Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 00:02, 3 February 2007

I sacrifice the integrity of wikipedia for my goals? what do you think my goal is?--Yueyuen 23:11, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi Asdfg, I've responded to your Nov. 29 response regarding the Misplaced Pages Talk: Requests for mediation/ Falun Gong. I should also point out that randomly and baselessly accusing others of un-Misplaced Pages behavior is un-Wikipedian behavior in itself. Jsw663 11:49, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

haloo, if u used this language universal salvation to all sentient beings. i ask u did you founder teach (example: the wild dogs, crazy dogs, bunch of wolfs, tiger and shark) with meditation and lecture them did he do that? did the crazy dogs or shark understand his language? so i more considered humanity than universal its look vague to me if you used the word universal salvation to all sentient beings, is there aprrrove or evidance that your founder talk with wild dogs, shark, tiger and suddenly they understand and follow meditation? and suddenly they not eat meat again forever even when times they over with meat? .Daimond 15:40, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

License tagging for Image:Falun Gong group practice in Paris 1999.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Falun Gong group practice in Paris 1999.jpg. Misplaced Pages gets thousands of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Misplaced Pages, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Misplaced Pages:Image use policy
• Misplaced Pages:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Misplaced Pages:Media copyright questions. 22:06, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Response to your accusations on my talk page

Reproduced here for you:

Asdfg, your actions speak louder than your words. Your edits on the Falun Gong page, by supporting Omido's version, shows that you support a totally biased version and have no interest in seeing genuine NPOV. It has undone all the hard work put in by both sides to reach a consensus. Such un-wiki actions is worrying, because for a while there was a remote possibility that you were willing to adhere to WP:Civility. Accusing others who insist that you adhere to Misplaced Pages policy as supporters of the opposition is also distinctly unhelpful. And finally to address your post, show me some reliable non-pro-FG proof of the above, AND be willing to accept the CCP's rebuttal to such an allegation, THEN we can engage in the "frank discussion" you claim to be promoting. After all, if Falun Gong practitioners were 'defenders' of the 'truth', then what have they got to hide by letting the other side air their views? Why take such drastic steps to hide any criticism of FG? Is there something unworthy that must be hidden? If Falun Gong were really that good, why hasn't the entire world converted to Falun Gong?

In the future, please adhere to Misplaced Pages policies and guidelines when editing. If you show yourself to be a trustworthy editor who abides by, at the very least, Misplaced Pages rules, "frank discussion" can be engaged in and maybe a satisfactory compromise veresion can be agreed on. But as long as you support one side's version only despite having agreed on compromise versions on the discussion page of the Falun Gong entry backed up by your support for a version by someone who has persistently engaged in edit-warring and violated the 3RR rule over and over again, a final version will never be reached. Thus arises the question: are you, Asdfg, interested in arriving at a compromise version between the two camps that was a result of a constructive debate that adhered to Wiki policies? If so, please be careful of your words and actions in the future. Insulting admins like Fire Star, for example, is not a good start. Jsw663 03:33, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

My response to your response on the FG talk page to my response above:

I am happy and pleased to see that you are willing to work on this article to make it of high quality and relatively neutral. However, we must first get over what you pass off as facts, such as a 'genocide' of FG practitioners. FG practitioners via your websites have made numerous allegations but almost every point has been met with an official Communist Party of China's rebuttal. If you question once again whether I'm merely some CCP mouthpiece, it would be wise to remember that the CCP actually denies they are even suppressing FG practitioners; I'm not denying that some degree of limitation / restriction of FG practice/practitioners is going on. This is not the same as genocide. However, it is being exaggerated and when more fabrications are used to support what were initially facts then one is inevitably left to question your intentions. Since the 'clampdown' of FG is tremendously controversial, it would be better for an encyclopedia, in keeping with its NPOV policy, to present both sides' views without pre-determining the information for the public. If you agree that Omido's behavior is worrying then perhaps you'd like to join in the mediation case I've initiated against him. I've deliberately NOT resorted to seeking blocks, bans or ArbCom decisions against him because I want constructive debate from both sides. However, if he persists in being unreasonable and you can show that the majority of FG practitioners are not so, maybe some of the negative perceptions of FG can be dispelled. Regarding the Fire Star insult point, it was questioning her (?) commitment to NPOV / neutrality. If the user was not deemed responsible then Fire Star wouldn't have been 'approved' as an administrator. Regarding Tomananda, he is only as biased towards the other end as you are biased towards FG. Note that I don't think we have someone who has represented the CCP (the 'official' anti-FG people) view in this discussion yet, so please don't judge me by my introduction of two Xinhua news sources in English that have addressed the issue of FG (although such sites cannot stay on the page with section blankers). In the end, as long as all sides of the FG debate are committed to working towards a GA or better status for this article, we'll have done our role as Wiki editors in improving Wiki as an encyclopedic source. But to maintain this commitment we first need to weed out those who seek to stop our commitment towards this goal! Jsw663 10:35, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

My response to your refusal to consider my challenge to pro-FG sources such as the Kilgour-Matas report (also reproduced on the FG discussion page) -

Asdfg, you demanded that I read pro-FG sources which I have done numerous times before but never have I done a detailed critique. You then say I cannot qualify my comments without doing so. Now that I've done a detailed critique you say that there's no point replying. Is this the 'constructive debate' pro-FGers are capable of?

Did you even READ what I wrote above? Point by point? I said the Kilgour-Matas report reads like a FG propaganda leaflet because it does not base its sources on facts. It draws conclusions based on leaps of logic and a few phone calls. Since it is not based on facts it has NOT, I repeat NOT proven any genocide or persecution as having existed, ever. But then the problem of utter bigotry isn't on my part now, is it - the one refusing to read critique of your allegations is brushed off as 'misguided' somehow. Do you not realize the sheer absurdity of your comments? But then if you did maybe you wouldn't be able to place yourself under the spell of Li Hongzhi.

The CCP seems to be stopping any possibility of a personality cult that will personally benefit Li Hongzhi. This is to stop a person who has constantly sought to overthrow the CCP and install himself in power (which he will claim he'll do so 'reluctantly', if he succeeds). There is nothing 'evil' about this clampdown at all but to protect national security.

You accuse me of not being neutral although I back up every single point with the appropriate Wikipedian policy or argument point. You claim to be working for wikipedia / encyclopedic content but have no interest in stopping vandals. In fact, you promote their version then claim it was a 'mistake'. You say I have no 'righteous thoughts' although you never base this on anything. Accuse the CCP of something and base it on a fact, then we can analyze it. Accuse the CCP of something, exaggerate it with fabrications then pass it off as a fact, is nothing short of slander. Look at how hypocritical your comments are first. Who's encouraging you not to think for yourself?

The 'objective evidence' used is suspect in credibility and one-sided. I pointed out inconsistencies, such as the surgeon's wife's testimony, despite it being 'credible' due to immense 'detail', yet not a single detail could be proven as fact or backed up by a truly independent source, or that somehow the CCP left no traces of killings or torture behind yet they spilt lots of 'evidence' via phone calls. What is your response? To repeat the same tired old propaganda again? Is this the sign of an independent thinker? Can you respond to this question?

Asdfg your sheer refusal to air any views not given by Li Hongzhi or pro-FG source demonstrates two things - narrow-mindedness and total lack of independent thinking. This is further supported by a complete intolerance of non-pro-FG supported criticism, or at least drastically reduced in quantity, and only about points which the pro-FG propaganda machine has already addressed via exaggerations and half-truths. I claim relative neutrality and have shown that I deal with both sides' sources equally. You claim relative neutrality yet are totally unable to form opinions of your own, consider sources equally and make excuses like taking a Wikibreak when you cannot find a Li Hongzhi-approved answer. It's time you reflected on your own logic first before you accuse others of being 'evil'. If not, your accusations hold as much weight as all the "facts" and "evidence" used, which essentially consists of wild speculations and outrageous logic-twisting. "Genocide" and "persecution" cannot be justified on a few suspicious phone calls. The least you could do would be to respond to my detailed critique of the K-M report. Shame on you, Asdfg, for not being able to practice what you preach or demand of others. Jsw663 08:20, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Falun Gong

Hi. Before I respond to your comment on my talk page, could you please provide a rough demographic background of yourself so I can correctly phrase my response? Colipon+(T) 06:10, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

I wonder how I should put this. Before I go forth I must say I admire your faith and level of understanding in philosophy. I have studied the works of Plato and in fact recently compared it to The Matrix in terms of their parallel philosophies, I enjoyed both works. Whether or not you are actually a 21-year-old living in Canberra I will not go beyond my comfort zone to attempt to confirm, but from my understanding you are not ethnically Chinese. You have been searching for a purpose, an underlying philosophy about life which you seemed to have found in Falun Gong. For this, I say again, I admire your faith. I am here to bring to submission that I have not reached that level of understanding myself.

As a subscriber to certain taoist and buddhist beliefs myself, please understand me when I say I find it difficult to relate to Falun Gong. I have read parts of Zhuan Falun, watched many Falun videos while I was in China (long before the crackdown), my understanding of it comes from years of discussions with religious experts, practicing buddhists and taoists, and political analysts, as well as my personal experiences. I have talked to many Falun Gong practitioners myself. I will not attempt to debate with you about your beliefs as I think it would be unfair to interfere with them, as I consider it rude for someone else to come and interfere with my own. What I will say here is that from the empirical evidence I have gathered, Falun Gong's founder, Li Hongzhi, and its practices within China before the crackdown were at best, questionable if not outright illegitimate, bordering on being fraudulent. I am not against any of the major principles of Falun Gong, I am but trying to voice a concern that these principles were abused in a way not generally understood in the West. Every time I bring forth these facts I am always considered a lier and a dog of the Communist Party of China. Anything I say against Li is an attempt at slandering his image on behalf of the CPC. I feel that this treatment is unfair and deeply deprecating of my person and beliefs.

Colipon+(T) 23:37, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Do you have an e-mail? Perhaps it will make our communication easier. Colipon+(T) 23:46, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi. I just returned from the New Year's party. Anyway, I wanted to communicate through messenger because it would be real-time communication. If you dislike the method then I will simply write more here on your talk page until further notice. Colipon+(T) 08:30, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Actually, you can add me on Windows Live Messenger with my account hongshi_fang@hotmail.com if you also use this form of instant messaging. Colipon+(T) 23:48, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

I must head out to a New Year's Party. However feel free to e-mail me or talk to me on Messenger with the aforementioned e-mail address. From my understanding your e-mail was asd@mm.st? Perhaps I got it wrong. Cheers, Happy New Year. Colipon+(T) 23:58, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

I just sent an e-mail. Please read it. Colipon+(T) 04:22, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Hey, I was wondering if you could give me a response about that e-mail. Colipon+(T) 05:15, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

CPC Being evil

There are two quotes on my user page which you should take a look at.

One assumption to rid yourself of right now is that I support the CCP. I support NPOV and NPOV only.

Of course I have moral convictions. I have, never at any point, suggested that I support the CPC's brutal persecution of Falun Gong practitioners. However, I must remind you that this is not the topic at hand. I have said numerous times that the CPC's degrading state of morality is by no means any justification whatsoever for Falun Gong to spread false and misleading information in foreign countries to support their own cause exclusively. When people begin paying attention to persecution, people stop paying attention to Falun Gong's background, which is questionable at best.

There are numerous things Jiang Zemin did which I do not support. His policies are ridden with errors and his term in office saw many policies which were, in reality, only attempts to legitimize his own power. I must say Jiang's tenure in office was regrettable for any Chinese.

At the same time, I must bring to your attention that the problems of the Chinese government are not limited to Falun Gong. If western moral standards are applied to all policies, then I would say before all else, the One-Child Policy is the most flagrant violation of human rights. In addition, Chinese society is by no means, fair. It is filled with a myriad of problems, as TIME calls it, "makes it reasonable for us in the West to wonder how China's leaders can ever sleep". The CPC's legitimacy is by all means, a fragile existence. Recognizing this fact, however, I must remind the Epoch Times and pro-FLG people like yourself that Chinese people are not idiots. The vast majority of Chinese people are aware of this fragile existence and are aware of the CPC's decaying institutions. This awareness also happens to be present within a generation too caught up with money and personal gain to worry about morality. Any Chinese citizen in his right mind would not accept FLG's persecution as the right thing, most CPC members do not accept FLG's persuction as the right thing, and believe me they are aware. Falun Gong alleges that the Chinese people have been brainwashed by the CCP and China is still an authoritarian dictatorship where the government possesses Maoist powers. No viewpoint could be more ignorant.

The inherent fallacy here is the belief that Communism and the Communist Party is the root cause of all China's problems, as stated eloquently by the Epoch Times. Believe me when I say the Communist Party itself is more worried about its legitimacy of governance than any human rights watchdogs. If there was a viable solution in reversing the verdict on Falun Gong or in fixing any of China's other major problems, President Hu, Premier Wen, and the rest of them in Beijing would have thought about it long before the opinionated and biased Epoch Times, whose contents are exclusively destructive (as opposed to constructive). China, quite frankly, is too complex for them, or Falun Gong, to ever understand with their stubbornness in trying to adhere to the narrow truths they assert to be legitimate. It has come to a point where they will seldom respect neutral commentary on their biased judgments. I for one will not allow these biased judgments to be propagated more than necessary. Colipon+(T) 23:22, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Hey I'm waiting for a reply on that study. Colipon+(T) 02:38, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

I'd make a lengthy reply. But you are absolutely right in saying that any more discussion between us is fruitless. Therefore I will not. But let me remind you that Baylor University, the publisher of the study, is in the very middle of Conservative USA. For them to have even allowed the publication of such material, and for it to be in the view of the public, I think, is a gigantic leap showing that Falun Gong's critics have now extended much much farther than Li Hongzhi has the ability to control. In addition, to question the basis of the entire study by citing Li's teachings is unnecessary and quite frankly unconvincing, as most of Dr. Lu's citations are actually directly from Li Hongzhi's teachings anyway. Colipon+(T) 03:58, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

From the anonymous ET person, RE: Tuidang

  From my perspective, it's not a matter of it being peaceful or not. I think you've done a great job in finding a peaceful way to try to get your message across. For those people you are succeeding in reaching, that's also great--I'm glad you are reaching them.
  As far as the Epoch Times is concerned, I think a lot of people don't take it as seriously as they might because it has an obvious agenda--anti-CCP and pro-Falun Gong. Most people don't think of an ideal newspaper as having an agenda--that would be biased. Yet ET would like to have people see it as unbiased because for once it's not controlled by the CCP. That's a conflict. Some people do love reading the paper, too--I have heard a few comments from non-practitioners who like it, and I realize that. I think EET can improve itself to reach some of the people who view it as biased, and I think it's trying to, and it needs to continue. But I also don't expect EET to change itself to please everybody, because that's impossible. There may be some people you need to find another way to reach, and I don't think that all the people who think that ET is biased are unreachable. Fortunately for them, you have also been making efforts to reach other medias as well and through torture exhibits, although there is probably still a barrier that still needs to be broken down further.
  I think that last point was what I was trying to get at with Tuidang; you may need to find another way to reach some people if you want to facilitate their taking a stand against the CCP. If not, you will need to make it very clear to everyone why it's 1) legitimate and 2) relevant to EVERYONE. As far as legitimacy, some people think it's hogwash because people can sign multiple times (I think you probably knew that one). People also cite the use of fake names as a way to take away legitimacy, although I know that one's to make it accessible to people who don't want to get in trouble with the government. I think some people, if they know that EET is run by practitioners, see it as a movement run by practitioners, and their view will be colored by what they think of practitioners. For someone like Colipon, it takes all the legitimacy away, because in his view (based on what I've read here), neither practitioners nor the CCP is right, and he doesn't want to conquer one wrong by raising up another. It's this kind of person you would probably need to find another way to reach. I know you probably think that people who don't think Dafa is good are condemned anyway, but somehow I don't think that people like Colipon are unreachable--they probably actually among the most reachable if you can figure out how to do it. If you're really trying to save people, I think it would be really sad if you gave up on people like him. 
  As far as relevance, for someone like me, I heard about Tuidang close to the beginning, because I knew some people involved in The Epoch Times. I have heard people saying that people need to quit the CCP and withdraw support, so that a more peaceful, open, and upright government can step in. But it only recently clicked that maybe I should see if Tuidang might actually want westerners like me to put in a renunciation and that this might actually be valuable. I saw it as being for Chinese people, or for people who already belonged to the CCP at some point in the past, because it was after all the "quitting the party" movement, not the "renounce the party" movement. You can't quit something you never belonged to; furthermore, a movement like this doesn't seem as valuable if you can't separate the Chinese people who want change from the people who want change internationally. For someone like me, I have more connections to the Falun Gong community than your average person reading EET. I still have not read enough about Tuidang for that to click on its own, that only clicked with me in the last few days because of conversations with others. Because without the thought that I can renounce even if I can't quit, and that this might actually carry some weight with the Chinese government in stopping everything that's happening, Tuidang belongs to other people, and it isn't relevant to me.
  --the anonymous person from the ET page