transplantation they throw the body into a crematorium to destroy all evidence. One more thing to notice, is that after the persecution began in 1999, the organ transplant business in China has gone up by 3000 %. Today, in China it takes two weeks at most to get a new organ...in other countries it takes at least two years. Also investigators have called hospitals doing the transplants pretending wanting to buy, and the hospitals sometimes said the organs was from live Falun Gong practitioners. This persecution is evil beyond words. Omido 18:37, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

The organ transplant from live people has been covered by a UK Channel with under-cover cameras. Dilip rajeev 18:41, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

• Tomananda, the protest on April 25,1999, was held outside of Zhongnanhai, China's leadership compound not the Central Appeal Office at Foyou street. --Samuel Luo 18:42, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Dilip rajeevI asked you to provide a link to the report from the Us congress not the FAlun Gong --Samuel Luo 19:08, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

The text of the resolution ( Concurrent Resolution 188 - passed unanimously (420-0) by the U.S Congress) is available on several websites including the website I mentioned earlier. Dilip rajeev 19:20, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Interested in how they came up with the conclusion that it was illegal according to China's constitution as well. 24.189.163.169 19:17, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Third Revision of Target Paragraph on the Ban

Responding to requests from Samuel and Dilip, I propose the following paragraph which aims to summarize, as briefly as possible, both POV's about the history and legality of the ban in China.

Falun Gong has been the focus of international attention since April 25,1999, when 10,000 practitioners assembled in peaceful protest outside Zhongnanhai, China’s leadership compound. Prior to that, the Falun Gong had staged protests against it’s media critics all over China. At Tianjin, 7,000 practitioners had protested against an academic article which was critical of the Falun Gong, resulting in the arrest of 45 practitioners. On July 20, 1999 the government banned the Falun Gong for its violation of Chinese laws, citing the unnecessary deaths of 1,404 practitioners, some of whom had abandoned their needed medical treatment in accordance with Li Hongzhi’s teachings and the threat to social stability caused by the Falun Gong’s many protests. However, the Falung Gong denies any wrongdoing, pointing to declarations made by several international bodies. In particular, the Falun Gong cites US House of Representatives Resolution 188 which it helped to write in 2002. That resolution claims that the CCP itself has violated international laws and its own constitution; and has attempted to eradicate Falun Gong practitioners through organized torture and murder.

We need to remind ourselves that this is just a summary. Anything longer than this would be inappropriate for this introductory section in my opinion. --Tomananda 20:03, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

This reads more like a summary to the crackdown of the Falun Gong section. Anyway, a few changes is needed in my opinion. Below is a revised verion:

Falun Gong has been the focus of international attention since April 25,1999, when 10,000 practitioners assembled in peaceful protest outside Zhongnanhai, China’s leadership compound. Prior to that, the Falun Gong had staged protests against it’s media critics all over China. At Tianjin, 7,000 practitioners had protested illegally against an academic article which was critical of the Falun Gong, resulting in the arrest of 45 practitioners. On July 20, 1999 the government banned the Falun Gong for its violation of Chinese laws, citing the unnecessary deaths of 1,404 practitioners, most of whom had abandoned their needed medical treatment in accordance with Li Hongzhi’s teachings and the threat to social stability caused by the Falun Gong’s many illegal protests. However, the Falung Gong denies any wrongdoing, pointing to declarations made by several international bodies. In particular, the Falun Gong cites US House of Representatives Resolution 188 which it helped to write in 2002. That resolution claims that the CCP itself has violated international laws and its own constitution; and has attempted to eradicate Falun Gong practitioners through organized torture and murder. --Samuel Luo 20:12, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Samuel, can you prove the protests was illegal? I heard it was legal... /Omido 20:37, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Easy, it was held without a permit. --Samuel Luo 21:12, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

• No, how you know it was held without a permit? I heard it was legal. Premier Zhu,Rongji interviewed with them. Fnhddzs 23:48, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Frankly speaking Zhu Rongji interviewing with protesters says nothing about the protest itself. Illegal protests were held by people after the Presidential Election in Taiwan, officials still came to meet the protesters. Also according to one of the 4.25 Zhongnanhai protesters Zhu Rongji didn't mention or question whether the protest was permitted. --Yenchin 00:10, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

It suprises me that the US House of Representatives has the right of a Supreme Court Justice on deciding whether something is constitutional or not. Last time I checked, they don't. --Yenchin 22:40, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

You're correct, the House does not have that kind of authority. US House resolutions do not have the force of law. They are essentially symbolic, and are usually drafted by lobbyists of one sort or another and just presented to legislators for ratification. The fact that something is stated as fact in a US House resolution does not mean it's a fact. Even when the congress passes actual laws, most congressmen don't read them. So it's quite easy to get inaccurate statements slipped into a resolution. It's part of the brilliance of Li Hongzhi's PR strategy to have figured out how easy these things are to get and then have his followers pursue them all of the country. Then, the same practitioners get to point to these resolutions as proof of how good Li Hongzhi's teachings are. Quite cynical, don't you think? --Tomananda 22:58, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

PS: By way of example, check out US House Resolution 29, "Commending Jared & Jerusha Hess and the City of Preston for the Production of the Movie 'Napolean Dynamite'" here: I have never heard of this film or the city of Preston. I had to read further to find out that Preston is a city in the rural state of Idaho. I doubt if more than a handful of the congresspeople who signed this resolution have ever actually seen the film they praised in the resolution. You get the idea.--Tomananda 23:10, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Tomanada, This is a Hon. Concurrent Resolution passed unanimously( 420-0) by the Congress. Why do you argue this is not a "law"? That sounds really mis-informed. Dilip rajeev 12:18, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Um, hello? Since when did the legislative of the US has rights to make "laws" for China? Are you using a Ming sword to behead a Qing official? Definition of resolution. --Yenchin 16:24, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Still interested on how they came to that conclusion. I want the facts. Not some declaration by some people that might or might not have any idea what they are signing. 24.189.163.169 23:38, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

I get the point. So it's like those "awards" and "days" they make such a fuss about. Anyway, I took the trouble to look up the original process and text from the Library of Congress. The records of discussion can also be found in there.. It would be another example to put in related FLG topics on Misplaced Pages. Back on topic, I think the current version is good enough. The fact of persecution or not is irrelevant to the laws China cites. Governments use anti-Sodomy laws to persecute gay and lesbian people, but it doesn't change the fact that people were arrested by these laws. --Yenchin 23:52, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately, we can't tell how they came to their conclusions. The web link which Yenchin provides is missing some information. It lists four "Witness prepared statements" in support of the resolutioin (two dated 6.27/01 and two dated 8/1/01) and states that "some documents may contain partisan views," but when you click on those links it doesn't take you to the documents. Perhaps they've been archived? It would be interesting to see them. I suspect they largely contain claims made by the Falun Gong, such as the claim that the ban is in violation of the Chinese constitution, which never were investigated or verifified by the House committee which dealt with the resolution. --Tomananda 00:26, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Criticism page

While we have been discussing structure and sources on this main Talk page, practitioners Dilip and Fnhddzs have attacked the Criticism and controversies page with a series of edits (from 6:28 to 7:17 on 28 May), deleting, among other things, all of the Deng and Fang quotes. This is an outrageous breach of good faith. Is this the prelude to another revert war? Should other editors start going into the Falun Gong teachings or Persecution pages and do to these Falun Gong practitioners what they have just done to us? Or should we exercise restraint and ask for administrative intervention? I opt for the latter and request that if it is within Misplaced Pages policy to do so, both Fnhddzs and Dilip receive some kind of sanction. After all of this discussion, and two previous revert wars brought to us by Fnhddzs and Dilip, to have this happen is truly outrageous. What is the point of our continuing along this path if such a blatant subversion of our cooperative editing process goes unpunished? --Tomananda 21:25, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Tell you what, Tomananda. If it happens again, why don't you just revert with a note to take it to the talk page. I think we're getting bogged down too much in the interpersonal comments. I'll back you up in reverting things that haven't been properly discussed. CovenantD 06:01, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

OK with me. Dilip just did the same deletes in the Criticism and controversies section that Fnhddzs did earlier. I did a revert. What he is doing is deleting all of the Deng and Fang quotes in various sections which were discussed two weeks ago and are being discussed again. Rather than wait for a group decision (and actually, as far as I'm concerened we already decided this one), Dilip has simply done the reverts. --Tomananda 07:10, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages policy on citing self-published sources

Tomananda, what is your assumption of good faith? Assume_good_faith?

As I mentioned a while ago, xys.org is a personal website hosted by the biochemist Fang, Shimin or Self-published_sources.

Self-published sources in articles about themselves

Material from self-published sources, and other published sources of dubious reliability, may be used as sources of information about themselves in articles about themselves, so long as:

* It is relevant to the person's notability; * It is not contentious; * It is not unduly self-serving; * It is not contradicted by reliable, third-party published sources; * It does not involve claims about third parties, or about events not directly related to the subject; * There is no reasonable doubt about who wrote it.

Self-published sources may never be used as sources of information about another person or topic.

A Misplaced Pages article about an unreliable newspaper should not — on the grounds of needing to give examples of their published stories — repeat any claims the newspaper has made about third parties, unless the stories have been published by other credible third-party sources.

Fnhddzs 23:42, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

I strongly request wiki amdmins give Tomananda sanctions !!!!!! for his ignoring wiki's policy, for his slanders and personal attacks !!!!! Fnhddzs 23:51, 28 May 2006 (UTC) How could wiki allow such a senior wikipedian at large? Fnhddzs 23:53, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Fnhddzs: The question of using private web pages as sources was discussed at length in the Criticism and controversies talk page. When we left it, some of the editors had agreed to a standard proposed by Covenant which would require that the private web page be a copy of something presented elsewhere (in the case of Deng and Fang, that would be an academic conference). Also part of that discussion was the recognition that Covenant's standard would allow the inclusion of some of your pro-Falun Gong stuff, including but not limited to the Lili Feng material and other medical reports.

You have violated good faith by deleting substantial portions of the material on the Criticism and controversies page without first obtaining consensus on the talk page. We can revisit the discussion of standards for self-published sources...in fact, that is our intent in the present discussion. But you cannot unilaterally delete this material. --Tomananda 00:02, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

PS: I just tried to go back in the archives to point to this prior discussion, but the archives for Talk Criticism and controversy seem to be missing. Can someone help? --Tomananda 00:13, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

All Falun gong websites are private, if Deng and Fang's website does not meet the standard then all material from FAlun Gong private websites have to go too. --Yueyuen 00:40, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Fnhddzsthere is no justification for you to delete critical material from the criticism page. You are again being warned. --Yueyuen 00:43, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Fnhddzs: I forgot to mention that criticizing your editing practices does not constitute a personal attack. You and Dilip have a history of doing significant deletions without discussion and have already provoked two revert wars. It becomes tiring to have to deal with those violations over and over again. The request is simply to discuss major changes before doing deletions. --Tomananda 01:36, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Repost from Talk Criticism page on the issue of using private web sources

I located part of the earlier discussion on this topic:

I'm going to be looking for a slightly higher standard for something that appears on a website; I want it to be a reproduction of something presented elsewhere, whether a conference or a newpaper or a book or a lecture or something. Just a personal paper on a website is going to be met with raised eyebrows.I want to point out that there is a blockquote provided by Dilip that I want to have included, that seems to agree with the premise that words and phrases carry different meaning. I think it provides balance to the allegation by essentially saying, "sure, it's different, but that's the way it has to be." CovenantD 04:29, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Both of the sources that I mentioned above--Deng and Fang's academic article and the expose from Li's earliest followers--meet your proposed standard (the private website version of the expose is a reproduction of an official report submitted to the China Qi Gong Research Society). I assume the Lilli Feng material would meet your proposed standard as well. There may be unusual situations in which we need to allow other types of private web site sources, but if we encounter that kind of situation we can discuss that particular case on its own merits. For now, in order to make some progress, I approve your standard, at least on a provisional basis.

(break..new editor speaking) I also share your concern about too many quotes from Li affecting the readability of the article, but they are probably the best source of material for actual teachings. As long as they're kept short and to the point...

Samuel, it depends on the context in which ClearWisdom and other Falun Gong sites are used. If it's being used as a source on Falun Gong teachings, I'd say it meets "primary source" criteria. If it's being used to highlight something else, like persecution, then another, independent source should be found and used to avoid the controversy of "questionable" sources. (I'm not expressing my opinion, merely reflecting what others have expressed, hence the quotation marks.) CovenantD 17:53, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough, I remember practitioners used a personal statement from clearwisdom.net in “Financial and business aspects of the Falun Gong” section. The following is the statement in question: “Li refused the house according to the practitioner who bought the house in this letter . The house which Mr. Li admitted to living in in the report was at least partially paid for by James Pang, ‘who was among Mr. Li's first followers in the U.S. and helped rent the Queens apartment for Mr. Li.’” According to wikipedia standards and what you are saying here, this statement will have to go. --Samuel Luo 19:37, 11 May 2006 (UTC) That bit is no longer in the article, so it's a bit difficult for me to comment on it. I seem to remember thinking that the entire section needed work to provide balance since it seemed to be reverted back and forth a lot. CovenantD 21:15, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Infact, what was used appeared in the letters to the editor section of the wall street journal.

Dilip rajeev 08:23, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Earlier on, Ed Poor and Olaf had also voiced their opinions which amounted to saying that a broad application of this rule might be best, since it would allow material that is not available any other way. (Did I summarize that correctly, guys?) In any case, we must discuss this before deleting any material and, as I said before, if we're going to apply a new "get tough" policy, it will also necessarily lead to the deletion of some of the pro-Falun Gong material. --Tomananda 00:50, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Getting back to main topic: target paragraph for the introduction section

We can talk about the source issue, but shouldn't forget the text re-writing we began. Here's the latest version of the target paragraph which seems to be picking up support (see comments above):

Falun Gong has been the focus of international attention since April 25,1999, when 10,000 practitioners assembled in peaceful protest outside Zhongnanhai, China’s leadership compound. Prior to that, the Falun Gong had staged protests against it’s its media critics all over China. At Tianjin, 7,000 practitioners had protested illegally against an academic article which was critical of the Falun Gong, resulting in the arrest of 45 practitioners. On July 20, 1999 the government banned the Falun Gong for its violation of Chinese laws, citing the unnecessary deaths of 1,404 practitioners, most of whom had abandoned their needed medical treatment in accordance with Li Hongzhi’s teachings, and the threat to social stability caused by the Falun Gong’s many illegal protests. However, the Falung Gong denies any wrongdoing, pointing to declarations made by several international bodies. In particular, the Falun Gong cites US House of Representatives Resolution 188 which it helped to write in 2002. That resolution claims that the CCP itself has violated international laws and its own constitution; and has attempted to eradicate Falun Gong practitioners through organized torture and murder.

We need to hear from more editors on the above wording. --Tomananda 01:13, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

What the US Congress says is not what Falun Gong practitioners say or "cite" in "particular"! That is what the Congress says. Similarly we will have to look at what the United Nations say too. Dilip rajeev 06:57, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

So Dilip, what you're supposed to do at this point is actually suggest a wording change, rather than just make a comment about what you don't like about the existing wording. --Tomananda 08:50, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Content-wise it seems pretty good, but I've corrected spelling/grammar.

The ending is weak, perhaps because the reasoning of individuals involved in the actual events was weak. If I rob a bank, I am guilty of a felony regardless of whether the police department has been committing its own set of felonies -- and vice-versa. If the reasoning of CCP and FLG advocates is on the "pot and kettle" level, then so be it. If, on the other hand, there are real challenges to the legitimacy of charges (e.g., arguing that one must break unjust laws and then one must take the consequences) then it does individuals involved a disservice (and does not reflect a NPOV) to omit mention of them. P0M 02:15, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

My Suggestion

What I want to point out is, this is an introduction to an article on Falun Gong - not why the CCP started to persecute Falun Gong. An introduction to Falun Gong is really not the place discuss, in detail, the events leading to the persecution. There are scholars( for instance, Julie Ching (2001)) who opine that even the protests were orchestrated by Government agencies. We really cant discuss things in detail in the introduction. My suggestion for the introduction is:

Falun Gong (Traditional Chinese: 法輪功; Simplified Chinese: 法轮功; Pinyin: Fǎlún Gōng; literally "Practice of the Wheel of Law") is also known as Falun Dafa (Traditional Chinese: 法輪大法; Simplified Chinese: 法轮大法; Pinyin: Fǎlún dàfǎ; lit. "Great Law of the Wheel of Law") is a system of mind and body cultivation introduced by Li Hongzhi in 1992. Central to Falun Gong are the teachings of "Truthfulness, Compassion and Forbearance" and five sets of meditation exercises (four standing, and one sitting meditation).) The system has been growing in popularity world-over with the teachings translated to over 40 languages and practitioners present in over 80 countries.

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

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

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

Dilip rajeev 16:20, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Source issue

It is ridiculous that you have hesitation on citing the public U.S. government publication, instead you guys seem not to have hesitation on citing the biochemist's self-publicated sources on his personal website. I don't understand the bias hidden on mind of guys here.

Tomananda said the xys.org source is a reproduction of a conference paper. What is the proof of that? How to get the conference paper? It is not verifiable. Fnhddzs 05:26, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

The US gov't publication is of course a good source. It just needs to be put in the proper context. The conference paper is a bit more problematic because of the verifiability issues. It would be nice if we could reference something directly tied to the conference or the organization that put it on, just so we know that it is what it claims to be. That would alleviate any doubts. CovenantD 05:56, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Just keep in mind that the US government has a POV too. (Let's hope the NSA doesn't check up on me at night.) -- Миборовский 07:11, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

That is not just what the US Government says. From the Amnesty International to the European Union and the United Nations . Dilip rajeev 08:17, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

And I'm pretty sure Amnesty International and the EU and the UN all have their own POVs. -- Миборовский 08:21, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

I think it's real sad that Tomananda can use material from Deng and Fang homepage, that is just personal opinions from private people. In that case, let me get all the pro-FLG comments from personal websites I can find, including people talking about their experience after practicing Falun Gong, how they benefited and how happy they are, and how wonderful Falun Gong is. I don't see any reason at all how personal websites can be allowed. Frankly, these Deng and Fang's opinions doesn't mean anything, why are their opinions so important? It is up to the reader to decide what to think after he reads all the material. All Deng and Fang does is to slander things they don't understand, what, is the meaning of that? Admin, what is your comment on this case? /Omido 08:15, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

The Two Tales of Falun Gong on-line document is an updated version of a paper presented at the April 28-29, 2000 annual conference of the American Family Foundation held in Seattle, Washington. The foundation is now called the International Cultic Studies Association. I will reference this information in a footnote. I have contacted the organization to find out what they can provide to verify the article's authenticity.

Since we have apparently decided to take a tough stance on sources, I will start challenging sources that appear in the pro-Falun Gong edits as well. Two problems immediately come to mind:

• The health claims made by Dr. Lilli Feng (were they presented at a conference or published elsewhere?)
• The Julie Ching (2001) article quoted in the Persecution section, with a link only to the Rick Ross website.

The paper by Quan-Zhen, Richard Johnson et al has appeared in several journals including JACM. It was done by reputed researchers in the field. Including Researchers from micro array core, Beynora institute and Baylor College

Dilip rajeev 11:06, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

That paper by Quan_zhen I've looked at and also what you wrote on the medical benefits. You took the findings out of context and distort the findings. It's first a Pilot study which just means it's a preliminary stuff/a search and probe type of study. Not a ground-breaking study or anything of the sort. Secondly the study's conclusion suggests qigong in general (and not only FLG) improves neutrophil functions. I believe a rewrite of that section will help clarify things and take some of the bias out of the health benefit page.

24.189.163.169 12:42, 29 May 2006 (UTC) is a version of the paper that appeared in JACM. The original research was titled "An ancient cultivation practice Falun Gong improves neutrophil functions and causes system-level gene regulation " and specifically says Falun Gong. Dilip rajeev 20:36, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Also, there is a significant amount of material that amounts to original research that will have to be deleted from some of the sections. For example, the following representations in the Teachings section:

• Practitioners encourage studying the books or listening to the lectures, first-hand, to gain a good understanding of the principles and the cultivation system. All teachings, Exercise instruction videos and Lecture Videos are available for free download from www.falundafa.org

• It is generally believed by practitioners that Falun Gong requires in-depth and repeated study of the books, especially Zhuan Falun, in order to gain a good understanding of its content. Practitioners point out that their own understanding keeps deepening with the repeated study of the books, and also comes from as well personally experiencing the "miraculous" effects of Falun Gong practice, including health benefits.

This statement, in my opnion, really doesnt deserve a reply. If you are that adamant I will get a confirmation from www.falundafa.org - thats the primary source.

Dilip rajeev 11:06, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Plus unsourced material in The Tianamin Square self-immolation incident such as:

• The campaign of government criticism begun in 1999 was considered by most observers to be largely ineffectual until January 2001,( unsourced POV) when persons whom the government claimed were Falun Gong practitioners. And:
• Falun Gong practitioners emphatically denied that the people who set themselves on fire could have been actual practitioners, since suicide is completely against Falun Gong's principles. (unsourced POV) And:
• Falun Gong members believe that the incident is an attempt of the Chinese government to turn public opinion in China against Falun Gong to rally support for government crackdown. Falun Gong practitioenrs claim that their Master forbids suicide but have not yet provide any such statements.

Change "Falun Gong members" to IED, FDI or UN Reports and I will give you a source. By the way the section didnt origianlly say "Falun Gong members" it was a recent change by some editor.

Dilip rajeev

For instance, The International Education Development Bureau's (IED) report, announced at the United Nations, states:

"This government took out this so-called self-immolation incident that happened on January 23, 2001, in Tiananmen Square and used this as evidence against Falun Gong. We have reached the conclusion after watching a videotape on this incident, that this incident has however been completely orchestrated by the government.

Dilip rajeev 12:30, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

• There is no such thing as IED "Bureau". Various FLG articles and websites keep on confusing readers that this NGO is a branch under the United Nations and furtherly leap the logic that the UN has investigated the incident.
• The IED website has no mention of their investigation on the incident videotape. At best this is just another unbased claim. To state more clearly: IED hasn't explained how they investigated, and what convinced them to believe the incident was staged.

--Yenchin 14:10, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

IED's statement to the Sub-Commission on the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights at the United Nations in August, 2001

Dilip rajeev 22:00, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I'm fairly aware on the "where" and "when" of the report. However, IED has never formally published a report on their investigation. Which is the "how". How were they convinced that the incident was staged? There is no mention of these details on the Sub-Commision report, as well as their own website. At best this only shows their opinion, it doesn't help a further understanding of the incident. --Yenchin 23:10, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm the editor on the "FLG members believe...crackdown". The original text was "observers", which I don't need to point out that none of these observers were cited. At best from what I see in "False Fire" and other FLG articles, FLG members argue that the Tiananmen Square incident is meant to incite a negative view on FLG. As ridiculous as this sounds (martyrs, anyone?), these points can be found from FLG. So I only changed "observers" to "FLG members" to reflect this fact. --Yenchin 11:56, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

More unsourced material from the Persecution section:

• Falun Gong practitioners have affimed that the people seen in the video were not actually practitioners.

source Falun Gong related website including FDI, FOFG, Clearwisdom.net

• Falun Gong practitioners went to Tianjin College of Education, which published the magazine, and related governmental agencies and held peaceful protests.

Two paragraphs from the persectution section which are either not sourced at all, or cite one of Falung Gong's own websites:

• Some practitioners were arrested and were, according to reports, beaten by the police. Several days later, for 12 hours on April 25, about 10,000 people gathered at the Central Appeal Office at Foyou street, outside Zhongnanhai, the headquarters of Chinese Communist Government and lined up along a 2 km stretch. They held no signs and chanted no slogans. Premier Zhu Rongji met with some representatives of the practitioners and promised to resolve the situation within three days. The practitioners dispersed peacefully after they received word that Zhu had agreed to their requests. Nevertheless, it was widely reported by the Chinese media that Falun Gong practitioners organizing a protest in the heart of the Chinese Communist Party alarmed many senior leaders, particularly Jiang Zemin. According to some estimates, at this time there were more than 100,000 Falun Gong practitioners in Beijing alone. Some analysts claimed that about 70 million people practice it, which is more than the number of members in the Chinese Communist Party (about 60 million people). (footnote goes to a Falun Gong website, which cannot be used to verify this kind of information.)

I can give sources. There are many. These are not controversial material.

Dilip rajeev 11:06, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

• The Falun Dafa Information Center, a website which "endeavors to compile, cross-check, organize and publish" reports about the government crackdown on Falun Gong, has confirmed that at least 2,840 (March 2006) Falun Gong practitioners have died while in police or government custody. (cannot use Falun Gong’s own website to verify this information.)

source is Falun Dafa Information. FDI is a registered human rights organization, I understand.

With Gail Rachlin and Zhang Erping in it. Seems like another FLG clone website. --Yenchin 12:17, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

A cursory review of the material submitted by pro-Falun Gong editors indicates that more unsourced or unverified material will come to light as we progress. But for now, can the other editors please respond to the above problems in the existing edits as soon as possible? If we don't hear back in a couple of days, I will delete the problem sections and sources. --Tomananda 08:38, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

See tomanda, the material you are talking about here is nothing controversial - there is no comparing it with the kind of material you insist on introducing. Your statements, seem to suggest to me a threat to vandalize the article unless your material is unconditionally approved. Sorry, The Misplaced Pages doesnt work like that. And you say the article was submitted at the "American Family Foundation".? See, I would better appreciate it if the article had appeared in an academic journal. Dilip rajeev 11:06, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, with all due respect. This article is about Falun Gong. FalunDafa.org doesn't promote Falun Gong, it only tries to offer people information about Falun Gong, information about what Falun Gong is...and then people themself can decide what they want to think about Falun Gong. It doesn't say on Falun Gong websites: "Falun Gong is really good, come and learn" does it? But your critics tries to make people think negative thoughts about Falun Gong, but the Falun Gong websites, which you call "pro-FLG websites"...gives people a chance to form their own opinions and understand what they want to understand..that is the main difference I think. Your critics force their own opinions on others, while other websites doesnt say good or bad things, they just offer people to have their own understanding. I think the big problem with you is, that you really believe that anything that isn't critical or negative is positive and adverstisement. That is why it is really hard to come to any conclusion with you. But the truth is, it isn't positive or negative. Also, this article is about Falun Gong, what Falun Gong is and how it works, so why can't we use websites that offers people information of Falun Gong? Such as the lectures or the book Zhuan Falun. (which FalunDafa.org does) Omido 10:26, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Also, if you say all those things have to be removed, then I say the whole critics and contreversies section have to be removed, because as I see it, the whole section is "critics say" "critics point out" "Fang says" "Chang says". Absoloutly everything in the critics and conreversies section seem to be unsourced and based on personal opinions. Omido 10:36, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

If you are saying it that way even Falungong teaching material eventually are unsourced. Li made up the stuff from his brain. Ideas are not necessarily fact and opinions to address these ideas can't be sourced to a fact. It's the opinion of a few learned individual that makes sense to us that we use to defend our stance. We can only write what's out there and the ideas currently circulating in the media. If the argument has been resolved then there is no problem. If the ideas are not resolved than both side gets put into the contraversy part. You can't stifle the critics by saying there is no source because ideas have no source beside the people that wishes to put out the idea. You can of course use reasoning to support both side of the argument. 24.189.163.169 13:16, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, not really, Falun Gong teaching material isn't unsourced, because in that case you can say that Tai Chi, Bagua, Christianity, Buddhism, and Daoism is unsourced. You can even say God and people who believe in God are unsourced right? Well it isn't exactly like that, because it is individual belief. Falun Gong has a belief in something, for example that Truth-Compassion-Forbearence is a path to ones higher self. If it is like that or not, the reader can decide for themself. Nobody say it is or isn't like that. But what the critics that Tomananda uses say is: "It isn't like that, it isn't like that because I don't believe in it." This means that they are forcing their own opinions on others, do you understand what I mean? Falun Gong practitioners only show people what they believe in, what others want to believe is up to themself. Thanks for your understanding. /Omido 14:57, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

You are beginning to sound like a commercial again. You don't need to repeat your Truth-Compassion_forbearance lecture again. I can add 3 word together and still get the same thing. Loyalty-Duty-Honor US armies' motto? Anyways as I've stated religion/cults/etcs are all ideas and sometimes you can't have a "source" the way you want it. When someone criticize an idea, you don't necessarily have to have a "source" the way you want it. FLG is an idea and so is the criticism to FLG teaching. 24.189.163.169 03:50, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

An idea cannot cause "Drastic system-level changes of gene expression". Repetitive motion or relaxation or yoga is not known to alter gene expressions. Please note that the study by Quan-Zhen Li, Richard Johnson et al which states "the genes that are regulated in a consensus fashion among the practitioners can be grouped into several functional clusters, which are directly linked to PMN functions in anti-viral immunity, apoptotic property and possibly longevity based upon a much more economical balance of protein synthesis and degradation".. an "idea" cannot really achieve all this. I myself have witnessed recovery from disease which I can only describe as "miraculous". Dilip rajeev 08:00, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

---

Falun gong teachings online are online version of the paper copy. Also self-published sources have no problem to be cited to talk about themselves. Fnhddzs 05:07, 30 May 2006 (UTC) Please look at Fnhddzs 05:09, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

The cases cited above do not involve practitioners talking about themselves. For example, in one of the self-published papers on a personal website Dr. Lili Feng makes claims of health benefits for people who practice Falun Gong. And in other examples cited above, there are claims of fact concerning events in China. --Tomananda 08:48, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Text that needs to be deleted, verified or re-written

We cannot have a double standard on the issues of sources or the prohibition against original research. Dilip has recently deleted all quotes from the Deng and Fang paper presented at the 2000 Seattle, Washington conference of the American Family Foundation because the present citation is to a private website. While the Deng and Fang paper (once verified) will meet the source standard previously proposed by Covenenant and agreed to by several other editors (see above discussion), there are significant portions of pro-Falun Gong edits which do not meet that standard. Unless agreement is reached on some kind of compromise standard among all the editors, we will have no other choice than to delete a significant amount of material from the auxiliary pages. Here is a partial list:

1. Medical claims from Dr. Lili Feng and others contained in: “An Ancient Cultivation Practice Falun Gong Improves Neutrophil Functions and Causes System-level Gene Regulation” This is a self-published source and there is no evidence that the paper was presented at a conference or published elsewhere. The paper appears at: The home page is clearly a private Falun Gong web page at:

This material currently on page called: Research into health benefits of Falun Gong in the main page at: Falun Gong

2 Surveys conducted on practitioners which report unusually high cure rates of disease for those who practice Falun Gong. A private website (Falun Dafa Australia) is provided as the source:

This material is currently appears in section called Research into health claims on the main Falun Gong page.

3. Report from Dr. Lili Feng, a Falun Gong practitioner, claiming that Falun Gong exercises boost the immune system and significantly increase life expectancy.

This material is currently reported in the section called Research into health claims appearing on the main Falun Gong page. No citation is provided, but I believe the source for this material is one of Falun Gong’s own websites. If Dr. Feng’s research was not presented at a conference or published somewhere other than a Falun Gong website, it must be removed based on the new Dilip standard for sources.

4. Self-reported claims about what Falun Gong practitioners do and believe: For example, material reported in the section called Teachings of Falun Gong:

• Practitioners encourage studying the books or listening to the lectures, first-hand, to gain a good understanding of the principles and the cultivation system. All teachings, Exercise instruction videos and Lecture Videos are available for free download from www.falundafa.org

• It is generally believed by practitioners that Falun Gong requires in-depth and repeated study of the books, especially Zhuan Falun, in order to gain a good understanding of its content. Practitioners point out that their own understanding keeps deepening with the repeated study of the books, and also comes from as well personally experiencing the "miraculous" effects of Falun Gong practice, including health benefits.

Dilip states that the primary source for this material is , but that is a private website and the material, even if it exists as Dilip claims, amounts to original research. Editors who are Falun Gong practitioners cannot maker personal representations about what other practitioners, in general, do or believe. This topic was discussed at great length more than a month ago in the context of Li’s views on homosexuality.

5. Unsourced material which makes claims about what actually happened during the Tianamin Square self-immolation indicent:

• The campaign of government criticism begun in 1999 was considered by most observers to be largely ineffectual until January 2001,( unsourced POV) when persons whom the government claimed were Falun Gong practitioners. And:
• Falun Gong practitioners emphatically denied that the people who set themselves on fire could have been actual practitioners, since suicide is completely against Falun Gong's principles. (unsourced POV) And:
• Falun Gong members believe that the incident is an attempt of the Chinese government to turn public opinion in China against Falun Gong to rally support for government crackdown. Falun Gong practitioenrs claim that their Master forbids suicide but have not yet provide any such statements.

This material currently appears in the page called Persecution of Falun Gong. An editor added the comments about unsourced POV) some time ago, but without a response from any of the pro-Falun Gong editors. Dilip states he can re-write this material and provide verifiable sources, and other editors have commented, but so far no alternative text has been proposed.

6. Additional unsourced or unverified material appearing in the page called Persecution of Falun Gong:

• Falun Gong practitioners have affimed that the people seen in the video were not actually practitioners.

Dilip says he can provide sources for this claim, but they all appear to be Falun Gong’s own websites. This does not meet the standard of verification that is needed.

• Falun Gong practitioners went to Tianjin College of Education, which published the magazine, and related governmental agencies and held peaceful protests.

What source, other than a Falun Gong website, verifies that the protest was peaceful? We know that 45 practitioners were arrested during this protest and it is likely that they were disrupting the normal course of business at this magazine publisher’s office, at the least.

7. A paragraph about the Zhongnanhai protest alleging that practitioners were beaten by the police and that the Chinese media reports of the protest were incaccurate. Material in the page called Persecution of Falun Gong is either not sourced at all, or cites one of Falung Gong's own websites:

• Some practitioners were arrested and were, according to reports, beaten by the police. Several days later, for 12 hours on April 25, about 10,000 people gathered at the Central Appeal Office at Foyou street, outside Zhongnanhai, the headquarters of Chinese Communist Government and lined up along a 2 km stretch. They held no signs and chanted no slogans. Premier Zhu Rongji met with some representatives of the practitioners and promised to resolve the situation within three days. The practitioners dispersed peacefully after they received word that Zhu had agreed to their requests. Nevertheless, it was widely reported by the Chinese media that Falun Gong practitioners organizing a protest in the heart of the Chinese Communist Party alarmed many senior leaders, particularly Jiang Zemin. According to some estimates, at this time there were more than 100,000 Falun Gong practitioners in Beijing alone. Some analysts claimed that about 70 million people practice it, which is more than the number of members in the Chinese Communist Party (about 60 million people).

This paragraph, which clearly represents a POV about what happened, does not have any source other than a Falun Gong website.

8. A subsequent paragraph in the same section which claims that 2,840 Falun Gong practitioners have died while in police or government custody in China.

• The Falun Dafa Information Center, a website which "endeavors to compile, cross-check, organize and publish" reports about the government crackdown on Falun Gong, has confirmed that at least 2,840 (March 2006) Falun Gong practitioners have died while in police or government custody.

The source provided for this information is one of Falun Gong’s own websites. If this claim cannot be verified by a non-Falun Gong source, it must be deleted.

9. In a subsequent paragraph, a sentence reporting unverified practitioners’ claims that practitioners are not encouraged to avoid, by practice, most conventional medicine:

• A frequent argument made by Chinese scientists is that followers are encouraged to avoid, by practice, most conventional medicine. Falun Gong practitioners point out that no such incident has been reported outside China and that such accusations surfaced only after the persecution started.

Even if this claim of practitioners came from a verifiable source other than a Falun Gong website, it is directly contradicted by the Master’ own teachings:

Taking medication during cultivation implies that you do not believe in the disease-curing effects of cultivation. If you believed in it, why would you take medication? Falun Gong, revised edition, Chapter Five, Questions and Answers, p. 82.

10. In a subsequent paragraph, an unverified claim that the Falun Gong is not “political”

• CCP claims that the practice has deviated its focus from engaging in spiritual cultivation to engaging in politics, basing their opinions on the existence of numerous websites disparate from, yet in support of, Falun Gong (such as Friends of Falun Gong). Due to an implication derived from its core principles, the teachings of Falun Gong are said to forbid any political involvement, and practitioners claim to have little interest in power or politics, the large number of protests to the crackdown notwithstanding. Falun Gong's supporters, such as The Epoch Times, tend to be conservative and anti-communist. Kangang Xu, a Falun Gong speaker, is the Chairman of the paper's board.

This unsourced material also violates Misplaced Pages’s policy against original research and NPOV. Editors cannot report the views of Falun Gong practitioners in this way to refute the claim of the CCP that the Falun Gong has turned “from engaging in spiritual cultivation to engaging in politics.” The second sentence contains a non-sequitur (the stuff about the conservative nature of the Epoch Times) as well as an unverified claim concerning an alleged implication deriving from Falun Gong’s core principles that is said “to forbid any political involvement.” Actually, the exact opposite is true: Li Honghzhi demands that his practitioners do everything they can to publicly undermine the CCP, with the explicit goal of reducing membership in the party by millions of people. (These numbers are updated in the Epoch Times, the paper Li’s disciples created to validate Li’s teachings. In the name of “validating the Dafa” Falun Gong practitioners are required to pursue Li’s political objective of overthrowing the Chinese Communist Party. This is an absolute requirement for one to be considered a Dafa disciple during this “Fa-rectification period” and Li reminds his practitioners of this requirement in all his lectures.--Tomananda 21:53, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Tomanda,Misplaced Pages doesnt work like that. We dont copy content sentence by sentence from websites. Please remember that the health survey mentions the researchers and medical institutions involved.

I am taking the from discussion on the criticism page:

As for the research paper by Richard Johnson et al, it is a scientific medical paper. Solid genome profiling done by experts in the field from Microarray Core, Center for Immunology at University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center , Baylor College of Medicine and Benaroya Research Institute at Virginia Mason. I will get you a list of journals in which the paper has appeared these include the JACM. A similar, version of the paper that appeared in JACM is: http://pkg.dajiyuan.com/pkg/2005-04-08/genomic%20profiling.pdf ( not exactly the same paper but drawing upon results from genome profiling done on Falun Gong practitioners and the micro-array analysis of gene expression levels of PMNs in Falun Gong practitioners.) Another source for the paper is http://www.asianresearch.org/articles/2397.html Dilip rajeev 22:10, 29 May 2006 (UTC) This specifically is what I would like to point out. What we are looking at is research material by experts in the field. We are interested in what Steve Hassan says but what is presented at a family association conference, in which anybody (including you and me) may present their opinions, is of little significance to an encyclopaedia article. For instance, Samuel presented something at that "conference", can we use that? Certainly not. No personal offense intented I am just pointing out that wikipedia standard dont allow such material. For instance, practitioners present their experiences in Fa conferences around the world. Many practitioners are prominent medical scientists, martial artists, professors and so on.. We can get an opinion from the professors in the Falun Dafa practice groups of Yale or Harvard ... but we really cant present all their opinions here.... what qualifies as a paper, in my understanding, is something accepted by the academic community or something that has appeared in a reputed journal. Dilip rajeev 22:10, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Sorry Dilip but your post fails to address the specific problems cited in items #1-10 above, and I don't remember saying anything about the Richard Johnson source you talk about, or for that matter anything about Samuel's presentations at annual AFF conferences. Right now, I request that you focus on the actual issues I have raised. --Tomananda 22:24, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

The research was done by Quan-Zhen Li, Richard J. Johnson, Gabriela E.Garcia, Ping Li, Tongwen Wang, and Lili Feng Dilip rajeev 22:47, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

I also want to point out that there is no need to vandalize the whole article saying not every sentence is copied from other websites. But since you insist, I will provide the sources. Consider for instance these : Leavy, Mark J. Note. Discrediting human rights abuse as an "act of state": a case study on the repression of the Falun Gong in China and commentary on international human rights law in U.S. courts. 35 Rutgers L.J. 749-823 (2004)

The Harvard Human Rights Journal.

Investigation Reports on the Persecution of Falun Gong, v.1. Hyde Park, MA

or What the paper titled "The Perseuction of Falun Gong" by Chandra D Smith from the Rutgers Journal of Law says:

http://www-camlaw.rutgers.edu/publications/law-religion/new_devs/RJLR_ND_66.pdf

For instance, this journal says:

"As noted, Falun Gong was introduced to China in 1992. By 1998, there were approximately 70 million practitioners of Falun Gong in China."

"In protest, 10,000 members of Falun Gong gathered outside the Communist Party headquarters in Beijing on April 25, 1999. The members gathered outside the building peacefully, practiced their meditative exercises and then left"

"In 2001, the Chinese government “sanctioned the systematic use of violence against the group, established a network of brainwashing classes and embarked on a painstaking effort to weed out followers neighborhood by neighborhood and workplace by workplace.”

-Rutgers Journal of Law

Infact the above paper in itself substantiates most of the content in the paragraphs you picked out. Please go through it. I will provide detailed sources if you insist.

Dilip rajeev 22:10, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Dilip, your post above doesn't address the specific issues of verificable sources and no original research which I raised. I would like to see us cooperate, which means that if you can refrain from deleting the Deng and Fang quotes in the Criticism section for now, I will refrain from deleting all the problem material mentioned above in items #1 through 10. If you can provide verificable sources for some of the material above (other than using Falun Gong's own websites) that would be great. In other cases, some of those sentences need to be re-written and I am sure we will wind up with some that just need to be deleted. But for now I'm willing to give you a little time to respond before doing any edits in those three pages. Thanks.--Tomananda 23:06, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

'Moderators, is it in-line with wiki etiquette to threaten to vandalize the article unless material is unconditionally aproved? It is not what you or I feel. The wuestion is wether the material meets wiki standards. And we are not concerned about copying material line for line from other websites... And Misplaced Pages sets standards on the kind of material that can be used has a source... a personal opinion submitted at a family conference cannot act as a source. Dilip rajeev 04:42, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

The Rutger's Journal oF Law: http://www-camlaw.rutgers.edu/publications/law-religion/new_devs/RJLR_ND_66.pdf

This journal infact, in itself, can act as a source for almost all of the above mentioned material:

"As noted, Falun Gong was introduced to China in 1992. By 1998, there were approximately 70 million practitioners of Falun Gong in China."

"In protest, 10,000 members of Falun Gong gathered outside the Communist Party headquarters in Beijing on April 25, 1999. The members gathered outside the building peacefully, practiced their meditative exercises and then left"

"In 2001, the Chinese government “sanctioned the systematic use of violence against the group, established a network of brainwashing classes and embarked on a painstaking effort to weed out followers neighborhood by neighborhood and workplace by workplace.”

"Fearing the Falun Gong could prove to be a political threat, the Chinese government began a systematic and violent campaign against the spiritual movement. The Chinese crackdown on Falun Gong has proven to be rather successful. However, there is no evidence to suggest that Falun Gong began as anything more than a spiritual exercise. There is no evidence that Falun Gong had any political aspirations."

-Rutgers Journal of Law

Tomananda, the fake slander from criticism has to go, you don't need to come with threats, they don't work on cultivators. We told you why it has to go, so it has to go. It's obvious that you are acting quite irrational and saying some wicked things. Well, so may be. /Omido 05:45, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, Dilip, it is a matter of how our editing meets Misplaced Pages standards and I have carefully laid out 10 specific problem areas in the edits which I believe do not meet Misplaced Pages standards. Unlike what you, Fnhddzs and Omido have just done...delete for the third time significant material from the Criticism page without discussion...I have not deleted anything on your Teachings or Persecution pages. Instead, I have asked you to respond to these issues, but your only response is a message accusing me of threatening to vandalize material, combined with a series of quotes which have no bearing on the specific edits in question. And now we have a new practitioner named Omido making personal accusations towards me and issuing grand statements such as "We told you why( the reasons) it has to go, so it has to go."

At this point I am one person having a dialogue with three Falun Gong practitioners who refuse to offer even a modicum of cooperation in the editing process--and two of you have provoked revert wars which resulted in freezing the article for weeks at a time. You also accuse me of of being irrational because I have introduced critical material into the article. This kinda makes me think about all those media people in China who were besieged with thousands of Falun Gong practitioners in their offices demanding that they retract all criticism of the Falun Gong. Did those thousands of allegedly peaceful and tolerant practioners in Tianjin use the same kind of rhetoric that Omido uses on me today: "We told you why it has to go, so it has to go." ?

Mirabovsky,Fire Star, Covenant and the other editors: what shall we do next? --Tomananda 08:33, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Tomanda, look at your own edits. Omid's reply was to your apparent threat to vandalzie the article unless the material in unconditionally accepted. Omid, was only emphasizing that the reasons for scrutinizing such a source has been carefully explained... and there is no point in engaging in threats or attacks.. Dilip rajeev 08:48, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

_______________________________________________________________________________________________

Well Tomananda, that is your way of seeing it. As I see it, we told you why it has to go. And you responded by saying "but Teachings and Persecution are also unsourced, if my critics have to be removed then teaching and persecution also have to be removed".

by Tomananda: "...which means that if you can refrain from deleting the Deng and Fang quotes in the Criticism section for now, I will refrain from deleting all the problem material mentioned above in items #1 through 10."

This sounds like a delete threat to me.

by Tomananda: "Instead, I have asked you to respond to these issues, but your only response is a message accusing me of threatening to vandalize material, combined with a series of quotes which have no bearing on the specific edits in question."

answer from Dilip: "The Rutger's Journal oF Law: http://www-camlaw.rutgers.edu/publications/law-religion/new_devs/RJLR_ND_66.pdf This journal infact, in itself, can act as a source for almost all of the above mentioned material"

As admins can see, Dilip answered his question, but he still says that Dilip responded with "...a series of quotes which have no bearing on the specific edits in question."

by Tomananda: "Unlike what you, Fnhddzs and Omido have just done...delete for the third time significiant sections of the Criticism page without discussion..."

This is a complete lie and you know it. We have discussed with you over and over again that the Fang and Chang and all those "critics say" quotes that you have been getting from personal sites should not be used in this article. You responded with things that you think should be deleted from the Teaching and Persecution section. Dilip gave you the sources for most of those points, and you still accuse him for many things. I think that it is not the right way to handle things, that is why I called you irrational. If you were offended, I apologize, it was not my intention to offending you /Omido 08:56, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Mirabovsky: Can you issue a warning to the new practitioner/editor named Omido?

Mirabovsky, in the midst of all the above chatter, I have just discovered that Omido exeeded her/his three revert limit between 5:49 and 5:59 on 30 May in the Criticism page. Her/his series of edits were identified as vandalism by Ami Daniel and reverted to an earlier version. In essence, Omido deleted critical material that has been in the article for a long time, including material from Maria Chang who wrote the book: Falun Gong: The End of Days. In doing these deletions you can discover in the History that she deleted the following wording at the end of a sentence: "while commentators generally come to an opposite condlusion. Maria Chang (2004) writes:" But evidently she/he missed that a block quote from Maria Chang's book followed. So the effect of that particular edit was to preserve a block quote, but delete the author's reference. So much for taking care of our sources citations in Misplaced Pages! Anyway, I think Omido deserves to get some kind of warning for her/his editing behavior...including, by the way, the accusations she/he made to me in an earlier post. --Tomananda 09:24, 30 May 2006 (UTC)