Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 18:28, 15 June 2006

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.

Archived discussions

• /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
• /Archive9, 26 May 2006 to June 2, 2006
• /Archive10 June 2, 2006 to June 10, 2006

Back to the intro

We're still trying to finalize wording on the three paragraphs of the intro. I'm linking to the relevant parts of this talk page - please add your comments there. Let's get this done folks. CovenantD 18:20, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

agree, let's only make changes after reaching agreement here. To show my good faith, I am adding the NY Times figure to the third paragraph. I am sure pro-FG editors woud not have problem with this. --Samuel Luo 19:13, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Don't make major edits to the intro

2nd paragraph of intro

Dilip's suggestion

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. Dilip rajeev 19:22, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

The following verion provides more info:

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.--Samuel Luo 19:33, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Dilip, your version is a bit skimpy and could be seen as POV because of that.

Samuel, isn't this the version currently in place?

- CovenantD 19:49, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

One thing I want to get settled ASAP is including the word alleged in front of illegal activities. Can we get a show of hands? CovenantD 22:22, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Also, we don't know the CCP's true intentions for the suppression. I think it's actually much more complicated than that. So we should say something like "the Chinese government claims...". So unless this change is made I don't support. Mcconn 18:21, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

• Support CovenantD 22:22, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

• Unless there are further reports of the trials of those who were arrested at least in the Tianjin Incident, I support the usage o the word. --Yenchin 05:28, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

I support introducing the word "alleged" ASAP. But, in my opinion using the word "illegal" unnecessary...The reader is completely unaware what these alleged illegal activity is. And we also need to mention that the supression is considered a major violation of Human Rights, world over. Dilip rajeev 11:16, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm reposting my above comment (altered version) so that it doesn't get missed. We don't know the CCP's true intentions for the suppression. I think it's actually much more complicated than that. So rather than simply say that it was suppressed for "alleged illegal activities" we should say something like "the Chinese government claims... alleged illegal activities". So unless this change is made I don't support. Mcconn 04:20, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

I would like to point out that the April 25, 1999 is an appeal, instead of a protest. Here is an article from clearwisdom.net (a Falun Gong practitioners' website)

Over the past several years, the Mainland police have spread lies on many occasions that "so many people went to protest, any country would suppress them." Many people have been misled by the media, and believed that Falun Gong practitioners' April 25 "besieging Zhongnanhai" lead to later suppression. In fact, firstly, "April 25" was not besieging the government, but a peaceful appeal, completely conforming to the law and reason. Secondly, Falun Gong practitioners' appeal was peaceful and out of their kindness, it was their trust to the government but not opposing the government. The third point, on the day of "April 25," with direct concern from Premier of State Council, Falun Gong practitioners and Appeals Office leaders had a meeting. They reached a common understanding and reasonably resolved the violent arrest of dozens of innocent Falun Gong practitioners in Tianjin.

Fnhddzs 05:31, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Mcconn's suggestion

I was just about to make this change in the main page since nobody has responded to mine and Fnhddzs' posts, but I changed my mind and decided it to post it here first. If no one responds after a few hours then I'll consider it ok and put it into the main page.

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'. The government claims that it initiated the suppression in reponse to Falun Gong's alleged illegal activities.' 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.

What do you think? (actually do we have source that verifies this claim?)Mcconn 18:30, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Samuel's suggestion

• There is no consensus in adding "alleged" to this paragraph but I am not going to take it out yet. I propose using the following to replace the existing version. Finishing this paragraph by mentioning the group’s popularity introduces the next paragraph.

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. The Chinese government claims to have banned the group for its illegal activities. The Falun Gong claims the ban a result of president Jiang Zemin’s personal jealousy of the group’s popularity.

• --Samuel Luo 18:59, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

The use of "illegal activites" must be avoided. We also need to mention that the supression has been considered a major human-rights violation. The reader doesnt know what the "alleged illegal activity" is. Dilip rajeev 20:19, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

We should be able to accept Samuel's new wording since it simply reports both POV's and even provides links for people to get more information. We don't need any more than this in the introduction, but can introduce much more in the crack-down section. (By the way, I don't think we ever agreed to the change in title for that page from Crackdown to Persecution.) --Tomananda 22:43, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

We didn't. In fact, I believe we were at the point where several people felt it was inherently POV. (I've been waiting for somebody to bring it up...) CovenantD 22:54, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

OK, but can people at least to agree to one editing principle, which is that when there seems to be irreconcilable differences of opinion on how to report something, that we should try to agree to a "two sentence" strategy such as shown above? One sentence would succintly report one position (with a link) and the other would report the counter position (also with a link.) Unless I am missing something here, that approach should work well. If we agree to the approach in general, then we just need to agree if the wording for each sentence is reasonable and verifiable, such as Samuel has suggested above. --Tomananda 01:07, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Hmm. Samuel's new wording is good to me except the use of "illegal activites". Definitely not acceptable on that. Fnhddzs 05:47, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

• Hmm, Fnhddzs how about "peaceful activities" would that satisfy you? Please don't miss the magic word "claims." --Samuel Luo 06:12, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

A few things.

1. The date of the first reference is 22 July, 1999, not 20 July.
2. In the last sentence, President should be capitalized.
3. Dilip may be right in saying that the "activities" could be expanded on in a completely NPOV manner, by using the wording from the announcement. Thus the second sentence becomes,

The Chinese government claims to have banned the group for its illegal activities Research Society of Falun Dafa for not been registered according to law, advocating superstition and spreading fallacies, hoodwinking people, inciting and creating disturbances, and jeopardizing social stability.

- CovenantD 14:20, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Regarding why CCP persecutes Falun Gong, it seems to me that Master Li said "why the malevolent CCP wants to persecute Falun Gong" was addressed in "Nine Commentaries on the X Party". So we may refer to these two articles We Are Not “Getting Political”by Master Li and On the Collusion of Jiang Zemin and the Chinese Communist Party to Persecute Falun Gong in "Nine Commentaries". Fnhddzs 20:13, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Hey, folks. How about the 2nd paragraph? I don't agree with the current version. it is not a protest in Zhongnan hai. It was an appeal. Fnhddzs 01:26, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Fnhddz, Samuel had asked you a question just a few posts above. If you answer that, we may have a version that both side agree on. CovenantD 02:34, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, CovenantD. Is the question about using "peaceful activities"? it seems good to me. The Research Society of Falun Dafa quitted from Qiqong Research Association long time before 1999. That was not an issue. Before April 25, 1999, many practitioners in Tianjin were arrested and Tianjin's upper level administration is Beijing since Tianjin does not belong to a province. So in the normal channel, the next step is to go to Beijing to appeal. Everything was legal. The Appeal office is quite close to Zhongnanhai. Practitioners in the beginning just scattered on the side streets. Policemen said why not you folks circled around the wall of the Zhongnanhai? It seemed a trick. Finally Premier Zhu Rongji happened to see practitioners and promised to release the practitioners in Tianjin. Then everything was all right. Then the Xinhua agency published an artile restating China's policy to Qiqong: three-no policy. (No stick-beating, no debation, no report 不打棍子、不争论、不报导). sorry that is just my direct translation. However, things changed later when Jiang, Zemin knew this. On July 22, 1999, a statement was released funnily by China Ministry of Civil Affairs (中国民政部) stating that Falun Gong illegal.

Anyway, on April 25, the appeal was peaceful and fruitful. Things changed later and had nothing to do with that appeal although the later government lies said that justified the ban. Fnhddzs 23:12, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

In Master Li's talk [http://www.falundafa.org/book/eng/jw_88.htm Teaching the Fa at the 2002 Fa Conference in Philadelphia, U.S.A. November 30, 2002] The true reason seems as below:

So what was the goal of this evil persecution? Was it to protect the regime? Not at all, really. Saying that Falun Gong poses a threat to China’s regime is just a huge lie that’s spread by the evil. A lot of people have asked me, and a lot of people have asked my disciples this too: what’s the true reason for this persecution? Just a buffoon’s jealousy. Since it has power it’s able do something like this. That might sound pretty ridiculous, or maybe hard to believe—how could something like this happen to mankind, right? But it really has happened. This persecution has happened, as absurd as it may be, due to that buffoon being driven by its twisted jealousy. That’s exactly the reason. That’s the real cause we see here in human society.

Fnhddzs 23:22, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Dear all: I am still waiting on a solution on this paragraph. It is not in a right shape! Fnhddzs 00:58, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Second paragraph:

• 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. The Chinese government claims to have banned the group for its illegal activities. The Falun Gong claims the ban a result of president Jiang Zemin’s personal jealousy of the group’s popularity.

I support this version. It introduces the ban and and includes claims from both sides. --Samuel Luo 06:16, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Dilip's 2nd suggestion

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, which has been considered a major Human-Rights violation world-over. Concerns were triggered when 10,000 practitioners appealed peacefully close to Zhongnanhai the compound of Chinese top leaders on April 25, 1999.

Hi, Folks: Please look at this version. There is no consensus on the current version. It cannot stay there forever. Can we set a deadline? Fnhddzs 06:08, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm in favor of a deadline. I'd say no more than 5 days, so by midnight (UTC) Wednesday? CovenantD 13:11, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

• Support No Opinion I thought I was supporting the deadline. CovenantD 13:11, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

:-D .. i agree to the deadline too..

• Support. I agree to the version above but I believe that mentioning that this has been considered a major Human-Rights violation, world-over is quite central to the article. I am not sure how to phrase the sentence.Dilip rajeev 18:07, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
• I've made a change. I would add more citations. I would agree that the deadline of Midnight Wednesday. How about others? Anyway we need a deadline. Fnhddzs 18:44, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

• Added one more source.. H Con Res 188Dilip rajeev 20:21, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Pulling it all together

It looks like everybody agrees on the opening line - "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." That's a good begining. It seems the way to go now is to find out what we don't want.
We have three versions to consider. Each of them contain something the others don't. So let's ask this question; is there anything in any of those versions that I don't want in there? Cause what I'm thinking is, if nobody has strong feelings about keeping something out we could just put it all in. There's nothing that seems to contradict, it just emphasizes different aspects. I want to hear from each of you. CovenantD 06:41, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

I think Samuel's version plus a sentence or slight mentioning of the 4.25 incident (Mconn's or Dilip's) would be fine. I see no reasoning in using "persecution" to justify the omitting of "alleged illegal". The purpose of the article is to lay out all the facts. --Yenchin 13:35, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

The facts of persecution cannot be omitted. Fnhddzs 19:31, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

As well as the facts of China claiming FLG to be illegal. What's the relevance between these two? Appeal to pity fallacy. --Yenchin 20:32, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Fnhddzs only said "facts of persecution cannot be ommited." Dilip rajeev 18:35, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

The question is what NOT to include. Let's answer that first then address each one in turn otherwise we'll get bogged down. To make it easier, I'm going to reproduce the differences here. CovenantD 19:14, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Differences to consider

Mcconn: The government claims that it initiated the suppression in reponse to Falun Gong's alleged illegal activities.
Samuel: The Chinese government claims to have banned the group for its illegal activities.
Dilip: (the People's Republic of China began a nationwide suppression...,) which has been considered a major Human-Rights violation world-over.

As you can see, Mcconn and Samuel's are almost identical. Dilip wants it mentioned that it's considered a human rights violation. Is this statement in dispute? CovenantD 19:25, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

We can include all three statement. Between samuel's claim and mcconn's alleged I prefer claims. Mcconn's statement does not make sense, would anyone claims to do something for a alleged reason? Dilip's statement can be used to end the paragraph with a little rewrite. The supression of Falun Gong is considered a human rights violation by western human rights groups and politicians. --Kent8888 19:59, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Mcconn: 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.
Samuel: The Falun Gong claims the ban a result of president Jiang Zemin’s personal jealousy of the group’s popularity.[
Dilip: Concerns were triggered when 10,000 practitioners appealed peacefully close to Zhongnanhai the compound of Chinese top leaders on April 25, 1999.
----

Again, Mcconn and Dilip's versions are almost identical. Samuel wants it mentioned that jealousy may be a factor. Is any of this disputed? CovenantD 19:25, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Samuel's statement comes from a Falun Gong main website. It is the group's official view of the cause of the supression. The protest can be moved to other section. --Kent8888 19:59, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Concur --Yenchin 20:26, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Folks, when can the "illegal activities" be deleted or revised? It is not true. Fnhddzs 05:50, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

As soon as we get enough people to give their comments on the differences. You haven't yet. CovenantD 06:07, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

ok. Fnhddzs 17:22, 13 June 2006 (UTC) But we cannot wait forever. If nobody comes, we have to admit no other opinions during this timeline. It is not a stone. We have the deadline of this Wed. Fnhddzs 18:00, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Origin v History & Timeline

I see that some of the edit warring was over the name of the section. It seems to have settled down now into the compromise of calling the section "Origins" and linking to an article called "History and timeline." I just want to confirm that this is indeed the agreed upon style. CovenantD 19:41, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

It's the original style that existed almost from day one and its the only style that makes sense. The material in the origins section is fundamental to an understanding of the Falun Gong. It is actually more important than a mere listing of chronological events, which is what the recently created History and timeline page does. In fact, there never was consensus to creat a separate page called "History and timeline." I don't really object to it, but it's existence cannot be used to justify the suppression of important information about the origins of Falun Gong. If needed, we can simply have a stand-alone section on "Origins" that doesn't link to "History and timeline."....and by the way, did anyone ever re-write the intro to that page?

--Tomananda 19:56, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

To answer your last question, no, but then again there's been no note and no discussion about it, so you're just being facetious.

Actually another editor...I'm pretty sure it was you...did mention that the intro to that page needed to be written, because it is just a copy of the main page intro, not specific to History and timelines, so I was being sincere and goal-oriented rather than facetious. Maybe I should have actually checked the page before posing it as a question, but I didn't. --Tomananda 20:33, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, I was being a bit facetious at that point. It's in the Research into health benefits of Falun Gong article that I mention it, but you are correct in that it applies to many different articles. Now that you bring it up, I might as well go through all of them and root out the inappropriate duplicates. CovenantD 20:45, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

It's your opinion that it's essential to an understanding. Let's be clear on the difference between fact and opinion. An understanding without knowing the origins is possible, it's just a different understanding. And yes, I realize that's just my opinion. ;-)

Yes, it is just my opinion. I think here you are merely objecting to my style of writing which can be didactic at times. I write with confidence, but when it comes to negotiating postitions I am very flexible. --Tomananda 20:33, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Objecting to a tanget, maybe. since it doesn't effect it's inclusion or not. Of course info should be included that is relevant, reliable and properly sourced. It's just a matter of where. CovenantD 20:45, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm don't care either way, or even a different way, (I haven't even looked at the differences yet) but I want to make sure that this issue is discussed and decided so we don't get into another edit war over it. CovenantD 20:11, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Couldn't agree with you more. Anything that prevents another revert war is cool with me! --Tomananda 20:33, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

So the floor is open to suggestions for the naming of the section or sections, and what companion articles should be linked to which. CovenantD 20:45, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Origin section has been there since the beginning of the article. History and timeline should have its own section. --Samuel Luo 19:39, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I'm going to write a one sentence summary for the History and Timeline section and link to the separate page. CovenantD 22:38, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm reativating this thread to prevent another revert war between Fnhdzzs and others.
I think the Origins section should focus on the time before Falun Gong "was introduced to the world" and History and Timeline should focus on the time after it went public. Thoughts? CovenantD 06:05, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

I think that's a correct split. Origins means how did it get started, where did the teachings come from and who else was involved in it's creation other than Li (eg: his teachers).--Tomananda 07:27, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

I disagree to having two such sections. The reason being all we have is some material of questionable authenticity which the publisher removed from Zhuan Falun , on being asked to do so By Li Hongzhi. Biography of Li Hongzhi, belongs to the "Li Hongzhi" article. We can have a paragraph on it and I think it is best merged with History and Timeline. Dilip rajeev 14:10, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Considering Origins existed for quite a while before you erased it and created History and Timeline (with no discussion), I'm not inclined to agree with you Dilip. If anything, the History and Timeline should go away. Most of that stuff will be covered in other topics in the article. Origins is a distinct topic. CovenantD 19:19, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Anyway, we cannot hide information from the same biography you folks love dearly. Fnhddzs 19:41, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Nobody's trying to hide anything, you have introduced major additions without discussion. Plus you're putting your addition in the wrong place. Origins deals with how it came into being. History is what happens after it's begining. That's not my opinion, that's the definition of those words. CovenantD 19:47, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

It IS about how it came into beings. Falun gong was introduced to the public as a Star Qigong system. Fnhddzs 19:57, 11 June 2006 (UTC) The story about Master's childhood has less relation with Falun Gong. Fnhddzs 19:58, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

No, it is highly related. It was introduced by Li. So his background of course is relevant. We're not talking about whether he was called "Xiao Laizi" over here. It's still on topic. --Yenchin 20:41, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

There is a wiki article on Li Hongzhi. Theory of relativty was introduced by Einstein so an article on Special Relativity discusses Einstein's childhood?

Dilip rajeev 18:27, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

If there were aspects of his childhood that were relevant to relativity, yes. I'm not saying that every bit of his life is important to the "Origins" section. But it appears that some aspects, such as his early training, are. Only those parts should be here, probably with a better link to the article on Li. Information should not be reproduced on both pages. CovenantD 18:41, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

I just realized this discussion is straying (again) from the topic, which is what to put into each section and writing up a summary for History. CovenantD 18:48, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Biography or not, I support the split as proposed. Even if LHZ pulled his ideas out of a hat we still need to say how he got the hat. Everything after he "Honged" is Fa is history of the movement. This is not a hard concept to understand. Scientific workers still have to cite who's work they're based on, how they formed their thought, and so on. --Yenchin 20:36, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Order of the subtitles

I am concerned about the order in which the subtitles appear. The article being on Falun Gong, the Persecution of Falun Gong adn othe section must appear above the "criticism" section. Especially when the persecution is recieving so much attention world-wide. Dilip rajeev 14:14, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

It's been requested that we finish up the 2nd paragraph of the intro before we look at structure. (In principle, I agree that Criticism should appear further down and be summarized better {Scientology}). CovenantD 19:24, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

From Hoerth

Because this talk page is semiprotected, a new editor asked me to post this here. I do so without endorsing anything s/he says. CovenantD 14:42, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

"Falun Gong practitioners as well as supporters of the Communist Parties crackdown on Falun Gong, each have there own websites on which they each have allready extensivly stated their point of view. So why is there so much conflict, and discussion and no consent? Because each party wants to see the content of their websites in the wikipedia article. And why is that so important to them even though it allready is on their respective sites? Because they think if they are able to get their stuff in the wikipedia article, people will be more likely to belive them if they see their point of view in an "independent encyclopedia entry". So this is the actuall cause of the entire despute. But I think it's pretty stupid, because there is one very simple way to solve this, and make it less interesting for both parties to vandalize the article. I suggest that the first thing we do is to remind the viewers at the top of the article that everbody can edit wikipedia, and that there is no independent staff or team of experts, and that supporters of Falun Gong as well as supporters of the Communist Party ::are frequently changing the article, and therefore on this subject wikipedia might very likely not be NPOV, and is as credible as something writen with chalk on the sidewalk. (Actually as I understand it Wikipeda being like Chalk on the side walk is basicly the reason why Larry Sanger left it :-) Okay, putting it that way might be putting Misplaced Pages down a bit, but the comparison is not all that wrong, and many people don't realize this. But most importantly it will end those sensless debattes and endless edit-wars. I am sure that if you don't put something like that in the article, you can continue to debate for another 5 years and still won't be able to get to any consent. So this is my suggesion. --Hoerth 12:34, 11 June 2006 (UTC)"

Hoerth: Yet despite what you say there has been some progress over the past 4 months in creating a balanced article. I don't agree with the dichotomy you present between supporters of Falun Gong and supporters of the Chinese government. I am neither.

Li Hongzhi is every bit as totalitatarian as the Chinese government and both want to destroy each other. Having said that, I am really only concerned with presenting the truth of what Li teaches and what his disciples believe, and the harmful aspects of the Falun Gong apart from any political considerations. Because of the practice of Falun Gong western families have been broken up. Husbands and wives have gotten divorces and some practitioners have suffered health consequences because of Li's teaching for practitioners not to seek medical care when they are sick. If it were not for the conflict between Li Hongzhi and the Chinese government, people in the west would have a much better understanding of the Falun Gong.

But because the western media has failed to take a critical look into Falun Gong teachings and practices, the public still thinks about the Falun Gong as just a regular eastern meditation group. That is the PR image Falun Gong promotes of itself...they don't even want to acknowledge that Li Honghzi is a god and savaior who warns that corrupt people, including homosexauls, will be weeded out. So Misplaced Pages needs to report on more than the politics, the crackdown, and allegations of torture. It needs to also do what the western media has failed to do: give an in-depth report of what the Falun Gong is all about in its own right. --Tomananda 16:40, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Ofcourse Tomananda, these things that you just now stated above is entirely your understanding. You say Li Hongzhi is "totalitatarian", but somebody else may say he is a really compassionate man and his Dafa is really good for people. You say you want to present the "truth" of what he teaches, somebody else can say that the "truth" you are holding on to is your own truth, so you are not presenting them the "truth", but you are trying to make others think like you do. You say alot of families have broken up, 100 million practitioners world-wide as well as alot of private people say that Falun Gong has made their family more harmonius and peaceful. You say practitioners have suffered health consequenses, still there are 100 million practitioners that say that they have been miracously cured from all their diseases. Please tell me, do you still think that your own so called "truth", really can be the truth? If your "truth" really is the Truth, then why are 100 million people who THEMSELF practice Falun Gong disagree with you? How can you, as a third party spectator, who only has a very very shallow understanding of this Dafa, represent the Truth? Maybe you say: "But I read all the Falun Gong books, so I know what I am talking about." Then I would say that Dafa or Dharma has different manifestations and different forms of existence on different levels. If you read the books of Falun Gong with negative thoughts and negative intentions, do you really think you can understand the Dharma of Falun Gong? Do you really think you can understand the truth? I recommend, that you once again read the whole book Zhuan Falun with a clear heart and harmonius mind, without any bad thoughts, and after that you can come with your own opinions. /Omido 17:49, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Okay, this doesn't seem to be about edits to the article. CovenantD 19:09, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

The article edits cannot be separable with understanding what Falun Gong is. Instead, it is essential. Please do not interrupt. Fnhddzs 19:23, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

The "everyone can edit" nature of Misplaced Pages is quite clear when one is looking up articles over here. Unless there is some new policy there will always be edit discussions/wars on controversal articles.

Omido: Here's a hint for you. Why don't we add a sentence in the "Beliefs and Teachings", as well as on the FLG website links saying that "These should be read in a clear heart and harmonious mind without any bad thoughts to understand. They are the truth." Like the readers are sheep and can't judge for themselves? --Yenchin 21:07, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

3RR violations

Both Samuel and Fnhddzs have now reverted at least 4 times each. I'm requesting that an admin give both of them a short block. CovenantD 20:02, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

• Fnhddzs’s material was rejected by Tomanada, Firestar, ConventD and I today, yet he continues to insert his material. I reverted him about 4 times but he reverted us at least 7 times. If we are serious about not allowing anyone adding material without a consensus then I am simply trying to enforce this understanding and therefore should not receive the same treatment as Fnhddzs. --Samuel Luo 20:11, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Niether one of you are talking about it except in the edit summaries as you war back and forth. CovenantD 20:13, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

24 hours each. All of those involved should already have been aware that 3RR is independent of who's right and who's wrong. -- Миборовский 20:16, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Covenant,I think the Origins section fits into the History section.

Further, I think we cant present a partial picture on the mainpage.. I am concerned the biography is presented in a very misleading manner... just keeping a copy of fhndzz's edits on the main page too (temporarily). Dilip rajeev 21:04, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

• Convent did the right thing to move that material to history of Falun Gong. Dilip as a respect for others you should refrain from reintroducing that material. --Yueyuen 21:28, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

THE WORD ALLEGED SHOULD NOT BE DELETED AND THE PERSON WHO DELETES IT AGAIN SHOULD BE BANNED

The word word alleged has been deleted MANY times now. Despite discussing this on talk page REPEATEDLY a user has been deleting it repeatedly. If this behaviour continues the user should be banned. Dilip rajeev 21:38, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

• There is a discussion about this paragraph above. You might not want to insert “allege” by ignoring this discussion. --Kent8888 23:48, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

There has been no consensus to include the word alleged. I think it should be in there, but we're not talking about it enough to justify including it at this point. CovenantD 18:35, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Continuing with edits

I would like to have a majority consensus on something. The article is a terrible mess. No user who sees the page is going to take it seriously. Its time the page is cleaned up.

• No adding/deleting material to the article till the present material is cleaned up though discussion.

• Set a deadline of five days to reach consensus on summaries for the sub-pages we have now.

• Decide if the material on the "Origins" section, pulled from a biography is that relevant to an article on Falun Gong.

Dilip rajeev 21:19, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Vote / Opinion

That depends on what you mean by "take it seriously". I hope you don't mean "advertise Falungong" by that statement. Discussion is going on, and people are working to keep the article neutral. You are going to have be more specific about what you want. --Fire Star 火星 04:05, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

What we want are facts, don't we? But if people could not even agree "persecution" is fact. I am afraid I can't flatter people's discern ability. Fnhddzs 18:51, 13 June 2006 (UTC) If people intentionally hide facts out of personal emotion, I would say they are not serious. Fnhddzs 18:53, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Discuss sub-section summaries here

Discuss biography here

I have never seen any falun gong website present the biography as the "origin" of Falun Gong. Master Li Hongzhi has talked about the origin of Falun Gong in the book Falun Gong. Thats the primary source. A biography of Albert Einstein wouldnt be discussed under the relativity article. Dilip rajeev 21:23, 11 June 2006 (UTC) Dilip rajeev 21:19, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree, the biography gives out the wrong picture, it is not even something that is a part of Falun Gong. /Omido 22:10, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Please read this section of the discussion about the biography. CovenantD 22:11, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

yes, I have read it, but it doesn't give a good enough reason to include the biography. All the texts in Falun Gong are available on the website, but not the biography. Why? Because it is not something that is a part of Falun Gong, then how can the biography (which is not a part of Falun Gong) be a part of the Falun Gong wikipedia article? /Omido 13:52, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Are we talking about the origins of Falung Gong or Falun Gong itself here? --Yenchin 14:19, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Omido, again, a biography need not be in current publication or provided by the topic of discussion to be considered as source material. That is like saying that a movie review could not be included in an article about the movie. Your reason for excluding it is not sufficient. CovenantD 15:24, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

I reverted my edits

I removed the presonal references and left the basic facts of the divorce case. In accordance with the wiki policies, I updated the information to search for the appropriate case reference. BTW, You(FLG) have incoming. It's completely legal and there will be no defense against it.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Cj cawley (talk • contribs)

You have yet to provide evidence of it's notability. Until you do, it's going to be removed every time. Misplaced Pages is not a place for you to publish your personal information or for you to push your personal gripe against Falun Gong. CovenantD 15:33, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

You can send me your fax number I will will send you back the court papers.

Cj cawley 17:35, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't want to know about your personal life, I want to know what makes your personal life notable enough to be included in an encyclopedia. Has it been the subject of a newpaper article? Has it been reported on TV? What makes it important? You have yet to address that question. CovenantD 18:33, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

What are these divorce cases? I have not heard of it. /Omido 18:26, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough. I was questioned by the State Dept, FBI, etc. for a divorce case? The story was blocked for quite a while with the FLG "activists" trying to shut me up. No such luck on their part.

Cj cawley 20:58, 12 June 2006 (UTC) As for Omido, I filed for divorce from a FLG wife for fraud, adultery & mental cruelty as a result of espionage against the Chinese government. The FLG have been absolutely ruthless in protecting their "good image". My case contradicts them. In the end, it may well bring about their end.

Can you prove anything you say with third party reporting? A single divorce case that has yet to go to hearing is not notable enough. Maybe once there's been a ruling, but not now. Not unless you can SHOW it's been reported elsewhere. Otherwise, it's all original research. CovenantD 21:03, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

That's fair. Once again, send me your fax #. I will dump out a book to you. Also, you can troll through the CCP's various websites to view some of the opposing points of view. As usual, the FLG will not allow any of this information to come to light.

Cj cawley 21:08, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Side note - Who appointed you God to determine what is right & wrong. Typical egomanic. You should join the cult. You would have a grand old time.

Oh yea, :)

Cj cawley 21:10, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Cj, you also need to familiarize your self with the Misplaced Pages policy about no personal attacks. CovenantD 01:16, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Cawley, I don't understand, you divorced your wife because she practiced Falun Gong? What is it related to espionage for the Chinese Communist Party? /Omido 21:12, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

In a nutshell, yes. It was for mental cruelty as a result of espionage AGAINST the Chinese Government. After all, we do have laws here reguarding "foreign agent" status. Basically, my wife went on a "fact finding" mission in China where she acted as in interpreter for a foreign reporter. This is illegal there. She was going to take my son with her, but I was able to stop that. She did have other help on her trip. Cj cawley 21:16, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

"cj cawley",

The case has been stalled in court for the past several years. The ex even went so far as to get a divorce in Mexico to avoid a trial here. This also failed. Cj cawley 21:17, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

I asked for third party reporting, not a book that you wrote. Check out this bit on sources for why it's not acceptable. In fact, you should read the entire page, then try again. CovenantD 21:20, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Cawley, these things that happend to you are private matters, why are you bringing them up here? /Omido 21:25, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Mr. Cawley, I am sorry about your story. But I would like to point out that spies hurt Falun Gong a lot. Some people pretend they are Falun Gong practitioners. You could see Master Li's recent article on spies. Eliminating the Evil Also the dirty things you mentioned are all opposite to the principle of Falun Gong. Falun Gong teaches not to have ex-marriage relationship. Teaching the Fa at the Conference in Europe May 1998

You may have a wife or a husband. This is the normal way of life for human beings. But you are committing a sin if you have sexual activity with someone who isn’t your husband or your wife. The gods in every upright religion of the East and West have emphasized this point strongly. When normalizing how humans should be, they discussed this very seriously.

Teaching the Fa at the Eastern U.S. Fa Conference March 1999

For you to live as husband and wife is fine, but if you aren’t husband and wife and have sexual relations, then you are doing the filthiest thing. That is something gods absolutely cannot accept—not a single god would accept it. So be very sure to pay attention to this. A person’s course of cultivation is that cultivator’s history. Innumerable, immeasurable, countless gods are watching Dafa disciples’ every thought and every act. As cultivators who are determined to reach Consummation, why can’t you pass this test? I’ll stop here for today.

But practitioners may had mistakes. Just like Havard University students may got 'Fail' in a coursework. That is possible. Individual practitioners could not denote Falun Gong. Anyway I hope you could understand and wish you good luck. Fnhddzs 00:43, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Okay, Fnddzs, this is not the place to be preaching Falun Gong. Let's keep this focused on the article. CovenantD 01:14, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree we should be focused on the article. But I believe my efforts are helping towards this direction. Since I believe such communications could help Mr. Cawley, all of us and the article. I have never wished to persuade other's belief. Fnhddzs 05:55, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't think that you really understand. I come as your potential doom. As for the ex, she used to work directly for Gail Rachlin, serves as a reporter for the epoch times & currently is in your marching band. If that's not the defintion of a cultivator, then I don't know what is. Any one who is a two time adulterer(as in, two times with two different husbands), pro-abortionist(likewise 2x), etc. hardly qualifies as a "cultivator" of anything but evil. I am going to chalk both Fnhddzs & CovenantD as sockbots. I am working on one of my own. This way, it will be easier to keep up with the updates. I would call you by your name(s); however, I don't who what they are. Oh yea, I revert my edits. Since they are facts. Cj cawley 07:27, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

I did not she is not a practitioner. I say if your claims are true (spies or adultery), that was not taught by Falun Gong (and to the opposite), that is her own mistake. With correcting mistakes, one still can continue practicing Falun Gong. Master gives chances to everybody no matter how bad s/he was. Fnhddzs 17:27, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Like I said last time, give me a fax # & I will send you the court papers. They don't exist on the net. Cj cawley 07:30, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

CovenantD, you are right about the personal attacks, my apologies. As for the court case, it will be similar to the ones currently faced by the Catholic Church for sexual abuse. It may very well crack the FLG wide open. I don't know what the reaction from the Chinese Government is going to be. The FLG have done a good job at keeping negative things out of the papers. Cj cawley 07:47, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Apology accepted. And when your case does hit the papers, as you seem certain it will, then you can include it as relevant and notable. Until then, I'm afraid it just doesn't meet the criteria for inclusion. CovenantD 07:50, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. Court papers are a matter of public record. If that is not the definition of truth, then I don't know what is. As for the case, the FLG will have to settle and they know it. The amount of damage that will probably result will cripple their organization in China & abroad. To put it bluntly, it would not surprise me if the Chinese capitally punished people. As for the value to the press, the FLG would loose face.

Cj cawley 08:17, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Mr. Cawley, while I'm sorry for what happened to you, I'm sort of confused on what point do you want to make, what parts of FLG do you want to address, what significance is this case to FLG? There are articles of trials on Misplaced Pages. But these trials address to various significant issues, such as Evolution vs. Creation, the Separation of Church and State, and so on. So back to the question, what does this case stand for and how is it relevant to FLG? --Yenchin 08:26, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Yenchin, there are other cases where the divorce case ended up in the public venue. There was recently a case where, I believe it was the CEO, of Ernest & Young went to divorce court. As a result of the divorce court, they had to evaluate how much E&Y was worth. Likewise, the Jack Welsh(GE) case ended up in public. He had to disclose what his retirement package was & give some of it back. In my case, I filed for divorce on the grounds of fraud, adulerty and MENTAL CRUELTY AS A RESULT OF ESPIONAGE AGAINST THE CHINESE GOVERNMENT FOR THE FLG. In the case of the ex, she went on a fact finding mission for a U.S. congressman working with an Aussie reporter. A U.S. Dept. of State official helped her burn the documents in the U.S. embassy in Beijing prior to her being arrested by the secret police. The only reason why the Chinese Government believed my story was because they had the arrest record, etc.

According to the ex, she told them "everything". Cj cawley 08:35, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I forgot. At the time, the ex-wife was working directly for Gail Rachlin. She's the head of marketing for the cult. This is one of the few cases that link directly back to someone who is "in a position of authority" for the FLG. The FLG are past master's of the "They is not us" when things go bad and "we is them" when things are perceived as going good.

The Dr. who was arrested for protesting the Bush/Hu visit is another example. She was able to get in with an Epoch times id. Notice how quickly the "newspaper" distanced themselves from her. It would not surprise me if they are shut down after this. Likewise, my ex has a reporter's id. Cj cawley 08:41, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Aha. You are comparing Dr. with your ex. Note that Dr. Wang does not do anything constituting a crime. The reporter who muffled her mouth should be charged. Fnhddzs 17:54, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

CovenantD, Is there one part that you are protesting or the whole thing?

Cj cawley 08:43, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Just a personal observation, in the FLG's search for "enlightenment", there are those who end up destroying everything around them. They become so obsessed that they loose sight & perspective. My case is one good example. There are others in many "religions", etc. You can reference the Jeff Warrens case. The key is obtaining "critical mass". Enough people need to get up & complain before something is done. The alternative? Jim Jones, Heaven's Gate, Waco TX.

"The road to hell is paved with good intentions." Cj cawley 08:48, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Cawley, I disagree with you. I don't know where you have gotten your understanding from, but it is wrong. In Falun Gong one has to be compassionate and balance their relationship with the envoirement and live a normal life. I could give you a bunch of other reasons, but this is not the place for it. Here we are discussing the article, not individual opinions on Falun Gong, so you should stop doing that. Thank You /Omido 08:56, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Another one who does not use their name. As for my understanding,

I got it from the ex.

As for the article, would you include pieces about the Catholic Church's recent sex scandal's? I would. This case falls into a similar vein. It exposes the "dark side" of the cult.

Cj cawley 09:09, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Mr. Cawley, please correct me if I'm wrong. From what I gather your case is still in the court. I'd suggest you to cool down and focus your efforts on the case. Eventually the judge will make a decision and the significance of the case will be revealed in a more formal way. I'd also suggest you to take a look at the list of case law lists in Misplaced Pages and see if there are examples you can use for the article. Or maybe see if you can get the press on a investigative report of your situation. --Yenchin 09:32, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Yenchin, In the interestes of fairness & "case law", most of the FLG cases should also be removed. At least, one case was thrown out of court. What proof did they offer? I gave a website that had the case scheduled. I saw no such information for the pro FLG references. As for your advice, thanks. I am working on it. Cj cawley 12:00, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Friend,

Falun Gong requires practitioners to always consider others before doing things.. and always be compassionate and understanding to others.. not to mention one's own family members. Say I ignore all that and dont treat my family members well.. then, isnt the mistake mine.. The teachings repeatedly point out one must be kind and understanding to all..

"So everything that you do, be it your balancing well your family relationships while you live among ordinary people, balancing well your relationships in society, how you perform at your workplace, how you conduct yourself in society, etc., none of these are things you can just go through the motions on. All of these are part of your cultivation format, and are serious matters."

Dilip rajeev 15:54, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

And what does that have to do with the article? The issue is the notability of the new editor's contributions, not their theological import according to FLG's dogma. Trying to convert new editors to FLG isn't pertinent to this discussion. --Fire Star 火星 16:16, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Fire Star.

Dilip, I am making a simple claim. I am divorcing my ex-wife BECAUSE OF HER FLG ACTIVITIES. The court papers will bear the case out. My son is an even better example. If the Catholic Church has acknowledged the activities of pedofile priests, why can't you acknowledge the existance of a "bad" FLG member? I will leave the rest of them out of it for now. As for the divorce, it is a matter of fact, truth, etc. I can provide you whatever information you require. Just expect it to be ignored by the FLG. They are REALLY GOOD AT THAT.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Cj cawley (talk • contribs)

aha. What do you refer to as falun gong activities? Individual behaviors of a Falun Gong practitioner especially when s/he made mistakes are not FLG activities although I did not say she cannot be a practitioner after correcting mistakes (If your claims are true). If you really divorce just because of her belief, then that's your personal flavor. Fnhddzs 17:37, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Okay, it's time to end this conversation. It's taking up too much room, too much time and too much attention that should be focused on the second paragraph. Back to work, folks! :D CovenantD 16:58, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Agreed, hold everyone to the same standard. I am putting my court case back in & taking their "torture" claims out. If I have to provide a reference, then the FLG does too. I gave you mine where's theirs.

CoventD You are alos held to the 3RR rule. I provided 3rd party information & offered more. You kept putting the pro FLG info back without any supporting citations. Sorry, I put mine back once again. Also, I will report you to the admins.

The article has most references provided. If there is a place you need reference, we will try to fix it. but your (cj.) edits are not conforming to wiki article's policy. 1) not notable to put on encyclopedia. 2) not verifiable (death claims are not verifiable.) 3) contents (your personal story) are not related to the article. We have a lot of personal stories about how Falun Gong are benefical (for example, my stomachache is gone, my car flies to the ditch but no harm happens to either car or me, an old pracitioner could cook for her family again while she was ever paralized before cultivation) that could be put if yours could. Fnhddzs 21:37, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Final draft proposal for the 2nd paragraph

This incorporates information from all (Dilip, Mcconn, Samuel, Kent8888) suggestions, reworded so they flow together. I even consulted a professional editor on the wording and grammar. I decided to include in my draft everything because it all seems relevant to the "international controversy." What do you think? Remember, we have less than 18 hours to reach consensus. CovenantD 04:37, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

• Support except protest --> appeal would be better. Fnhddzs 05:41, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

• Support. No problem with it. I agree that "Concerns were triggered..." needs to either be reworded or removed unless someone can provide evidence for these so-called "Concerns". --Yenchin 05:50, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

• REJECT. personal jealousy is an FLG assumption and ploy to gain support. There is no basis for this claim Cj cawley 06:39, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Then ask for a source. CovenantD 14:10, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

• Reject. I find this version without neutrality. Too much material from pro-FG editors is inserted and the one sentence that intends to introduce the Chinese government’s claims in order to provide a balance in the paragraph has been removed. Please consider including this sentence “The Chinese government claims to have banned the group for its illegal activities.” Also I agree with kent8888 that this sentence—“Concerns were triggered when 10,000 practitioners protested near Zhongnanhai, the compound of China's top leaders, on April 25 of that year”—can be moved to a more appropriate section. Finally, the word “western” should be added to the last sentence. Human rights groups and politicians that have supported the Falun Gong are from the west. --Samuel Luo 06:42, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

That's not true. A ton of support has come from Taiwan. Mcconn 16:36, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

The "one sentence" you refer to was incorporated into the first, "when it banned Falun Gong for its alleged illegal activities." The professional editor I consulted said that "claims to have... for it's alleged" is unclear and redundant from a grammar perspective. I felt the "concerns" sentence was important because it explains WHY the Chinese gov't initiated the crackdown. (It does need some supporting sources though.) I don't know exactly who the human rights groups are or where they are from, which is why I phrased it the way I did. CovenantD 14:10, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

• By combining the first two sentences you limited the weight of the government’s claim and you pushed that further by excluding the link to the government’s statement. I am not saying that I support the government, what I want is balance. You said that your version included input from everybody but you left out Kent888’s “western.” Why the Chinese government was concerned about the FG is a big subject that warrants it own section, that sentence suits that section better. --Samuel Luo 20:17, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

• Reject. It is not balanced. --Yueyuen 07:05, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

• Here is the revised text:

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, when it banned Falun Gong for its illegal activities. Falun Gong claims the ban was a result of President of the People's Republic of China Jiang Zemin’s personal jealousy of the group’s popularity. The suppression of Falun Gong is considered a human rights violation by many western human rights groups and politicians.

• Support This shorter version is balanced and reads better.--Yueyuen 07:05, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
• Support I like the shorter version as well. --Tomananda 07:10, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
• Support This version truely includes everything. --Samuel Luo 07:24, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
• Reject I want the word "alleged" infront of "illegal activities". Omido 10:20, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
• Reject Same reason as Omid. Plus, support has also come from the East. I prefer the first version, while changing "protest" to "appeal". Mcconn 16:44, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
• Reject why we need to talk about persecution reasons in the introduction. Also I disagree not including alleged (the word claims does not work in this context) and disagree that only western considers it is a violation. Does United Nation only represents western countries? If you think "short" is good. I would like an even shorter sentence. "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." Fnhddzs 21:14, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

The Taiwanese government is a strong FG supprter, it gives the FG money and material. And from what we read on the news we all known how corrupt the Taiwanese government is. --Samuel Luo 20:03, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Would everybody be able to support the second version if it included alleged illegal activities? CovenantD 17:14, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes. Omido 18:13, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

No.

Support is not limited to the west. That will have to be removed. Regarding the April 25 appeal, I have no problems with its inclusion and I don't think that I damages the readability. The only reason I could see for not including it is that it may be too complicated to be summarized in the intro paragraph, otherwise it is very relevant to why the persecution began. Mcconn 18:46, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Would everybody be able to support the second version if it included alleged illegal activities and omitted the word western? CovenantD 17:14, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

We are here to present the facts, that means to present what Beijing and FG have claimed and done. No one should manipulate the words to suit his or her own personal view which often if not always lead to edit wars. I believe a simple structure like “A says B about C” works better here. Please take a look of this revised version. --Kent8888 19:55, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

No, "alleged" should not be included. --Samuel Luo 20:03, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

I propose a terse statement, short and sweet and with the virtue of accuracy: "when it banned Falun Gong for its activities" or even "when it outlawed Falun Gong" or "declared Falun Gong to be illegal". We shouldn't get bogged down in the legitimacy of the CCP's actions, one way or the other, just report what they did. --Fire Star 火星 13:36, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

NPOV Version to vote on

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. The Chinese government claims to have banned the group for its illegal activities. The Falun Gong claims the ban was a result of President of the People's Republic of China Jiang Zemin’s personal jealousy of the group’s popularity. The suppression of Falun Gong is considered a human rights violation mainly by western human rights groups and politicians.

“Alleged” is not included because the word “claim” has the same effect. “Western” is needed here because the group mainly receive support from the west. --Kent8888 19:55, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

I support this version. It was proposed some time ago and is about as neutral as we are ever going to get. By having two statements, each one reprsenting the POV of one side or the other, Misplaced Pages itself remains neutral, but also suggests where the controversy lies so that readers will be inspired to read further. Can we take a stray poll on this version? --Tomananda 21:46, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

• Support --Tomananda 21:46, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
• Support --Samuel Luo 21:53, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
• Support. "Claim" in some ways is between "alleged" and nothing. --Yenchin 22:27, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
• Support--Yueyuen 00:43, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose With such a short notice of vote. I did not have time to see this vote. Fnhddzs 14:48, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

The relation between Falun gong and China government should not be put on the introduction. If we really want to report facts, we should also report the facts when China government awarded Falun Gong. Fnhddzs 21:07, 14 June 2006 (UTC) The word claim is in another sentence. "western" is not needed. Are Korea, Hong Kong, Taiwan, Japan western? Fnhddzs 21:18, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

• As far as I know these governments have not supported the FG except Taiwan. --Samuel Luo 21:49, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

No, all these governments are supportive to Falun Gong. Japanese goverment asked China to release a Falun Gong practitioner who is wife of a Japan citizen. Korea is even better. Hong Kong 500,000 citizens protested the 23 article law which was proposed for limiting Falun Gong. Fnhddzs 15:29, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Frankly speaking I'm skeptical on how much support Taiwan gives to FLG. I've been in Taiwan for 5 years after 1999 and I hardly saw strong support from the government or people. Followers spam discussion boards with activities and most of the ones mentioned are saying that they hold a demonstration at some local area and "a lot of people understand the truth". Big deal. Vice President Annette Lu has attended some activites but there isn't much voice from her. President Chen Shui-Bian at best only replied at his website saying that China should let people investigate the organ harvesting. The KMT isn't better, Mayor Ma Ying-Jeou at best only said that China must tolerate FLG. The Pan-Blue and Pan-Green are busy fighting each other. FLG issues have no place in this Taiwanese political fundie fest. FLG members tried to ask some people in the Legislative Yuan to discuss issues, they recieved nothing but empty promises (and FLG still posted news on the website, so much for "Truth"). As for human rights groups, I have yet to see any group strongly voicing about FLG issues. In Taiwan FLG is just another excercise group holding activities to be ignored and with people who spam or troll the discussion boards. --Yenchin 22:15, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

I think the number of practitioners in Taiwan increases a lot after 1999. According to VOA , it increases from several hundreds to an estimated 300,000. According to BBSChinese.com, it increases to 5,160,000 as of Dec, 4, 2000. According to http://www.cna.com.tw/, it increases to 400,000 as of Dec, 24, 2005. I personally know a Professor in Tai Da (Taiwan University?) is a practitioner. Not to mention the others I don't personally know. Zhang, Qingxi; Ming, Juzheng and so on. As to government, what kind of support you think can be called support? Falun Gong does not ask money. "empty" promises or spiritual support are good, I personally think. Fnhddzs 15:57, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

As for the word "alleged". I'm leaning to not including it. FLG followers didn't care to appeal the case through court. Deal with it. --Yenchin 22:19, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

The entire western v eastern is going to sink this if we're not careful.

Yenchin, your perceptions of Taiwanese support cannot be included because it's "original research." Which version are you talking about with the word "alleged?" It's not in the version just above your comment, so I have no idea which one you mean. CovenantD 22:26, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes. I'm aware, I was trying to point out that there isn't much proof on this so-called "Taiwan supports FLG" but I went into rant mode. As for "alleged" I missed the new version when I was posting. --Yenchin 22:30, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

I've reformated slightly to make the versions easier to find. CovenantD 22:35, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

• The word western is used by practitioner-editors in “Falun Gong outside China” section. The first sentence in the summary says “The persecution of Falun Gong practitioners has been regarded by most Western governments as a major international human rights issue.” I did not persisted in including the word “however” in the 3rd paragraph even thought it fits there. I hope practitioner-editors can show some compromise. --Samuel Luo 22:39, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for spotting that. But it is new to introduction and has a different meaning to me. I forgot who use western. I deleted it. As to human rights, when I was in Hong Kong in 2000, my friends told me they know there are no human rights in mainland China. They told me some appalling things on the torture/sexual abuse to Falun Gong practitioners which I had not even heard of from minghui(clearwisdom) website at that time. They said they were ready to rescue me any time if I went back to mainland. Anyway my point is that Hong Kong people know clearly what are human rights. Fnhddzs 16:26, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Yenchin does this mean that you support the last version the one without "alleged"? FG claims to have about three hundred thousand members in Taiwan is that true?--Samuel Luo 22:43, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes I support the one labeled "NPOV Version to vote on".

As for the members I really have no idea since I always consider their numbers as inflated. According to this website: , there are 957 FLG sites in the Taiwan area (including Pescadores, Kinmen, and Matsu). If there is really 300,000 members that means nearly 300 people per site. Which is quite unlikely. I sometimes do some morning excercise and I've never seen any individual group able gather so much people, including FLG. For an index, most FLG protests held in Taipei at best gather around 10,000. If we assume these FLG members are all from Taipei (which is unlikely). Then a 10,000/2,000,000 ratio at best gives us a number of roughly 100,000 members (That is, using 20,000,000 as the total population). --Yenchin 23:24, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

• This means the Falun Gong is lying again. It really does not surprise me though. --Samuel Luo 23:42, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Well if they can pull a 5 million number (1/4 Taiwan population) in one year there's a lot of faith to leap. --Yenchin 23:53, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Samuel, you can't say they are lying just because Yenshin thinks that 300,000 is a incorrect number. Nobody can say exactly how many practitioners there is, because there are no member lists or membership etc etc. One can only estimate. Personally, I would not be surprised if there were atleast 300,000 practitioners in Taiwan. Omido 14:44, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

This discussion is straying, becoming kind of useless and isn't going to do much for the article. That said, however, I feel obliged to give my two cents. I've been living in Taiwan for about a year now. I rarely go out to the park to do exercises and I know that there are lots of others who don't either. The number of practice sites changes and I'm sure that there are lots that aren't accounted for. I think I heard that the number of practitioners was based on book sales (I'm not sure how it's calculated). It's an estimate based on what we know. I don't know how much concrete action has been done by the gov in terms of support (I'll try to find out), but I do know that for almost every major activity that practitioners hold anywhere on the island at least one member of government will attend to support (and there are a lot of activities). This is a whole lot of support if you asked me. Mcconn 17:30, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

And let's not forget to differenciate between Governments and politicians. One is officlal, the other is individual. CovenantD 17:57, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

About the Persecution section

Finally after careful checking, I found what I mainly disagreed are the new edits in the persecution section summary. I suggest putting the new edits in the history article. Since the new edits tried to describe many details before the persecution. Fnhddzs 05:58, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

CawleySockBot01 is responding. You provided not citations for anything. They are removed in accordance with the "accepted rules". I reinserted my edits about the Chinese Publications. Unlike you, I will provide the references; however, the material is currently being used for the court case. Cj cawley 07:10, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Fnhddzs, the Persecution summary that I placed is nothing more than a paraphrase of the one of the paragraphs of the intro to the Persecution article. CovenantD 13:58, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

All right. Leave it for now. I will look at it further. Fnhddzs 21:03, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Health Claims

CawleySockBot02 responding. You need to have a CONTROL GROUP for the survey. Either that, or we go down the Joe Pescipo route of "I'm from Jersey. You from Jersey?" line of reasoning.— Preceding unsigned comment added by CJ cawley (talk • contribs)

You're mistaking a research study with a survey. CovenantD 15:38, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

???

CawleySocjBot03 responding. You need to include the publications provided by the Chinese in response to the shutdown of the cult. I will work with Sam to put up the summaries of the people who died PRIOR TO THE CULT BEING BANNED.— Preceding unsigned comment added by CJ cawley (talk • contribs)

I'm interested to know how you decided you were going to work with "Sam" when you two haven't even exchanged talk page messages. Seems like you're assuming quite a bit. CovenantD 15:47, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Cawley, Falun Gong is not a cult, it is a cultivation practice within the Buddha-School, that is to say, it is the Mighty Buddha-Fa. I would appreciate it if you would stop calling it a cult. Also, what exactly do you mean with people who died? Do you mean the Communist Party's propaganda about 1,400 people dying because they did not take their medicine? Thank You /Omido 16:42, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

CovenantD Attempting to act as a meditor with these nuts is useless. Please pick a side. It will make you life much easier. You have held me to one standard and the FLG CULT to another.

Omido This is a free country & a free net. You(plural) really have a hard time when people disagree with you. It's the same basic argument that I had with the ex-wife. She failed to see where her freedom ended and others began.

IT'S A CULT....IT'S A CULT.....IT'S A CULT..... Cj cawley 01:11, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

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

CovenantD They cited a 3rd party website where the cases have not been accepted by the court. I gave you the court website where it is scheduled. I don't mind being fair, just hold everyone to the same standard. Clearly, you are not. Having personal experience with these nuts, their perception of reality is lacking.

A divorce case is not a trial of Falun Gong. It is non-notable. This has been explained to you by many people. The survey you keep removing is cited and relevant. It is not for us to judge the survey, but merely present the survey and the source and let the reader decide. Stop vandalizing the page. CovenantD 01:42, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

2nd paragraph of intro is updated

With no one objecting and the passing of deadline, I updated this paragraph. You can still change it if you don't like it, just don't beat me up or post nasty messages on my talk page. :-) --Kent8888 06:06, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm moving the 1st paragraph discussion to the bottom to make it easier to find and archiving old stuff. CovenantD 06:27, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

1st paragraph of intro

My Suggestion

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. Dilip rajeev 19:21, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

The following version has no POV: Falun Gong (Traditional Chinese: 法輪功; Simplified Chinese: 法轮功; Pinyin: Fǎlún Gōng; Gwoyeu Romatzyh: Faaluen Gong; 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. Falun Gong refers to five sets of meditation exercises (four standing, and one sitting meditation).) Falun Dafa refers to a set of religious dogma which teaches that Li is the one who atones the sins of all sentient beings and provides salvation to humankind.--Samuel Luo 19:35, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Okay, looking at the differences - Samuel, what do you consider POV about the first version? What is said that is opinion?

Dilip, would you disagree with the last sentence of Samuel's version?

- CovenantD 19:47, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

The name Falun Dafa doenst refer to the teachings, It is the name of the cultivation system.Dilip rajeev 20:35, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Dilip: Li says his Dafa (literally translated great law) is judging all people during this period of Fa-rectification. To say that Dafa is "the name of the cultivation system" conceals the fundamental teaching of the Dafa, which is about moral judgment and salvation. If you want, suggest alternative wording for that last sentence, but the wording must not obscure the fundmental teaching of Li Hongzhi, which is that his Dafa is judging people and he (and his Dafa) are the only way to obtain salvation.

Also, just to make this point further, here are two quotes from what Li says about the Dafa:

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

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

Given these quotes, and many others I can produce from Li himself, it would not be honest to report that Dafa is the name of a cultivation system. --Tomananda 21:13, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

It is important that this paragraph distinguish between Falun Gong and Falun Dafa. The general public doesn't know that the exercises (Falun Gong) are not as important as Li's teachings on salvation (which he alone provides) and morality, which is his "Dafa" or "great law." Li does say he atones for eveyone's sins and is the only one offering salvation to all sentient beings at this time. That is the fundamental message of the Falun Gong. How exactly to word that can be debated, but some version of Samuel's last sentence is essential.--Tomananda 20:19, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

This sentence is a POV in my opinion. "The system has been growing in popularity world-over with the teachings translated to over 40 languages and practitioners present in over 80 countries." --Samuel Luo 20:55, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

It's not only POV, it is a piece of self-promotion that does not belong in an introductory statement. --Tomananda 22:05, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Aha! I get it. It's the bit about the growing popularity world-over, isn't it? How about if that were taken out and it read, "The teachings have been translated into over 40 languages...." I think it is relevant to show the extent of it's reach, in a NPOV and factual way. Citing numbers is the best way to do that, assuming we can find numbers that we agree on. CovenantD 22:15, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Fine with me.--Tomananda 00:56, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Central to Falun Gong?

Not just the five sets of exercies. The most important (I think) is the teachings. Actually, it is said in the Zhuan Falun Talk One

In intellectual circles there’s always been the question of whether matter is primary or mind is primary. They’ve been talking about this and debating it for a long time. I’m going to tell you, in reality, matter and mind are one and the same.

Fnhddzs 02:10, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

In the book Zhuan Falun, both the terms "Falun Gong" and "Falun Dafa" are used. I could find quotes later.

I am surprised to see this article splits Falun Gong and Falun Dafa. It is not true. Falun Gong is a mind and body double cultivation system. Falun Gong is also called Falun Dafa. In Answers to Commonly Asked Questions on the www.falundafa.org website,

Q: What is Falun Dafa, or Falun Gong? A: Falun Dafa, also known as Falun Gong, is an ancient practice for mind and body, originating in pre-historic China. The practice involves some slow, gentle movements and a meditation. It is easy to learn, enjoyable to practice, and free of charge. A central component of Falun Gong practice is studying the universal principles of truthfulness, benevolence, and tolerance.

Also in falundafa.org website , it is also said "Falun Gong (also called Falun Dafa) is an ancient form of qigong, the practice of refining the body and mind through special exercises and meditation. " Fnhddzs 01:59, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Falun Dafa and Falun Gong are used interchangably amongst practitioners. A believe that the name "Falun Gong" was adopted to fit in with or be similar to the names of other qigongs, which all ended with the word "gong" (referring to exercises). "Gong" here does literally refer only to the exercises, which is one reason why most practitioners use "Falun Dafa" more often, but although that's the literal meaning it has basically taken on the same meaning as "Falun Dafa" in use. Mcconn 16:55, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

I think this sentence (“religious dogma which teaches that Li is the one who atones the sins of all sentient beings and provides salvation to humankind”) is included in the introduction because it is simply put and is very grand. However, as grand as the statements may be, they’re not central enough to be included in the introductory paragraph. How does a person practice Falun Dafa? He does the exercises, studies Mr. Li’s teachings (with Zhuan Falun as the core), and diligently tries to improve his moral character and let go attachments by applying the teachings. This is how you practice Falun Dafa and this is what Mr. Li’s teachings are about. That sentence should talk about what Falun Dafa is, not about grand statements made by Mr. Li. In addition, whether Falun Gong is a religion is a matter of opinion and dispute, but no one will deny that it’s spiritual. So “spiritual” is a better term than “religious”. Also whether it is “dogma” is also a matter of opinion and dispute, but they are clearly “teachings”. So “teachings” is better than “dogma”. Here is my suggestion:

Falun Gong (Traditional Chinese: 法輪功; Simplified Chinese: 法轮功; Pinyin: Fǎlún Gōng; Gwoyeu Romatzyh: Faaluen Gong; literally "Practice of the Wheel of Law"), 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 five sets of meditation exercises (four standing, and one sitting meditation) and a set of spiritual teachings which lay emphasis on moral improvement according to the principles of Truth, Compassion and Forbearance. Falun Gong is practiced in approximately 80 countries and the teachings have been translated into over 40 languages. Mcconn 18:13, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Agree with the above suggested by Mcconn. Hi, other editors, please express your opinions on the first paragraph. Thanks. Fnhddzs 02:23, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

AgreeDilip rajeev 18:02, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Agree Omido 14:47, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Shall we set another deadline? Say, 5 p.m. (UTC) on Sunday? I believe that gives us about 72 hours. CovenantD 16:44, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

talk page protected?

what happened with talk page? Who are established users? I could not type in sections. Fnhddzs 06:38, 15 June 2006 (UTC) All right. seems I can type in this new section. But I could not respond to old sections. I disagree the new vote on the second paragraph. The deadline was for the old vote. Therefore I have made changes. Fnhddzs 06:41, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

If you're going to add citations, please follow the new format that is being used - it adds to proper line to the References section at the bottom. I'll correct the two new ones you've added here, but you're responsible for the ones in the Criticism and controversies article. CovenantD 06:49, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

No, the text (which we all consensed to) refers to the Falun Gong website so I've restored the reference that you deleted. I'm really disappointed that you've aleady made changes to the only paragraph that everybody agreed on. CovenantD 06:53, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

What do you mean by everybody? Fnhddzs 14:47, 15 June 2006 (UTC)Only Tomananda, Samuel Luo, Yenchin and Yueyuen. I did not even know about the new vote. Fnhddzs 14:49, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

CovenantD, ok, maybe I did not understand your question. Which reference you mean? When I saw it, it was in a bad shape. It said something like "Cite error 4; Invalid call; no input specified". So I added two links. Now I see you recovered the clearwisdom one. I am ok with that. Please do not misunderstand me. Thanks. Fnhddzs 14:54, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Okay, that's a misunderstanding then. You caught it at a moment when I was formatting the references. This new citation style is a bit more difficult to master :-) Nevermind. CovenantD 15:02, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

good job on the new reference style. I need to pick it up. Fnhddzs 15:19, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

This should help - Misplaced Pages:Footnotes CovenantD 15:25, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Fnhddzs you are obviously watching these pages. Why didn't you voice your objection earlier? --Samuel Luo 07:06, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

• I am sorry the vote was very late. I was busy last evening. I did not notice it until I logged in midnight. Fnhddzs 15:00, 15 June 2006 (UTC) Somebody moved my writings (should not discuss the relation with China in introduction) in earlier time after the vote. But I wrote that earlier. When I found the vote, it was posted to the article. I did not respond immediately since I noticed Kent8888 said we CAN revise it. Fnhddzs 15:05, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

I knew someone will reject it. But seriously, is it so intolerable? --Kent8888 07:33, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Please leave some of the FLG claims in. I can use them AGAINST THEM in the court case. We are going to ask the wife to levitate, see through walls, etc. When my kid was little, he asked me how reindeer's fly. Being the smart kid that he is, I explained to him that the reindeer "farts" sooo much that he literally lifts off like a rocket. This only worked until he was about 5. I used the same explanation when his Mom told him that she could levitate, but only in the bathroom.

As for citations, I am working on getting some from China. I contacted the People's Daily for some information.

Where are the guidelines for "deadlines"? I have never heard of it. Cawleybot100 responding Cj cawley 10:57, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

FLG never claims every practitioner can fly or see through walls. Supernormal abilities are mostly locked and NOT pursued. Fnhddzs 15:11, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

I've decided that it's a waste of my time to respond to bots. Let me know when a real person shows up and maybe I'll answer his or her questions. CovenantD 15:02, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

How did this person get let into our semi-protected talk page? I thought only established editors can edit this page. Cawley seems to be providing only vandalism and distractions. Mcconn 18:28, 15 June 2006 (UTC)