Talk:Falun Gong/Archive 17

Archive 10

←

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

Archive 18

Archive 19

Archive 20

Proposed Second Paragraph on Fa-rectification and Salvation by the Dafa

Using some of Asdfg's suggested language, and relying exlusively on quotes from Li himself, I am proposing the following to appear as the second paragraph in the introduction:

Li claims to provide salvation for mankind and his Dafa (great law) is judging all beings in a process called Fa-rectification. In the Fa-rectification process, all beings will be judged based on their moral quality and the attitude they have towards the Fa-rectification. Li states: “Once the saved ones have attained the Fa and left, the dregs of humanity and the degenerate world that are left behind will be weeded out.” In more recent speeches, Li has stressed that “the old forces are to be weeded out during Fa-rectification, the vile party (the CCP) and the evil specters will likewise be weeded out for sure and all who have a hand in what they do.”

I'm asking all the editors to comment on this new paragraph and make suggestions for changes.--Tomananda 00:01, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

This is a new paragraph right?. Ok, give me a day or so and ill answer to your proposal.--Andres18 00:24, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Quick Question: Where does the above paragraph fit into the one in "Balancing the Intro" (last proposal by Asdfg)?? Jsw663 17:53, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, im not really sure because i think the above paragraph is an idea that Tomananda is proposing, and its an additional paragraph. When we discuss and modify it properly, we'll see if it fits. Asdfg came up with some modifications for the paragraph that Tomananda suggested and all the practitioners editors have agreed to it and added a few things. Im waiting for him to post it here.--Andres18 00:14, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Okay. Note that next time Andres, you can post or modify anything I propose without notifying me. I will make some very short points at the end to explain something:

Li Hongzhi has stated that by teaching Falun Dafa he is offering universal salvation to all sentient beings. Li Hongzhi has also stated that he initiated a process called Fa-rectification, which refers to the salvation, renewal, rectification and completion of the disintegrating old cosmos. In this process, all beings' attitudes toward Fa-rectification determines their position in the new cosmos, whether that is salvation or destruction; their attitudes toward the teaching of Truthfulness-Compassion-Forbearance is said to decide their future. The Fa-rectification process is said to be nearing completion. Of this, Li Hongzhi himself says: "Why did Fa-rectification have to be done? To save the beings in the cosmos - save all the beings in the cosmos, normalize bad beings and turn them into good ones, have sinful beings be rid of their sins, and have those warped beings reconstructed into good ones again. Dafa brings humankind these wonderful things, and it brings the beings in the cosmos these wonderful things. But during this persecution many beings have indeed lost their chances to be saved and have been denied salvation."

My understanding quickly:

• Fa-rectification is that the old cosmos has reached the final stage, of destruction. It would disintegrate without a trace left, and all beings would perish. The new comos would become. Li Hongzhi has, at this final moment, come to save all beings in this cosmos so they can enter the new comos and not perish.
• Li Hongzhi has stated continually that the fundamental basis for his coming is mercy
• Those who oppose Dafa have destroyed themselves, ignorantly or knowingly, because they are opposing this greatest compassion and mercy that has ever existed; they have opposed their own futures
• Li Hongzhi is not arbitrarily selecting those who are "good enough" or "worthy", to be saved. Continually, he has stated that sentient beings decide for themselves how they want to be positioned, I do not think Li Hongzhi himself has too much to do with that

I read Li Hongzhi's books a lot. As I see it, what I said just then is all based on the things in the books. That in my understanding is the basic situation of Fa-rectification. Tomananda, your version does not reflect that. It even introduces new concepts which are a little tangential to the essential issue, such as the old forces and the evil specters. Those things don't need to appear in the introduction as ways to explain Fa-rectification. Plus, it does not address what Fa-rectification is , just that it is some kind of judgement. If there is more I need to say, I can. I feel that I have explained it adequately. Tomananda, perhaps your hatred towards Falun Dafa clouds your editing at times. If there are complaints about the length of this paragraph there are a few things that can be shortened without compromising the key ideas. --Asdfg12345 14:40, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Asdfg: I've already proposed a paragraph which is shorter than what you have written above and more to the point. My paragraph relies totally on direct or indirect quotes from Li (so we know it it accurate) whereas your bullet items sound more like a POV statement coming from someone who wants to sugar-coat the essential teaching on Fa-rectification. BTW, Li himself has talked about a being who is worthy of salvation by the Great Law of the cosmos" so that's why I used the word "worthy" in my paraghraph. Here's the complete Li quote:

Why is it that a being needs to be saved by Dafa and me personally? Or to put it plainly [think about it] what kind of being is worthy of salvation by the Great Law of the cosmos? For a being who is saved, could it just be about personal Consumation? So what kind of being deserves to be a Disciple of Dafa? Would you say those people who hide in their homes and “study the Fa” do? Or those who only want to gain from Dafa but don’t want to give to Dafa? Furthermore, what about those who, while Dafa disciples are being persecuted, don’t want to speak up for Dafa yet still “read the book” at home and try t get things from Dafa—what kind of people are they? You be the judge. from: “My Version of a ‘Stick Wake-up’” (October 11, 2004) http://faluncanada.net/library/english/jw/jw041011_e.html

I'm sorry, Asdfg, but I really think my version is much more accurate and meaninful. We already entertained the idea of having a separate paragraph or even two in the introduction on salvation and Fa-rectification, so I ask that you honor my work as a editor and try to build on it, rather than just jotting down in your own words what your understandings are. Thanks. --Tomananda 09:31, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Please lets not be too quick to judge, since the introduction is neutral, the final version will contain ideas from both Falun Dafa editors and critic editors, so even though you may consider your version is more meaningful, we absolutely cannot neglect Asdfg12345 version, because this version he posted was agreed by all of the practitioner editors working on this process. Being so, this is not his personal point of view on Fa rectification, but it is what the Falun Dafa editors have proposed. Your paragraph may rely directly on personal quotes made by Li Hongzhi, but that doesnt mean you are reflecting his teachings accurately. If we want to report the teachings neutraly, we should also consider the Falun Dafa editors proposition as useful and use it to work on something neutral. If we have come up with this paragraph basing ourselves on quotes from Mr. Li while not using them directly as you have, it is still absolutely valid, and we can provide you with all the appropriate quotes in case you have any doubts about it. Also, since you have asked me before to do this, then i would like to ask you to do it also, please assume good faith, assume the editors working on this proyect are not trying to damage it but to contribute to it, nobody is sugar coating the teachings of Mr. Li Hongzhi, this is our reflection of Mr Li Hongzhi's teachings regarding Fa rectification, and it is what practitioners believe about the Fa rectification. If you dont take our ideas into consideration, then we might just end up reporting one side of the coin.

For example:

The quote you posted above is about Mr. Li calling the Falun Dafa practitioners to spread the Fa and clarify the truth, to let everyone know that we are good people and that we are not hurting anyone. If you only care about your personal cultivation and your own goal of reaching consummation and you do not care about claifying to anyone that what you are doing is something truly good, that you are making an effort to be a better person every day, that you have achieved excelent health conditions and benefits due to cultivation, and that it could benefit all of society if we were all good people who follow principles like Truthfulness-Benevolence-Forbearance, then you are being a selfish person, because there are many more people who could also practice Falun Dafa and be benefited just like you. You are fearful of what people may think about you and you are not defending this Dafa that is so good and that has given you so many good things. It is like someone who gives you so many great things and the moment people start talking bad about him, you just stay quiet for fear of what they might say instead of going, talking to them and telling them this person is very good. To be worthy of salvation is simply to be a good person, when you are a good person, wether you practice falun dafa or not, you are already in tune with the characteristic of the universe and you are already worthy of salvation, but you cannot judge yourself with the decayed moral standard of nowadays. The dregs of humanity and the evil and bad people are the ones who hurt others, murder, steal, kill, etc and worse than anything, torture Falun Dafa practitioners, because they are those who torture people who are just trying to be good. What i just said is according to what practicing Falun Dafa has brought for me, all the benefits it has given me and how good it has been for me to practice it. It is my personal experience in this practice and couldnt be expressed more accurately by anyone else who isnt me.

What i just wrote above is my understanding about the quote from Mr. Li that you just posted, and i think if you ask any practitioner about it, he might say something similar to it, but in his own words and understanding. My purpose for posting my understanding on that quote is to have you understand this: im sure your understanding of a quote as a critic is completely different from mine as a practitioner, as you may have noticed while reading my understanding, it is so different that it cannot be described by words. Who is then reporting accurately what Mr. Li Hongzhi has said on this quote you posted?. Who is reporting things more meaningfully and to the point?. Would you say it is something based on your understanding or mine above?. This is why neutrality is needed, we are both looking at the same quote but we both have completely different understandings, they must both be reflected without neglecting the other. Asdfg12345 paragraph will also be included further down so we can all discuss about it.--Andres18 20:15, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Oh, may be worth noting, I think every sentence there is basically a direct paraphrase of what Li Hongzhi has said. I can find the relevant words pretty quickly if necessary, so a small digit appears at the top of each sentence to show the source. I am not sure if I need to do that in any case. The quote needs to be sourced, that is from Washington 2003. Can add in the correct referencing format etc. when we finalise things, just now it is to come up with something.--Asdfg12345 14:44, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Is it just me, or did anyone else find Asdfg's quote "Note that next time Andres, you can post or modify anything I propose without notifying me." a little disturbing? Jsw663 17:20, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

hah, don't worry about it. it's just that we might communicate in email and propose different ideas and sentences, and I'm just telling him I don't have any personal feelings about it if I can't get to a computer and he posts the sentence or idea instead of me. Nothing major!--Asdfg12345 01:31, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Alright, ill do as you say when necessary. Anyways, does anyone have any opinions on this paragraph?--Andres18 03:19, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Im also moving down here the proposals we made so editors will notice them and tell us their opinion.--Andres18 03:35, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Fa-rectification is that about the old cosmos disentegrating and Li Hongzhi rectifying it to save all beings and have them enter the new cosmos. The things about weeding out come about after this, since those are things that take place during the process of the Fa-rectification, for those who can longer be saved. Tomananda, the quote you put above is directed toward the situation of Dafa disciples and about who is worthy of being a Dafa disciple; I would say it is referring to consummation and salvation for Dafa disciples - not about the general situation for those who will be saved but who do not practice cultivation. The word "salvation" has been used in different senses. Li Hongzhi has also stated that if you read the Fa with pursuit or attachments you will never understand it and you will get nothing from it. You have a deep hatred towards Falun Dafa. What you quoted is not really related to the issue we are trying to address, which is "What is Fa-rectification" - we are trying to find a definition of Fa-rectification. See above post for what I have written on the matter and what Li Hongzhi has said. It will be difficult to discuss the issues meaningfully if you do not respond to the things I wrote based on the words of Li Hongzhi in their proper context. In the end, you can look through the works of Li Hongzhi, and you will find that when the question of "What is Fa-rectification" is addressed, it is basically what I wrote above - salvation, renewal, RECTIFICATION of the old cosmos, etc., PLUS that people are going to be weeded out because of what they have done against this process - so it is a bit like we are standing in broad daylight and you telling me that there is no sun in the sky. Maybe your hatred blinds you. If we can just actually describe these things in an objective way based on what Li Hongzhi has said, it will be fine. I think one of the issues is that the things that Li Hongzhi says actually are good things, he is talking about salvation of all sentient beings, Zhen-Shan-Ren, making everything wonderful, and so on. You do not want to acknowledge that, and you only want to report the things he has said about those who disrupt that process - who have destroyed themselves and who now face horror. Actually, in the end, the truth will be reported. You told me in the last email you sent to me that it is fine for me to believe these things, but that I have no right to prevent people from criticising it. I told you that I had no such intention. It is the same for you. You have all the right to think whatever you like about Dafa, but you do not have any right to misrepresent and obscure the teachings!--Asdfg12345 12:39, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

• Li Hongzhi has stated that by teaching Falun Dafa he is offering universal salvation to all sentient beings.

i not agree in this word who sugest them are certainly make the founder look like a liar, i ask back where the animal kingdoom? where the shark and wild animal and beast? did they suddenly come out jungle and listen to the founder voluntery? and after the word back again to the jungle voluntery? where the proove?. where the angry lion and hungry beast? where the wild animal partisipan and practise voluntery in the falungong freely?. but it's falungong member write it'self isn't.Daimond 10:35, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Proposals for 1st and 2nd paragraphs of the Lead Section

Im posting the edit proposals that have been made so far so that we can work more organizedly:

Proposal for the 1st paragraph:

Falun Gong, (Traditional Chinese: 法輪功; Simplified Chinese: 法轮功; pinyin: Fǎlún Gōng; 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 (whose surname is Li) to the public in 1992. Falun Gong, also known as Falun Dafa, refers to five sets of meditation exercises, and spiritual teachings based on Truthfulness-Compassion-Forbearance. Mr. Li says that what he calls the cosmic characteristic of the universe, the principles of Truthfulness-Benevolence-Forbearance, is the criteria for judging all sentient beings. He claims that the Falun Dafa cultivation system is one of the means to provide salvation for mankind. "

Tell us if you agree or not to this paragraph in here or if you would like to modify anything.--Andres18 18:18, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

---

NOTE: I and other editors proposed a separate paragraph on this, which I've recopied here for us to work on. --Tomananda 09:17, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Proposals for the 2nd paragraph

Proposal from the critics editors

Li claims to provide salvation for mankind and his Dafa (great law) is judging all beings in a process called Fa-rectification. In the Fa-rectification process, all beings will be judged based on their moral quality and the attitude they have towards the Fa-rectification. Li states: “Once the saved ones have attained the Fa and left, the dregs of humanity and the degenerate world that are left behind will be weeded out.” In more recent speeches, Li has stressed that “the old forces are to be weeded out during Fa-rectification, the vile party (the CCP) and the evil specters will likewise be weeded out for sure and all who have a hand in what they do.”

Proposal from Falun Dafa editors

Li Hongzhi has stated that by teaching Falun Dafa he is offering universal salvation to all sentient beings. Li Hongzhi has also stated that he initiated a process called Fa-rectification, which refers to the salvation, renewal, rectification and completion of the disintegrating old cosmos. In this process, all beings' attitudes toward Fa-rectification determines their position in the new cosmos, whether that is salvation or destruction; their attitudes toward the teaching of Truthfulness-Compassion-Forbearance is said to decide their future. The Fa-rectification process is said to be nearing completion. Of this, Li Hongzhi himself says: "Why did Fa-rectification have to be done? To save the beings in the cosmos - save all the beings in the cosmos, normalize bad beings and turn them into good ones, have sinful beings be rid of their sins, and have those warped beings reconstructed into good ones again. Dafa brings humankind these wonderful things, and it brings the beings in the cosmos these wonderful things. But during this persecution many beings have indeed lost their chances to be saved and have been denied salvation."

Ill be comparing both paragraphs in order to propose modifications so we can reach consensus. I'll answer in a day or so. If you want references from direct quotes made by Mr. Li Hongzhi, give us a little time and we will find all of them.--Andres18 20:23, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Andres: Your proposed paragraph is longer and, with the exception of the reference to "Truthfulness-Compassion-Forbearance," actually says less. The first sentence of the so-called critics paragraph is really more accurate, because it reports that Li claims to provide salvation personally as he himself has stated. Your version makes it sound like beings are being saved by the teachings, rather than Li himself. Also, your version leaves out the idea that the Dafa is judging all beings. By not stating that explicitly, your language obscures the key point that Fa-rectification is about judgment. One more problem in your version: your reference that "all beings' attitudes toward Fa-rectification determines their position in the new cosmos" is only part of the story.

Yes, Li has clearly stated that those who do not think the Dafa is good "will be the first weeded out" in the Fa-rectification, but he has also explicitly revealed other categories of beings who will be weeded out. In the so-called critics paragraph, that fact is made clear by using two quotes from Li which are approximately 5 years apart. When he began teaching about Fa-rectification (before the ban in 1999) he only talked about general moral factors of beings who have "degenerated" from their higher selves (like homosexuals.) Not until years later did Li directly link salvation with the requirment that all beings must agree that the CCP and all those who support the CCP represent absolute evil and that the Fa-recfitication itself is a great cosmic battle between the forces of absolute evil (the CCP) and the forces of good (Li and his Dafa). Thus the idea of Fa-rectification has evolved over time (because of historical events in China) and your version does not reflect that.

Your paragraph fails to make the crucial link between between Fa-rectification in general and what Li demands of his "Fa-rectification Dafa disciples" at this time, which is to direct all their energies and "righteous thoughts" toward the destruction of the "evil and wicked" Chinese Communist Party. It's ironic that it takes a non-practitioner like me to point out the most critical aspect of Li's current teaching by showing how Li unequivocally associates the destruction of the CCP with Fa-rectification and the salvation of all sentient beings. I am delighted that after many, many months we are finally talking seriously about these core teachings, but I feel that more must be reported to give a complete and accurate picture. Thanks for your anticipated willingness to work together to remedy these deficiences in the Introduction section --Tomananda 20:24, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

I see what you mean Tomananda, but there are some misunderstandings in your paragraph which i would like to clear up for you. Let me tell you, for example:

We truly believe that the teachings, this law, this Dafa are the ones who will bring salvation to ourselves. Mr. Li is bringing us these teachings, so it is a logical deduction that he is providing salvation throughout these teachings. There is just one very point that is missing, when you want to reflect that Mr. Li offers salvation by "himself personally" it looks as if he was actually going to save all Falun Dafa practitioners, so if he were to save us all, where is the issue of cultivation? why practice and cultivate if he is going to save us all?. As practitioners, we play the most important role in the path to our own salvation. Mr. Li does plant mecanisms, cleans the body of his students and does many wonderful things for them, but if your state of mind is not appropriate, then he cannot do anything for you. That is because of this Dafa, Truthfulness-Benevolence-Forbearance, called the characteristic of the universe, if you yourself do not change, it restricts you, so this is why the most important thing, that which provides salvation for practitioners, is this Dafa, these principles of higher levels, so if you follow them correctly and assimilate to Truthfulness-Benevolence-Forbearance, then you will be saved. If you do not follow these principles in your cultivation, you will be deviating from this characteristic, and you cannot reach consummation or be saved because you do not meet the standard for it.

This is the reason why we cannot emphasize that Li is providing salvation personally and ignore the most important part which are the teachings, they are the most fundamental part of Falun Dafa and they are the ones who will bring salvation to us.

Another point is:

"The Dafa judges all sentient beings" refers to this characteristic of the universe, Truthfulness-Benevolence-Forbearance. Someone who assimilates to these principles is a good person, someone who doesn’t, is simply not a good person. The issue of whether you have more de (virtue) or more ye (karma) is the way the characteristic of the universe judges all sentient beings. If you have a lot of virtue, you are a good person, if you have a lot of karma, you are a bad person, it’s that simple. If you want to cultivate, you must meet the standard required by this characteristic in order to elevate yourself, that’s what the judgment is about. The Fa rectification process is not a judgment process, it is simply a process of rectifying what is considered evil, or what has been considered as evil because it opposes this Dafa. The Fa rectification process is not a judgment process, its just a process of rectifying, only bad people will be punished, if you are a good person, whether you practice Falun Dafa or not, then what awaits you is a great future. Mr. Li talks about one of the principles of this universe which is formation-stasis-degeneration. We are said to be at the last stage, the one of degeneration, so the Fa rectification is happening to prevent this degeneration and renew all things into a new cosmos which will not contain such principle and be much better than the present one.

Practitioners lined up with the CCP obviously cannot be considered true practitioners unless the quit the CCP and state it publicly. Think about it, how can you be a practitioner and at the same time publicly support an organization that has tortured and killed so many of your fellow practitioners? Not only that, but as a practitioner, where is your heart of compassion? How can you support people who torture and kill other people who are just trying to be good? Then you should show the world that you as a practitioner are not afraid of these bad people and that you, as a person, have some dignity and that you do not support those who torture good people.

Falun Dafa has no enemies, and it is not against the CCP, as you know, on July of 1996, the same month when the persecution began, some days later Mr. Li wrote a declaration addressing the persecution that was taking place, he said:

"..Falun Gong is simply a popular Qigong activity, it does not respond to any organization in particular, and even less to a political motive... We have never been involved in anti-government activities, we are not against the government now and we will not be against it in the future. They may mistreat us, but we do not mistreat anybody or treat anyone as our enemies."

The "Evil" forces is not the CCP, its those who are controlling the people of the CCP, as Mr. Li has said in Zhuan Falun, the body and the mind of a human being are like a hat and a suit, they become in anyone who wears them. What Mr. Li refers to as the "Evil" Forces are simply higher beings of the old cosmos that have degenerated and are causing interference against this Fa Rectification process. Of course, the CCP is letting itself being led by these forces, so in consequence they are indeed evil and wicked. In fact, they were all predestined to be there. Anyone who tortures and kills people who just want to be good and follow the principles of Truthfulness-Benevolence-Forbearance is truly evil, that is undeniable.

There are several aspects that the critics paragraph, and I call it critics paragraph because it was made by the critics, reflects which do not appropriately define the Fa rectification and other important concepts of Falun Dafa teachings, in fact, it generates many misunderstandings because not everyone has a background knowledge about what is Falun Dafa. If we are going to define something, I suggest we be as clear as possible. The reason why conferences and other documents should not be read before Falun Gong or Zhuan Falun is because there are many concepts and definitions that could confuse the reader if he does not know about them. If you start an advanced math class without knowing how to add numbers or multiply them, you won’t understand anything.

Mr. Li has said that our duty as Falun Dafa practitioners in the Fa rectification period is to do the "three things" well. These are: Cultivating and practicing, clarifying the truth, and sending righteous thoughts. As you may know, the first time Mr. Li introduced the sending of righteous thoughts, he did not point out that they should be directed at the CCP in any way. The purpose of sending the righteous thoughts is not to "eliminate" the CCP but the evil beings and negative elements trying to interfere with the Fa rectification. This includes anywhere and any place, they are now being concentrated in eliminating the negative elements and evil beings who control human beings into persecuting Falun Dafa practitioners in mainland China, but that’s it, they are not meant to hurt any human being, in fact, they are meant to help them and to stop those negative elements which control them and lead them into doing this terrible things. I can give you the link to the conference where Mr. Li first introduced the sending of righteous thoughts in case you want to read it yourself.

I’m also thankful for your willingness in working on this proyect Tomananda. If the length of our paragraph worries you, we can shorten it up, or change some things, but we cannot reflect these misunderstandings of your paragraph in the final paragraph, the teachings should be reported properly. I also would like to make one point very clear, I’ve heard the critics say many times that we are "hiding" or "obscuring" the teachings of Falun Dafa. If I had to hide or obscure any of my understandings on the Falun Dafa teachings, I wouldn’t practice Falun Dafa, and "hiding" them is already not following "Truthfulness" so that is against our own philosophy as practitioners. So I don’t want to hear again anyone saying that we are obscuring or hiding our teachings, as practitioner editors we are explaining our views and clearing up misunderstandings in order to do a good job reporting the teachings of Falun Dafa. There are many criticisms being made against Falun Dafa because people have greatly misunderstood some of the teachings, I believe that one of our duties as Falun Dafa editors is to clear up these misunderstandings so that all of us editors can work together in order to provide a truly accurate definition of these terms. I'll come up with something in the following days, its been very busy lately so i havent been able to work in here too often.--Andres18 05:34, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Everything's subject to interpretation, Andres18. I'm on this project to ensure a bias will not exist. You can talk about "truly accurate definitions" of FG that you claim are misrepresented by critics, then you seek to distort any alternative opinion, including amending non-FG views about FG. To view FG practitioners as the guardians and only possible 'true' interpretants of its teachings reminds one of what happened to even major religions like Christianity. Many people think they have the "true" interpretation yet unless Li Hongzhi's quotes are directly quoted and in sufficient context, they probably aren't exactly the same. This is why it is ridiculous when you claim that Tomananda, by quoting Li Hongzhi before directly, was somehow 'misrepresenting' Li's views. We should all work to a compromise by leaving out the emotion talk (e.g. "I believe that one of our duties as F DF editors...") that is clearly playing on people's or ex-believers' sympathies, tantamount to propaganda really, and present the hard, cold evidence as it is, and let the reader decide. May I remind you that we are supposed to be Wikipedian editors first and foremost - encyclopedic ones - not opinionated ones defending any cause, be it political, spiritual, religious, etc. Some of your contributions have been valuable but since Asdfg's "scolding" you seem to have lost your capacity for moderate / relatively more independent opinion and instead are 'falling in line' with the more hardcore pro-FG factions on this board.

To sum up my paragraph: Less empty talk, more concrete action. I read the many FG teachings on this board with interest, but this is to remind you to stick to editing the article rather than veering off once again into empty emotion appeal. Jsw663 06:40, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Well then, ill try to come up with something neutral. In the mean time, do you have any suggestions?.--Andres18 21:48, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

FIRSTLY I WOULD LIKE TO APOLOGISE FOR THE LENGTH OF THIS POST. I felt it was necessary to make some things clear so we can move forward productively.

Here is what I proposed again, I now number the sentences and provide the direct citations. I have explained above how this actually reflects what Fa-rectification is, and no comments have been made to dispute those things. Tomananda's interpretation of Li Hongzhi making things up to keep pace with the political situation in China has no relevance. Andres also patiently explained a lot of things. One problem was the length. Can I please have a clear and reasonable explanation as to why one or two more lines is a problem? Is it that the reader will get bored? Please make sure that it is not to prevent things being explained properly. I've said some things can be shortened, and they can, but I honestly don't know how a couple more lines makes any real difference.

1 Li Hongzhi has stated that by teaching Falun Dafa he is offering universal salvation to all sentient beings. 2 Li Hongzhi has also stated that he initiated a process called Fa-rectification, which refers to the salvation, renewal, rectification and completion of the disintegrating old cosmos. 3 In this process, all beings' attitudes toward Fa-rectification determines their position in the new cosmos, whether that is salvation or destruction; their attitudes toward the teaching of Truthfulness-Compassion-Forbearance is said to decide their future. The Fa-rectification process is said to be nearing completion. Of this, Li Hongzhi himself says: "Why did Fa-rectification have to be done? To save the beings in the cosmos - save all the beings in the cosmos, normalize bad beings and turn them into good ones, have sinful beings be rid of their sins, and have those warped beings reconstructed into good ones again. Dafa brings humankind these wonderful things, and it brings the beings in the cosmos these wonderful things. But during this persecution many beings have indeed lost their chances to be saved and have been denied salvation."

This is 1: Please note that Li Hongzhi has stated that Falun Dafa is of the Buddha School:

"The Buddha School teaches self-salvation and salvation of all sentient beings. One does not only cultivate oneself, but also offers salvation to all sentient beings. Others can benefit as well, and you can unintentionally rectify other people’s bodies, heal their illnesses, and so on. Of course, the energy is not lost. When Falun rotates clockwise, it can collect the energy back since it rotates continuously." Zhuan Falun, lecture 1, Characteristics of Falun Dafa

"Cultivation practice is the only way to find yourself comfortably free of illness and to accomplish the goal of being truly free! Only by having people practice a righteous way can there be true salvation of all beings. In the Buddha School, “salvation of all beings” implies bringing you out of everyday people’s most agonizing state to higher levels. You will no longer suffer, and will be set free— that is what it implies. Didn’t Sakyamuni talk about the other side of nirvana? That is the actual meaning of salvation of all beings." Lecture 2, The Supernormal Ability of Precognition and Retrocognition

We teach salvation of both ourselves and others, as well as of all beings. Thus, Falun can save oneself by turning inward and save others by turning outward. Lecture 3, energy field

When Falun rotates clockwise, it can automatically absorb energy from the universe. Rotating counter-clockwise, it can give off energy. Inward (clockwise) rotation offers selfsalvation while outward (counter-clockwise) rotation offers salvation to others—this is a feature of our practice. Lecture 5, the Falun Emblem

The Buddha School believes in salvation of all beings, so whoever can practice cultivation may do it. Lecture 5, the Qimen School.

From a recent period of time, though I tell you there are many more: “Fa- rectification is to rectify all bad beings, thereby saving all lives.” Turning the Law Wheel Towards the Human World.

2: firstly I will just post the whole jingwen:

The Blessings From Dafa

The ten years of Fa-rectification have recreated the cosmos, have saved countless sentient beings from degeneration and annihilation, and have established the immeasurable colossal firmament’s all-encompassing and eternal Fa-principles and immeasurable wisdom. This is a blessing for sentient beings, and it is the mighty virtue of the Dafa disciples.

Master has spread Dafa for ten years. Even in the human world, predestinations have been greatly changed. The comet catastrophe predestined in history is no more, the third world war has been averted, and the peril in 1999 from the cycle of formation-stasis-degeneration-destruction of Heaven and Earth will never recur. The Fa-rectification of the human world is on the verge of arriving. The world’s sentient beings will [strive to] repay the saving grace of Dafa and Dafa disciples. How wonderful. Wonderful. Truly wonderful!

Li Hongzhi May 19, 2002

here are some others

“During this Fa-rectification [I] have been treating everything and all beings with the greatest mercy, and that’s the reason [I] wanted to assimilate these beings and get them over there from this old cosmos, and that’s why I set out to do Fa-rectification of the cosmos.” Teaching the Fa at the Conference in Vancouver, Canada, in 2003

“I set out to do Fa-rectification because I knew that all of this was no longer good enough, that no matter how much wisdom the beings inside it have they still couldn’t change the fate of disintegration, and that only when things were fundamentally changed could they be saved.” Explaining the Fa During the 2003 Lantern Festival at the U.S. West Fa Conference

3: “In this Fa-rectification, the best opportunity has been created for the colossal firmament’s sentient beings; all sentient beings have the best opportunity to lay a foundation for their future.” Teaching the Fa at the 2002 Fa Conference in Boston April 27, 2002 Li Hongzhi

“During the Fa-rectification all beings are choosing for themselves what path they will go down. What every being is truly faced with is choosing his own future.” Teaching the Fa at the 2002 Fa Conference in Philadelphia, U.S.A. Li Hongzhi November 30, 2002

"I can be merciful to sentient beings, but, when a being has really violated something to that extent, the Fa is there to judge him, and any further mercy would be excessive, it would be the same as destroying itself, so beings like that are marked for elimination.

Do you know what principle I go by in Fa-rectification? I disregard all the sins beings have committed in the past! (Applause) During this Fa-rectification I only look at beings’ attitudes toward the Fa-rectification! (Applause) I’ve left all the gates wide open. As I’ve told you, if I didn’t even look at the attitude toward Fa-rectification, then the new Fa and the new cosmos wouldn’t exist. That’s why the attitude toward the Fa-rectification is critical. When you’ve really made a mistake with this, I can’t even say anything when the old forces destroy you." Fa-Lecture During the 2003 Lantern Festival at the U.S. West Fa Conference

“The persecution against Dafa disciples has been grim, and the persecution of sentient beings has likewise been grave. Humankind feels that this is an abuse of man’s human rights, freedom of belief, and basic humanity. In reality, it’s severe damage and interference by the evil factors in the cosmos to the Fa-rectification and to the entire cosmos’s moving toward the future. All that have taken part in this persecution will have to be held responsible to history, and none that have participated will be able to escape from the future positions they’ve determined for themselves during this period.” Teaching the Fa at the 2003 Washington DC Fa Conference

“Treating all beings with such mercy is something that has never ever happened for as long as the cosmos has existed. (Applause) I’ve been doing this all along, and I have achieved this. But there is one thing. If a sin was committed against Dafa during the Fa-rectification period, interfering with the Fa-rectification, then that sin cannot be forgiven. There is just this one stipulation. If even this stipulation weren’t there, the Fa of the cosmos would no longer exist. Beings of the future wouldn’t have the Fa to follow and abide by, and it would be the same thing as the cosmos not having a Fa, making it a messed up, chaotic world. That cannot happen! That would be the same as harming the cosmos, so having a negative effect in Fa-rectification means having committed such a sin. For a being, it could be caused by just one misplaced thought, but the consequences are devastating.” Teaching the Fa at the 2004 International Fa Conference in New York

“In fact, the entire Fa-rectification has been done in this most lenient, most merciful manner. The mistakes that beings made in history are not counted against them. No matter how large of a crime you committed or mistake you made in history, none of it is held against you: Only your attitude towards Fa-rectification today and your understanding of Dafa matter. That's the only thing that counts. If you can't accept even Dafa, then you have lost your chance. If you say, "I don't acknowledge Dafa," well, if you don't acknowledge Dafa you are not acknowledging the future, for the future is made by this Fa.” Teaching the Fa in Canada, 2006

“I make a practice of compassion (cibei). I can disregard the bad things people have done to, or have said about, Dafa disciples and me during this persecution, as well as the things they’ve done to make the situation worse. Of course, that’s not true for those who’ve caused great damage to Dafa, though. Those ones aren’t savable. Yes, the Fa can save anything and everything—you’ve heard Master tell you that I can turn everything into the best thing, no matter how bad it is—I can do all that, the Great Law can do that, but some malicious people have committed such sins against themselves during this persecution that they no longer deserve to hear what Dafa disciples have to say and no longer deserve to be saved by Dafa, in other words, in this persecution they’ve already positioned themselves for their futures and lost the chance to be saved... I just want to save everyone, and as long as they don’t sin against the Fa-rectification itself, I can save them. I’ve been holding fast to this principle while doing things. (Applause)” Teaching the Fa at the Conference in Vancouver, Canada, in 2003

.....

Okay, I could say a lot more to explain things but I won't I hope you can understand what is the Fa-rectification now.

Another thing is Tomananda, you do not understand something important. Li Hongzhi has said that the only reason beings are going to be weeded out is because they have done bad things towards Fa-rectification. He has also stated that the only reason bad things happened against Fa-rectification was the old forces. You also want to mention this in the introduction? I can find THOSE quotes too, if necessary, but I will put these for you and Jsw:

“What I wanted was to have no sentient being interfere with the Fa-rectification, or even participate in it. With the Fa-rectification, when it proceeds from the most basic point, from the lowest point, and goes all the way up, for all beings, no matter how bad you are or how much you may have sinned in history, I don’t hold your past faults against you, and I purify you from the most microcosmic point to the surface of your being, and this even includes any thoughts a being may have. I rectify from the bottom up, all the way through. That would have been the best kind of benevolent solution, and not a single being would have fallen, not a single being would have sinned against Dafa and this Fa-rectification. Wouldn’t that have been wonderful? But no, they insisted on doing this, and it’s brought on this disaster in human society.” Teaching the Fa at the 2002 Fa Conference in Philadelphia, U.S.A. Li Hongzhi November 30, 2002

“Since none of them are worthy of participating, what I wanted was for none of the sentient beings to interfere, for them all to wait there, and I would have gone forward rectifying things, and the worst beings, however bad they might be, and no matter what kind of mistakes they’d made in history, all of them could have reached Consummation while just staying put. Wouldn’t that have been great?! (Applause) Of course, that wouldn’t have been done without principle, as I would have been transforming everything that a Dafa disciple owed into benevolent returns for sentient beings, and everyone would have been given the best compensation. If he couldn’t do it, then Master would help him do it. When the cosmos isn’t up to standard it’s because all of the sentient beings aren’t up to standard, and I would have helped all sentient beings do it, I would have helped you do it and I would have helped him do it. Then wouldn’t everything have been benevolently resolved? (Applause) With all of the beings being no good and no longer clean, I would have helped all of you do it. So wouldn’t that have been fair? You see the logic of it, right? But they insisted on doing things their way.” Fa-Lecture During the 2003 Lantern Festival at the U.S. West Fa Conference

Should we mention that? So-called “judgment” and weeding out is A RESULT OF THE OLD FORCES INTERFERENCE. It may make the introduction a bit long but it would give a more complete explanation of why any being would face destruction in all of this, right? Only those who interfere with Fa-rectification are to be weeded out.

As for your remarks about the goal being the destruction of the CCP I will again post what I posted earlier:

“It is for the purpose of saving all beings and saving the people in the world today that we help people to see the wicked CCP for what it is. Of course, no matter how the CCP tries to hide the evil face of its wicked gangster regime, once the world’s people come to know it for what it is, they will realize that it is evil, and they will not cooperate with it anymore, choosing instead to withdraw from the Party. And that is when it ceases to exist. But that is not what we are trying to do—our goal is to save sentient beings.” Teaching the Fa in the City of Chicago

If you would like to discuss further whether the paragraph I proposed does not accurately reflect Li Hongzhi's teachings I welcome you. Please do not mix in your own understandings when you do so, as that wastes time and is irrelevant to the task at hand. All that you have written so far about this Tomananda has severely mixed your own hatred toward Dafa.

PS: I have not archived a talk page before. I hope that I have done it correctly. If there is more information to bring over here, then do so. I just did it this way because I thought it would be better. It is still super-long, I am not sure what to do about that.

--Asdfg12345 03:46, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

It is amazing, Asdfg, how you managed to "delete" most of the critical commentary by archiving it, then bombard any poor reader engaged here with a virtual essay. I thought you had little time to give full replies, but I guess what you said below wasn't quite the whole truth.

Now before you start, I shall tell you that I have read your entire post. I would think Tomananda, Samuel Luo and Phanatical etc., despite having been subject to vicious personal attacks by an unregistered user from Seoul (see their talk pages for proof), would be in better positions to argue with you on the detail of your ridiculously long post. However those attacks do highlight one thing - any anti-FG person is automatically labelled as a 'commie lover'. This is despite you saying FG is not a committed anti-CCP movement. Hmm. Never mind, I'm sure you'll disavow that user as a FG practitioner.

Nevertheless, let me make one general observation. It is of course easy to believe that XYZ is XYZ when your master tells you it is XYZ, and vice versa. It's a whole different thing to realize, via independent evaluation, whether XYZ is in fact XYZ DESPITE your master telling you XYZ is XYZ.

Example: LHZ says FG's goal is to save sentient beings. But this is just the last phrase of the last sentence - he spends the previous 80-90% of that quote lambasting the CCP. If FG was really all about saving people only, why is he spending all / so much of his attention criticizing the CCP, thus getting other FG practitioners to spend all their time focused on how evil the CCP is instead of practising the spiritual elements of FG? And why only the CCP? What is so 'purely spiritual' talking about "Jiang Zemin's personal jealousy" towards FG? If FG was that naturally good, they wouldn't need to spend so much time criticizing a political organization, especially since, according to FG practitioners, they don't touch on the spiritual realm. LHZ also said recently that a socialist system can no longer work in China. What has this got to do with 'saving sentient beings'? How is FG, under LHZ's words, only spiritual when he is making such overtly political statements???

This is what I meant by lack of critical capacity among FG followers - and this is worrying in itself, because if you will believe everything that one person will tell you, how is that different from a personality cult like Kim Jong-il's North Korea? North Korean citizens genuinely believe what Kim Jong-il tells them to believe, including that the world outside their country is far worse, so they should be grateful for what they have already. Or if you're familiar with Chinese history, how is Li Hongzhi different from the infamous eunuch Zhao Gao (the 'deer is a horse' one) with regards to his expectations from his subordinates? Jsw663 17:21, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

I told you that I did not mean to do anything wrong, so if there is some stuff from the archive you want here then move it back. You did not respond to what I wrote about the paragraph. I keep saying your own ideas about Falun Gong don't hold water and we're not here to report them. Most of what Li Hongzhi says is about salvation, and when the CCP issue is talked about it's always in the context of providing salvation by having people see its true nature, so they can decide their futures. We are doing no more than providing them with opportunities to be saved so they can quit the CCP. What people do is there own choice. We are not telling any lies to the public about the genocide, we are telling what is happening and the other evil stuff the CCP has done. Once they know they can do as they please. Li Hongzhi says that. Stop pretending you are being objective when you obviously support the CCP in its genocide. Also, there's no need for you to make personal judgements about practitioners and their beliefs.--Asdfg12345 18:22, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Actually if you read half-closely the example I used was responding directly to one of the paragraphs you quoted in your post - the Fa teaching one in Chicago. But when I discuss it all you can come back with is that people quitting the CCP did it out of their own choice, implying that those who joined the CCP did not. The only way your comment about 'we are not telling any lies to the public' can be qualified is if you genuinely and completely believe Li Hongzhi's words. All you're doing is simply reinforcing the fact that FG practitioners are unable to be critical of Li Hongzhi or the FLDF. My example above, by using one of the quotes YOU raised, was simply to question and point out one of the seeming inconsistencies. Instead of addressing it, you've engaged in personal attack in return by saying I "obviously support the CCP in its genocide". If you want to know whether I've ever supported the CCP, just see by action. I have been critical of the CCP quite often on this board when the topic has been raised. That shows I am not batting for any one side in the CCP v FG battle - I am merely asking FGers to show what they claim. You constantly say FGers enter FG out of free will, and people who do things out of free will usually realize both the strengths and weaknesses of any one thing. Not once have you ever pointed out a single weakness or inconsistency in Falun Gong. Therefore until proven otherwise, you are merely demonstrating the LACK of free will / independent thought FGers possess - one of the key aspects of a cult. And yes, this is despite me constantly referring to your 'movement' as a 'movement', not a 'cult'. But if you cannot understand how someone never involved with FG can possibly be critical of it, maybe it is time for self-examination on your part, not mine. After all, I'm not the one spreading half-truths or lies about a movement because I lack critical capacity.

Talking of 'personal judgements or beliefs' why is Omido, a FG supporter, constantly blanking out sections on the Falun Gong page? If FG supporters were so co-ordinated in their actions then the least you can do, Asdfg, is to ensure such unco-operative behavior will not persist. Unless, of course, you want your movement to be thought of as one spreading (biased) propaganda instead of 'free information'. Jsw663 02:34, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Proposal for the 3rd paragraph

The PRC government banned the Falun Gong for what it claimed to be illegal and seditious activities, calling the Falun Gong an evil cult which is responsible for causing deaths and morally corrupting its practitioners, thereby threatening the overall social stability of the country (footnote). Falun Gong claims that these accusations are lies and that the persecution is due to the CCP's official atheist nature, its intolerance of other beliefs, as well as Jiang's personal jealousy over the growing success of the discipline and a sense that he could not control the people's hearts and minds.(footnote)

Tell us if you agree or not to this paragraph in here or if you would like to modify anything.--Andres18 18:18, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

I propose a slight edit to the PRC view, near the end. The paragraph should now look like -

The PRC government banned the Falun Gong for what it claimed to be illegal and seditious activities, calling the Falun Gong an evil cult which is responsible for causing deaths and morally corrupting its practitioners, thereby threatening the overall harmony of Chinese society and social stability of the country (footnote). Falun Gong claims that these accusations are lies and that the persecution is due to the CCP's official atheist nature, its intolerance of other beliefs, as well as Jiang's personal jealousy over the growing success of the discipline and a sense that he could not control the people's hearts and minds.(footnote)

Let me know what you all think, especially if there's any opposition to it. Jsw663 23:33, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

I think your change tends to balance things towards the critical side a bit more, why not leave it as it is?. I think "social stability" is enough. The purpose of the article is to talk a bit about the situation from both sides, with this addition it just seems more of an enumeration of the CCP's accussations against Falun Dafa instead of a neutral report of the situation. I'm sorry but i dont agree to your modification, thanks for the input though.--Andres18 05:49, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Actually the previous edit had favoured the Falun Gong view in length and I was trying to redress that. Note that I have not even passed a comment on the pro-FG view precisely because you wouldn't want people who you perceive as unchangeable skeptics / critics to 'distort' or 'reinterpret' your view. Now from what I read above your only objection is that it doesn't give FG the slight original advantage it once had what I'm proposing is to ensure that the viewpoints are evently represented. This is why I can't agree to a groundless objection but thanks for showing your views as having taken a savage lurch to the more extreme views of the pro-FG camp since Asdfg's "warning" earlier. Jsw663 06:29, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

I've never warned you. If it is supposed to be representing the CCP find where the CCP uses that word. It is fine if we just report things. It would be easy to add in certain emotive words to embellish and enhance each position, and we might even end up with a piece of lovely poetry, but I think since it is meant to be an encyclopedia we're better off keeping it neutral. What is happening is a Genocide, so of course it is not going to sound so good for the people who are slaughtering innocents, is it? That's just how it is. It's a lot harder for the women who have their vagina's smashed in with electric battons than it is for you.--Asdfg12345 01:04, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

It's amazing how you veered off from a discussion about the content of the 3rd paragraph into a tirade against the CCP. Stick to the subject, or move your above paragraph to the section below. It doesn't belong in this section about discussion of the 3rd para. Jsw663 16:44, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

I said "If it is supposed to be representing the CCP find where the CCP uses that word. It is fine if we just report things.". You can't just alter things to how you want to make it sound to create some impression. I am saying you have to back it up. This is an encyclopedia, and though you have aligned yourself with the CCP in this, you do not actually speak for it.--Asdfg12345 18:28, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

OK here's the source on why I proposed the latter addition of a few more words: [1]. I trust you aren't going to hack into that site to alter details like you did for Chinese TV now... So, where's your reference for your proposed addition? An encyclopedia could do with non-outrageously-biased sources to back your POV. And when we can both back up our points with sources, this 3rd paragraph may finally be 'set'. But since I can back up my proposed addition of a few more words with a source, this comes back to the original point - why do you object to it, and what are you basing it on? Jsw663 02:37, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Why add more words to the critical point of view on the paragraph?. Yes, they may be sourced, but adding them unbalances the paragraph towards the critical side. We had all agreed to the 3rd paragraph and everything was fine, why add more to the critics side? i think it is fine as it is, we are both reporting our points of view and i see no purpose in adding more to the critics point of view on the paragraph. Then we as pro-FG editors would have to add a few more words to our POV on the paragraph in order to balance it, then you would add more to yours and we would never finish. Let's just leave it like that.

By the way, since you are neutral, let me make some things clear for you: Asfdg didnt "warn" or "scold" me in any way. Before i make important posts and proposals that reflect the Pro-FG point of view i want to make sure they represent the pro-FG point of view very well, so i send them an email and we all decide if it is ok for posting. Then i post it here and ask the critics if they believe their vision is well reported by asking "Tell me your opinion on this" so as to keep neutrality. Also, drawing out such early conclusions about "Falun Gong brainwashing..." and so on about the Little girl picture before even listening to what Asfgd's had to say about it is not a good idea. Neither it is accussing him to have "hacked" into the Chinese TV website without any verifiable evidence. Please lets keep civility and respect each other. Since you are neutral, then please also listen to what pro-FG editors have to say before you draw conclusions or make such accussations. And please lets just leave it this big, my purpose for adding this paragraph is just to clarify a few things, not to engage in any discussions or arguments unrelated to the editing process.--Andres18 00:37, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Proposal for changing 'Suppression' to 'Persecution'

Additionally, we have requested the change of the term Suppression for Persecution. Our reason for this change is the following:

Acording to wikipedia, Suppression means: "Distinct aspects of civil oppression, generally censorship, and non-lethal human rights abuses. "

This is not a neutral way to define the persecution. Falun Gong practitioners have repeatedly stated that there are indeed happening lethal-human rights abuses, which includes tortures, labor camps, etc, not just a simple censorship. Using the term genocide would be Pro-Falun Gong. So, persecution is the most neutral definition, and has been also used by third party reports. The term Suppression must then be changed to Persecution.--Andres18 03:39, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

On this paragraph, the CCP (after researching a bit into it) has never ever stated that it killed, murdered or raped any FG practitioners, nor did it say it was responsible for anything like that, not even organ harvesting. The CCP in fact has issued many denials to this effect. Since this is a controversial issue, I strongly oppose presenting just one side's views or allegations as represented by the word 'persecution'. Suppression would be denied by the CCP as well, but it is a compromise - maybe slightly biased in the favor of FG - between the extremes of not having done anything at all against FGers versus total persecution of FG practitioners. Jsw663 23:27, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, exactly because the CCP denies that it is torturing and killing practitioners, and because Falun Dafa practitioners indeed state that they are being tortured and killed, if you use the term Supression, you are balancing it completely in favor of the critical side, because a Supression is just a simple and safe censorship. It seems a bit unfair to report the facts as if nothing is happening when there is countless of evidence that practitioners are being tortured and killed. I could show you many pictures of the people that have been killed and the brutal wounds some practitioners have had due to the beatings and tortures of the CCP, i dont think its fair to them or to anyone to call it a Supression. Now persecution has been used in third party reports and it seems very appropriate to me, because this word does not directly imply mass killing, organ harvesting, torturing and murder that the Falun Dafa practitioners are experiencing. If we were to find a word to describe all that, it would be genocide, but that would be too pro falun gong. As editors, we must report things clearly, i cannot agree to use the term suppression and make wikipedia report this as if nothing is happening and people are just being prohibited to practice without any consecuences. We are using the term persecution in order to report that Falun Dafa practice is banned and that the practitioners are being sanctioned by the government for practicing. This is precisely what is happening, If there were no consecuences, many people would still be seen practicing Falun Dafa in China, because not every one thinks the same so many people could just not believe what the CCP says about Falun Dafa and go practice somewhere in China, but if this isnt happening it is because they are being sanctioned for it.--Andres18 06:05, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

The 'some third-party reports' that have described the Chinese government's actions as 'persecution' have only been human rights organizations or US government ones. They aren't exactly representative of the "third-party" POV. I objected on a point of definition yet you reply or attempted to rebutt on a point of opinion. Unless you are objecting on a point of more objective criteria like definition like you initially proposed, your comments are noted but hold little water in the purely encyclopedic community. Jsw663 06:29, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Well...Human rights organizations and US government are not Falun Dafa, and they are not criticizing it either. So i think they are considered third party organizations right?. I see you investigated and the Chinese government denies everything of what is happening, but then i have a few doubts, since you made some research, i hope you can answer them for me so that i could understand more clearly your point of view regarding the use of the term Supression. Does the chinese government claim something similar as that they spread lots of anti falun gong propaganda and everyone just believed it, went home and stopped practicing?. How can there be an advantage for us in using the term persecution? and does the chinese government denies that it has legally banned Falun Gong? also, to you, what is representative of a third-party POV? Since you made some research, perhaps you could tell me a bit about this.--Andres18 22:10, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

The thing about this is that the FGers and the Chinese Government have views on two different ends of the same spectrum. This makes it extremely hard to say 'yes' to any one view without making the other side feel shortchanged. From what I gather, the FGers view the CCP actions against them as torture and genocide. The CCP view their actions against FGers as defending the country and preserving social harmony / preserving morals + well-being of the community / social stability, etc. Both sides view the other as.. well.. worse than the devil. So when one side views the actions as persecution and the other as defending the state, where do we start with a word that is not too extreme or partial to either side?

I have tried to use a slightly more neutral word in the form of 'clampdown' - which can be interpreted by both sides to favour the other. However, it is not a very encyclopedic word, and some have even suggested using a mild word like 'restriction'. So taking into account all these views, suppression seems to be not too strong but definitely not a 'weak' word, as well as not making either side completely satisfied, but not feeling completely outraged either. In effect, I am trying to toe the 'middle line', and in doing so for such a controversial subject where we simply can't say "Party X alleged this and Party Y alleged that", "suppression" should be a suitable compromise, don't you think? Jsw663 16:53, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Jsw said: "From what I gather, the FGers view the CCP actions against them as torture and genocide. The CCP view their actions against FGers as defending the country and preserving social harmony / preserving morals + well-being of the community / social stability, etc."... Actually, it does not matter what interpretation anyone has about the actions the CCP have taken against Falun Gong practitioners. Those things are documented and they constitute Genocide. We can use the word Persecution to describe them, since they also fit the definition for persecution. It is Third Party information that describes the genocide as a persecution, not just Falun Gong, and not the CCP. The CCP can think what it likes about what it does, and you can think they are wonderful for it too, but it fits the definition of the word "persecution", and it does not fit the definition of the word "suppression".--Asdfg12345 18:34, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Keep suppression. It is the normal, neutral word for the CCP's activities, and may be qualified if necessary. A loaded word like "persecution" is too often a magnet for polemical or apologetic talking points by people with an agenda. --Fire Star 火星 18:39, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

I think Fire Star summed up the core point better. Asdfg, what you are proposing is to air a biased view - to dismiss any non-FG-supporting view as lies and propaganda. I was proposing to toe the middle line for the reasons above, yet you then accuse me of supporting the CCP. Who's being unreasonable now? Jsw663 02:41, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

I have a question though, The CCP view their actions against FG practitioners as defending the country and preserving social harmony / preserving morals + well-being of the community / social stability, etc. Ok, thats fine, those are their motives, but what do they say they are doing against Falun Gong practitioners? What do they say are their actions against Falun Gong practitioners? are they denying they have banned Falun Gong and that they imprison practitioners? are they denying that they have truly prohibited Falun Gong and forbid freedom of expression to Falun Gong practitioners by not even allowing them to practice it? i want to know their position regarding the consecuences they are establishing for practicing Falun Gong. Because the only way i could see that Supression doesnt favor the critics side and that it appears as a neutral word for defining the persecution is that the CCP completely denies that they are doing anything against Falun Gong. If they say they are censoring Falun Gong some way, wether that means taken to "instructive" anti-FG classes against their will or denying their freedom of expression as citizens of China by forbiding them to practice Falun Gong hoping to "defend their mother land" or anything like it, that would mean they are "supressing" Falun Gong practitioners, then using the term Supression is actually favoring them because it is exactly defining what they say they are doing, thus, not reflecting our point of view at the same time. On my opinion, the only way Supression can be used validly is if the Chinese Government denies they are censoring Falun Gong in any way. And i believe this is why the third party reports which are non-biased, such as Amnesty International, and so on have used the term "persecution" instead of "supression" and have not gone as far as using the term "genocide" either.--Andres18 21:11, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

The point of the matter is that "persecution" is by its nature a loaded, non-neutral word. The use of "suppression" can include persecution, but the use of the word "persection" in the introductary paragraph of (or elsewhere in) the article is too inflamatory and sounds too partisan. Especially in view of the powerful emotions associated with this subject, it is crucial to maintain a certain distance when choosing language to be used in an encyclopedia. This is not the place for political partisanship, even if you are morally outraged, and even if that outrage is justified. Use of the word "persecution" or other evocative language only serves to give the text a tone of propaganda, and suggests that the rest of the article may be distorted and uncredible. As for AI or other organizations with clearly discernable agendas or objectives, use of powerful language by them is appropriate because they are activists-- which wikipedia is not. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_is_an_encyclopedia--Crestodina 07:00, 9 January 2007 (UTC)Tom Crestodina

As far as I can tell branding the word "persecution" as loaded is only your Original Research. Mccon did present the dictionary meaning of the word and also presented the reasoning why this applies, however said this might be. As you may observe the word genocide is used on the holocaust page. And the word genocide is defined like this: "any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnic, racial or religious group, as such: killing members of the group; causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life, calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part; imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group; and forcibly transferring children of the group to another group." So actually the more evidence we see the closer we get to this word. And again once it is based on evidence this is an objective statement. --HappyInGeneral 14:46, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

The 'little girl doing Falun Gong' picture in the pre-intro

http://www.falundafa.org/eng/exercises.htm Falun Dafa's fifth exercise

Regarding the 'little girl doing Falun Gong' picture in the beginning pasted in by Asdfg but objected to by several editors:

Why does a little girl doing FG have to be put in the beginning of the article? Is it to elicit sympathy for the movement? I don't see what's wrong with the picutres on the Teachings of Falun Gong page where a male in traditional clothing seems to be demonstrating quite well. Or is the little girl picture supposed to show how ruthlessly the FG practitioners brainwash others, including their own children, to the movement? Nevertheless, I object on the grounds that the little girl picture seems to be nothing more than a PR stunt to elicit sympathy and provoke 'good' feelings about FG. This is distinctly unencyclopedic. If you disagree or are Asdfg, please say why here instead of engaging in an edit war on the main page. Jsw663 23:47, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Please keep a cool head and assume good faith, we are not here to speak ill of Falun Dafa. I respect you and your position as an editor, i also hope you respect mine. I agree with you posting this issue here for discussion, and i disagree with changes being made without previous consultation on this talk page. To me, it is indiferent whether the little girl picture is posted or not in the wikipedia article. Sometimes, the picture of a young children practicing Falun Dafa in Falun Dafa websites is meant to show people that anyone can practice it and that it is not restricted to any age limit.--Andres18 05:44, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

When have I never kept a cool head? I will also always assume bona fide (good faith) intentions initially until shown otherwise. It's a pity, but pro-FG editors have clearly shown the otherwise - that being a certainly concerted if only sometimes united effort at information and psychological control and the propaganda, aka point of view, being put forward by your 'camp'. Time and time again people have said that Wikipedia is not a FG advertising website yet time and time again pro-FG editors' behaviour reflect their real-life - thinking that constantly bombarding people with an avalanche of distorted Li Hongzhi opinions can convince them as to the 'bona fide' aspect of FG. So although I will respect your opinions, respect can only be reciprocal if there isn't a targeted agenda to ensure half-truths or fabrications are put forward only, dismissing anything critical or contrary as CCP propaganda or lies. Now we get onto the picture of the little girl. Note that I personally have no objections if you want to fill the Teachings of Falun Gong page full of the elderly or the younger generation practising Falun Gong, providing they are instructional. However, placing a picture of a young girl at the top of the page clearly has a subjective motive and is intended to suggest or imply to the average reader of the 'innocence' of Falun Gong. Yes, I'm basing the 'innocence' of a young girl on a stereotype, but unfortunately it remains common nowadays. So if, and only IF, Falun Gong really only want to show its practitioners practising it, I suggest a more value-neutral picture in the appropriate section of the page or appropriate page. And in case you think I harbor some anti-FG bias, I'm here to dispel such a misconception now because I would equally vociferously object to any similar picture be shown on any cult pages (Scientology), religious pages (Christianity, Islam) or spiritual pages (qigong) in their pre-introduction section. Jsw663 06:29, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Let's wait for Asfgd's answer.--Andres18 21:45, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Another picture of someone doing the exercises is fine by me. I didn't think too much about what Jsw said, promoting the innocence of Falun Gong since its a young child etc.; we'll use another picture. Can someone else put it there please? I have a lot less access to computer now and less time in which to do these things. --Asdfg12345 01:23, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Well my personal opinion on this image is, first of all that is a very good image, and yes it is nice too. I think that it would be relevant to this page to put a picture with somebody practicing because it might give a first impression (an image says a thousand words) on what Falun Dafa mainly is: meditation and spirituality basically getting closer the principles of Truthfulness Compassion Forbearance. For these reasons I think that perhaps this image is the best one, but I don't object in using another image. Although I know that some people accuse some practitioners of being anti-CCP that I believe happens only because the CCP banned the practice. --HappyInGeneral 18:43, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

One more thing, until we have an other image on which we can agree upon, shouldn't we use this one? --HappyInGeneral 18:55, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

After viewing other similar Wiki entries, namely qigong, Buddhism and Christianity, note NONE of them even have A picture in the pre-intro. This makes any desire to have a picture of a practitioner ridiculous to the extreme. The logo of Falun Gong is already stretching the rules, but broadly acceptable in keeping with Wiki practice. Jsw663 12:32, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you so much for pointing this out, because this way I actually searched for other similar articles: Yoga, World_Tai_Chi_and_Qigong_Day, Tai_Chi_Chuan, Chinese_martial_arts, and I could give a few more and all these have images in the intro. Now why is it that these are more relevant to the wording of Falun Gong then let's say Qigong? Because Qigong is like the word morality for Christianity. Then why is it different then Buddhism and Christianity, because they don't cultivate the body so they don't need exercises, so for them exercises is not the main thing in the least. For Falun Dafa there is moral improvement and exercises for body improvement, both should be present. Also please don't delete from the talk page the image, because we are indeed talking about it here and so here it undeniably relevant. --HappyInGeneral 14:04, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

There is a very big difference between FG and the ones you named above. Yoga, as a practice established for 5000 years, is more similar to Buddhism. Both of these traditions have offshoots, some more traditional, and some 'fads' (aka cults). FG practitioners contradict themselves as to whether FG is derived from Buddhism or not. Falun Gong is neither of those and was only established by Li Hongzhi. The World Taichi + Qigong day is describing an event, not just the beliefs itself. Tai chi doesn't seem to have a logo, hence the picture, NB of a man, and a black/white one only, not in a particularly 'peaceful' position (compared to the biased picture you insist on), and FG is most certainly not a martial art! (I think everyone will agree with that last point at least) The Qigong entry does NOT have any picture, nor a logo, in the pre-intro. Falun Gong has a set of political beliefs (anti-CCP) as well as spiritual attached to it, and thus cannot be compared to tai chi. There is also a big difference between a set of purely spiritual exercises and one which works as a pseudo-religion. The difference is that with the former, you don't see anyone forced to do it, nor do you see people engaging in any form of propaganda in saying it is only good. But in the end, the point still comes to the political aspect - FG is political; purely spiritual exercises are not. Jsw663 15:46, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

I thought that we are talking about having or not having the image on the intro. We both know that debating about the other issues are counterproductive. For anyone wandering which are the both opinion I guess a good page for this is Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_mediation/Falun_Gong there is a lengthy discussion. So getting back to the picture, we can have it because, it’s in context and because there are other pages who have it. Of course if there wouldn’t be other pages that have images on their front we could still put it here, because: 1. It’s well sourced; 2. It’s in context. --HappyInGeneral 14:05, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

After a further look, note this - Tai Chi Chuan only has one black and white picture of an old man doing it because it doesn't have a logo to represent it. More pictures in colour are given below. Yoga has a peaceful philosophy yet FG has a government-overthrowing one. On the issue of the pictures, the article has not even been RATED! The pictures in the beginning are subjective in value, but less subjective than this little girl one. FG is definitely not a Chinese martial art. Thus your comparisons are simply inappropriate. The entries I used for comparison were Buddhism which has at least been rated B-class, Christianity has a GA-status and qigong has a B-class rating. This FG only has a start-class rating, and thus must follow better articles. This picture will not help in a relatively neutral Wiki entry, nor is it in keeping with Wiki guidelines / policies / other better entries. We are trying to make progress towards a (neutral) Wiki article, not a FG propaganda leaflet. Jsw663 13:13, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Buddhism and Christianity has no body cultivation and also Qigong is a concept not a particular cultivation system, so I don't think it's fair to compare then with Falun Dafa from a presentation point of view. Tai Chi Chuan is a B-Class rated article which has a black and white image most likely because of historical reasons, such as there were no color photographs at that time. I'm quite sure that if the they would have it in color it would have not affected the quality of the article. Yoga is quite colorful also. PS: sorry for a late answer, I was not active for a while on Wikipedia. --HappyInGeneral 13:30, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Sure there's body cultivation in Christianity. You sit, you stand, you kneel, you bite plastic wafer, you sip wine, you ingest "blood and body of Christ" (a term heavily disputed depending on sect). =) — Rickyrab | Talk 12:11, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

I understand that you are trying to be funny, still if I may, I would like to remind you that you are talking cheap about gods and sacred things, be it Christianity, Buddhism, Falun Gong etc ..., if you believe in any of them you should really avoid this, if not well then that is your choice and at some point you will have the fruit of what is yours. --HappyInGeneral 12:03, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Totally out of line, General. You're basically threatening divine retribution. I rarely speak up on these talk pages anymore, the entire lot of you having exhausted my patience, but this is over the top. Don't invoke your own personal beliefs in an effort to supress discussion. CovenantD 20:14, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

If that is out of line I'm sorry. It supposed to be a friendly reminder for somebody who somewhat believes in something. If the reader does not believe in anything, for them I agree it's truly a waste of time and it does not deserve anything to say, since they already have their POV well formed. Anyway is there anybody who is really thinking that in Christianity there is "body cultivation"? I thought this comment was a complete irony to start with, so really there is nothing to repress here, at least that is my impression, anyway if I'm wrong I apologize. --HappyInGeneral 08:54, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

One thing to add for the moment: What's with this "the Falun Gong" business? There is "Falun Gong" and there are "Falun Gong practitioners", but there isn't "the Falun Gong". Falun Gong is the name of the practice, and Falun Gong practitioners are the people who practice it. There isn't some kind of organization called "the Falun Gong". This should be appropriately corrected. Mcconn 02:52, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

The above comment is referring to the paragraph in question. The discussion seems to have gone astray from that. If someone wants to bring up something not related to the subject heading, can they please make a new section for it? This will help us stay on track. JSW, Andres had a good point about US and human rights organizations who use the term "persecution" being perfectly valid 3rd party organizations. I want to add that not only are human rights organizations, such as Amnesty international, 3rd party organizations, but they are also experts on these matters, which gives even greater weight to what they say. So what's the problem with using this term? Mcconn 03:32, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Replied to Andres above, but I'll make a few additional comments here. I wish you'd place your reply in the correct section though, Mcconn. Now to your questions. In addition to what I said above, I have read other similar persecution-alleged pages - one obvious one being Guantanamo Bay. On that page, the only mention of the word 'persecution' was when it was qualified by "Organization X alleged this and that". This would be great in the main article itself, but in a title to describe an action, we are not afforded that luxury. Hence, read my reply above for my conclusion. Jsw663 16:58, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Consensus on 1st Paragraph

Ok then, since ive noticed nobody has disagreed with the 1st paragraph of the introduction, im posting it here again, and id like to confirm with you all, do you agree with this edit being posted on the main page? If we all agree to it, this would mean reaching consensus. Please be aware that edits reached in consensus are not to be reverted.

Proposal for the 1st paragraph:

Falun Gong, (Traditional Chinese: 法輪功; Simplified Chinese: 法轮功; pinyin: Fǎlún Gōng; 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 (whose surname is Li) to the public in 1992. Falun Gong, also known as Falun Dafa, refers to five sets of meditation exercises, and spiritual teachings based on Truthfulness-Compassion-Forbearance. Mr. Li says that what he calls the cosmic characteristic of the universe, the principles of Truthfulness-Benevolence-Forbearance, is the criteria for judging all sentient beings. He claims that the Falun Dafa cultivation system is one of the means to provide salvation for mankind.

You may state your opinion here.--Andres18 14:19, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

The last two sentences are incomplete or misleading and must be considered in conjunction with the second paragraph below. --Tomananda 17:24, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

How can you say that it is "incomplete" or "misleading"? Cultivating Truth-Compassion-Forbearence is EXACTLY what Falun Dafa is about Omido 17:29, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Your version is incomplete and misleading because:

According to Li, it's not just the principles of Truthfulness--Benevolence--Forebearance which determine which sentient beings are being "weeded out". Li has repeatedly and unequivocally defined certain categories of beings who will be weeded out in the Fa-rectification. For example, "the vile party" (the CCP) and "all those who help them" will most definitely be weeded out according to Li. In other words, there is no cosmic principle of the universe which functions independently from Li himself, according to Li. As long as Li claims the absolute authority for determining what categories of beings get weeded out..and he certainly does that for the CCP and it's supporters...then Li's personal judgment that functions as the ultimate criterion, not some abstract notion of "Truthfullness, Benevolence and Forebearance."

Also, it is incomplete and misleading to just say that "the Falun Dafa cultivation system" is one means to provide salvation for mankind. Yes, Li's does say his Dafa disciples can look forward to being saved, but only if they work diligently to destroy the Chinese Communist Party. Li has repeatedly said that it is not enough just to stay home and study the Dafa and do the exercises during this period of Fa-rectification. Do you deny that? And if that is true, the reader must be told that mere "cutivation" is not enough for salvation, unless we qualify "cultivation" with Li's explicit requirement that "Fa-rectification Dafa disciples" must help to destroy the Chinese Communist Party. For many years, Falun Gong practitioners have been expected to send communications to mainland China via different means (automated phone calls, e-mails, letters) trying to pursuade people to quit the CCP. And more generally, the spreading of the Nine Commentaries has become a requisite activity for Li's disciples who want to be saved. I know you know all of this, why do you resist having it reported in Wikipedia? --Tomananda 19:03, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Falun Dafa has stated that the CCP and those who help them will be eliminated because they torture and kill Falun Dafa practitioners. Where is the compassion of these people who torture other people who just want to be good?. Where is the truthfulness when trying to hide it and spread lies about Falun Dafa? Where is the tolerance of them when they decided to ban and send practitioners to labor camps and prisons?. Obviously they are to be "weeded out" because they are against the characteristic of the universe. Mr. Li has never stated that we are only to be saved if we diligently work towards destroying the CCP, because if that where the case, where is the issue of personal cultivation? what about Truthfulness-Benevolence-Forbearance ? what about leaving all attachments?. Is the CCP ever mentioned in Zhuan Falun, the guide book for cultivation? no, only in supplementary writings. We cannot highlight the CCP and all these things and ignore the teachings of Falun Dafa, its real meaning and the purpose of cultivation which is clearly stated on Zhuan Falun many times, for example:

"...This person can see the truth of the universe and things that an everyday person cannot. Isn’t he a person who has attained the Tao through practicing cultivation? Isn’t he a great enlightened person? How can he be considered the same as an everyday person? Isn’t he an enlightened person through cultivation practice? Isn’t it correct to call him an enlightened person? In ancient Indian language he is called a Buddha. Actually, that is it. This is what qigong is for." (First Talk, Qigong is cultivation practice)

I dont send emails, letters or automated phone calls to china, and i only spread the nine commentaries on people who are interested about them, but i do clarify the truth about what is going on in China to the people when the oportunity comes about, so according to your criteria, im not working diligently towards destroying the CCP so i cannot be considered a cultivator right? come on. There is a point you are missing, we are here to report about what are the teachings of Falun Dafa, all your personal theories can be discussed and be very well adressed in the critics and controversy section.--Andres18 22:51, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, Andres, according to your own argument below you can give up "clarifying the truth" about China and spreading the nine commentaries, because none of that is related to your own salvation. So whether you consider what you are doing to destroy the CCP (and certainly speading the Nine Commentaries is an attempt to destroy the CCP) "diligent" or not, according to you it is no longer part of salvation. Li has been wrong about this all along, so in a way I am pleased that for once a practitioner is thinking for himself. And as to all those practitioners who are asked to attach robo-calling devices to their home computers, I hope they give up those practices as well. Ater all, it's really just about the teaching contained in Zhuan Falun, right? --Tomananda 09:23, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes Tomananda, you are right, its all just about the teachings from Zhuan Falun. But i have seen many evidences like videos, pictures and reports from practitioners who have been tortured and killed and i think it is terrible and it should stop as soon as possible. So when i introduce Falun Dafa to people who are interested, i talk a bit about what is happening in China regarding Falun Dafa. I dont speak ill about the CCP, their actions already speak for themselves. Im sure most practitioners think like me.--Andres18 21:51, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

The next paragraph is to mention Fa-rectification etc., and this is just meant to quickly explain Dafa. It is actually impossible to say everything in one go. The most basic features of Falun Dafa should be introduced first. If you want to mention the CCP things in next paragraph we can, though it would have to be a bit longer to accomodate that. Obviously that would have to explain the issue of saving sentient beings at the same time as exposing the wicked party and its crimes. The relationship between the teachings of Li Hongzhi and Li Hongzhi, though interesting, is not really feasible to put in the introduction, and it would be original research to say what you have said. I understand your interpretation, but the teachings do not actually put it that way so we can't put it that way. We can basically only report what the teachings of Falun Dafa say, not what you think of them. I think I am repeating this point.--Asdfg12345 18:45, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

2nd Paragraph

Ok im moving the second paragraph to this section in order to have things organized.

Proposal from the critics editors

Li claims to provide salvation for mankind and his Dafa (great law) is judging all beings in a process called Fa-rectification. In the Fa-rectification process, all beings will be judged based on their moral quality and the attitude they have towards the Fa-rectification. Li states: “Once the saved ones have attained the Fa and left, the dregs of humanity and the degenerate world that are left behind will be weeded out.” In more recent speeches, Li has stressed that “the old forces are to be weeded out during Fa-rectification, the vile party (the CCP) and the evil specters will likewise be weeded out for sure and all who have a hand in what they do.”

Proposal from Falun Dafa editors

Li Hongzhi has stated that by teaching Falun Dafa he is offering universal salvation to all sentient beings. Li Hongzhi has also stated that he initiated a process called Fa-rectification, which refers to the salvation, renewal, rectification and completion of the disintegrating old cosmos. In this process, all beings' attitudes toward Fa-rectification determines their position in the new cosmos, whether that is salvation or destruction; their attitudes toward the teaching of Truthfulness-Compassion-Forbearance is said to decide their future. The Fa-rectification process is said to be nearing completion. Of this, Li Hongzhi himself says: "Why did Fa-rectification have to be done? To save the beings in the cosmos - save all the beings in the cosmos, normalize bad beings and turn them into good ones, have sinful beings be rid of their sins, and have those warped beings reconstructed into good ones again. Dafa brings humankind these wonderful things, and it brings the beings in the cosmos these wonderful things. But during this persecution many beings have indeed lost their chances to be saved and have been denied salvation."

Since i still dont understand what is wrong with the Falun Dafa editors proposal, I'll make a comparison of both paragraphs and tell you what i think, for example:

Comparing:

Li claims to provide salvation for mankind and his Dafa (great law) is judging all beings in a process called Fa-rectification.

and

Li Hongzhi has stated that by teaching Falun Dafa he is offering universal salvation to all sentient beings. Li Hongzhi has also stated that he initiated a process called Fa-rectification, which refers to the salvation, renewal, rectification and completion of the disintegrating old cosmos.

I feel the second paragraph, even though its a bit longer, explains and defines in much more detail and accuracy what the Fa rectification is. It resolves de questions of "How is Mr. Li providing salvation for mankind?" It also answers very accurately the question: "What is the Fa rectification process?". Then on the next sentences it says:

In this process, all beings' attitudes toward Fa-rectification determines their position in the new cosmos, whether that is salvation or destruction; their attitudes toward the teaching of Truthfulness-Compassion-Forbearance is said to decide their future.

comparing it with:

In the Fa-rectification process, all beings will be judged based on their moral quality and the attitude they have towards the Fa-rectification. Li states: “Once the saved ones have attained the Fa and left, the dregs of humanity and the degenerate world that are left behind will be weeded out

I think the Falun Dafa editors explains it more shortly an accurately, salvation and destruction are provided the same weight. I think this part of the critics paragraph centers more on destruction than on salvation. Also, in Falun Dafa, the concept of salvation for cultivators means being saved from the cycle of reincarnation and living in the human world, not salvation from destruction. I think this quote was taken from "Essentials for Further Advancement II" Mr. Li is talking to his cultivators, to his disciples so this is why he uses the term salvation this way, because cultivators seek salvation from the cycle of reincarnation and the human world, not from some calamity of some sort. He has stated that anyone who is a good person, wether Falun Dafa practitioner or not, will be saved from destruction. I can find you quotes if youd like.

Also, the critics paragraph says that "in the Fa rectification all beings will be judged..." i consider this is not an accurate definition of Fa rectification, because the judgement is an active process established by the characteristic of the universe, not the Fa rectification, because the fa rectification is not a process of judgement but a process of renewal, rectification and completion of the old cosmos which has deviated from the characteristic of the universe.

Now in here:

In more recent speeches, Li has stressed that “the old forces are to be weeded out during Fa-rectification, the vile party (the CCP) and the evil specters will likewise be weeded out for sure and all who have a hand in what they do.”

Id have to say Mr. Li has not "stressed" anything like this. Using "in more recent speeches, Mr Li has stressed that.." Mentioning Fa rectification and the CCP is to imply Mr. Li is using the Fa rectification as a personal battle against the CCP. Nobody knows what the "evil specters" or the "old forces" are unless they have read other writings from Mr. Li Hongzhi, and using this quote like this, people will think they reffer to the CCP. I cannot accept this being put in the wikipedia article. Because we have to define what is Fa rectification and this is not an accurate definition. We all know Mr. Li started mentioning the Fa rectification way before Falun Dafa was banned by the CCP. And the Fa rectification process is a very broad concept, which is to rectify everything. This part of the paragraph makes it look as if Fa rectification is directed solely to "judgement and destruction" of the CCP or something. The people from the CCP who torture practitioners and hurt them are bad people, so they will be eliminated just as any other bad people, there's no difference or highlighting of anyone in the elimination process. This part of the paragrah does not reflect a neutral definition of Fa rectification.

Next, this additional piece of information provided by the Falun Dafa editors in their paragraph seems very informative to me:

The Fa-rectification process is said to be nearing completion. Of this, Li Hongzhi himself says: "Why did Fa-rectification have to be done? To save the beings in the cosmos - save all the beings in the cosmos, normalize bad beings and turn them into good ones, have sinful beings be rid of their sins, and have those warped beings reconstructed into good ones again. Dafa brings humankind these wonderful things, and it brings the beings in the cosmos these wonderful things. But during this persecution many beings have indeed lost their chances to be saved and have been denied salvation."

It states that Fa rectification is nearing completion, and using a direct quote from Mr. Li it confirms and answers in detail the question of "Why is the Fa rectification happening?" and provides more detailed explanation of what Fa rectification is. Also, it gives the same weight to salvation and destruction and it talks about how some beings have lost their chance to be saved because they are persecuting Falun Dafa disciples, because they are persecuting people who just want to be good, so that makes them bad people.

I still dont see what is wrong with the Falun Dafa editors proposal, in fact when i read it i actually feel it explains much more and i think its pretty neutral. Can anyone talk to me a bit about the critics paragraph? what is it that the Falun Dafa editors are not explaining in their paragraph? what do you think is missing? What does the critics paragraph have that makes it be considered more meaningful by them?.--Andres18 15:44, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Your version is contradicted by what Li himself says in several important ways, and there are other problems with your proposed language:

1. Li clearly states that beings must be saved by him and the Dafa personally. (That's his word, not mine.) To suggest that it's the teachings which save, rather than the teacher in this context is simply wrong. We must report as accurately as possible what Li says, not your personal interpretation of what he says.

2. It is also misleading to state that "all beings's attitudes toward Fa-rectification determines their position in the new cosmos, whether that is salvation or destruction" because that is only one factor. Yes, Li says all those who don't think that the Dafa is good will be the first weeded out, but he also reveals other categories of beings who will be weeded out during the Fa-rectification. Also, the structure of the sentence is awkward. The first version is more simply worded, but I do agree with you that the future tense in "will be judged" should be changed to present continuous "are being judged" since, yes, the Fa-rectification is an on-going process of moral judgment according to Li. So the new sentence should read:

In the Fa-rectification process, all beings are being judged based on their moral quality and the attitude they have towards the Fa-rectification. "Once the saved ones have attained the Fa and left, the dregs of humanity and the degenerate world that are left behind will be weeded out."

3.Concerning the relative weight given to destruction versus salvation, I do not object to your adding something abour the salvation component, providing it addresses my other concerns.

4. Do you deny that Li has explicitly linked his Fa-rectification with the destruction of the CCP?

Your statements that "Nobody knows what the "evil specters" or the "old forces" are unless they have read other writings from Mr. Li Hongzhi" and "I cannot accept this being put in the Wikipedia article" do not in any way justify the exlusion of the sentence as it is written. Let me repeat it here:

In more recent speeches, Li has stressed that "the old forces are to be weeded out during Fa-rectification, the vile party (the CCP) and the evil specters will likewise be weeded out for sure and all who have a hand in what they do."

Li's statement quite clearly links the weeding out (destruction) of the Chinese Communist Party with the Fa-recification. Do you deny that? Readers need to know what Li has said. If you want to go on to say something about the other entities that will be weeded out: "the old forces" and the "evil specters" then please propose something...however, I don't really think that is necessary.--Tomananda 17:59, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

"Do you deny that Li has explicitly linked his Fa-rectification with the destruction of the CCP?" Yes, absolutely, the purpose of the Fa rectification is not to destroy the CCP, it will be destroyed because it is against the characteristic of the universe. Once again, the Fa rectification process is not a judgement process, it is a rectification process, like the name says it. The characteristic of the universe is the one that establishes the judgement, then based on this judgement, the Fa rectification occurs. If you have noticed that Mr. Li has mentioned "categories" of people who will be eliminated, then please, think a little bit beyond that and ask yourself this: If Falun Dafa practitioners say they are being tortured and killed by members of the CCP and Mr. Li says that what he calls the teachings of Truthfulness-Benevolence-Forbearance are the criteria for judging all sentient beings, then how can the people of the CCP, according to them, be considered to follow these principles? Then won't they be destroyed?. Seems pretty logical to me. Fa rectification is a very broad concept, it is not directed towards the CCP, if you still want to include that, then do it on the criticism section.

Li clearly states that beings must be saved by him and the Dafa personally. (That's his word, not mine.) To suggest that it's the teachings which save, rather than the teacher in this context is simply wrong. We must report as accurately as possible what Li says, not your personal interpretation of what he says.

Well, Mr. Li states that beings must be saved by him and the Dafa, arent the "Dafa" the teachings? Mr. Li takes part in the salvation process personally due to his fashen that plant mecanisms and evolve your body at other dimensions, and he also takes the role in salvation by bringing these teachings. but the true salvation relies on the Dafa, the teachings if it didnt, then cultivation wouldnt be necessary, so we can all just sit and wait to be saved?. How can one come to the world empty handed and start "saving" people?

In Zhuan Falun, Mr. Li says:

"Our Falun Dafa is one of the eighty-four thousand cultivation ways in the Buddha School. During the historical period of this human civilization, it has never been made public. In a prehistoric period, however, it was once widely used to provide salvation to humankind."

Note it says "provide salvation for humankind" because you can only be saved through cultivating according to the teachings. If you say that Mr. Li will save people personally, anyone could misunderstand it, this is why the Falun Dafa editor's proposal explains this more clearly. If Mr. Li where to just come and save us all just like that, then where is the essence of the teachings? why is there a Dafa? and what about cultivation, leaving all attachments, adjusting to the standard of high levels, assimilating to Truth-Benevolence-Forbearance? All these things have to be explained, because they all appear in Zhuan Falun. All of what i am saying is in the book already, if you read it, youll notice it is all there, and there is no mention at all about the CCP. If you say they are my personal interpretations, then what are we to do? include your personal interpretation of these quotes and neglect all the content in Zhuan Falun that speaks about what are the teachings and how to cultivate which is the purpose of Mr. Li coming out to teach Falun Dafa? We cant do that.

Things are suppossed to be neutral, if i let you post something like "In the Fa-rectification process, all beings are being judged based on their moral quality and the attitude they have towards the Fa-rectification. "Once the saved ones have attained the Fa and left, the dregs of humany and the degenerate world that are left behind will be weeded out." " Wouldnt readers think we, as pro Falun Dafa editors, actually agreed to this being posted? Ask any Falun Dafa practitioner that has read all the books of Mr. Li Hongzhi until Fa rectification if they think this is a proper definition of Fa rectification, they will obviously say no. Please understand that we cannot just address your concerns and neglect defining Falun Dafa for what is explained in the books, specially in Zhuan Falun, which is the guide book for practitioners.--Andres18 23:35, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Andres: For all your attempts at apologetics, at the end of the day we must rely on what Li says about salvation and Fa-rectification, not your interpretation of what he says. Li repeatedly has linked the destruction of the CCP with the duty of Fa-rectification Dafa disciples. Since you are now claiming that there is no link, let's tell all those practitioners who have installed robo-calling devices on the their home computers in order to call into homes in mainland China and denigrate the CCP to the point of destruction that they can disconnect their devices and just stay home reading Zhuan Falun. Li states:

...the goal of Dafa disciples' clarifying the truth during this period is to save people and eliminate the poisoning of people by those old elements and by the vile party's evil specters. The reason is, the old forces are to be weeded out during Fa-rectification, the vile party and the evil specters will likewise be weeded out for sure, and all who have a hand in what they do will be weeded out. This is a law laid down in Fa-rectification, and it has to be done this way. Teaching the Fa in Canada (6/10/2006)

We can say that other categories of people will be destroyed during Fa-rectification, but there is no justification for not reporting in the introduction what Li's current teachings are. You state that it's Li's teachings that are doing the saving, not Dafa itself, yet Li states the oppostite. The Dafa is judging all beings, according to Li, and it created all being in the cosmos. Do you think Li means his teachings created those beings, or rather the Dafa itself? And yet you say that "you can only be saved by cultivating according to the teachings"..but here, again, your interpretation is refuted by many of Li's quotes in which he says that all sentient beings can only be saved by him personally and the Dafa. When he says that, he is NOT referring just to Falun Gong cultivators and you know that.

Frankly, I am getting tired of this game. I have provided more than a dozen Li quotes about salvation and Fa-rectification and you reject all of them. You state in the last paragraph that "if I let you post something like..." and then go on to include one of Li's quotes:

"Once the saved ones have attained the Fa and left, the dregs of humanity and the degenerate world that are left behind will be weeded out."

In essense what you are saying is that you and the other FG practitoiners demand the right to deny the inclusion of certain Li Hongzhi quotes simply because they do not agree with your interpretation of what you claim he teaches. I'm sorry, but there is not basis in Wiki editing policy for exluding direct quotes which are notable, verifiable and needed for an understanding of the teaching. I notice that you once again make the claim that because Zhuan Falun, written more than 10 years ago, does not mention the CCP, that somehow justifies the exlusion of the CCP's destruction by Li's Fa-rectification process. Well, using that kind of logic we would also have to exlude all mention of the so-called persecution in China, since that, too, comes from material after 1996.

So practitioners, turn off all those computer devices you have calling into China. And Epoch Times editors, you can stop publishing those counts of how many millions of people have quit the CCP. None of those actions are needed for your salvation according to Andres! You are now free to spend your time at home doing the exercises and studying the Zhuan Falun because Andres has said so.

Andres, I have done more than enough to provide multiple sources for the material I have presented and in return you provide tortured logic and evasive arguments. It's time for me to take a Christmas break and meanwhile, let's have some other non-practioners weigh in on this discussion. --Tomananda 08:56, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Tomananda, first of all: The goal of Dafa disciples clarifying the truth and helping people quit the party is not to disingrate the CCP. The goal is to save people, so it is an act of great compassion. Also, it is not Dafa that is weeding out people. I will show you quotes where Master Li explains that the old forces will elminate the old forces. Also, Master Li said that Gods will elminate CCP, he never said that He himself, Dafa or the Fa-Rectification will eliminate CCP. He clearly stated that Gods will eliminate the CCP. My understanding is that Good is Rewarded and Evil meets with Retribution. The evil CCP have killed more than 100 million Chinese people the last 150 years and they have persecutet The Buddha-Law (Falun Dafa). This is the reason for their destruction. The goal of Dafa disciples is NOT to eliminate the CCP, the goal is to save sentient beings and give sentient beings a chance to be saved during the Fa-Rectification process. Tomananda, how many times have you actually read the articles written by Master Li? You seem to have a very shallow understanding of Falun Dafa and the Fa-Rectification process. Actucally, I refuse to let you tricking people to believe that Master Li or Dafa are in any way enemies to the CCP. Master Li has once said (my own words) that Dafa has no enemies. This means that the CCP is not Dafa's enemy. CCP made a choice, which was to persecute Falun Gong (The Buddha-Law). This choice that the CCP made leads to the elimination of the CCP. Omido 16:44, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Attention all FG practitioners: Andres and Omido are letting you off the hook. Don't pay atttention to anything Li Hongzhi says about your having to spead the Nine Commentaries far and wide in order to eliminate the evil and wicked party in China. Don't jam those TV signals going into mainland China in an attempt the undermine the CCP. And if you have one of those robo-call devices that a FG techie has attached to one of your home computers for the purpose of spreading anti-CCP propaganda, you can now disconnect it. Andres and Omido are now clarifying the Master's words and based on that clarification, you don't have to do do antything to help the Gods eliminate the evil and wicked CCP, because the Gods themselves will do it without your help! Great news, you are finally all off the hook and can return to your normal cultivation activities: reading the Zhuan Falun over and over again, and doing exercises in the park! --Tomananda 17:48, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Did anyone else notice that Omido said the CCP killed 100 million people in the last 150 years despite the CCP only having been formed in the 20th century, not the 19th? And the number 150 can't have been a typo since the number '1' isn't that close to the number '5' on the keyboard. Omido, since your fellow FG practitioner Asdfg is now so keen on people backing up their statistics, where did the 100 million figure come from? Thin air? Jsw663 02:53, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

I told you that the reason for spreading the Nine Commenteries is to save sentient beings and give all beings that are poisoned by the CCP a chance to be saved. That is the purpose of Nine Commenteries. It's no need for FG practitioners to do anything against CCP because history, Gods and Heaven will punish the CCP for its crime against humanity. Omido 18:54, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

I made quite a long post above about this, I think it may help if you read it Tomananda. One thing was that Li Hongzhi has stated that it is only because of interference by the old forces that anyone is being judged or weeded out, and that otherwise everyone would have been assimilated to the Fa. So before mentioning the issue of judgement this will have to be mentioned. I think the paragraph will have to be lengthened to accomodate this. I wish you would read my post. I think the key points are about what Fa-rectification actually is: the old comos disintegrating and Li Hongzhi rectifying it to save all beings, which otherwise would have perished, and that the old forces then came and interefered and arranged things, so that now some beings will be weeded out due to that. In this dimension it manifests as the persecution and those supporting it being weeded out. He has said that only those people who are against Dafa and who support the wicked CCP will be weeded out, and if it were not for the old forces none of that would have happened. We're not denying certain quotes and so on, but we are saying that we want the Fa-rectification actually reported, not just what you think about it. You seem fixated on using that quote about the dregs of humanity etc., and that would not be a problem. In the lines previous the meaning of it should be made clear: it applies to all those who oppose Zhen-Shan-Ren, who support the CCP and who have therefore destroyed themselves, severed their own futures and denied their own salvation because of that attitude, and those who are poisoned by the CCP's lies and have bad thoughts toward Dafa - and that in the end all of this is due to intereference in the Fa-rectification by the old forces, without which nothing like this would have happened and everything would have been harmonised with complete universal salvation. Though I have only written my own words, which means that it is my own understanding, I think it is basically an accurate summary of what has happened with Fa-rectification, and that all of it can be directly supported by quotes from Li Hongzhi. It can be explained in a different way, obviously, and I think the already existing proposal goes a good way to explaining it. How would you like to do it? Split it into two paragraphs, or just a longish paragraph? Either is fine by me, but you won't be allowed to obscure these things and only report the part you want according to your crooked notions and inability to understand the Fa. It will help if you read my above, long post in its entirety. --Asdfg12345 19:13, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

The above post violates WP:Civility and treads on the border of violating WP:NPA. Please refrain from such language in future. --Fire Star 火星 19:42, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Moreover, notice how Tomananda has generally backed up his comments with the appropriate quote and source. Asdfg has engaged in precisely the same debate that he accuses me of - unquoted sources. So the question is, is he implying that his opinion is superior to other Wikipedians when he says "Though I have only written my own words, which means that it is my own understanding, I think it is basically an accurate summary of what has happened with Fa-rectification"? Moreover, isn't Li Hongzhi the only true interpreter of Falun Gong? Oh and since Asdfg is such a supporter of freedom of information maybe he should stop pre-forming opinions by constantly attaching the adjective 'wicked' in front of the acronym 'CCP', because if supposed-CCP supporters constantly place 'evil' or 'wicked' in front of 'FG' or 'Falun Gong', he wouldn't accuse FG critics of any 'propaganda', right? Jsw663 03:01, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Attention all FG practitioners: Omido has further clarified what you are doing when you spread the Nine Commentaries. He says you are not trying to destroy the CCP, but rather just offering CCP members a chance to be saved. In other words, the wicked party will be allowed to continue to exist as long as all its members are saved by Li Hongzhi and his disciples. So with this new understanding, we must make some adjustments to what the requirments are for Fa-rectification Dafa disciples:

1. In this recent poem by Li Hongzhi, ignore the word "fade":

Make clear the truth,and drive off foul spirits.

Spread widely the Nine Commentaries,and the wicked Party shall fade.

With righteous thoughts,save the world's people.

I just don't believe their consciences are irretrievably lost.

Li Hongzhi June 15, 2006, in Philadelphia

Clearly, Li made a mistake in his language here. Although it sounds like he wants the CCP to "fade," what he really meant to say is:

"Spread widely the Nine Commentaries,and the wicked Party will continue to exist but with a change of attitude"

2. Editors of The Epoch Times: effective immediately you must take down that web form in Chinese which collects signatures of alleged CCP members who wish to publicly renounce their membership in the CCP. As Omido has explained, the Master really doesn't want you guys to actively work to destroy the CCP, but rather just to reform its thinking. Also, you must cease reporting those numbers of people who you claim to have quit the party in China. I think that number is up to 15 Million. Obviouisly, since the goal is no longer to destroy the CCP, but rather to save individual members who are part of the CCP, it is no longer appropriate to actively promote resignations from party membership.

3. And for all those Li Hongzhi disciples who have a robo-call device attached to your computer sending unsolicited phone messages to residents of main land China, you can now disconnect those devices! As Omido has explained: There's "no need for FG practitioners to do anything against CCP because history, Gods and Heaven will punish the CCP for its crime against humanity." This is really great news, because now FG practitioners can focus on their individual cultivation and disregard the old requirement of spreading the Nine Commentaries. Why bother? It's all now in the hands of "history, Gods and heaven." So please, stop speading those Nine Commentaries immediately! This does not mean you must stop all communication with people in mainland China, but rather you have to stop promoting the "fading" away of the CCP, because as Omido has explained, that should no longer be your goal. Thanks Omido for making this important clarification! --Tomananda 19:39, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Hey hey, come on Tomananda, lets not speak for other people yes? im sure that all you are claiming that Omido is saying is not what he really means. If we keep making posts like this, we are just going to waste good editing time. All we are saying is that we cultivate through Zhuan Falun, but at the same time it is very important to let people know of these terrible human rights abuses. So many people are being tortured for just wanting to practice Falun Dafa, just think about it, what would have happened if the CCP hadnt banned the Falun Dafa?. Mr. Li never mentioned the CCP until the CCP banned Falun Dafa and started torturing and killing practitioners. All we are doing is exposing the evidence of those crimes, we are not trying to destroy the CCP, if something ever happens to them, it is their fault, they are the ones committing the crimes, we just inform people about them. All we want is the persecution to stop. Its just that people have different ways of doing things, so while some people make phone calls to clarify the truth to officers who know nothing about Falun Dafa except what the CCP has told them and clarify the truth for them, others give out a flyer to the people in the street, in the end, the purpose is to stop the persecution. Why dont we just leave the argument this big and just make posts only useful for editing? i think it helps keep things more organized.--Andres18 22:19, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

My posts should be useful for editing because they speak the truth. It is quite clear from Li's many statements about the CCP (I could post a whole buch of them here if you'd like) and the actions that Falun Gong practitioners take on a daily basis that the purpose of "clarifying the truth" about the "persecution" is much broader than merely "stopping the persecution." I, for one, feel constantly lied to by Falun Gong practitioners because what you say about your beliefs and practices is contradicted by what I know, directly, about your beliefs and practices.

In fairness, I don't expect you to yield on what you think the purpose of your actions is (eg: to save people and yourselves), but I do expect, as an editor who tries to assume good faith, that you (FG editors in general) will eventually yield on my demand that even those possibly embarrassing quotes from your Master will be allowed into the text. What the Master says about the connection between Fa-rectification and the CCP is much clearer than what you guys say. It's as if the Master has surrounded himself with a cadre of militant PR hacks whose job is to spin the image of the FG in the best possible light. I can understand why your Master would want to do this. But spinning is not how we should approach Wikipedia editing.

Take, for example, what I have just posted above. By suggesting I shouldn't speak for others totally misses the point. Since my use of direct quotes from the Master hasn't yielded a consensus on reporting honestly about the link between Fa-rectification and the destruction of the CCP, I have resorted to satire. With a bit of humor, my goal is to clearly point out the inherent contradictions in your stand. But even on a literal level, what I have posted bears a second read. Li Hongzhi has essentially demanded that his disciples take certain actions in order to reach salvation and many of those actions involve a direct attack on the CCP. These "direct attacks" involve spreading of anti-CCP propaganda in many different forms. They are agressive and unrelenting. And because those attacks are agressive and unrelenting, it is simply not reasonable to characterize the FG agenda as a passive one: "all we are trying to do is to stop the persecution." In fact, using your Master's own words, you are working to destroy the CCP. The fact that the ultimate blow may be delivered by "the gods" or "heaven" does not absolve Li's disciples from responsibility for their actions.

I have said from day one that two wrongs do not make a right. Although I can point to clear evidence demonstrating that stories of mass genocide in China have been fabricated by the FG to gain sympathy and support in the West, I do not claim that all stories of persecution are false. But has the FG ever once admitted to it's own errors of fact? Of course not, because the FG is an authoritarian group which avoids all public scrutiny by its agressive tactics. The Falun Gong avoids public scrutiny by relentlessly attacking its critics and constantly pointing to events in China to avoid being looked at itself. As you know, the Falun Gong was attacking its critics in China long before the ban and even getting journalists fired for having dared to criticize Li's Dafa. And more recently, when someone like Samuel Luo whose family has actually been victimized by Li Hongzhi is threatened with lawsuits and jail time in Spain for speaking the truth, what should any reasonable person conclude?

Look, Andres, it is only a few days before Christmas and I am giving my self a break from editing for awhile. I am hoping some of the other non-practitioner editors can weigh in on this discussion, because it truly goes to the heart of the problem with the Falun Gong. --Tomananda 04:17, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

So you resort to satire and assume people will listen or yield to your concerns because you are mocking their opinions which are as useful as yours in order to contribute to a good article? I dare not make judgements but from what i am seeing i think you shouldn't ask us to assume good faith. I can also point to endless and clear evidence that demonstrates that all the stories of persecution are truth, i can show you videos, pictures, investigations, etc. So who of us is right then?. You know, I think it is time to change our approach and make a "Critics say..... Falun Gong practitioners say...." Type of paragraph instead of trying to prove our paragraph is more accurate than the other and so on, maybe it will be more productive. Im traveling tommorrow morning and i will be back on mid january or so, see you then. Merry christmas.--Andres18 00:51, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

For Wikipedia's purposes, it doesn't matter who is "right." If there are notably sourced reports about what the CCP is doing (New York Times, Washington Post, BBC, Newsweek, Time, etc.) then it should go in the article. As well, what Li has actually said , when it is germane to showing his history, creed, metaphysics, etc., also has a place in the article, especially the comments about his celestial rôle, homosexuals, the relative intelligence of Chinese people, mixing races, etc. This is all notable stuff, in the public domain, and belongs in the article. Asking each other questions in aid of validating or invalidating Falungong on a personal level is a complete waste of time, although probably 90% of this page as well as 90% of the archived talk above is all just such argument... --Fire Star 火星 18:40, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Tomananda, you are putting words in other peoples mouth. This is such a bad thing to do. I say something, you quote me and say that I mean something else. Why do you do this? Actually Tomananda, you are extremely hard to work with because all you want to do is to change others. You want to change others but you don't want to change yourself. Your own notions of Falun Gong have to be satisfied, right? This is not the correct way and I hope that you can try to see things through other people's eyes and have more tolerence toward others. I told you that the reason for spreading the Nine Commenteries is to give the chinese people a chance to understand the truth about Falun Gong and the persecution of Falun Gong. It is in fact an act of great compassion. Cultivators of Dafa have absoloutly no political interest among ordinary people. Cultivators of Dao wish to abandon their worldy desires and attachments, why would we ever seek any political power? The purpose of spreading the Nine Commenteries and clarifying the truth about Falun Gong is to give people a chance to understand what is really happening to Falun Gong practitioners in China. Falun Gong practioners are all very good people and very noble. What you try to portray Falun Gong as is very incorrect. It is very easy for me to sit here and say that Tomananda is so brainwashed by the Chinese Communist Party propaganda. But I won't say that because my goal is to create a good article and give people a chance to understand the truth and understand how good Falun Gong and Falun Gong practitioners actually are. I don't have any interest of badmouthing anybody. Omido 10:47, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Also Fire Star, you are a admin. You are supposed to be neutral, so why are you taking a side and attacking Falun Gong? Are not doing wrong things? Are you not ashamed? Stop doing your unjustified reverts please! A admin should uphold justice and be neutral, that is the way convenant did it. But what are you doing? Please stop being like that and be more righteous. Omido 12:19, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Sub-sections for Criticism and controversies

I Omido, believe that the sub-sections for criticism and contreversies are very unfair when they show up like that on the main page. I want to create a neutral article so that people can understand the truth about Falun Gong. This is my goal. However I have to say that the sub-sections for the Criticism and controversies make the article become extremely unbalanced, this is not correct. Please discuss your opinions here and don't just do reverts. Omido 10:49, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

One more thing. My goal is to make this article as neutral as possible. Within this article there exists a section called "Criticism and controversies". I will spend alot of time these couple of weeks to create a section called "Praise and Graditude". Within this section I will report on the beauty of Dafa and how Falun Gong practitioners have made selfless efforts to peacefully reject this persecution and clarify the facts about the evil persecution in China. Within this section I will gather information and testimony on how many people have benefited from cultivating within Dafa. Omido 12:40, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Hello, I am still rather new to Wikipedia, so forgive me if I am editing this article incorrectly. When you say "My goal is to make this article as neutral as possible" and in the same paragraph say "I will report on the beauty of Dafa and how Falun Gong practitioners have made selfless efforts to peacefully reject this persecution" -- you are using words like "beauty" to describe Dafa, and calling Falun Gong practitioners "selfless" and "peaceful". This immediately betrays that you are NOT neutral, in fact you are extremely biased in favor of this organization. If you were indeed "neutral" you might say something like, "practicioners consider themselves peaceful yet persecuted and have been trying to avoid/reject such persecution." And you may say something like "Dafa is considered by followers to be a very beautiful aspect of their belief" or something to that effect. You MUST speak as though the practicioners are speaking for themselves, not that you are speaking as if you are a practicioner. I highly recommend you do not contribute to this article, as I am sure contribution will not be neutral no matter how hard you try. --Thebes, Dec 21, 2006

Hi Thebes, thank you for your input. If you are indeed new to Wikipedia I would advise you to read the Wikipedian guidelines first before editing the main article, especially one as controversial as this one, especially the three Wikipedian policies and the many guidelines available. There is also a policy not to treat new editors to Wikipedia harshly, so I hope Omido will respect that.

Omido, I wish you would read the main debates between FG practitioners and FG critics + 3rd parties that have taken place already. Remember that this is Wikipedia and NPOV is impossible when you load your sentences with subjective words. For more detail read the WP:NPOV policy. Other than that, please avoid engaging in constant section blanking and reverting any edit you disagree with on the main Falun Gong page without prior discussion / reading of this page. Prior discussion means AFTER something has been debated by both sides, NOT just after you have posted the matter for discussion on this page. Please also assume WP:Civility and accept that FG practitioners do not possess the only view of FG that matters. That is why there are FG sites and anti-FG sites - those are the places to praise / criticize FG and/or its practitioners. On Wikipedia we try to accommodate different views so please respect that. After all, we all have equal status here, even when we disagree. Jsw663 14:57, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Thebes, I understand how you think, but I have to disagree with you. Of course I speak in favor of Falun Gong, this is because I am a Falun Gong practitioner and I truly think Dafa is a Righteous Law of the Buddha-School. I truly think this. Still, my goal is to offer people the truth about the persecution of Dafa and to tell people what Dafa is about. I think those who have negative thoughts about this Dafa have either listened to the Chinese Communist Party propaganda or they have not yet understood this Dafa. Also Thebes, I think you missunderstood me. I said that I will write about the beauty of Falun Gong within the section "Praise and Graditude". Omido 18:48, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

There are notable criticisms about Falungong, and there would be little publicity for them if there weren't controversies. To say there isn't a place for the reporting of notable, sourced criticisms and controversy surrounding Falungong and its founder is unrealistic. Of course we are going to report these things. To have an article that is a simple advert for Li Hongzhi's creed is unacceptable. --Fire Star 火星 22:20, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

There should be a place for criticism. Omido is just pointing out that he thinks it would also be fair if there was a third party possitive views on falun gong website called "Praise and gratitude". He believes it would be neutral since it would reflect that third party views on Falun Gong are not just criticism but there is also other people who view Falun Gong as a possitive influence in their communities and that should also be reported. Seems like a good idea to me.

Thebes, its not good to go around accussing people like that regardless of how eccentric you think their allegations may be, that is just contributing more and more to creating an uncivility environment and deviating from the editing process. Lets all respect each others point of views and if we disagree with each other, we can state it in a civil way. If i were to judge you in the same terms you judged Omido, then saying you believe his contribution would not be neutral no matter how much he tries and trying to dismiss him from the editing process is judging people basing yourself on merely two posts or so, it breaks the rule of Assuming Good Faith, the rule of uncivility and it does not make you a neutral editor either, thus would you also qualify for being dismissed from this editing process. Let's just focus on answering at each others suggestions and ideas rather than criticizing each other.--Andres18 00:22, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Omido, you are supposed to be truthful as a FG practitioner and that includes what you claim about the Falun Gong's history in China. Not only have you been repeatedly deleting the summary of sub-sections in the Criticism and controversies section, you've actually posted something which is totally untrue. You have replaced a true sentence:

"Falun Gong became the subject of criticism and controversy a few years after its introduction in China in 1992 and continues to this day."

with a totally false one:

"Criticism and controversy about the Falun Gong began after 1999, when the persecution by the CCP began."

As I am sure you are aware, the early criticism of the Falun Gong began long before the ban in 1999. That fact is well documented in the Criticism section. You simply cannot make up your own history about the Falun Gong, and I find your efforts to do so extremely disturbing. --Tomananda 00:56, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Most criticism began after 1999. The only criticism I am aware of that began before 1999 was from the Chinese Buddhist association. They criticized Falun Gong. I also know that the only reason the Buddhist association attacked Dafa was because ALOT of lay Buddhists became Falun Gong practitioners. The buddhist association has a monthly fee and when alot of their members because Dafa practitioners they lost alot of money, so they became angry and started to make up stories and slander Master Li and Dafa. Omido 16:20, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Also Tomananda, stop saying "you should be truthful as a Falun Gong practitioner". If somebodies actions does not validate your notions then you can't say he is not truthful, who said that your notions are truthful? Actually I can tell you that your notions are so far from the truth. I am here to validate Dafa, to clarify the truth about Dafa and to protect the rumor of Master Li and Dafa. I am not here to follow your understanding or to validate your notions, have you not understood this yet? I know why I am here and what I should do. Omido 16:23, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

"I am here to validate Dafa" But that isn't what Wikipedia is for. Please read, really read, WP:NPOV. You may not be aware, but you have just outed yourself as a POV warrior. Such a positioning is certain to get you reverted every time. --Fire Star 火星 19:14, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Omido, You seem to be declaring that you will not accept verifiable facts from credible third party sources in this article if those facts and sources contradict what you personally consider to be the thruth of the Dafa. Fire Star is correct: with that attitude you cannot live up to the objective standards of a Wikipedia editor. Despite what you claim, I base all my edits on reliable sources or direct quotes from Master Li. In this particular incident, the truth of my statment that "Falun Gong became the subject of criticism and controversy a few years after its introduction in China in 1992" is supported by historians, scholars and journalists who have published their work in reputable publications. The criticism is summarized on the Criticism page and consists of two main types: the critique of Buddhists around issues of Buddhist orthodoxy and the concerns of academics on what they considered to be the harmful aspects of Falun Gong practice. All this is a matter of historical record and it is not disputed. Public criticism of Li Hongzhi and his teachings not only occured before the ban, but the Falun Gong's militant response to its critics also helped to justify the ban. This information which you are trying to blank out is not only well-sourced and accurate, it also is quite notable because it helps people to understand why the Beijing government ultimately cracked down on the Falun Gong so strongly. --Tomananda 20:10, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Fire Star, I was just making a point: That I am not here to follow Tomananda's thinking or to validate his notions. I am here to clarify the truth about Dafa and create a neutral article, unlike Tomananda who only wants to attack Falun Gong. Also Tomananda, there is nothing harmful about Falun Gong. Do you know how many practitioners became healthy and healed after they began practicing Falun Gong? How do you deny these things? There are tens of millions of practitioners worldwide that got cured of many deadly diseases, do you deny these things do? So many people around the world KNOW that Dafa is so good. They know how miracolous Falun Gong is and how good Falun Gong practitioners have responded to this brutal and evil persecution. I will create a "Praise and Gratitude" section that will be just as big as the criticism section and there I will gather all the eye witnesses and gather practitioners stories about how they benefited from this wonderful and miracolous practice within Buddha-School. Omido 12:17, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Also Fire Star, you are a admin. You are supposed to be neutral, so why are you taking a side and attacking Falun Gong? Are not doing wrong things? Are you not ashamed? Stop doing your unjustified reverts please! A admin should uphold justice and be neutral, that is the way convenant did it. But what are you doing? Please stop being like that and be more righteous. Omido 12:20, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Also Fire Star you said that "but that is not what wikipedia is here for". Well, is Wikipedia here for attacking Falun Gong? Absoloutly not! As long as there are editors that are trying to defame Master and Dafa with their CCP propaganda and lies, I will be here to protect Dafa and put in positive material. As long as there are editors who are trying to put in negative things and lie about things, I will be here to try to clarify the truth about Falun Dafa. Omido 12:23, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, thanks for replying, but you have realise that Wikipedia isn't attacking FLG, we are simply reporting it. Li Hongzhi is a controversial figure, and what he teaches is unusual, at best, and many people find what he teaches to be highly offensive. That there are things in the public domain that can be reported to that end that you don't want reported isn't my concern, and I am not ashamed to say it. I try to be neutral, and it is perhaps your pro-FLG stance that prevents you seeing that. If you read through the talk page archive you'll see that I have been accused of being both pro- and anti-FLG, and that is because I won't let the pro- guys turn it into a snow job or the anti- guys turn it into a hatefest. You have declared your intent to turn this into a snow job, and I can make a case to therefore (especially since this is the only subject you contribute to) treat your edits as vandalism, but if you can get yourself to accept that there are going to be things in the article that you don't like (as we all do), then you will be a lot happier here. --Fire Star 火星 14:28, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

How can you call the sub-sections for critism and conterversies to show up like that on the main page fair? it is not fair at all. Stop doing reverts just like that, we are discussing here. I told everybody why I removed the sub-sections for criticm on the main page. You have no reason to just revert it. Omido 15:53, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

I have explained the reasons I've reverted you, and I will do so again: You have declared that your intent is to "to validate Dafa", but that isn't what Wikipedia does. The simplest way to put it, so that you will please consider the opinions of the rest of us, is: This isn't Li Hongzhi's house, it is our house, and if you don't behave you will eventually be escorted out.

The criticisms and controversies section is on the main page (linked to the more detailed main criticisms and controversies article) because controversy and criticism is how FLG is most well known to the general public. You have admitted that you want to promote FLG, Wikipedia policy says we merely report, warts and all. I would consider that your continued insistence that the article promote FLG as vandalism if I felt that you understood our policies. You have admitted that you care more about advertising FLG than about following policy, actually. As it is, your POV pushing has the effect of vandalism, and is very likely to get you blocked if you continue. --Fire Star 火星 19:05, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi, I've added a link to the Positive Sites section, http://misconceptions.50webs.com, "Misconceptions About Falun Gong". This link adds more balance to the types of links under Critical Sites by addressing some of their points, so it should be left as is. I have no interest in working on the Wikipedia entry, so this is probably the first and last you'll see of me.

Cheers, Matthew Three 19:22, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

I can't believe we are even having this conversation! Omido is not only blanking the entire Criticism and controversies summary on the main page, he is replacing it with a sentence which is totally false:

"Criticism and controversy about Falun Gong began after 1999, when the persecution by the CCP began."

If this isn't a gross violation of NPOV, I don't know what is. Omido, it is clear that you are trying to suppress reporting of the pre-ban history of the Falun Gong in China because that history presents a less-than-sympathetic picture of Falun Gong's activities. The bottom line is that you are deleting material that meets all Wiki criteria for edits. It is NPOV (because it is reporting well-sourced historical facts or the published opinions of critics), notable and not original research. For you to not only insist on blanking this material but also adding a sentence of your own which mis-represents the history of the FG is outrageous. It is also self-defeating for you in your role as practitioner who must "clarify the truth" and "defend the Dafa." If the Dafa really is the great cosmic law which created all sentient beings in the cosmos, how can the Dafa possibly benefit from false statements being posted on Wikiepedia? Think about it! Is it possible to defend the principle of "truthfullness" by lying? How can that be? --Tomananda 19:28, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Promote? What do you mean promote? Do you even know what validate means? Fire Star, with validate Dafa it means to expose the lies and propaganda that the CCP has spread in order to justify their wicked persecution against Falun Dafa. To validate Dafa means to clarify the truth to people about the persecution, what is wrong with doing that? Nothing wrong at all. I am aiming at creating a neutral article. "controversy and criticism is how FLG is most well known to the general public." Are you joking? The general public thinks Falun Dafa and Truth-Compassion-Forbearence is so good and the west and the general public have showed their support and sympathy for Falun Gong. How can you say things like that? Im sorry but you do not seem reasonable at all. Tomananda has been here stirring things up and spreading lies and propaganda for too long, I will not allow it to continue like that anymore. I will do my best to create a neutral article and not let CCP mouthpieces like Tomananda come and stir things up like that. "You have admitted that you care more about advertising FLG than about following policy, actually. As it is, your POV pushing has the effect of vandalism, and is very likely to get you blocked if you continue." Are you kidding? Why do you put words into my mouth? What kind of admin are you? What a joke. When did I say that I want to promote Falun Gong or advertise for Falun Gong? I said that I want to validate Dafa, that is what I said. Stop putting words into my mouth. Validate Dafa means clarifying the truth about the persecution in China and expose the propaganda and lies that CCP has spread, that is what it means. Isn't exposing the persecution in China a way to report? How can it not be allowed? I have so much material from well known people that clearly reports about the persecution of Falun Gong, they are all NPOV, how can you call it all to be POV? I suggest that you take your responsibility as an admin and become more neutral.

Tomananda, I put back the sentence criticism began after 1992. Are you satisfied? Still I don't accept that the sub-sections for criticism and conterversies show up like that on the main page, it is absoloutly unacceptable. If that does not make the article unbalanced, then I don't know what does!

Omido 20:44, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

I mean that you have admitted promoting FLG in the sense that you object to anything that you see as critical to the subject of FLG as "unfair" and that you have declared that you are here to "validate" (which means establish the validity of in English in this sense) FLG on Wikipedia. I hadn't heard of FLG until the suppression by the CCP, and I'm sure the publicity generated by the crackdown is how most of us first heard of it. For a Wikipedia editor to say that the CCP is wicked while FLG is always good is so POV that I can't believe you expect anyone here who has read WP:NPOV to agree with it. So, with you having said all that, just above, may I ask: if you don't stand by your own words, then what are you discussing for? I am an admin telling you that that isn't how Wikipedia works. We have a long, long history of FLG practitioners, one subject editors all, coming here trolling for converts. That is what I mean by promote. The layout of the page may be unacceptable to you, but consensus says otherwise, and you are in open violation of WP:3RR at this point, exacerbated by the last few days. --Fire Star 火星 00:01, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

I have to say that I do not agree with you. I am not here to object to anything that I see as critical, if I did it like that then I would not be creating a neutral article, would I? I have said many times that my goal is to create a neutral article. Balancing the sub-sections in the critcism section is the first step because it looks really unbalanced and unfair when they show up like that on the main page. The reason I say Falun Gong is good and CCP is wicked is because the CCP has a history of killing innocent people. It is estimated that 100 million chinese citizens have had an "unnatural" death (killed by CCP) from the time CCP started ruling in China. Also, there are alot of independent eye witnesses that have stepped forward and confirmed that here are currently 36 concentrationcamps that are illegally detaining Falun Gong practitioners. How can I not call the CCP wicked? I think the CCP is the most wicked cult in the world right now, that is what I think. The reason I think like this is because they have persecuted Falun Gong, Falun Gong practitioners and for their history of killing innocent Chinese people the last 150 years, only for money and power. There is serious problems regarding human rights today in China, this is why I call CCP wicked. The reason I say Falun Gong is good is because I myself practice Falun Gong and I, my family, friends and alot of people around be have really benefited since I started practicing Falun Gong. I have learned from Falun Gong why I should be a good person and why I should remove my selfish intentions to hurt others for personal gain, this is the reason why I think Falun Gong is really good. I told you these things because you did not agree with me saying the CCP is wicked and Falun Gong is good, so I just told you why I think the way I think. I'm not here to make any trouble and I have learned from Falun Dafa to treat everbody and everything with compassion, I'm sorry if I have not acted so good. My goal is still to create a neutral article, not to preach, promote or advertise Falun Gong. My goal is to clarify the truth about the persecution of innocent Falun Gong practitioners in China, the organ harvesting of live Falun Gong practitioners and the teachings of Falun Gong. I told you that the first step is to balance how the sub-sections appear on the main page, as you can understand Fire Star, the sub-sections showing up like that and totally "taking over" the main page is actually not neutral and fair. You as a neutral admin should be able to see this too. Omido 10:54, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

It is OK that you don't agree with me, or anyone else. It is not OK that you don't listen to me or anyone else. It certainly not OK that you continually revert the article to your preferred version. You are saying what you believe, and your beliefs are based on value judgments that you personally hold, but that still isn't how Wikipedia works. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, not a blog, not a discussion board, and not free advertising for Li Hongzhi or the CCP. We don't say anyone is good or evil, we report what other people, notable people, have written about the subject. We are reporters, not masked avengers. You aren't the only person here and you can't unilaterally decide what is and isn't in this article.

As far as content is concerned - of course there is controversy; world-famous, thoroughly-reported-by-every-major-news-agency-and-well-known-to-the-reading-public controversy between FLG and the CCP. There is less well known but still well attested controversy between FLG and anti-cult advocacy groups. To say that reporting these highly significant features of FLG is "unfair" is unrealistic. Of course its fair, it happened. We say what Li Hongzhi has said and let people make up their own minds. We say what the CCP did and let people make up their own minds. There is no fair or unfair, just reporting. If people think that makes Li look crazy or the CCP bloodthirsty, that is their business. By slanting that process with a whitewash, a snow job to make Li look like an angel and the CCP look like devils is POV. You'll have to read our neutral point of view policy, where this is pointed out, again and again until it sticks if you want a continued happy career here. It is one of the many mechanisms in place for forestalling any one person from deciding the fate of an article; 3RR is another. --Fire Star 火星 14:32, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Fire Star, within the changes I have made, the sub-sections for criticism and conterversy are shortened on the main page to create a more balanced and neutral article. I also added describtions for the positive links. These are the changes that I revert to. This should not be wrong, I am not advertising or anything, I am just balancing the article and the sub-sections on the main page are not balanced at all. They are negative. Wikipedia is not here to slander Falun Dafa, right? Omido 21:13, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Greetings. I will repost your quote in order to bold and note sequentially the phrases that indicate your intent to impose your opinion (and thereby undo the work of other editors), so you can see what phrases particluarly are problematic for purposes of an encyclopaedia:

"Fire Star, within the changes I have made, the sub-sections for criticism and conterversy are shortened on the main page to create a more balanced and neutral article.¹ I also added describtions for the positive links² These are the changes that I revert to. This should not be wrong, I am not advertising or anything, I am just balancing the article and the sub-sections on the main page are not balanced at all. They are negative.³ Wikipedia is not here to slander Falun Dafa⁴, right?"

For note 1: You say you are creating a shortened and more balanced, neutral article, but it looks to me like you are simply removing reports of criticisms and controversy. In the whole of Wikipedia you will not find an article about a group like FLG without some mwntion of controversial elements on the from page, from the Roman Catholic Church to the International Olympic Committee. If the controversy has been as throughly reported as the controversy FLG has been in, then only your opinion weighs against having it mentioned on the main page. The entire weight of Wikipedia custom disagrees.

For note 2: Your "descriptions for positive links" are by self-definition not neutral. "Positive" links? Again, that wording weights it so that solely your opinion of them shines through. A more neutral wording would be the more descriptive "pro-FLG" links. See WP:NPOV.

For note 3: You say you are balancing that which is not balanced, but you only base that on your opinion, too. I'm sorry that the public record seems unbalanced to you, but these things have happened and to leave mention of them out of our article, to have our article contain only the solely "positive" reportage that you say is balanced would make us just so much free advertising for Li Hongzhi's books and lectures. See WP:NOT.

For note 4: To imply that those whom you disagree with here are "slandering" is a disingenuous argument, treading close to a personal attack, and is not a way to impress your fellow editors here at Wikipedia, or incline us to care about your opinionated objections. See WP:AGF.

So there you have it. I'm not trying to give you a hard time, but you have to see that what you have admitted you are trying to do here, to somehow forever "validate" FLG on Wikipedia, won't stand. Wikipedia is not an organ of FLG, FLG does concern more people than its pracitioners or the CCP, and contributions to the article will have to respect that or be reverted. --Fire Star 火星 22:53, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

One question: Why is it that the criticism page's summary on the main page consists of summaries of and links to each section? It's the only subpage with this kind of treatment. Why so? Mcconn 00:07, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Good point. I think it's not a problem to have a subsection for criticisms and controversies, but overdoing is not right. Let us regard them as "negative" third party responses to Falun Gong; there is a distinct lack of "positive" third party responses - so however big you want to make the section on criticisms, an equally big section should be made on praise. But besides that, these things are not the main focus for this article, which is Falun Gong, though they should be equally reported. Can get to work on a report of third party positive responses to Falun Gong sometime soon. Maybe we should also make a page with that title to balance things.--Asdfg12345 00:12, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Asdfg: You seem to have not read Firestar's summary of Wikipedia policy, because you have done the same blanking that Omido did, while also adding some POV terms of your own. As Firestar points out, Wikipedia will of course report notable criticism and controversy, and the material that now exists on the home page is far from "excessive"...in fact, if anything, it is minimalistic. If you would prefer, we could move a few of the sections that now appear on the Criticism page to the Main page, which also would make sense. I'm thinking especially about the "Is Falun Gong a cult" section, which was originally on the main page, before you started editing. And as to overall weight of this material, I suggest you review the main page on Scientology as a model for our own Criticism page.

You keep blanking the same material over and over again, as if that were going to convince others that it doesn't belong. How would you feel if all I did was blank the obvious pro-FG material, like the section you have on the alleged health benefits of FG? Why is it that you never see the point of respecting the work of other editors? --Tomananda 03:51, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

I will say that it is possible disputed material is restructured (links, etc.) or moved to a different part of the page, but it shouldn't be removed completely. I think it is possible to improve the format, but the material itself is noteworthy. --Fire Star 火星 13:56, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

How do people feel about a more concise single or double paragraph summary of the criticism subpage similar to that used for other subpages? Mcconn 15:38, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

That would be fine w/me. There should be consistency. --Fire Star 火星 18:39, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Tomanda, as far as I know, these and the criticism page itself were mostly written by you, so what do you think of this? Mcconn 20:44, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Fire Star, the last 4 responses, I told you I am not here to advertise for Falun Gong. You are still bringing up the same subject, I don't know why. My changes included shortening the sub-sections for the criticism or conterversy because they are really overdone and the critics just edited it like that some months ago without the other editors approval. Also Fire Star, I have to say that you are absoloutly not a neutraö admin, this is really not correct and you should really try to be more neutral. Your behaviour is totally unacceptable. You are not understanding something Fire Star. People like Tomananda and Samuel Lou are here to slander Falun Dafa and force their own opinions and notions on others. As a Falun Dafa practitioners I cannot just sit by and watch them do whatever they want, do you understand this? Omido 17:08, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry that you are upset with my position. When you say you are here to "validate" Li Hongzhi's teachings, it means in practical terms that you are advertising; you are trying to convince people that Li Hongzhi is who he says he is without acknowledging criticisms or controversy at all. You are simply saying they are "unfair" (when your edit summary actually mentions what you are doing) and removing them. This may surprise you, but I myself don't believe Li Hongzhi is a fluffy bunny angel come down from heaven to save us all. He is a complicated man and his new religion has a complicated, sensational and remarkably controversial history. It isn't every day that the government of the largest nation on earth decides to hunt down and kill a religion! If you don't like the controversy section, you have to prove to us that the information is somehow incorrect, and not just by saying that it is unfair or unbalanced. As I've said, I have been accused of being both pro- and anti-FLG over the years, and I've conceded good points to both sides, if they make them. As far as my neutrality goes, here I am just another editor, I don't exercise admin functions on this article because I've edited myself for a long time now and that would be a conflict of interest. The only admin function I will exercise here is for blatant and repeated violations of our personal attack policy, which I would enforce anywhere. I hope this helps. --Fire Star 火星 18:33, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Firestar, thank you for again restating the premises under which all Wikipedia editors should work. I'm afraid Omido is not willing to accept Wikipedia standards of notability, NPOV and no original research. In an earlier post you commented that Omido is outing himself as a POV warrier, and he continues to do so. While you are not playing the role of an administrator here, it seems to me that Omido's persistence in pushing his POV should be brought to the attention of an administrator who has the power to sanction him.

It's ironic that Omido should accuse me of the very thing he is doing. You have told Omido that "If you don't like the controversy section you have to prove to us that the information is somehow incorrect, and not just by saying that it is unfair or unbalanced." The point is this: the material that is reported in the Criticism and controversies summary section meets all Wikiepdia criteria: it is well-sourced, notable and not original research. Yet Omido has the affrontery to acuse me of slandering Falun Dafa and forcing my opinions and notions on others. I strongly object to Omido's use of the term slander...both because it amounts to a personal attack and because it is grossly inaccurate. How can I possibly "slander" Falun Dafa by accurately reporting what it's founder, Li Hongzhi, has said? How can I possibly be charged with forcing my opinions on others, when it is the opinions of notable published sources that I seek to report?

What is really outrageous in Omido's editing behavior is that while he is comfortable hurling accusations against me, he has inserted unsourced falsehoods into these edits without so much as an apology. As the discussion above shows, when I called him on one of these falsehoods...his statement that criticism of the FG didn't begin until 1999 as a result of the "persectution"...he actually backed down and reinserted the original sentence which reported the work of scholars, historians and reporters.

The bottom line here is that Omido, by his repeated posts on this page, has demonstrated a stubborn unwillingness to abide by Wikipedia editing standards. His use of the legal term slander to describe the edits done by FG critics such as myself and Samuel Luo could even be construed as a threat against Wikipedia itself, and that in and of itself is against Wikipedia policy.

How much longer do we have to persist in this conversation? Other FG editors have shown a willingness to work cooperatively in this editing process. I am afraid that as long as Omido continues to demand the right to do wholesale blanking of material he doesn't like...but which he makes no attempt to disprove or challenge in terms of sources or notability...we will not be able to make any progress on improving this article. --Tomananda 20:38, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Tomanda, as far as I know, the criticism/controversy summaries and the page itself were mostly written by you, so what do you think of my above suggestion? Mcconn 20:44, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Right now the issue is Omido's behavior. We've already had discussion about the overall organization on the main page and I've made my comments previously, but once again the work of a zealous editor has distracted us. First Omido blanked all the Critical summaries on the main page, then Asdfg did the same thing. There are many more FG practitioner editors on this page then there are critical editors. There's no point in pretending that you speak for the community of FG editors, because clearly you do not. So for now, I feel I must wait until there is an equitable resolution to the Omido problem. Fire Star: could you please communicate with the appropriate administrator about Omido's behavior? --Tomananda 21:59, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I'll create a section here for discussion over my suggestion, and I'll leave this discussion as is. We can discuss more than one issue at a time. Mcconn 23:01, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Criticism/Controversy summary on main page reduced to one or two paragraphs

All of the subpage summaries on the main page are one or two paragraphs except for the criticism/controversy subpage, which has individual subsections with links and summaries for each subsection on its main page. So I am suggesting reducing this to one or two paragraphs, like the summaries of other subpages. First, I'd like to know who supports this idea and who doesn't. If you don't support it, then please state why. If most are in favor then perhaps someone can take up the responsibility to write a draft and post it on the talk page for review. Mcconn 23:01, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

No, I do not support this obvious attempt to dilute the Criticism and controversies summary on the main page. You seem to be bothered that there are separate links to sub-articles which happen to appear on the same Criticism page, but not bothered that at the same time this material was created the FG practitioners created a bunch of separate pages to promote the FG. As I've said before, the placement of some of the sub-sections in the Criticism page is rather arbitrary. For example, the "Is Falun Gong a cult?" subsection probably belongs on the main page, where it was at the very beginning of our discussions. And there are other sub-sections in the Criticism page which could easily warrent their own separate pages. Why should we have multiple pages which FG practitioners created, but only one Criticism page? Is that really balanced? --Tomananda 00:06, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Ya, it really is balanced. Because there is a lot more to Falun Gong than criticism and controversy. Do you think half the page should be criticism? That's silly. What precedence does that have? There are many elements to this subject of which Criticism and controversy is one. And, like it or not, it is but one subpage of the article. It does not deserve the special treatment that it has been getting. I know that you originally modeled this section after the one on the scientology page, but the fact is Falun Gong is not scientology, and the two pages are different. The criticism section for scientology does not have a seperate page, while ours does. If you really have a problem with having this section's mainpage summary be just like the others, then another option would be to do something in bullet form like the christianity article. I do believe that in the current state it is being given unfair treatment.

The "Is Falun Gong a cult" section rightly belongs in that page because this is a controversal subject, and the academics' explanations of why they think Falun Gong is cult amount to criticism. Mcconn 03:50, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I made a mistake. The Scientology page does have a seperate subpage for criticism. Mcconn 04:19, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

For an example of a well-sourced critical page on a well-known subject, please have a look at Criticism of Coca-Cola. We have a lot of one-subject editors here, both pro- and anti-, so hopefully this should be interesting. --Fire Star 火星 15:56, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Statement about salvation and Fa-rectification expanded to one paragraph

Since it appears we are not going to work sequentially on editing the main page, I am posting here for discussion the new somewhat merged paragraph that I posted in the introduction section:

Li claims to provide salvation for mankind and his Dafa (great law) is judging all beings in a process called Fa-rectification. In the Fa-rectification process, all beings are judged based on the principles of Truthfulness, Benevolence and Forbearance and the attitude they have towards the Fa-rectification. Li states: “Once the saved ones have attained the Fa and left, the dregs of humanity and the degenerate world that are left behind will be weeded out.” In more recent speeches, Li has stressed that “the old forces are to be weeded out during Fa-rectification, the vile party (the CCP) and the evil specters will likewise be weeded out for sure and all who have a hand in what they do.” The Fa-rectification process is said to be nearing completion.

For those who remember the previous complaints about what I had written, you'll notice that I have changed the previous reference to moral quality (an undefined concept if there ever was one) to the much more precise reference to Truthfullneess, Benevolence and Forebearance, which is the precise definition of what constitutes moral quality for Li Hongzhi and his disciples. There are some other changes in the paragraph as well. Please indicate your approval or disappoval of this new paragraph below, or alternatively suggest modifications you would like to see.--Tomananda 00:16, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Tomananda I wrote a great deal in response to this. Those things do not explained what Fa-rectification is. Plus introducing the concepts about the CCP, old forces, etc, is not appropriate right at the beginning. If Fa-rectification is to be talked about, you need to actually say what it is. I wrote so much explaining this. Go back and read it please. All you have done to respond to that is provide some of your own interpretations of Falun Dafa as a political enterprise aimed at destroying the CCP, something that Li Hongzhi has explicitly and repeatedly stated is not the case. See salvation of all sentient beings. I keep saying your own interpretations are fine, but don't belong in wikipedia. If there are some cult experts or political scientists who have published work and who say the same stuff as you then we should post it for sure in the appropriate section. I will post the other I proposed below, and if there are things you don't understand or disagree with please say so. I urge you to read what I wrote before, quite long, so I won't repeat it again.

Li Hongzhi has stated that by teaching Falun Dafa he is offering universal salvation to all sentient beings. Li Hongzhi has also stated that he initiated a process called Fa-rectification, which refers to the salvation, renewal, rectification and completion of the disintegrating old cosmos. In this process, all beings' attitudes toward Fa-rectification determines their position in the new cosmos, whether that is salvation or destruction; their attitudes toward the teaching of Truthfulness-Compassion-Forbearance is said to decide their future. The Fa-rectification process is said to be nearing completion. Of this, Li Hongzhi himself says: "Why did Fa-rectification have to be done? To save the beings in the cosmos - save all the beings in the cosmos, normalize bad beings and turn them into good ones, have sinful beings be rid of their sins, and have those warped beings reconstructed into good ones again. Dafa brings humankind these wonderful things, and it brings the beings in the cosmos these wonderful things. But during this persecution many beings have indeed lost their chances to be saved and have been denied salvation."

In some words, that is basically what Fa-rectification is, and I wrote a great deal in a long post above explaining how. I want you to read all of it. The things about the old forces and even further on, the CCP, may be introduced in another section explaining Fa-rectification, when there is time to go into more detail. This is the introduction, remember? I would actually not mind to see a properly written enclopedic article about Falun Gong that discussed all the beliefs and everything, so why don't you? You know, there is already enough for people to have all kinds of opinions when just neutrally presenting what Li Hongzhi has said, so why do you think it's better to misrepresent his words and what he has taught? I am actually not saying these things with the thinking that this is something really great for people to understand Falun Dafa. I would tell them to read Zhuan Falun on their own for that. But as an editor I feel that it would be bad for me to pretend he has not said these things, and try to weedle out of a frank discussion of it. I am telling you that I am extremely willing to engage in a frank discussion of these things on wikipedia, and I have demonstrated that, but I will resist any attempt to obscure and misrepresent Falun Dafa. --Asdfg12345 01:04, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Revert war initiated by Falun Gong editors

The recent edit war initiated by Falun Gong practitioner editors--Omido and Asdfg12345—is an attempt to highjack the Falun Gong page. What justification do you practitioners have for deleting all critical material of the gorup, like the KPFA Falun Gong program and even the link to Li’s page? You guys are simply trying to conceal the fact from the public. But you know what, a pig with lipstick on is still a pig. --Mr.He 22:04, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

That is so true about you as well, you yourself contributed in an unjustified revert war on the Li Hongzhi page in September. Just one example is this review [2]. Don't get me wrong, I do not support unjustified (undiscussed) reverts, and I do believe that practitioners should have a better conduct (and actually have a better conduct) then the anti-Falun Gong guys. --HappyInGeneral 11:03, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

By your last edit, Asdfg, the one just past midnight Dec 30 2006 (the reversion to Omido's version), which undoes all the agreed paragraphs above between pro-FG people including yourself, and FG critics, already demonstrates how "extremely willing" you are "to engage in a frank discussion" when in the end you are simply pursuing hardline FG propaganda. This is extremely unhelpful to the Wikipedia process because relative neutrality is NOT derived from enforcing one side's views or versions. How would you feel if FG critics / skeptics persistently quoted entire sections of the Chinese Communist Party's rebuke of Falun Gong? Oh wait, that's not possible now since criticism is of it is kept to one line, although the pro-FG view can be justified to take up the rest of the page. Why align yourself, as a Wiki editor, with those who persistently ignore Wikipedia policies? Have you also no interest in seeing a final, agreed English version of this Wiki article? Jsw663 03:19, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

It's quite easy to yell whatever about the other editor, and in the mean time being able to elude the concrete facts. Can you please point out the concrete fact about which you choose to complain about? Which part that was already agreed upon by all was reverted? What exactly do you dislike on the version that Asdfg12345 presented? From your reasoning above I can tell that you dislike the fact that is coming from a practitioner, but then again, I might be wrong. Please provide the concrete information perhaps your version with your reasons, that would help all of us a lot. And keep a constructive environment and personal attacks at a minimum. Thx. --HappyInGeneral 13:57, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

If you read my reply on Asdfg's talk page you will find the expanded version of the above comment. I gave numerous examples; all that is required is to click on Asdfg's last revert to compare what he 'reverted' to understand. One such example was reducing the Criticism / Controversies of FG to one sentence. That is clearly not what we agreed. Most importantly, most of the above discussion (ie since Dec 2006) was spent in agreeing on what the first few paragraphs of the FG entry ought to be. The version that is presently locked on is a biased one that was disagreed on - and both parties (pro-FG / anti-FG) have agreed on a compromise version since. The use of the words 'persecution' and 'genocide' are also loaded, and 'suppression' was agreed to above. Instead of merely asking in what seems to be a mocking tone, HiG, perhaps you'd want to read the discussion on this page first. Jsw663 10:35, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Jsw I will respond to both comments (above and on talk page) here. I wrote in an email to Omido that I am not against criticism of Falun Gong on the main page. However, I was really mistaken in making that revert, and I would like to apologise. The reason for the revert was to get rid of those things in the lede that were inappropriate, that sentence "Dafa is judging all beings and weeding out corrupt beings" - that one. I do think that the criticism section was getting too much attention - with a whole page dedicated to it plus a good portion of the main page with subsections - but I do not oppose having criticism. I do not think it would be a correct encyclopedia article without mentioning the criticism. I am pretty much in agreement with a lot of what you said on my discussion page - though when did I insult Fire Star? I have never meant to insult anyone on wikipedia. Sometimes I know that I write strong words and I also realise that is something I need to correct and write things in a better way. I am trying to remove those things and write in a clearer and better way, and just address the issues and not sound too sharp with people. It's difficult, you know. The other thing you mentioned was that maybe you thought I really did not want to see a NPOV article in the end... I can tell you that is not true at all. That is exactly what I want. I have said that revert was a mistake. I often have a strong feeling that Tomananda is not here to create a NPOV article, but only to bash Falun Gong. So sometimes I feel like I am assuming a role simply to combat that. I also do not think your intentions are so pure. You won't even admit that there is a genocide going on - something so clear and obvious - I find that really... I don't know, I won't say anything bad about you. But you won't even admit that it's happening! Anyway, please forgive me and consider it a mistake. Also, I hope some useful discussion can now be made about what I have proposed for the paragraph on Fa-rectification, and my responses to Tomananda's proposal. One more thing is that strictly speaking this paragraph should not go in the lede. The lede is supposed to explain the contents of the rest of the article. I have been looking through wikipolicy and style guidelines, and I also checked out some of the feature pages - and we have such a long way to go. Things are getting severly bogged down with unhealthy editing behaviours (I acknowledge and include myself, as well as affirming that I will be much more careful in future), and what I interpret as impure intentions of some editors. Anyway, the lede is supposed to say what the rest of the article will say - and what we are writing will not really end up doing that, particularly with what Tomananda is proposing... Anyway, any ideas, anyone? I want to make a good article - like good enough to be a feature article - but my enthusiasm sometimes gets deterred.--Asdfg12345 00:37, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

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)

Not just both sides views should be presented, but also third party views. So we should present the third party reports by human rights organisations who have documented the genocide, and who have compiled a large amount of evidence of the genocide. They use the word "persecution" to describe it. Please see these links: www.david-kilgour.com/2006/Kilgour-Matas-organ-harvesting-rpt-July6-eng.pdf - that is the report on organ harvesting. I request that you read it in its entirety, and then respond to me with some concrete weak points in it, or points that you dispute, or reasons that you doubt the organ harvesting is/was taking place. I mean cite it, then say "well, this point seems a bit weak", or "I disagree with it for exactly this reason" You must read it all. Make sure you read it. I want you to say very specific things in your dispute of this genocide, and not just vague or off-the-cuff remarks. You need to actually look at the evidence, then say some concrete things in response to it. There is also another I request you look at: http://www.flghrwg.net/index.php?option=content&task=view&id=1027&Itemid= That is the UN 2004 report on the persecution. Do you see the photos of that woman with the burnt and smashed face? or the emaciated man? There are also numerous photos of corpses which are smashed up, bruised, or with large scars down the chest. Do you think that they are fake, then? It is claimed that they are Falun Gong practitioners and that the CCP did that to them. That is what the third party reports say, and what Falun Gong practitioners say. What do you say? They fell down a flight of stairs? Or do you say that the photos were created using photoshop? WAKE UP! WAKE UP! FALUN GONG PRACTITIONERS ARE BEING KILLED, TORTURED TO DEATH, RAPED, BEATEN TO DEATH, AND THEY ARE HAVING THEIR ORGANS REMOVED WHILE THEY ARE ALIVE! READ THE KILGOUR-MATAS REPORT! READ THE UN REPORT!

If you do not read them, and if you do not base further refutations of the genocide on actual responses to the material I am presenting you, if you keep talking around the issue, and if you do not cite the sources and say specific points where you see them to be weak, or where that what they are saying and the evidence they are presenting is not true, and how it is not true - then at least you will not be able to claim that you are neutral or care about the truth, and at worst I do not want to think. --Asdfg12345 13:28, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Response to Kilgour-Matas report

Oh hey Asdfg, weren't you the one not too long ago promoting WP:Civility? Is type-shouting "WAKE UP! WAKE UP!" a sign of civility and a cool head? Then you insist on "neutrality" yet all, and I mean ALL the 3rd party sources you quote are pro-human rights people or organizations. Funny I never hear about the US State Dept report that dismissed the organ harvesting allegation by FG. But this is just one instance of the numerous apparent inconsistencies you show - the Wiki discussion archives reveal quite a lot. Since you accuse me of never responding to your sources although you never address all my points in my posts, if I in fact DO address them, will you do the same for me? I wonder. FG practitioners keep on saying Falun Gong is 'good' yet they don't tolerate any criticism. I wonder if this doesn't apply to their sources too.

So, the Kilgour-Matas report. I'll split my reply into several parts because it's going to be LONG (since it is a 66-page document, after all). Let's analyze it in detail - and start by quoting the report directly:

"The allegations... are difficult to prove or disprove. The best evidence... is eye witness evidence. Yet for this alleged crime, there is unlikely to be any eye witness evidence." (p. 2-3)

OK, so what exactly is Kilgour and Matas drawing their conclusions on if nothing can be proven or disproven due to a lack of quality evidence? They continue...

"There are no bystanders... there is no body to be found... we garnered... admissions through... phone calls." (p.3).

Wow, although there is UNLIKELY to be any eye-witness evidence, suddenly they can make firm statements like there are NO bystanders and that there is NO body for autopsies to be conducted on. That's either an empty assertion or a groundless implication. Then they admit they gathered their evidence through phone calls. PHONE CALLS? I don't even recall a criminal trial where a defendant was convicted based on phone calls!!

"The scene of the crime, if the crime has occurred, leaves no traces." (p.3)

In the previous sentence Kilgour/Matas said how many 'surprising admissions' they got from phone calls yet once it comes to the execution room the same Chinese authorities are so professional that they have never left a single trace; never made a single slip or error. Does that sound plausible or logical to you?

"We did seek to visit China in this report. Our efforts went nowhere... Our request for a meeting was accepted. But the person who met with David Kilgour was interested only in denying allegations and not in arranging for our visit." (p.4)

OK, so let me get a few things straight here. Neither Kilgour nor Matas was able to visit China yet Kilgour, as a top criminal prosecutor, though the criminal burden of proof (Canada follows the common law system) was met by a few phone calls. They thought that conclusions could be conclusive despite never having visited the country. Then when they did meet with the official who did not give the responses they were seeking, they dismissed them as only interested in "denying allegations". Very objective indeed.

"Many of these pieces of evidence we considered, in themselves, do not constitute ironclad proof of the allegation. But their non-existence might well have constituted disproof. The combination of these factors, particularly when there are so many of them, has the effect of making the allegations believable, even when any one of them in isolation might not do so. Where every element of disproof we identify fails to disprove the allegations, the likelihood of the allegations being true becomes substantial." (p.4)

Talk about general sweeping statements. Kilgour and Matas is in effect asking us to LEAP to conclusions based on the limited evidence they have. That's like convicting a person of theft when nobody knew where that person was, no positive DNA test could be made, although he was seen by a few bystanders a while ago within the vicinity of the crime when it was committed. The last sentence of the above quotation is even more shocking coming from a supposedly experienced prosecutor. Just because the facts they report may suggest or encourage one to infer a certain conclusion, can that be upheld in any court? We need concrete facts and evidence, not inferences based on a few phone calls.

"Criminal investigation normally works deductively, stringing together individual pieces of evidence into a coherent whole." (p.4)

And indeed, a whole range of conclusions, including totally contradictory ones, can be arrived via deductions. This is one of the first lessons we learn from Evidence Law. If everyone were to come to the same conclusion based on a hazy set of facts, there would be no need for barristers/solicitors (lawyers).

From p.5 onwards, esp. pp.5-7 ref. here

Painting a shockingly biased picture of Falun Gong's history, full of one-sided sources which amounts to nothing less than propaganda. So what do I base this on? The description of the Falun Gong's history esp. pp.6-8 based on an academic at Yale. The entire piece is littered with adjectives/phrases aimed to pre-form the reader's opinions: "The non-violent phase" of FG, how their source David Ownby writes "candidly" (implying the other side isn't), how Li "had fallen into disfavour" so he had to emigrate to the US (as if he was forced to despite his innocent beliefs!?), and how FG practitioners are "ordinary Chinese citizens" (implying the rest are not ordinary?).

David Ownby / p.8

Encouraging people to disbelieve the Chinese government's statements on Falun Gong SIMPLY BECAUSE they had a poor human rights record (see the 1st of the 2 paragraphs quoted). Then the second paragraph (I won't quote it here): my response: the Chinese government must seek 'third party verification' that Falun Gong is a cult yet Canadians and Americans (who Ownby speaks for?) do not even need facts, or knowledge, to conclude that FG practice bears little resemblance to cults. So Ownby would rather trust the average Canadian and American than any official from the Chinese government... sounds rather subjective and opinionated, doesn't it?

2nd section on 'persecution' / pp. 8-9

"The secrecy of policy formulation in China prevents us from determining whether such a policy exists... Nonetheless, we do know that persecution of Falun Gong exists." (p.8) Wow, Kilgour and Matas knows what goes on in the CCP although they don't have any facts. Oh wait, they quoted one official on p.9... then asserting "It appears... after this meeting that the deaths of adherents at police hands began to be recorded as suicides." Funny how that verbal quote was never sourced. There is no 'third party verification' to back up such a statement was made. In fact, Kilgour/Matas only claims it was made in 1999, yet cannot even give a specific date!!! Yet they can say that after this meeting that FG deaths were recorded as suicides, despite this not being based on a single shred of evidence. We need proof, or at least a verifiable source if they're quoting one. If you demand the CCP to back up their statements with 3rd-party verifications, the least you could do is to show them that you do the same for your own sources.

The next paragraph is then based on FG practitioners' comments. Very objective.

3rd section on 'incitement to hatred' / pp. 9-10

"The Falun Gong are dehumanized both in word and deed."

This coming from the authors who say the Guantanamo Bay supporter in the US is more trustworthy than the CCP. The rest of that paragraph also contains a notable lack of examples. Amnesty Intl is then quoted, but not without very loaded words to give the wrong impression via exaggeration. Whilst that may be normal coming from a human rights group, such over-biasedness should not be the words of the 'independent' investigator who justifies / bases the legitimacy of his report on his post and years of experience in the Canadian legal system.

Self-immolation incident / Tianmen Square / doubt / pp.9-10: "There is considerable concern whether in reality the government staged the entire incident."

Once again, basing doubts on no evidence. I have watched the FG videos 'doubting' the incident (although it only raises question marks; it doesn't disprove it). Is Kilgour and Matas encouraging us to engage in conspiracy theories? Did the US send the first man to walk on the moon-type accusations?

Hate propaganda / p.10

Wow, Kilgour/Matas has determined CCP statements are hate propaganda without questioning FG statements. Without using a single quoted example, they can conclude "harvesting their organs and killing them in the process ceases to be implausible." (p.10) Such a leap of logic is what I find most implausible of all. There is nothing here to disprove yet again because the allegations are not based on a single example or fact.

4. Massive Arrests / p.10

Yet another paragraph where Kilgour/Matas is encouraging the reader to infer all sorts of stuff via logic-twisting. Sorry, I need the facts. And if the only 'fact' in that paragraph is a FG author who claimed to have seen classified information without any independent verification of this, how much credibility does such a claim have? If one of the ex-FG people here, for example, suddenly claimed that 70m FG practitioners were being robbed daily by Li Hongzhi, would you believe that?

up to p.12

Yup, this coming from the person who regards the opinion of the person who justifies Guantanamo Bay under the War of Terror higher than the CCP official. And yes, it's even more interesting to note that the sources used here are US sources. Would Kilgour and Matas trust CCP's White Paper on human rights on the US of what's going on in Gitmo just as much? Or do they harbor some personal grudge against the CCP?

6. Unidentified/Disappeared / pp.13-4

A fantasy tale where even the authors had to admit "a person can go missing for a variety of reasons" (p.14) Not exactly 'concrete' evidence now, is it? I don't know of any government on this planet which has been able to account for every single one of its citizens every year, let alone in its history. Kilgour and Matas then concludes that their wild speculation is 'consistent with other allegations' which, coincidentally, are also based on the same wild speculation. It's amazing there's so little to question in a supposedly fact-finding independent report because there are so few facts present to be questioned.

7. Transplants / pp. 14-8

Talk about speculation!!!

8. Blood Testing / p.18

There are two ways to suggest more strongly that FG practitioners are being singled out for blood testing - 1) that few or none of the other prisoners in similar situations are being blood-tested; 2) that medical records are not kept for prisoners in a similar situation. But until then, this is once again pure speculation - a stab in the dark.

9. Corpses with missing organs / pp. 18-9

Yet another stab in the dark. Such unexplained / inexplicable incidents are not unique to China or developing countries either.

10. 'Confession' / p. 19

ONE person who is 'confessing' someone ELSE'S crime. Wow. Where would trials be nowadays if we didn't need more than one person 'confessing' someone else's crime?

11. 'Admission' / pp. 19-20

Per above. Unsustainable. How much weight can be given to such testimony?

11. Hospitals / pp.20-6

Condemned prisoners inevitably include FGers. The majority of the phone call transcripts mentioned in the report would fit under that umbrella. If I recall correctly the CCP (in its reports) hasn't denied that there has been corruption even among medical practitioners. But to select a few examples and conclude it is state policy is going too far. Using this to then justify overthrowing the CCP is even more extreme. Also, the CCP passed a law in mid-2006 to regulate organ donor practices, did it not?

12. Waiting times / pp.26-7

Nothing proven yet again.

13. Websites / pp.27-31

What they meant was probably the organs were extracted from recently deceased bodies. But there's no doubt, FG practitioners have a poor history with regards to technology wars. Any '3rd party' verification that such a version of the website existed at such dates?

14. Victim Interviews / pp.31-33

What a 'neutral' title to the section. Although these testimonies won't be dismissed outright by the neutral person, they won't be given much weight either until everything alleged is checked and verified to be true. It needs backing up. Until then, what is alleged cannot be passed off as fact and needs to be taken with a big pinch of salt.

15. HR 'violations' / p.34

This has nothing to do with the CCP v FG; this is just 'character' assassination / propaganda. So-called absences of rule of law would seem suspect. Saying China "is not ruled by law" (p.34) is clearly b.s. and such a statement can only be made by those (almost completely) ignorant of the Chinese system. And before you ask how on earth I'd know about the Chinese legal system, don't forget I did study law in Hong Kong (which included compulsory subjects like PRC law). And no, I didn't change my profile overnight to justify this paragraph either.

16. Financial / pp. 34-5

Proves nothing yet again. Want a few more stabs in the dark?

17. Corruption / pp. 35-6

I don't think the CCP denies this exists. But to say that FG organ extraction is the result of official policy, or that corruption is the 'unofficial' arm of CCP policy, is clearly crap! The only way to show it is not crap is to back it up with actual evidence, rather than vague general FG propaganda-statements like "Trafficking in Falun Gong vital organs would be consistent with the numerous other commercial activities on the part of the Chinese army, especially in the years up until 2004 while Jiang was chairman of the country's Military Commission." (p.35) . If Kilgour/Matas demand that CCP statements be backed up by third-party investigation, what about this wild allegation they're making? Note the lack of sources next to that sentence in the report.

18. Legislation / pp. 36-7

Glad to see Kilgour/Matas welcome and admit such a legislation. But little have they realized that by embracing this their previous allegation of live organ removal from FG practitioners as 'state policy' is clearly garbage when the CCP are in fact doing the opposite - taking steps to clamp down on such corruption.

G. Credibility / pp. 37-

"We conclude that the verbal admissions in the transcripts of interviews of investigators can be trusted. There is no doubt in our minds that these interviews did take place with the persons claimed to be interviewed at the time and place indicated... the content of what was said can be believed." (p.37) Wow, talk about forming opinions FOR other people. Odd how there is NO DOUBT in Kilgour/Matas' minds that these witnesses were telling the complete truth yet all CCP officials were undoubtedly not telling so. This seems shockingly reflective of Li Hongzhi's "Falun Gong is 100% good" and "CCP is 100% evil" approach, not of the experienced state prosecutor who should be fully aware of both sides' risks and shortcomings.

"The testimony of the wife of the surgeon allegedly complicit in the Falun Gong organ harvesting was credible to us, partly because of the extreme detail." (p.38) I don't want to offend any women on this board, but it has been known that in rape trials, amazingly intricate detail has been given of 'alleged' rapes by accusers, yet the accused had to be set free when clearly disproved by DNA tests. This is NOT putting women in a bad light, but rather that the human brain is capable of very vivid imagination, even convincing oneself that something happened even though it didn't. To add insult to injury the authors then add, "it provided a good deal of information which it was impossible to corroborate independently" (p.38) . To put this in normal English, Kilgour and Matas are saying that despite all the detail this woman gives which they rest their credibility of the woman's testimony on, they cannot verify a single allegation / statistic this woman is making. Sounds a little suspect, doesn't it?

The quote by the F. Frankfurter SCJ though irrelevant, can be applied both ways - something Kilgour and Matas may not have been aware of at the time of writing due to being so clouded emotionally from reality. After all, why would I say FG practitioners are lying since they are merely reproducing what they read on FG propaganda sources here and on their pamphlets? It's just that that their propaganda seems unbelievable, that's all.

H. Further Investigation

Wow, they now say their conclusions are tentative only despite passing them off as real facts earlier on. Maybe this should be a warning to FG practitioners too trying to pass off 'persecution' and 'genocide' as facts.

I. Conclusions

Why am I not surprised they "came" to this conclusion? Judging by their use of language throughout they came to their conclusion right from the start of their report, and were stabbing in the dark, desperately grabbing onto anything that could be held onto to justify their skewed judgement coloured by their emotions and anti-CCP sentiments.

J. Recommendations

Even more laughable and ridiculous since their conclusions are only 'tentative'. Sure, some of those recommendations can be implemented, but the vast majority are about as likely to happen as the US will turn over the complete records of the prisoners they detain at Guantanamo Bay. In fact, if we were to follow Kilgour and Matas' recommendations based on their principles, there should be no such crime as treason, revealing state secrets, overthrowing governments, etc.! That's just not possible, or realistic. As for the concept of the death penalty, I'll leave this up to your personal opinion. All I can do is to remind you that countries of all ideologies, i.e. US + China, still practise it nowadays.

SOOOO.... Asdfg, conclusion for the Kilgour-Matas report? A wonderful FG propaganda leaflet for the most part! Let me quote anti-CCP activist Harry Wu: "No pictures, no witnesses, no paperwork, no detailed information at all, nothing." If FG is making the allegations, the burden of proof is on you / them. Despite finding almost all their conclusions far too hasty and inconclusive, some of the evidence (when found, of course) there can indeed be used for the anti-CCP movement. But no matter what, it is definitely NOT the case that genocide OR persecution is a fact. It would be great if you could treat the anti-FG sources such as the dismissal of the Sujiatun incident about mass organ harvesting with the same detailed analysis. The ball's now in your court, although it always was since you were promoting the 'goodness' of FG, but now you have no more excuses left.

To conclude, Asdfg, maybe you'll have the courtesy to reply to the points in my previous post as well as this one. As you are such a promoter of constructive debate, consensus and working towards a good article based on WIKIPEDIAN principles, will you do Wikipedia the service of joining in to clamp down on Omido's behavior? Naturally the best way is if you could get Omido to stop his disruptive section-blanking, but if we are both committed to Wikipedian principles you have to show it by action too and not shy away from it when the occasion calls for it. Come on, we are fighting for a common cause here! Jsw663 19:43, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

PS To paraphrase you, if you don't do what I asked of you above, then at best you're a diehard FGer with no interest in upholding Wikipedian encyclopedic values here and only seek to spread propaganda. At worst, I don't even want to think about it.  :-) Jsw663 20:34, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Can I do a thing, that you usually don't like? That is to respond point by point in your post? That is I would maintain the sections that are your's by copying your signature to that point? And then I would put in my own response. I would like to do it this way, because your post is way too long. BTW I don't consider that this is a bad thing (your post being long) because it actually shows a lot of energy from your part placed into this post. --HappyInGeneral 14:30, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I just wanted you to read about what is happening. I just wanted to make sure you read it. I don't want to compete with you or debate with you. I want to tell you that I, as a Falun Gong practitioner, have no interest in politics, and that I just want to cultivate my heart and achieve completion. All of us are this way. Those in China are the same, they want to do the exercises and read the books and that's all, but they are being persecuted and villified in a very brutal, nasty and evil way. We have spoken up about this and contextualised it with regard to the CCP's violent history. There are also some other issues, but you have heard it all by now. I hope you look through the UN report as well. If you have read those things and you hold the above attitude, then that is your choosing your own self. I do not need to respond on a point by point basis because I would just be repeating the things in the report, which you seem to have already looked at. So there's no point repeating them. It's all there for you, and what you choose is up to you. About Omido: I'm not responsible for what he does. I do not agree with some of his edits or approaches. Though actually, I think the behaviour of a lot of anti-Falun Gong editors is even more outrageous, and the intentions are less than pure. I have told Omido in an email that I myself see no problem with some criticism, and if this situation persisted I would seek to talk to him further to help him to understand my perspective. The reason I type-yelled at you was because I thought it may work, so I apologise if it was only uncivil and did not really help you. I say I don't want to think about it, because you seem to have no righteous thoughts left in you, and your ignorance of the truth of your situation is so enourmous and it is so pitiful. About Fire Star: sysop privileges are nothing, and it does not mean that person is infallible at all. Fire Star has clearly demonstrated her bias on numerous occasions, calling Falun Gong a cult, Li Hongzhi a crazy man, and also pushing for "Suppression" instead of "Persecution" - when going by the definitions that is in fact saying that the CCP has not killed, or does not kill, Falun Gong practitioners - something which, based on a large body of objective evidence, is clearly not true. I am going to take a break from wikipedia until February.--Asdfg12345 02:42, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

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 08:13, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

"Accuse the CCP of something and base it on a fact, then we can analyze it." Please tell me what facts would you find acceptable, since you refuse&mock evidence like phone calls, witnesses reports, common sense like there is no way to find a suitable willing donor in 1 week, pictures about the persecution [3], etc ... in the context in which the Coalition to Investigate the Persecution of Falun Gong (CIPFG) is not allowed to go in to investigate, and also Kilgour/Matas is not allowed to go in and investigate. The rapporteur on torture who finally was able to go in China concluded that the torture is still widespread. As far as I can see your only goal is to dismiss by any means any accusation against the CCP like the ones for killing, torturing, brainwashing Falun Gong practitioners, because this way there will be less pressure on the party officials and they can keep doing/hiding their deeds. So then again who is paying your paycheck? Also for those who are in doubts I recommend reading the actual report or watching the conference in which Kilgour and Matas were invited [4] [5]. --HappyInGeneral 13:53, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

My goal is to uphold Wikipedian values, and not pass off inferences as facts, i.e. resistance to bias from both sides. Please do not go into personal attacks by asking who is paying my paycheck since I could ask the same thing of you - it is not helpful to discussion. I can ask your aims on Wikipedia too, but then would you be as honest as Omido? Jsw663 20:25, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Asdfg: You ask Jsw to read the Kilgour-Matas report, he reads it and responds with an incredibly thorough critique challenging its methodology and conclusions...and then, for all his efforts at taking your arguments seriously, your only response is to attack him? You say Jsw seems to have no righteous thoughts left in him? You attack him for being "ignorant of the truth", Fire Star for being "biased" and FG critics in general for having impure intentions, and that's it? Is that really the best you can offer in response to Jsw's point-by-point challenge to the Kilgour-Matas report?

For FG practitioners it doesn't matter what is objectively true, because you have been given the truth from Master Li and as long as you fulfill his requirements for "Fa-rectification Dafa disciples" you can look forward to achieving consumsation. Asdfg: when it comes to being an honest editor for Wikipedia, it is clear from your own say-so that when matters of fact are challenged and you do not have a reasonable response to those challenges, you will resort to an ad hominum argument, rather than acknowledging that maybe the FG is not 100% truthful. It's clear from Master' Li's many utterances that your consumation depends on your effectiveness in destroying the CCP and as long as you are doing things to destroy the CCP the Master even permits you to violate the principles of the universe. For those readers who are not familiar with this teaching, please read Li's carefully worded instructions called "The limits to forebearance" [6]

For Li Hongzhi "forbearance" and "truth" are now sacrificed on the alter of expediencey. As I've pointed out before, Li relies on an instrumental definition of truth: any story about abuse of FG practitioners at the hands of the evil party is counted as true, as long as those stories work to destroy the CCP. Thus "truth" for the Falun Gong is measured solely based on how useful it is in demonizing the CCP in the West and underming its authority in China. Li makes your very salvation dependent upon how effective you are at spinning the truth to meet his goals. Surely even some Falun Gong practitioners have had doubts about this strategy.

And once again you trout out the tired defense that you are not being "political." Well, sure, I wouldn't say that you are being "political"...you are just selfishly seeking your own salvation (consumation) at the expense of the truth. In the final analysis, it is not "truth, forebearance and benevolence" that the FG stands for, it is the destruction of the Chinese Communist Party. Whether that goal is legitimate or not, I am amazed that you can so easily abandon your committment to the principles of the universe in an effort to reach consumation. Someone once said that the first casualty of war is the truth, and that certainly fits the battle between Li Honzhi's army of disciples and the Chinese Communist Party. To use Li's own terms, it's a cosmic battle between good and evil...and as with any battle, all that matters is which side wins, not which side tells the truth.

As for editing for this article, I feel there has been a terrible failure of process. Many of us did "the right thing" by formally asking for mediation, and instead we have been ignored by the mediator. I, too, will be taking a break from Wikipedia. --Tomananda 04:49, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

What you say that is spinning the truth is actually stating the truth. On how we choose the truth to tell is certainly tied to the urgency dictated by the persecution in China. Why is urgent and not leisurely, if you still don’t know try to hold your hand in the fire for 10 seconds. Then perhaps you can understand the urgency. Consider this: in each and every moment there is a Dafa practitioners being tortured, by means just as bad as you having your hand in fire [7], and I believe this is a terrible thing, on which I can not turn a blind eye. Since you now see things in this light I hope that you can also understand why we do things the way we do. For non-practitioners our actions for only clarifying the truth and not raising any violence, might even seem too feeble, but we believe that our combined actions are not feeble at all. --HappyInGeneral 14:14, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Spinning the truth is only considering one side's case. Being relatively objective is considering both sides'. Jsw663 14:02, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Actually I would very much like to see an independent investigations inside China. But for the moment we are considering the stories [8] that those practitioners who practice Truth as part of their cultivation of Truthfulness Compassion Forbearance tell us, as well as other sources like the organ harvest investigation [9], like the independent investigator on torture or Mr McMillan-Scott [10] and others said about this issue. I find that this case is already very well documented and getting to the surface some very terrible scenes while the CCP’s propaganda machine (biggest in the world) is working hard to mock it and confuse it. --HappyInGeneral 14:57, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

And once again you use ONLY pro-FG sources. Wikipedia is not a FG-advertising site. You should be aware of that by now. Jsw663 20:25, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

What is wrong with that as long as the source is valid? --HappyInGeneral 17:46, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

It is only OK if balanced out equally with pro-CCP sources against Falun Gong. Judging by Omido's and your recent edits before the sysop ban, you are clearly not interested in presenting both sides equally. Jsw663 12:34, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Actually I'm not stopping any well sourced edit which is discussed and agreed. I think it is OK if I present some information and others present some other information. I hope that you are not implying that my sources can not be good just because they are pro Falun Gong. I hope that you are not trying to impose some kind of discrimination here. As far as I know the only criteria about a source being valid or not on wikipedia is if it's well sourced and it's not OR. But please correct me if I'm wrong. --HappyInGeneral 14:12, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Did I ever imply that FG sources shouldn't be included simply because they were FG? Whether they're "good" or not is irrelevant - (objective) facts aren't (subjectively) morality based. What 'discrimination' have I tried to 'impose' here? If anything, I've been trying to prevent FG people from imposing their biased version of the FG entry for a long time, as well as preventing pro-CCP edits (though there is an overwhelming number of the former and almost total absence of the latter). If this isn't pro-FG discrimination being imposed on Wikipedia, what is? So instead of mudslinging and accusing me of this and that although I never implied such a thing, I suggest you look at your own conduct and edits. Your tacit support for section- and page-blankers time and time again have been distinctly unhelpful. PS Stick to helping improve the article, not labelling anyone not pro-FG as 'bad' or 'evil'. Jsw663 15:53, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

You said: "Did I ever imply that FG sources shouldn't be included simply because they were FG?". Well I got this distinct impression, but since you say that this is not the case, please accept my apologies, in the hopes that you were right and I was wrong. --HappyInGeneral 14:27, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

I can't believe that after all this time some of you still continue to waste yours and everyone else's time with useless insults and sarcastic remarks. It's such a waste of time reading through most of this bickering. The Kilgour-Matas report does not prove that there organ harvesting is taking place, but it gives good reason to believe there is. You can look at any one of the 18 elements of proof in the report and say that it doesn't give reason to believe this is really going on or that it's imperfect for such and such reason, but the validity of the report doesn't rest on any one element; it's the combination of all of them that lead to Kilgour and Matas' conclusion. The validity of the report also rests on the judgement of these two individuals. This former Crown Prosecuter and this renowned human-rights lawyer have both been around for a long time and have quite the reputations in Canada. Their judgement is respected, which is one reason why governments around the world are taking the report seriously.

I've got a question: Is there anyone here that denies that the Chinese authorities have tortured Falun Gong practitioners to death? I'm not talking about how many. I'm asking if anyone denies that this is happening at all. I'm only participating in this discussion becuase I hope that it might lead to a decision being made over which terms to use, ie. suppression, persection, genocide, etc. Mcconn 18:36, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree. The debate about FLG instead of debate on the article about FLG is pointless. Of course there are reports about FLG followers and other dissidents being improsoned, tortured, killed and even harvested by the CCP. If they are from notable reporters or other groups, they should be mentioned. What editors think of the likelihood of such things happening or not happening is immaterial to the article. --Fire Star 火星 20:14, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Even though I'm "on break" I want to also agree with Fire Star here, but point out that as a consequence Wikipedia cannot report the "persecution" of the Falun Gong as a fact in the article. The only possible purpose for discussing what the editors think about this issue is to show that there is no agreement on the FG's claims of persecution at the hands of "Chinese authorities." To say otherwise would be far too POV. As many editors had previously agreed, the term "Suppression" of the Falun Gong is probably the furthest we can go for the title of the daughter page, and even that might be construed as too POV. Alternatively, we might say "alleged persecution" but that title was rejected as I remember.

It's important to point out that even though there are certainly cases of local police abuse of prisoners in China (and that would include FG practitioners), none of those cases support the conclusion that Beijing itself has a pro-torture policy or, worse yet, condones anything even remotely like the "genocide" of a group of people. In fact, the opposite is true: Beijing authorities have publicly acknowledged the problem of corrupt local officials who take the law into their own hands and the central government's campaign against this kind of corruption is well known and documented. Once one recognizes that Li Hongzhi's goal is the destruction of the CCP, and that his disciples have a long history of bending the truth to satisfy Li's demands, all those stories about genocide and live organ harvesting begin to make some sense. --Tomananda 01:02, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I'd just like to reply to McConn / Fire Star here. Let me do it in the form of a Q+A to start off. Is this section a discussion of FLG? Yes. Isn't that what Wiki is not supposed to be? Yes. So why is a Wiki-defender like myself doing this? Because pro-FG people are passing off conjecture and speculation as (objective/neutral) facts. Wiki must report notable and trustworthy sources (WP:Reliable Sources) and when doing so, must acknowledge that the source's author(s) thought that. If the source is stating something as fact, let it be said and acknowledged as such. But not only is the Kilgour/Matas report suspect in credibility, they themselves admit that they have only come to tentative conclusions, yet FG people here using the source quote him as if they were saying some kind of Bible-like 'ultimate truths'. That is what needs to be distinguished. I know it is hard to do, but this article must try to be as encyclopedic as possible. If we report wild speculations by both sides then that goal will never be achievable.

This is also why I don't disagree completely with either McConn or Fire Star in this instance. Yes, I do hope the persecution/suppression discussion will continue, as McConn said. I also hope to avoid a FG discussion on the board like Fire Star said. This is also why I hesitated whether to reply to Happy in General's comments. I think I've come to the conclusion that it's better if HiG contacted me personally and/or debated the fine details somewhere else, like my own talk page, or via AIM / MSN Messenger / YIM / (Q)ICQ etc.

I didn't want to have to give a long, detailed answer in the form of this section (reply to the KM report), but if FG people want to dismiss all my arguments towards a constructive solution by saying I'm not a FG practitioner, somehow pure 'evil', inherently biased (eg CCP 'dog' or something) or will never consider both sides' sources equally, this section should serve as an example to dismiss all that. I hope both sides will understand the purpose of this section this one time. Jsw663 10:58, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Let me ask again, is it OK from your point of view, for me to answer about your analysis of the KM report inside your post because it's too long, or should I do it in a different post, in which case this page will grow and grow. I think I'll do the later if I don't get an answer from you because there are many flaw's in it. And just to make it clear, I'm not concerned about you to understand those flaw's, because I'm pretty sure that you do understand them, I'm concerned rather of those who will look only to your so called analysis and will not read the report itself. --HappyInGeneral 17:35, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Like I said above, it's better if we left the discussion OFF this Wikipedia page. After all, it is not a FG discussion forum here, and other Wikipedia users have been complaining. I will ICQ you soon though - a live discussion with you should be interesting. Jsw663 11:22, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

So basically the answer to my repeated question for responding inside your post because your post is too long is basically no. I guess you actually prefer to have one negative review about the Kilgour & Matas report and have it the only one! Anyway I did give you my contact details, but still your post requires answer, only now it will mean a lot more text to this page. Do you remember Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_mediation/Falun_Gong that grow pretty huge after we finished presenting our reasons. Even though I think the situation it’s pretty short and clear. The CCP does persecute a group of people, based on their belief in Truthfulness Compassion Forbearance, and there are enough indirect evidences in the Kilgour & Matas report and other sources that there is actually a genocide going on behind the closed doors. --HappyInGeneral 13:34, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

HiG, you know the reasons why I stopped our discussion on the mediation page. 1. Mediator abandoned it, 2. Nobody else was reading it, 3. Far too long, 4. Purely FG discussion, not about Wiki editing. It would be unfortunate if this page was also filled with FG discussion, which it is not. But FGers have already time and time again posted long posts advertising FG sites (eg Asdfg) and it is about time the other side gets aired as well. This, however, should not continue into a vicious cycle. So in the interests of other readers and Wikipedia, I suggest we keep our purely FG discussion on IM rather than on Wiki. Am I being unreasonable trying to adhere to Wiki policies, or accepting Fire Star's criticism? PS Although both sides' POV is noted, passing it off as facts (especially when they're not proven and derived purely from suspicions and inferences) is dangerous. Jsw663 14:02, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

As I have stated many times on the mediation page, I'm answering the attacks, so then who is keeping on the debate? I actually agree that we should keep the talks not relevant to the editing process short or inexistent. However how can I do that while there are lies presented as facts? Let me quote you: “08:28, 3 January 2007 Jsw663 (Talk | contribs) (Rv vandalism by Dilip. If you want to challenge this, do so on the Falun Gong discussion page where I tore into the so-called neutral Kilgour-Matas report.)” so then since you state as fact that you torn down the Kilgour-Matas report, why is it that you: 1. don’t agree that I answer in the middle of it, since otherwise this page would get too long; 2. when I’m saying that if you don’t agree for me to answer in the middle of it I would do it anyway on the page, you try to sway me away by saying that this is a Falun Gong discussion not relevant to the editing. Quite interesting isn’t it? --HappyInGeneral 15:09, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

If you've read what is now the archives as well as the above, it is pro-FG people who have constantly used the no-FG-discussion in order to ensure that anti-FG people cannot respond to their vitriolic attacks on the CCP. If you insist on responding to my response to the KM report, you can do so if you wish, but if it is going to be similar to Asdfg's "I can't really add anything more than the report has already said" then I'd urge you to have some refrain. Must you always have the final word to feel justified? As I said before, pro-FG people have pasted their pro-FG sources time and time again, yet when anybody responds to these by questioning their neutrality you insist on having the final word. If only you could apply the same logic to your FG attacks on anything said by the CCP, or other non-CCP FG skeptics. And please, in the future, stick to debating about Wikipedian content, in this case, the FG entry. A little FG discussion here and there may be inevitable, but engaging in wholesale wrangling on Wikipedia is clearly not the way forward. But whether this will succeed will heavily depend on whether you can for once accept that you cannot always have the final word on every little point. Jsw663 20:25, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

My point in another discussion above was that we should go by what the experts say (rather than simply what the CCP hasn't denied). The experts are of course Human Rights organizations and reputable independent investigators. If these bodies are using the term "persection", then why shouldn't we?

I want to add that it's provocative pov statements like Tomanda's concluding sentence that get our conversations off track. Clearly there are people here, such as myself, who very strongly disagree with what you wrote and have to exercise self-restraint to not start arguing with you about it. Your statement serves no use aside from inciting an argument. I hope that you will be more mindful of this in the future, Tomanda. Mcconn 16:55, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

It is widely known that there is a large scale persecution going on in China today and independent witnesses have stepped forward and testified that there are 36 concentrations camps in China right now detaining Falun Dafa practitioners. Omido 22:56, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

My friend's uncle's cousin's dog's friend's mistress's father's teacher's insurance salesman says that there are 485 death camps in China right now detaining Church of the UFO practitioners! --Sumple (Talk) 04:01, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Suppression, Persecution, or Genocide?

OK, I know we've done this before, but let's do it again. Let's take a look at how these terms are defined in the Wiktionary.

Persecution

1. The act of persecuting.

1. A program or campaign to subjugate or eliminate a specific group of people, often based on race, religion, or social beliefs.

Supression

1. The act or instance of suppressing.
2. The state of being suppressed.

Suppress

1. To hold in place, to keep low.

Genocide

1. The systematic killing of substantial numbers of people on the basis of ethnicity, religion, political opinion, social status, or other particularity.
2. Acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnic, racial or religious group.

So here they are. Which fits best? Mcconn 02:03, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

McConn, I thought the point of disagreement was already stated before. The pro-FG camp says that persecution of FGers is a fact and there is some kind of systematic torture system going on. The anti-FG camp and FG skeptics camp doubts the validity of these so-called sources and says no such system exists. Exaggerations and fabrications are abound - shock used to promote the spread of its beliefs. If this is not essentially what the wrangle between the use of the words suppression and persecution is, what is? I also added before that the CCP totally denies this 'persecution'. Since FG + HR orgs says there is persecution, CCP says no such thing exists, and FG-skeptics say that there may be clampdown of FG followers but certainly no systematic torture system, what should we do? Not compromise? This is why I said we should keep the word 'suppression' to avoid only one of the two (FG v CCP) parties' views being aired so as to avoid any violation of WP:NPOV policy. McConn, if you disagree on anything else but 'facts' which have not yet been conclusively proven, then why insist on such a loaded word? Jsw663 11:22, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

PS to McConn about 3rd party sources / HR orgs - yes, 3rd party sources, esp expert or reliable testimony, can be printed, if acknowledged and sourced. But giving 3rd party sources to support only one side would be distinctly unfair. After all, a US State Dept report (see one of past archives for link / text) denied some FG allegations, and I don't think the US Government are not experts, or pro-CCP, right? So as long as both sides' opinions are aired fairly, including 3rd party opinions, go ahead. But this cannot justify a totally disproportionate bias to either side by sources either. Jsw663 11:26, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

The term "persecution" is not any more loaded than "suppression". I don't know why people have said it is. Could you back up that claim? Yes, it is associated with atrocious acts, and is thus connected with controversial subjects, but that doesn't make it loaded. It means what it means. Using the term "suppression" is not a compromise. Look at what it means. No one, not even the CCP, is denying that there is a suppression taking place. We can't define what's taking place simply by using what all parties, including the protagonists (an authoritarian dictatorship), can't deny. The only people who would deny that there is a persecution taking place are the protagonists and their cronies. You mention systematic torture system, but even if there wasn't one, it's still a persecution in all senses of the word. There is most certainly a campaign going on to not only subjugate, but eliminate Falun Gong. It has been made illegal to practice, and it's books banned from publishing and burned. A public propaganda campaign denounicng Falun Gong to gain support from the masses was initiated.[11] People are put in jails, brainwashing centers, and more for practiticing. That is definately subjugation, to say the least. And those are hard facts. Elimination? Let me quote what Taiwan's China times reported on September 1, 2000: "The Chinese Communist Party has decided to escalate its oppression of Falun Gong and plans to eradicate Falun Gong within three months." This a persecution no matter how you look at it. Let's stop beating around the bush, and accept this. Mcconn 07:06, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you Mcconn I think you presented very well which of the suppression/persecution/genocide words should be used. So can we all agree on the word persecution for now? --HappyInGeneral 12:22, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you HiG for once again not stating any facts or anything new. Do you think a few phrases of "presented very well" suddenly changes the facts from fiction / exaggeration? Now to McConn. The word suppression may be interpreted in a non-neutral way, but there is room for leeway. The word persecution suggests something is systematic, 'official', has been happening for a long time and unambiguously states that there is genocide going on. That's all. I do think that the word suppression in itself favors the FG camp but it is less biased than persecution. Actually the CCP have been providing some conflicting reports, including some of which have totally denied any persecution is taking place. Some have admitted low-level suppression. And like you say, it's hard to discern the truth from so much propaganda by both sides. With your statement of a campaign to eliminate FG, you should add the words 'mainland China'. It has tried but not succeeded in eliminating FG from its outer territories / recently 're-'acquired SARs. But eliminating a belief system / practice does not mean eliminating its practitioners - it means stopping Li Hongzhi from spreading it within China. This is where the difference lies, and where you must make the distinction. And it is because of this that 'persecution' is simply not a fact, let alone proven in any way. However, the case for suppression is a lot easier to argue despite bias from both sides, and is a far better compromise, don't you think? Jsw663 13:55, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

The Chinese Government claims that they have prohibited the practice of Falun Gong and restricted the Chinese people's liberty of expression regarding Falun Gong for the purposes of protecting their motherland. That means they are censoring Falun Gong, and according to the deffinition of supression, they are "Suppressing" Falun Gong. If we use the term supression, we are actually favoring the Chinese government. Falun Gong practitioners claim that the persecution going on is a genocide. Clearly the most neutral definition would be "Persecution".

One more thing, regarding the response to the Kilgour/Matas report, even though i know that you invested a lot of time and effort in analyzing it and posting your opinion about it, your response is not useful for editing purposes because it is "Original Research". We are going to use the Kilgour/Matas report if needed and if there is no published criticism coming from reliable sources about it, we will not report any criticism on it. The same goes for any criticism regarding any aspect of Falun Gong, we cannot post the editors concerns regarding Falun Gong, we have to report criticism from reliable and published material and we have to report it from a neutral POV, meaning from an outsiders point of view. I am also aware that the wikipedia article is not for advertising Falun Gong.

By the way, if anyone has started a mediation case against Omido, i would suggest you stop. If we are going to judge each other in the terms you have decided to judge him, id have to say i have enough evidence to start a mediation case against any of you as you have it to start one against me. We are all guilty of the deviation of the editing process. Its not fair to start throwing stones at someone when we have also made mistakes, perhaps even worse mistakes than the ones he has made. Lets just focus on the editing process.--Andres18 06:30, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Andres, like I said before, the word 'suppression' will inevitably leave both sides feeling it has favored the other. However, we cannot pass off one side's "facts" as "facts" until it has been proven. Like I said in response to McConn, persecution suggests a (systematic) genocide is taking place. This is almost certainly not true.

With regards to the K/M criticism, I am NOT advocating that my responses be placed on the main Wiki page. Therefore WP:No Original Research will not be breached. What I AM trying to say on the discussion page, however, is that it is dangerous for a supposedly neutral article to pass off the K/M report as a totally 'neutral' third-party report, which is clearly not the case.

With regards to the Omido mediation case, yes I did start it. The only reason I started it is because he engaged in section blanking, which is without an iota of doubt in violation of several Wikipedia policies. Although arguably most of us have breached guidelines like WP:Civility and biased editing, they tend to be targeted at specific areas. Section blanking done constantly almost in violation of WP:3RR does not show any commitment to discussion of points. It merely represents VANDALISM. The problem is, Omido has engaged in such behavior many times before. And although doing it once or twice may be overlookable in a topic as controversial as this one, doing it many times within a short period of time with scant regard of a multitude of Wiki policies is clearly not acceptable. There is a line to draw (for behavior), and there is a red line (non-acceptability). Omido has crossed the red line. However, as long as Omido isn't section blanking, there is no need to pursue with the mediation case, which is why I've put it on hold for now. Last but not least, a mediation case does not count against any user, unlike blocks, bans and ArbCom decisions. If anything, as a Wiki editor, Andres, you should help prevent vandalism instead of passively supporting such disruptive behavior. Wiki policies are in place for a good reason. Jsw663 13:55, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree that we should keep in the boundaries of Wikipedia, and also I would like to test your POV by asking if you will do the same when: Samuel Luo, Yueyuen, CovenantD, Mr.He and occasionally Tomananda does the same thing? Blanking and/or reverting without discussion like it happened on the Li Hongzhi page? --HappyInGeneral 15:33, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Such section 'blanking' (they weren't totally blanked, but heavily edited, unlike Omido's 99% blanking) should come under discussion too, and it has on the Li Hongzhi page, but in a far milder form. But any 'reverts' are automatically done by a bunch of very dedicated FG editors on Wiki so I have not yet had to step in. But do inform me if any such happenings do occur. Wikipedian rules, after all, applies to every Wikipedian editor on Wikipedia. Jsw663 20:10, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

I understand how you feel, but according to wikipedia:

"Persecution is persistent mistreatment of an individual or group by another group. The most common forms are religious persecution, ethnic persecution, and political persecution, though there is naturally some overlap between these terms."

I dont see how that could imply systematic genocide.

According to the chinese embassy in the United States of America, Falun Gong has been "outlawed" by the Chinese government. According to the webpage dictionary.com, to outlaw means:

  1. To declare illegal: outlawed the sale of firearms.
  2. To place under a ban; prohibit: outlawed smoking in the house.
  3. To deprive (one declared to be a criminal fugitive) of the protection of the law.

Note the second definition "To place under a Ban, prohibit". So the Chinese Government aknowleges that they are prohibiting and banning Falun Gong. On the same webpage, the definition of suppression sup·pressed, sup·press·ing, sup·press·es

  1. To put an end to forcibly; subdue.
  2. To curtail or prohibit the activities of.
  3. To keep from being revealed, published, or circulated.
  4. To deliberately exclude (unacceptable desires or thoughts) from the mind.
  5. To inhibit the expression of (an impulse, for example); check: suppress a smile.
  6. To reduce the incidence or severity of (a hemorrhage or cough, for example); arrest.

Note it also says "prohibit" and "curtails" which means to apply restriction, this means that the terms outlawing and suppression for our purposes of definition are practically the same thing said in different words. If we use suppression, we are favoring the CCP. I believe that if the CCP had completely denied they banned falun gong, then supression would be a neutral title. After reading this, what do you think about it?

Regarding the Kilgour/Matas report, i believe that your analysis cannot be used to justify that the report is biased because if we did so, it would break the code of Original Research because we would be saying it is not a 3rd party report according to your opinion and not according to a statement from a published reliable source. Dont get me wrong though, i know it took you a lot of time and effort to bring it up, but i think its against the rules. Think about it, maybe i could make an analysis in favor of the non-biased position of the kilgour/matas report, but that wouldnt count either because in the end, its not reliable information right?. If there are sources saying its not biased, we can report it just as we can report sources saying it is biased. I believe we dont have to conclude wether it is 3rd party or not.

About the Omido case, well i personally do not agree with section blanking and doing edits without consulting, but i also know of editors from the criticism party who have done the same as him and have not been punished for it. I think we should try to make an agreement to not make edits without consulting with the condition to agree to participate more actively in the wikipedia page in order to advance more efficiently on the editing process so that all these faults on the article that people are so eager to modify can be discussed and so we can reach consensus on them. This way we can do stable edits that dont get constantly reverted. Perhaps it would be the first step to take in order to start working harmoniously as a team. Lately its been an "us against them" kind of attitude from both sides, if we work as a team and learn to accept each other's faults a bit more and not engaging in discussions unrelated to the editing process perhaps we can finish sooner than expected.

I dont know if i should make a new section and re-post what has been discussed so far about the lead section or to start over again. Also, id like to make a section for the agreement to not do edits without consulting and that if someone breaks the agreement, he/she would be penalized. Can this be done? i think also this way we can see who is truly willing to work on the editing process instead of engaging in revert/edit wars. What do you suggest?.--Andres18 02:50, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi Andres, thanks for your response. There is a difference between outlawing and suppression - the latter being 'forcibly', with that term being vague. How much force would constitute 'forcibly'? But there is no doubt in the word 'persecution'; it states outright that FG practitioners are being tortured and killed off as a fact. 'Outlawing' is only labelling something as a crime; the Chinese government has made spreading Falun Gong beliefs a crime. But once convicted criminals are put in prison, there will always be an element of 'force' against the prisoner as they are not given full rights normally enjoyed by that of a law-abiding citizen. That is where the difference is - the CCP has convicted some FGers as criminals but what goes on in the prisons is up to debate. But FG is judging FGers like the average law-abiding citizen, which is clearly not the case. And why should convicted FG criminals not be considered like the average citizen? Because they seek to overthrow the government - in effect an act of treason. This has been the source of contention for ages and this is why it is essential to allow a word which will give some room for vagueness (to account for the fact that we do not know for sure what is going on due to propaganda by both sides) yet is not too vague. Suppression fits the bill; persecution assumes certain things as fact. This is why I have supported the term 'suppression' throughout rather than 'persecution' because it reproduces known, proven facts without saying anything that has merely been suggested or not proven. This line is delicate but it has to be drawn.

Regarding the critique / counter-critique of the KM report. Note I am not saying we should place any of your / my comments on the main Wiki page. Although the KM seems to be of suspect neutrality, there is no denying it is 'officially' a third-party report. So as long as anything commented in the KM report is attributed to it, and anything said within there is penned with the term 'allege' as K/M have not been able to prove anything for certain yet, then it can be placed on the KM page. But FGers have been passing off KM allegations as facts, and this must be distinguished because it is not proven yet.

I do think it wise to set up some kind of committee drawn from both sides (pro-FG and anti-FG) to ensure vandalism in the form of section blanking does not take place. After all, it is the responsibility of all Wikipedian editors to ensure Wikipedian entries adhere to Wikipedian rules. However, reverts should only be granted if they are OBVIOUS vandalism. This becomes tricky since persons from both sides will be sorely tempted to overstep their bounds. Any comments to this yourself, Andres? Jsw663 20:10, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Jsw, persecution does not imply Genocide. Although there is always persecution in genocide, it is not the case vice versa. The facts that I stated are proven facts. There is a lot more going on that I didn't state because I wanted to keep things simple. Look at the definitions that I listed. It is clear that persecution is the most accurate word. Actually, I could easily make an argument for genocide too, the second defintion fits perfectly, but I'm not going to go that far right now. I'm sorry Jsw, but your argument for "suppression" is weak, and your strong opposition to accepting "persecution" is starting to make me question your motives here. Mcconn 13:48, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

The K/M report is certainly not proven facts. They have gathered some evidence, but it is certainly not water-tight and certainly not proven as they admit themselves. If suggestions and inferences are passed off as facts then neither side will agree to anything soon. Read my response to Andres for more. Your definitions are deliberately vague, it seems - read Andres' for more detail. But if you want to say my argument is weak, at least have the courtesy to say which part is. Critique it through analysis and counter-proof. After all, that's what this discussion is about. Jsw663 20:10, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm not referring to the K/M report. It has nothing to do with any of my comments in this section. Look at my second post here. I only mention proven facts. Facts that meet the defenition of persecution perfectly. My definitions are not vague, and they are not my definitions. They are definitions from the "wiktionary", wikipedia's dictionary. Comparing them to other dictionary defintions, they are almost the exact same. I have countered your argument for suppression. If you can't see that, then read the posts in this section again. Mcconn 05:55, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

I find it more worrying that you did not read my response to your second post, which is directly below HiG's, and my response to Andres above. If you can only define suppression as the 'act of being suppressed' then obviously that is not a sufficiently detailed definition, is it? The three terms "suppression, persecution or genocide" are not the only three available, and seem to be chosen deliberately so that you can justify 'persecution' as somehow being more neutral. The two choices you left out are that the CCP has done nothing at all against FGers, and the other one being simply outlawing FG. Andres, on the other hand, has provided more detail, for which I am grateful. Your definition of persecution is vague enough to suit your interests, whereas Andres' definition was sufficiently detailed so that we could argue on the main difference between the two terms. That is what I mean by suspiciously vague in your (McConn)'s definition. You also never replied to my response to your second post - maybe you should read that before saying I should read the other posts in this section. Maybe you'd like to consider these other posts by Andres and myself in this section before belittling anybody else, assuming you can bring yourself to consider all the statements equally. Jsw663 11:37, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

You're right. I missed your post since you added it later, but I did address some of its content in my other posts. As I already said twice above, the defintions are not my own. They are wikipedia's. I chose wikipedia definitions because we are editing wikipedia. I also checked their consistency with dictionary.com, and found them almost the exact same, so I used them. Andres did not provide another definition of persecution, so i will. This is from the same source as his other defintions:

  per·se·cu·tion
   –noun
  1. the act of persecuting.
  2. the state of being persecuted.
  3. a program or campaign to exterminate, drive away, or subjugate a people because of their 
  religion, race, or beliefs: the persecutions of Christians by the Romans.

As I said, this is almost the exact same as the definition I posted above. The three terms I chose are the three that we have always talked about. No one in the past suggested using "outlawed", and the CCP does not say they "have done nothing at all against Falun Gong practitioners." So I didn't include these. As for "elimination", you said they are trying to eliminate the practitioners not the belief system itself. Well, that still fits into the defintion since Falun Gong practitioners are a "specific group of people". I already mentioned why persecution does not suggest genocide. So here you go, a response to everything. Mcconn 04:59, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for responding, McConn. Care to give the definition of suppression, and the difference between persecution and suppression? The two are not exact synonyms, and knowing why you insist on one but not the other will be interesting. I think I've already made my case perfectly clear - persecution leaves no doubt that extermination is taking place, but suppression is slightly more vague in that it does not state as a fact that extermination is taking place, but does not completely deny it either. This is in keeping with the third-party sources including the K/M report, which has not managed to prove anything (though they did gather some evidence) as they were not able to enter China, or verify anything said by the wife of that surgeon mentioned therein. Jsw663 12:44, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Andres posted a definition of suppression above. Suppression is to "curtail or prevent the activities of", and persecution is to "exterminate, drive away, or subjugate". The Chinese government does not want Falun Gong to exist. They are not content with just keeping it down, which is what the definition of suppression suggests. As I've pointed out, the Human Rights Watch report below goes into detail about why the government decided to "eradicate" Falun Gong. Also, note that persecution can be any of those three terms, including subjugate, which is closer to what suppression means, only a little harsher. The Chinese government admits that it is suppressing Falun Gong, although it may not use that term. And the facts, as I've stated, show that it is beyond a suppression. Using the term "persecution" is not choosing sides. It's supported by facts and very credible third party organizations. Thus I think it is very appropriate. (note: let's go by the definitions here. Your arguments seem more attached to your personal feelings about the terms, rather than what they actually mean.) Mcconn 17:10, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Personal feelings!? I am working with Andres' definition after all. You fail to make the distinction between the belief and its practitioners. The CCP seems to be outlawing the belief, but no conclusive proof is given that it is exterminating its practitioners. I know you will probably throw a variety of human rights orgs. reports plus FG sources at me, but after reading those in detail, little is conclusively proven since few facts are verifiable / verified. This is why persecution does not reflect what is happening to FG practitioners; it is the spread of their beliefs that the CCP wants to curtail. At least that's what I get from Xinhua news and other official CCP sources... and they are NOT admitting to suppression (which is vague about whether such actions are legal or not) - they are only admitting it's illegal because of its commitment to overthrow the government and thus need to take action because of its political consequences. Time and time again I have not argued that even the word 'suppression' is loaded and biased in itself, but if you continue to seek / push for more extreme definitions, then the need for the CCP view not to be misrepresented will be all the more important - that would mean pushing for "restriction" instead of suppression. Personal feelings should not interfere with facts - and facts need to be verified with a sufficient degree of certainty (i.e. 99% or thereabouts) (aka 'beyond reasonable doubt' under common law) especially if you are making a criminal charge. This is one of the most basic things about criminal law you should know. Jsw663 13:14, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, personal feelings. You think that these terms are loaded, and that persecution implies genocide and systematic torture. These are your personal feelings, and a lot of your argument is based around them. As I've said, I don't consider these terms loaded at all. When referring to persecution I said, "Yes, it is associated with atrocious acts, and is thus connected with controversial subjects, but that doesn't make it loaded. It means what it means." And I stand by that.

In your last post you said that the CCP does NOT admit to supression, but in an earlier pos when referring to CCP reports, you yourself said, "Some have admitted low-level suppression". But even if they didn't use the term suppression, they admit to banning the practice of Falun Gong, banning the publishing of it's books, arresting practitioners, and giving long jail sentences to "key practitioners". You can say that this is the same as making it illegal, but when we're referring to a belief, or what many would even call a movement, that term doesn't fit. Suppression is the most basic term for that. Now what the CCP may or may not admit is the campaign that goes with this. The campaign uses all forms of propaganda to convince the masses to support them in what they are doing, and create greater pressure on adherents to renounce their beliefs. In my second post I attached a link to some of the propaganda they've used. Also, here is a relevenat quote from Xinhua "We must closely follow the Party Central Committee's plan, make further vigorous effort, follow up the victory with a hot pursuit, thoroughly destroy the "Falun Gong" organization and eradicate the pernicious influence of Li Hongzhi's fallacies, to seize the complete victory of this struggle." [12] So although they may not admit to that, it speaks for itself. Perhaps it's more clear now what what is taking place is a lot more than "curtailing" a belief. The only term I know that fits this is "persecution".

Also, as I mentioned below, it's notable that most human rights organizations define this as a persecution. Remember, in the definition above persecution can be "exterminate, drive away, or subjugate". It can be any of these three. While it most certainly is the second two, it is likely the first as well. As I mentioned below a lot of third parties have reported it as such, which means that it's generally understood as such. And although I can't seem give you 100% proof of "extermination", what's available still has weight, which in turn gives this term weight as well.

One of your points was that they are targeting the belief, not the people, but these two things are completely inseperable. The only way to eliminate a belief is to eliminate those who believe in it. While some may be willing renounce their beliefs, naturally many won't and will thus have to continually pay the consequences. Even those who renouce their beliefs are still direct victims of the campaign. If you take a look at this report, you might get a better sense of how these are the same. All of the facts that I have listed here are 100% verifiable. Mcconn 18:18, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Persecution passes off the total elimination of FG practitioners as well as the beliefs as fact. From what I have read from CCP sources, it is merely outlawing the beliefs in public within Chinese territory; it cannot control it outside Chinese borders. The total elimination by torture / inhumane methods of FG practitioners is not yet proven, even by the human rights orgs. sources you quote time and again, because everything I have read has been conjecture, unprovable evidence like the K/M report, or stringing together random pieces of fact that happen to fit within a certain theory. As long as something still hasn't been properly verified from enough sources, such FG-alleged persecution cannot be substantiated. Human rights orgs. use persecution very widely, and in its broadest sense. But when the average person reads the term 'persecution', it already pre-forms for the reader a very negative image. It is entirely understandable for an organization which promotes human rights to do so, because that is their agenda. What is the FG agenda again?

I noticed with interest you never stated the difference between suppression and persecution. I wonder why. You quoted me as saying the CCP has admitted some low-level suppression, but with the phrase 'low-level' it was merely expanding / taking advantage off the ambiguity of the definition of 'suppression'. A more accurate word there would be outlawing, although suppression of FG beliefs would not be untrue - but definitely not the whole truth either. This is what I meant by ambiguity. Persecution is systematic in nature; can you cite examples where persecution was not? As the word persecution totally conforms to one side's opinions / allegations without due regard for the other, it is unacceptably biased and cannot be tolerated in a Wiki entry. Perhaps you should be asking about your own personal feelings in this matter, since you are insisting on promoting one party's agenda at the expense of the other Jsw663 13:24, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Wow, this is starting to get a little annoying. Just a little. It seems like you keep ignoring my points, and then make accusations against me. "insisting on promoting one party's agenda at the expense of the other"? Do you really mean that? We all have our own on opinions on this matter, what I did was support mine with facts and reason, to show its validity for the article. I believe that to call what's happening in China a "suppression" is really playing it down and that "persecution" is a much more accurate word, and I think I have shown this through my posts above and below. I did state the difference between suppression and persecution. Suppression is "curtailing" something or "keeping it down", whereas persecution is at it says, "exterminate, drive away, or subjugate" (this is clear from the definitions). In a sense, I consider persecution a stronger version of suppression. You keep insisting that "Persecution passes off the total elimination of FG practitioners as well as the beliefs as fact", but I have said that that is simply your personal opinion and it is not supported by the definition of the word. The definition states that persecution could any of the three things I just mentioned, and by saying this it also provides ambiguity over whether or not elimination is actually taking place. And since there have been a lot of reports that suggest that it is taking place, it's not wrong to have this as a possibility within the defintion of the word we use.

"it is merely outlawing the beliefs in public within Chinese territory; it cannot control it outside Chinese borders." Well, of course it's only outlawing it within Chinese territory, the Chinese government has no juristiction outside of Chinese territory. But that said, Chinese embassies have done a lot over the years to extend the persecution overseas. While I can't provide a totally unbiased source that documents all of these things, I can give you a link to some WOIPFG reports that do (I've been around to witness some of these occuences in Canada).

"Persecution is systematic in nature." What do you actually mean by "systematic"? I've shown how what is happening in China is a "campaign" involving the whole nation.

Look, I haven't spent all this time writing these posts just to have them ignored. I believe that I've given more than ample reason to use the word persecution (at least when we're referring to what's happening in China), while nothing solid has been said to show otherwise. I think we should start using this word as soon as possible. Mcconn 19:23, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Time and again I have made points which FG practitioners just choose to ignore if it doesn't suit their agenda. They have accused me of ignoring their opinion and not considering pro-FG sources yet I have clearly considered their opinion (to which I get no rebuttal on points in the vast majority of cases) and I even spent the time going through a pro-FG source here in the discussion. I have already said that persecution involves a lot more than just mere extermination. You also refuse to see that there is a difference between outlawing the belief and torturing its practitioners, dismissing it as a matter of 'personal opinion'. Have you ever considered that your judgements may be impeding understanding of my argument in the first place?

Let me try to give a more practical example - the UNHCR definition of refugees. If FGers were indeed 'persecuted' then every FGer who left China would be entitled to asylum in any other country as a refugee, and be granted full citizenship rights in the country of their choice in which they were seeking asylum. Let's consider a few past cases whether they were granted asylum - Qu Wencai, 1999. Quoting from a law report from the Court of Session (the highest Scottish court), "Qu Wen Cai's final appeal was to the Court of Session. In its judgment, Lord Kingarth, sitting with Lords Philip and Eassie, said he had failed to meet the required test, that the immigration judge's decision could be described as perverse, and his appeal must be refused." There have been quite a few other cases, although now and then a few famed-liberal countries have admitted FGers as refugees, e.g. Norway, Canada, New Zealand. But the US admitting FGers is more of a result of political rivalry - "the enemy of your enemy is my friend" doctrine shared by both FGers and the US administration.

Let's return to the original topic. Yes, persecution is stronger than suppression, but that's because it assumes certain things as facts. The only ambiguity in the definition in persecution is in the brevity of your definition of it, but it states outright that ruthless extermination, including by torture, is a fact, and is systematic in the sense that it is an official government policy. This is not an opinion, nor is it proven true. The ambiguity in 'suppression' is clearly in the degree of suppression. That is why there's a difference.

You have tried to argue before that the CCP has admitted suppression, but you haven't found an instance to support it. Based on its official government reports, it denies all forms of torture of FG practitioners, but seeks to outlaw its practice within China. This is why, whilst I agree with you that China only has jurisdiction within its territory, it amuses me to see you claim that Chinese embassies have sought to 'extend the persecution overseas'. Is this based on wild imagination, or hard facts?

Other users such as Nil E. (quick opinion section) (ie not random new users registered to boost 'opinions') have come on this board and expressed concern that persecution is far too loaded (subjective) a word to be used for something as controversial as this. That user was then greeted with a savaging by FG practitioners. I have deliberately not stuck to a CCP line not only because that is not my own opinion, but because it would be tiring to issue constant denials. But if you seek to radicalize this board by pushing for pro-human rights or pro-FG agendas constantly, one can only wonder about your commitment as a Wikipedian editor, rather than someone trying to push a POV and pass it off as fact. Jsw663 13:16, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

I just finished writing posts to users CovenantD, armedblowfish, and Ed_Poor asking that they express their judgment on this matter in the form of a 2 out of 3 vote. I did this becuase I've come to terms with the fact that neither of us is going to budge on this. If they do this then I think we should respect their decisions and go with the majority. What do you think?

That said, I will still repond to your post, hopefully for the last time on this subject. You said, "I have already said that persecution involves a lot more than just mere extermination. You also refuse to see that there is a difference between outlawing the belief and torturing its practitioners, dismissing it as a matter of 'personal opinion'." and "The only ambiguity in the definition in persecution is in the brevity of your definition of it, but it states outright that ruthless extermination, including by torture, is a fact, and is systematic in the sense that it is an official government policy." We are working with a definition that I think we all agree on (even though you keep calling it "your definition"). Our definition includes three things "exterminate, drive away, or subjugate", so it involves more than exterminate and I've addressed that. And by using the word "or" it shows that it can be any of those things, which means it doesn't have to be exterminate. What's not included in this is "torture", so I don't know why you keep bringing that up. The persecution is an official government policy. It's not only illegal, but followers are actively hunted down and propaganda aimed to gain support for the massess has been employed on a large scale. Also, as I already said, making a spiritual discipline "illegal" or "outlawed" is itself more than a "supression", and it is a serious violation of freedom of belief. Because this involves people's beliefs and way of life, it is far more serious than simple "outlawing" to begin with.

You mentioned the UNHCR definition of refugees, but you didn't provide it, so I'm unclear on this. You said, "If FGers were indeed 'persecuted' then every FGer who left China would be entitled to asylum in any other country as a refugee". Is that so? Can you cite a source that says that? Also, could you give me a source for the case of Qu Wencai, so that I can see the broader context of the decision? You said, "But the US admitting FGers is more of a result of political rivalry". That is your opinion, not fact.

"You have tried to argue before that the CCP has admitted suppression, but you haven't found an instance to support it." What I meant by this is that it has openly banned the practice and the publication of its books (even burning the copies still in circulation), it has given long term jail sentences to it's followers, and it has gone to the masses for support. These things have all been reported in Xinhua news, the official CCP mouthpiece, so they clearly admit it. Even if they don't use the word "suppression" they admit to facts that amount to that or even more.

You said, "it amuses me to see you claim that Chinese embassies have sought to 'extend the persecution overseas'. Is this based on wild imagination, or hard facts?" Did you not look at the link that I provided? While I know that woipfg is not a neutral source, what's mentioned in the reports is clearly not fabrication. What I meant by "extend the persecution" is that have extended their campaign overseas in any form they think they can get away with. That includes giving speeches, pressuring politicians or other public figures, having "exhibitions" inside the embassies about Falun Gong as an "evil cult", interfering with protests, and even in some instances beating practitioners.

I appreciate, but disagree with Nil E.'s opinion and I stated why. I don't see how this amounts to "savaging". I don't know this user or their background, but I do know a bit more about the users I mentioned in the first paragaph. I know that they are neutral and have thus asked them to make a judgement on the matter.

This post does nothing more than address all of the points you made in your last post. I still stand by my points which have been made and defended over the course this discussion. Mcconn 18:28, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for making your post more relevant, McConn. Your actions worry me even more. The only user of those three who are relatively neutral is armedblowfish, because s/he doesn't have a clue what FG is. Covenant D has tried to get anti-FGers Samuel Luo and Tomananda + the 71. something IP banned as sockpuppets, failed, responded with unacceptable criticism and got blocked as a result. This cannot be the actions of a responsible neutral person. Ed Poor / Uncle Ed, whilst I appreciate his non-involvement in such a matter, hasn't exactly shown complete FG-neutrality. Thus giving yourself a 2 out of 3 vote with at least 2 biased editors to your favor is nothing more than a sham agreement. I hope FG doesn't do this with all their alleged torture and persecution.

Responding to your first paragraph, I already pointed out the difference between what pro-FGers find as facts and what FG-skeptics + FG critics doubt / dismiss as fabrication / exaggeration. The CCP has jurisdiction to pass laws within the territory of the PRC (except in SARs) and thus their laws are not 'illegal'. The 'persecution' you allege has not been proven and is still only being alleged by one side (pro-FG + human rights orgs.). The CCP, by making FG illegal to practice, is within its rights to outlaw its beliefs, and criminalize (after the passage of the law) any person seeking to spread such a belief within China. Thus their actions fit within the terms of "doing its duty to protect national security" and "outlawing". This also fits into the broadest of terms of 'suppression' but definitely not 'persecution'. But because you insist on passing off the pro-FG case (on what they deem as 'facts' despite the lack of proof) as the truth, you will never realize that what I'm proposing here is NOT a CCP line, but in fact a compromise. The lack of a pro-CCP user doesn't help here and I know you are trying to take advantage of that to skew the balance.

The UNHCR definition of the refugee has been in place for over 55 years. It requires that the person to have been found to be persecuted in their home country for reasons of race, religion, etc., and to have left their country of origin (you can also look this up on Wiki). It is relevant in this case because the question is whether Chinese FGers who have left China qualify as refugees - in essence, the courts need to determine whether they have been persecuted. I was giving examples of court judgements made by the (relatively neutral) highest law courts of how the persecution criteria were not met. If this is the case, then persecution is not a fact and cannot be used. However, that same judgement says there is probably some degree of suppression, which is also why I'm advocating this compromise of a word.

My response to your second para is essentially covered in this response's second paragraph. If the CCP has jurisdiction over Chinese territory and makes the practice of FG illegal, it has the right to outlaw its spreading. How it achieves this is still subject to debate, but what FG passes off as fact is definitely not proven yet, as I've said in the above 2 paragraphs + the rest of this section.

Overseas p. / your 3rd para - I have read the page you linked. I don't think that having other governments carry out what is merely law enforcement is definitely and conclusively the result of CCP pressure. This is opinion / allegation. Any beating taking place overseas may not be the result of CCP; it could be a whole host of other factors since if the FGers are as diverse as FGers claim to be, are also involved in other activities (some savory, some not so savory) then the beatings could be totally unrelated. But FGers have been made most paranoid by all these CCP organizations as K/M also alleges, yet somehow manages to find 'evidence' from this 'water-tight ultimate evil organization'. Conspiracy theories are supposed to remain theories, not passed off as fact.

Like I said before in a section below this one, you will never change your opinion if you interpret events differently. I view unproven allegations as just that; you view them as facts. This is why I say we should use 'suppression' (to take advantage of its ambiguity); you insist on using 'persecution'. Neither of us are wrong if what we believe is true. But the question is, what is the truth? What is really going on in China? Until we know for sure, we should not make any conclusive statements in an encyclopedia. And before you give yourself any more neutral judges to 'decide' on this matter, I suggest you stop your campaign to represent one side only, taking advantage of the lack of CCP representation on Wiki. Neutrality is supposed to remain that; it is not to be exercised for your own benefit or agenda. And as someone who couldn't give a damn what FG really is personally, your insistence on pursuing a FG campaign is pushing me dangerously close to the anti-FG camp. Jsw663 19:04, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I chose those three editors because one, armedblowfish, was going to be our meditor, and the other two have done well at exercising neutrality in the past in our discussions. I went to editors that I knew were competent and able to act as middlemen. It had nothing to do with trying to get an edge over you. If not these three, then who? Jsw, I've never accused you of anything, regardless what I might think in my mind or suspect. How is it that in every post you continually put me down and make such accuastions? Is it that you can't discuss an issue like this without trying to belittle the other party? I'm not upset with you, I just want to point this out to you.

Outlawing a spiritual belief violates people's freedom of belief, period. I never said they were doing it illegally. Of course it's legal in their own country, they can make anything legal, since it's they who decide what's legal and what's not. The judiciary are a tool and have no independence. But making these laws violates the UNHCR, which they have signed and rattified. That is why I said, that "outlawing" a belief is never a simple matter of "outlawing", because it involves fundamental human rights. You said "This also fits into the broadest of terms of 'suppression' but definitely not 'persecution'". Thay may be true for this action alone, but when we look at the greater picture of what's happened (the facts that I've presented in this discussion have always been 100% verifiable unless I've said otherwise), we can see that it is much more than that. I will repeat these for the record: all publications banned, a nationwide campaign using media, posters, and slogans aimed at criticizing Falun Gong, creating greater pressure on practitioners, and gaining public support, and long-term jail sentences. I'll add a couple more: Police rounded up thousands of practitioners in a Beijing stadium after the ban, torture is proven to be being used (I'm not saying it's a campaign or an order, but it's there). This is a lot more than outlawing, and it's more than simply "keeping something down" or "curtailing". Can you look at this Xinhua quote light of this and honestly say that what's happening is "curtailing" rather than "subjugation"? "We must closely follow the Party Central Committee's plan, make further vigorous effort, follow up the victory with a hot pursuit, thoroughly destroy the "Falun Gong" organization and eradicate the pernicious influence of Li Hongzhi's fallacies, to seize the complete victory of this struggle."

I want to say that this discussion is not about "sides" or anyone's "agenda". This is not an issue of being neutral between two sides, it is an issue of how we label the facts we are presented with. I never claimed that you are on anyone's side but your own.

You mentioned that Canada, Norway, New Zealand, and the US have admitted Falun Gong practitioners as refugees. Off the top of my head I also know that Thailand and the UK have also done this. You mention one country turning down a practitioner, and that's supposed to show that there is rational doubt over whethere there is a persecution taking place? I know for a fact that there are lots of Chinese people who come to foreign countries and pretend to be Falun Gong practitioners in order to gain refugee status. Plus if this person is a practitioner, but wasn't directly affected by the perseuction in China, that doesn't mean there isn't a persecution taking place on a broader scale or that the committee doubts that there is. There is a lot more to the committee's decision than the issue of whether there is a persecution taking place. Mcconn 17:42, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Regarding the use of the term suppression, i understand what you mean now. As for me, it wouldnt really matter to me if we used Suppression as long as it can be included in that section that Falun Dafa practitioners say that there is a systematic torture process going on against practitioners and that they say they have the evidence to prove it. As long as that idea can be mentioned and given the same weight as the CCP's opinion on this matter i wouldnt have a problem at all. Perhaps a link to both the CCP and Falun Gong webpages where they talk about this issue might be appropriate. I believe my personal opinion cannot speak for all the pro Falun Dafa editors, i will get in touch with them and talk about it so i can get some insights and ideas and then ill get back to you later on. So for now, lets leave it on standby until i get opinions from other practitioners, this way, next time we talk about it, i'll make a post that condenses all the proFalun Gong editors views so we can talk a bit more and make the final decision wether it should be Supression or if there happen to be more reasons we can talk about of why we think persecution could be used instead. I personally think that maybe it would be great if we could work a bit on the section itself instead of the title because If one of the parties believes that the title is favoring the opposite party, maybe they could decide more easily if they get the whole picture instead of just one word which is the title. What do you think?.--Andres18 00:23, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi Andres. Your sentence "As long as that idea can be mentioned and given the same weight as the CCP's opinion on this matter" sounds positive. This way the reader can determine for themselves what they want to believe - one of the two sides, or neither side. I also commend you for your constructive and positive attitude in moving the Wikipedian article forward rather than let it sink into unhelpful and petty arguments. If we could return to the sections discussion like a month ago before the edit-warring, that would be great. I guess we're already dealing with the suppression section here. Jsw663 11:37, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Hello Jsw, thank you for your kind remarks, I have just made a new section with what he had achieved so far, we can now discuss about it and get on with the process. I look forward to hearing what you have to say about these proposals. Also, im currently speaking with other editors who have their doubts about why supression should be used and i think sooner or later they will be posting their concerns in here so we can talk about them and either make a final decision or leave it on standby until we edit the content of that section.--Andres18 23:20, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi Andres, thanks for your response - I will respond to this below (post starts with "Like I replied to McConn above..."). Yes, I would also like to contribute to the editing process. Jsw663 12:44, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Please see my last post for the continuation of this discussion. Mcconn 05:41, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

What i like about the definition of persecution is that it says that the mistreatment is directed towards a certain group because of their beliefs, so it defines this aspect more accurately. What i meant was not that the Chinese government deny they are doing anything, they say they have "outlawed" the practice, but they have not said they are killing or hurting practitioners though.--Andres18 04:27, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but they have made statements saying that they will "eliminate" Falun Gong, and have carried out a campaign to do so. Even if they denied that, it wouldn't matter, because they've said so and it has been documented. Even if killing is happening and it is fact, the definition of persecution does not mention killing, so it's irrelevant. It says "exterminate, drive away, or subjugate". It is a fact that those things are their goal, no matter what the means. Plain and simple. Mcconn 17:47, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

"eliminate" Falun Gong? well if it is documented, it should be reported. Could you post the source? if you do so, i believe other editors will seriously consider what you are saying.--Andres18 03:55, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Here's what I've got for the moment: Taiwan's China times reported on September 1, 2000, "The Chinese Communist Party has decided to escalate its oppression of Falun Gong and plans to eradicate Falun Gong within three months." "Eradicating Falun Gong within three months" is referring to a public statement made by Jiang Zemin. Mcconn 05:00, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

This Human Rights Watch report documents the governments plans to eradicate Falun Gong. Mcconn 05:43, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Like I replied to McConn above, there is a difference between exterminating FG practitioners (= systematic) and prohibiting (though I cannot verify that's the term the CCP used) the FG belief. The first seeks to kill everyone because of their belief, and that doesn't seem to be the case due to the large numbers fleeing China. The second is actively curbing the spreading of a certain belief, which is different. Jsw663 12:44, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

I am also cautious about using a ROC (Taiwan)'s source to represent CCP views - it's like using a US source to represent North Korean views - you simply won't get an accurate picture. Jsw663 12:44, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't think a Taiwan news report would make up a statement like that above anymore than the US would for North Korea. It's one thing to spin a report, but completely another to fabricate one. Taiwan's press probably has the most freedom in East Asia. So I think it is still a valid source. That said, many western media reports have also used the term "eradicate" when referring to the persecution of Falun Gong. If you go here and search for the term "eradicat", you'll find a few. For more about the two terms, see my other response above. Mcconn 17:10, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

I thought you were the one to accuse me of letting 'personal feelings' affect my judgement yet you come up with a statement like "I don't think a Taiwan news report would make up a statement...". The China Times is known for moving towards a more pro-DPP stance recently. But in the end the question is still whether to trust an 'enemy' government with accurate information. There is such a thing called disinformation you know - and Falun Gong have been known to use it with fabricated facts, e.g. Sujiatuan incident with the alleged "6000 people" fitted into a tiny hospital. As for media freedom, South Korea, Japan and Hong Kong have presses which are far more free than Taiwan. See [13]. Since the media in Taiwan has been known to be politically manipulated in the past (yes, I have actually been there) I highly doubt it would fairly represent the CCP view. However, if you find a CCP source like Xinhua or China Daily to represent the CCP view, then you may be justified in your view. But until then, your allegations cannot be passed off as facts. Jsw663 13:14, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

All I'm saying is saying that the CCP plans to "eradicate Falun Gong in three months" is a stated fact. If it's just made up, then it's fabrication. While the China Times may be known to have a bias, it's not known to fabricate reports or pull facts like this out of thin air. By making that claim about Sujiatun, you're asking for this discussion to go off track. While I could argue what you said, I won't, because I want this discussion to produce something. Mcconn 18:18, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Persecution is on going [14]. Therefore, I will make the title change back to "persecution". Fnhddzs 02:16, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

You're jumping the gun. The issue isn't resolved yet. We have to leave it as it is for now. Mcconn 04:41, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Wake up?

Well I've read through a lot of the discussion above. I think this article is hopeless, unless we set some concrete deadlines, or all meet in person to discuss how to word everything. The hell with the mediation committee, what are they gonna know about all the ins and outs of Falun Gong and its socio-political background? One of the admins should step up and dictate some kind of procedure.

My e-mail is hongshi_fang@hotmail.com, if you'd like in-depth discussion feel free to e-mail or IM on MSN Messenger. I'd actually prefer one with jsw. These talk pages hardly promote any new understanding, it's basically a prove-disprove cycle. We need to know when to stop. Colipon+(T) 04:53, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Much discussion, little basic editing?

Pages of discussion about the in's and out's of Falun Gong, but no one has bothered to correct a simple typo?

"However after teh onset of the persecution"

Agreed that and things like that should be fixed. On the other hand that is a straight forward fix, nobody would object/debate about it. --HappyInGeneral 12:19, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

sorry, i reposted this in under appropriate subject above.

--Crestodina 07:16, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Non -neutral phase in origin paragraph.

I am neither a practitioner nor a critic of fallun gong, and as a neutral curious reader, I find that the sentence "Falun Gong quickly grew in popularity in China because many people found what they had been searching for all their life, and starting in 1996 Li has introduced the practice to other countries" is not only non-neutral, but is an awkward stylistic mess. The phrase "...because many people found what they had been searching for all their life,..." is unnecessary and should be deleted.--Crestodina 01:08, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Hello Crestodina, as you may have seen, the wikipedia article is a mess: Today you see something, then a few minutes later someone changes it, then someone else comes and reverts it, and then someone changes something else and adds some other things, then it gets reverted again and so on. I dont agree with making edits or changes without consulting with the other party. As of right now the criticism summary in the wikipedia main page is only one sentence long, thats not good. Nevertheless, it used to be like half a page, which is also not appropriate at all. I think we shouldnt go to any extremes wether reporting pro or anti POV's. I agree that the sentence you just pointed out shouldnt be included, but it is not only that, there are many other aspects of the article that need reviewing. For example, the criticism page has no counter criticism included, so it only reports criticism and not other important information coming from reliable and published sources that can counter that criticism, thus, the reader is forced to view only one POV of the matter without having the chance to see what Falun Gong has to say about it. We are not here to advertise Falun Gong, but we are not here to attack it either, if you let people see only one side of the coin, i dont think that's neutral reporting of facts. I think we should take things step by step and follow the to do list. Apparently almost everyone is taking a break from editing, but if you are available and have some time to do some editing then we can start working on it. You are a neutral editor and thats pretty important, your opinion would be valuable for us when coming up with paragraphs or wordings for the article. If you could, please stay around and lets do some work together. Let me know and ill make a new section for editing proposals of the article according to the to do list so we can discuss it and try to see what everyone else thinks about it and see if we can reach consensus.--Andres18 03:06, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing the above, Crestodina. In fact, the majority of the article is clearly not neutral, nor is it proportionally represented, etc. However, the current sysop who locked the article on its biased version, Centrx, has allowed the last user Asdfg to go on a 'break', taking advantage of inaction to his benefit. But then both sides' edit warring before has meant that unfortunate consequences have had to be taken. It was a good move at first, but I see no reason for continuing this indefinitely or for much longer. Jsw663 14:09, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

And for that we should have a clear section of change proposals on which we agree upon, right? --HappyInGeneral 15:43, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Which both sides engaged in for the past two months, but was undone by a bunch of unhelpful edit wars, section blankers, and now a complete freeze on the main FG entry. If you remember, you also contributed to such a discussion, but this seems to have been abandoned. PS Tomananda, please do NOT edit my posts, thanks. Jsw663 20:13, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Could someone change and bad ISBN for me

Change the citation:

*Ian Adams, Riley Adams and Rocco Galati, ''Power of the Wheel: The Falun Gong Revolution'' (Toronto: Stoddart Publishing, 2000) hard cover ISBN 0-7737-33270-5 {{Please check ISBN|0-7737-33270-5 (too long)}}

to:

*Ian Adams, Riley Adams and Rocco Galati, ''Power of the Wheel: The Falun Gong Revolution'' (Toronto: Stoddart Publishing, 2000) hard cover ISBN 0-7737-3270-5

Thanks --Droll 08:37, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Done. Rich Farmbrough, 17:42 10 January 2007 (GMT).

Any mediators available?

Coliphon couldn't be more right. He said we need to know when to stop and that these talk pages are "basically a prove-disprove cycle." We had all requested a mediator, but nothing really came of it. I'm beginning to wonder if any administrators, mediators or arbitrators are willing at this point to step in and really enforce Wikipedia standards. We saw Omido repeatedly blanking large sections of the main page and some daughter pages only because they had critical content. He was warned by Firestar, but nothing happened. Asdfg came along behind him and did the same wholesale blanking. Then an administrator came along and froze everything. Supposedly this page is being monitored by a whole bunch of interested parties with expertise in China, religion and the like. Yet more importantly, there are many Falun Gong practitioner/editors whose very salvation depends on their ability to present a positive view of Master Li's teachings to the public. [15] Wikipedia is not unique in being used in this fashion...sometimes theatre is also used. For a recent example, I suggest we check out this interesting article about a falsely promoted New Tang Dynasty show in San Francisco at: [16] Please be sure to read the comments. --Tomananda 09:59, 11 January 2007 (UTC) 09:57, 11 January 2007 (UTC) 09:56, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Normally I would give you a lengthy response on this, like what is the problem on having interested people on this topic, and so on ... , but for the moment I have only one question: how is your statement above help the editing, since you are basically just attacking practitioners, even though you probably agree with the fact that we indeed cultivate Truthfulness Compassion Forbearance? I think the best thing right now it would be to concentrate on a list of change proposals that we can discuss and agree upon. --HappyInGeneral 15:50, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for that response, HiG. Now turn your statement around by replacing FG practitioners with anti-FG persons, and vice versa. Can you also adhere to your statement then? In your insistence in responding to my response to the KM report, I should quote you: "how is your statement above help the editing, since you are basically just attacking [FG skeptics]"?? Jsw663 20:28, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

:) I hope that my statement above helps the editing process by point out the fact that we should concentrate on things that help the editing process :) --HappyInGeneral 18:17, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

You never responded to my question. But then there wouldn't be a need to if the answer was obvious. Jsw663 12:50, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

OK, then let me answer very clearly here as well. You used your OR, “analysis” on the Organ Harvest Investigation report, by Kilgrou & Matas to say the following: “08:28, 3 January 2007 Jsw663 (Talk | contribs) (Rv vandalism by Dilip. If you want to challenge this, do so on the Falun Gong discussion page where I tore into the so-called neutral Kilgour-Matas report.)” So my answer is actually because of your request. :) Of course after that you did state that your analysis is OR and it will not be used. So for the moment I’m in stand by on that. --HappyInGeneral 14:22, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

WP:No Original Research applies to the main Wikipedia entry, not discussion. Otherwise, we will have to edit both sides' arguments heavily in the discussion as over half of it counts as 'original research'. And just because there is a distinct lack of support for the pro-CCP side and sources does not mean there aren't such reports. Should I constantly quote them as well, making long and unnecessary points about how FG does this and that? It would be unhelpful to continue such a FG discussion. Once again, your lack of will to contribute towards a more neutral FG entry but unlimited willingness to engage users in a purely FG good/bad discussion is worrying. Wikipedia isn't established for that. Jsw663 15:57, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

How can you possibly say you cultivate "truthfullness" when so much of what you say is a lie? Here are a few examples:

• The claim that 6,000 FG practitioners were victims of live organ harvesting in Sujiatun, which was debunked by the US State Department and human rights activist Harry Woo.
• Your promotion of FG media events under the guise of ancient Chinese culture. More than 30 people walked out of your New Tang Dynasty show in SF recently when they discovered that it was just a piece of Falun Gong propaganda. [17]
• Omido's blatant lie, right here on Wikipedia, trying to post a one sentence summary of the Criticism page which claimed that Criticism of Falun Gong did not start until 1999 and was in response to the ban.

I could give many more examples, including more from Wikipedia itself. I do not believe anything a Falun Gong practitioner says. As long as you obey Li Hongzhi's demand that you work to destroy the CCP and defend his reputation and that of the Dafa, you will continue to fall into the trap of brainwashed cult victim. I have sympathy for all Falun Gong practitioners, but believe Li Hongzhi should be called to account for the harm he has done, and the lies he has fostered through his loyal disciples. --Tomananda 19:18, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Guys, whats going on here? lets just focus on editing the article, i dont know if youve already realized that this discussions are a waste of time. I guess right now its time to stop them and we all know it. I think it would be better if we thought like this from now on: if we dont have anything to say that will contribute to the editing of the article, then lets not say it, this way we will save more time for editing purposes whenever it is needed instead of spending it here in vain arguing among each other. Tomananda, please take it easy i understand you have your views, but we also have our own views and opinions about this topic, if we keep arguing about who is right or wrong, we'll never finish the discussion and we will never finish the article either. Sometimes people make some statements that may seem provocative or may be considered outrageous by the other party, if we focus on those details, then we will keep deviating from the edit process everytime we try to get back on track. I'll make a new section again with all the material we were working on so that we can restart editing, lets all do our best not to deviate from the task at hand.--Andres18 21:42, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

I am taking it easy, Andres. In case you haven't noticed, I am pointing out what I consider to be misrepresentations done by Falun Gong practitioers. A proper response would be: ah, maybe we have made some mistakes in what we have said. But instead, you respond by saying "take it easy." I am still concerned about Omido's editing behavior and the fact that even though Fire Star repeatedly called him on his POV warrioring, he has suffered no consequences. Frankly, what is the point of producing edits if Omido can simply come along and blank them all out because of their critical nature. Why should we bother? And in case you haven't sensed it, I am especially outraged by Omido's attempt to lie about the documentable history of Falun Gong criticism in China. That criticism began long before the ban. No one questions that fact. Yet Omido changed that fact to a statement that criticism did not begin in China until 1999 and was only in response to the ban. Come on, Andres. You are an intelligent person. Can't you see how that was a blatant attempt to whitewash the Falun Gong? And yet this kind of duplicitous behavior has been a constant pattern in the pro-Falun Gong edits. You might think that I am biased because of the Li Hongzhi quotes I select for reporting in Wikipedia, but at least I base all my edits on notable sources. Frankly, I don't see how we can continure editing without the intervention of a mediator who can enforce basic Wikipedia standards, and that includes NPOV, no original reasearch, notablility and the sourcing of our material. My edits have lived up to these standards consistently, whereas those of editors such as Omido have not. I am tired of this game and again ask that a mediator intervene. --Tomananda 22:27, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Well let's see how long we've been doing this useless discussion. I think about a year now since the article has been protected, and a few months at least since it's been filed for mediation. Recently I have had the chance to begin some constructive dialogue with some of these pro-FLG editors on Wikipedia over IM or e-mail. But even in a neutral, sensible, relaxed and objective tone everything I say that questions the legitimacy of FLG is either criticized, dismissed as lies, or ignored. Neither my life-long experiences in China nor my years of study in Sinology and Chinese cultural, political and religious history seems to lend any ground to any of my theories. Then I for one will say that after a lot of this correspondence I feel like I am quite offended by a certain group's stubbornness, I want to give up as a whole.

If the world wants to believe in this stuff FLG and the Epoch Times tries to spread, then the hell with the truth. People are probably better off believing Falun Gong is a legitimate organization promoting benevolent cultivation anyway. People are better off knowing that Li Hongzhi has nothing to do with politics. Let Wikipedia be another FLG mouthpiece. I'll contact an Epoch Times editor and ask him to monitor this page. In fact, remove the protection and just let all the pro-FLG people edit. Let them try to prove the truth about Falun Gong through scientific means, or prove the truth about CCP persecution through the ill-prepared Kilgour Matas Report. Because after all, Tomanada, JSW, and all of those who have attempted to present a neutral point of view on this article, I admire your persistence in trying to reason everything out logically and using verifiable sources. But if we belong to the group that believes FLG is a doubtful organization, then let us just doubt this in our own mind. Because frankly, with all the discussion that has ensued on the issue here, nothing productive has come out, and we have tried our hardest. Maybe we should all stop.

If they want to criticize CCP, denounce them as an evil organization that has not a single good intention like the Epoch Times has done in the Nine Commentaries, then let them. The fight between the leadership of the CCP and the leadership of FLG, is, as I see it, a battle between two liars. In a decade or two we'll just have to see who has lied better. Meanwhile the group of us trying to provide NPOV should all shove our theories and evidence up our ass and just let it float in our heads and our mind only. Should we really go through all this just to get shunned, dismissed or ignored? I don't think it's worth it.

Colipon+(T) 00:09, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Tomananda, if there are sources that report that Falun Gong started to be criticized before 1999 and they are published and reliable, i see no problem with mentioning it on the article. I think a proper way to mention it would be in the same paragraph we mention the awards given to Falun Gong by the Chinese Government and Chinese community. Also, i think we should give Omido one more chance, because we have all made mistakes before and if he or anyone else who has also made these mistakes agrees not to blank the pages or modify the wikipedia article's content unappropriately anymore then i see no problem with them also contributing to the article, and punishing them for past deeds wouldnt be useful. Lets just do a fresh start yes? we forget each others faults and start over. Still, something pretty clear is that we cannot keep editing without consulting, the more we follow that rule, the more we will advance, and every take we step will be stable. The other rule is to not deviate too much from the task at hand, if we do those two things, im sure we will be able to advance pretty well dont you think so?

Colipon, id have to tell you to please do not give up, i know you may have had discussions with other practitioners about controversial issues regarding Falun Gong, but i believe they have their point of view and im sure that even though they do not agree to your view, they do respect your position. If you believe that Falun Gong is doubtful, i invite you to investigate all you want about it, here in the Wikipedia editing process no one will dismiss or ignore your contributions to the article. Some practitioners have also felt it is useless to continue because they also feel their views are ignored or dismissed, but i think that everything that has happened so far has been a process of us getting to understand each other so that we can start working together as a team. Ive been here for a while and havent seen you before so why dont you stay around? I guarantee you wont be wasting your time, just come back from time to time to see how things are going and please give us your opinions whenever you feel it is appropriate, every contribution is useful for us, the more people participate in this process, the better the article will look in the end.--Andres18 01:10, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Andres, may I ask why criticism of FG must be placed after the awards it gained? I'm just curious. As for Omido, I already placed the mediation case on hold, in the hope that Omido will be a constructive editor in the future. I would thus urge Tomananda to exercise a little more restraint, even if others won't treat him likewise. After all, part of negotiations is about moving towards a solution, and in order to achieve that we must get rid of the obstacles in our way first. As long as Omido proves himself in the future not to be an obstacle any longer, I'm more than happy to have him contribute to our discussions as well as (constructive) editing. Jsw663 11:47, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

So can we have a list of things that should changed on these pages? I think that would be the next logical&productive step forward. Also I think it's good that the page is protected, because this actually makes us discuss and agree upon these changes :) --HappyInGeneral 18:12, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

I didnt mean the whole criticism, Tomananda mentioned that there was some criticism on Falun Gong before 1999, then before 1999 Falun Gong was also given awards and recognitions. So it seems neutral to me that this kind of criticism be reported along with the awards and positive recognitions. I thank you for puting on hold the mediation case against Omido, im sure these inconvenients will not happen anymore. Ill try to make a new section with what we had so far so that we can keep editing. By the way HiG, there is a To Do list that one of the editors proposed some time ago, it seems pretty reasonable, what do you think?.--Andres18 21:13, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

If we do so, we will have to do a history/chronological entry for FG, e.g. "Falun Gong 19?? - 1999" and then "Falun Gong 1999-200?", etc. That would be a dramatically new layout, but it could be positive - it would just mean a LOT of work. Jsw663 12:50, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

The Lead Section

Hello everyone, im posting here what we had achieved so far for discussion. Please lets keep in our mind two things, No editing without consensus and only posting contributions to the editing of the article, lets try not to deviate from the process any longer. Also, please state your opinions or proposals in the sections created for each paragraph so that we can keep order. And keep in mind one more thing, please, dont make a lengthy response unless you think it is vital for the editing process. A concise and precise post with sources backing up what you say is worth much more than a very long post in which the main idea could seem lost among so many words.--Andres18 21:40, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Please make your contribution for the 3rd paragraph in this section.--Andres18 21:40, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

This is a mere suggestion from the side in an attempt to bring a bit of comprise in what could be very little possibility for it left. Could we maybe just link up each of these proposals on separate pages for better navigation? Colipon+(T) 06:23, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Yeah sure! you can do that if it makes you feel more comfortable for navigating.--Andres18 16:35, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Current discussion are now moved to /Introduction

Task Panel Navigation

The following are proposals drawn up for each of the sections on the Falun Gong page for easier navigation and better organization.

• /Introduction

All parties willing to compromise and not simply argue are invited to contribute. Colipon+(T) 22:05, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Quick fix in citation section needed

Hello, was just visiting the site. All citations after 12 are appearing as coded text on the site proper. Perhaps one of you can fix this, it's probably a matter of minutes or seconds. 69.61.67.34 03:20, 13 January 2007 (UTC) Anonymous

Hi there! Thanks a lot, this is very important, I'll look into it.--Andres18 05:04, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Persecution videos

Please take a look at these: [18] [19] [20] [21] I also want to propose to include these links into the Falun Gong/persecution article. Sorry for spoiling your appetite...

I think this is good material that maybe we could use somewhere as evidence that Falun Gong practitioners have of the persecution. I havent figured out any ideas on where or how to use it though... any suggestions?--Andres18 04:35, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Although these are disturbing videos, they do not prove that Beijing has a policy of torture and they can hardly be considered objective. What's more, they are stored on a private pro-Falun Gong website and Omido and Dilip have deleted other private websites from this article. We must be consistent with what we allow. If these unverified links are to be added to this article, we must allow links to other websites such as Samuel's.

As to the content, I only watched the last one which is in English. What non-Falun Gong practitioners may not realize is that there is a long established practice for detained practitioners in China to go on hunger strikes. In fact, one can find testitomy on the FG sites encouraging this practice. The guards routinely respond to these hunger strikes by doing "forced feeding." Samuel knows more about this than I do, but isn't one fairly obvious conclusion that this poor man has succeeded in his hunger strike despite the forced feeding? It's contradictory to accuse the prison guards of starving a 70 year old man to death, while at the same time accusing the same guards of engaging in "forced feeding." Nevertheless, this man was clearly neglected by his keepers. I have seen somewhat similar videos of elderly residents of nursing homes in the US who are emaciated and suffering from extremely bad bed sores. Bed sores are the result of lying immobile in a bed for long periods of time. If one were to post a video of an elderly American women who has been neglected in this fashion, would that consitute evidence that the US goverment has a policy of elder abuse?

As I've said previously, the central government in Beijing and the Chinese people in general are aware of bad practices done by local police officials. There is a government campaign to clean up local police corruption. If Li Hongzhi were seriously concerned about the welfare of detained Falung Gong practitioners in China, it seems to me he would: 1) Tell them not to go on hunger strikes and 2) Depmand that Beijing adress these instances, rather than demand that preach the downfall of Beijing.

Li Hongzhi has clearly chosen to adopt a militant stance against the Chinese Communist Party. As Li himself says, this is a monumental battle between "good" and "evil"...rhetoric similar to our own President Bush. There are, indeed, consequences to our actions. In the case of Li Hongzhi's war on the CCP, because he leaves no room for cooperation or dialogue with the "wicked party," the Beijing authorities have little choice than to consider Li public enenmy number one.

Here in the US, many wise people are outraged at the stubborness of the Bush regime in not talking with the leaders of Iran and Syria. Bush has cast the so-called war on terror in absolutist moral terms...it's "us" versus the axis of evil. Sounds like Li, doesn't it? --Tomananda 21:13, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Even though your input is important in this editing process, it is also important to follow the rules. We are all trying to assume a neutral position, you are very welcome to express your point of view on this matter, but sarcasm, irony, etc. Isnt necessary and does not contribute to the editing process. Since you have stressed lately that we should enforce the rules, i believe they apply to all of us. If you would like to contribute to editing visit the link Colipon posted above on this talk page, its named /introduction.--Andres18 03:51, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I didn't intend any sarcasm in this post and am surprised you read it that way. And the post also includes some specific points about our editing standards...such as what I say about what links we will allow in. Specifically, I challenge the inclusion of all these proposed links for the reasons cited. Before dismissing what I say, why not respond to that? --Tomananda 05:29, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Right, so if so you wish let me address your issues:

• About: “they do not prove that Beijing has a policy of torture and they can hardly be considered objective”. Then let me ask you what is a proof then? Basically you are saying that even if you would see a video about torture in the prison, that is not proof either just because Hu Jintao is not present in the video? Actually these videos prove that there is severe mistreatment, and that there is torture. And since these footages are obtained sparsely and officials actually hunt down those who make these video’s we can assume that it is widespread or at least a it gives a very good reason for an independent investigation to take place. Which again is not allowed. Anyway here are 3 third party video’s which are not about Falun Gong but which show the same pattern. [22], [23], [24]
• About: “As to the content, I only watched the last one which is in English.” You should really watch the first two first which are in English as well: [25], [26] here torture is clear. Also you’re reasoning of: “I have seen somewhat similar videos of elderly residents of nursing homes in the US who are emaciated and suffering from extremely bad bed sores. Bed sores are the result of lying immobile in a bed for long periods of time.” Right but as you could see that elderly was able to walk and previously he was detained, so in the context of discussing about the treatment of Falun Gong practitioners in China, this video is relevant here and we can say that no mercy is given to them. And this is actually one more reason on keeping the word Persecution, or if you wish we might change it to what I think is more correct Genocide, considering the unexplained more then 40 thousands organ transplants.
• About: “There is a government campaign to clean up local police corruption.” Now is it there, then why are these practices done over a long period of time and why are human rights defenders arrested, like Gao Zhisheng. Make no mistake, the officials will tell you any lies and deception as long as you will have the illusion that there is progress happening.
• About: “In the case of Li Hongzhi's war on the CCP.” I dare you the following, make the CCP release all Falun Gong practitioners, lift the ban on the practice, stop the lies in the propaganda against the practice and then just see which practitioner would continue to Appeal for Justice for Falun Gong. Actually all we want is the freedom to practice. For example if I would be in China and I would be arrested, tortured, potentially my organs given for sale for doing the same legal and moral things as I’m doing now in my country, well to tell you the truth I would feel that this is way to wrong and I would be appealing for justice.
• About “Here in the US” ... really not relevant here, I’m not saying that everything the US does is perfect, we are talking here about Falun Gong and the persecution initiated by the CCP against it. Actually if you ask me morality in general is at a big downslide see some movies from this guy [27] and the situation is getting really serious, endangering our even near future, basically because people forgot about morality, and so we have a state that some called the “End of Dharma”.

--HappyInGeneral 15:10, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Hey guys why are we discussing about FG again!? Although HiG's points are easily refutable as they're merely repeating the same pro-FG points ad nauseum, so I suggest both sides stop. I thought Andres was working to such a pro-active solution, but posting the above (in this section) does little but provoke more FG discussion. This action is disappointing in itself. After all, no Wiki entry can include every source for both sides and overwhelming people with sources does not help make the entry / your case more 'credible' if they all (intend to) make a similar point. Unless you want others to post tons of anti-FG sites thereby initiating another edit war, let's be more mature and stop it right here. After all, if people won't change their mind about something even when their arguments have been rebutted, it's unlikely they'll change their mind in the future either. All parties should be more pragmatic and open to negotiation; stick to Wiki content-editing only. Jsw663 16:05, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Hello! Well Tomananda, you know written posts tend to give the wrong impression sometimes so im sorry and i apologize for my previous reply. I think we should focus on the Introduction part of the article though, you know, step by step and so on. Have you visited it yet? we are now talking about the lead section and everything seems to go very well. I'd like to know your opinion on the issues we have been discussing now.--Andres18 02:47, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Restoring the Criticism and controversies summaries

Since the main page has been unblocked, I've taken the modest step of restoring the original summaries for Criticism and Controversies. I have not deleleted anything. You will recall that in our discussions above, there was some agreement that Omido and then Asdfg had gone too far in blanking this material, therefore I have restored it. We can talk about different ways of presenting these summaries, but I think we can all agree that the blanked version...which only preserved one line of summary and deleted all the links...was a far cry from balanced. --Tomananda 07:41, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Quick opinion

Given the extremely lengthy discussions which occur on this page and extensive argument, I'm not surprised outside intervention & mediation has failed. I'm not intending to get involved in this but having briefly read the the discussion, I have to agree that 'persecuted' should not be used. Persecuted is an emotionally charged phrase. There is a vast amount of disagreement about whether the treatment of Falun Gong and it's supporters in China amounts to persecution. As such, using it as a fact (including of a title) is not NPOV and I would also consider it a word to avoid in this case. Far, far better to use more neutral and less emotionally described words and to mention the allegations etc. This may include claims the treatment amounts to a persecution or genocide if such claims are from a realiable source. Obviously, these claims should only be presented as claims and other POVs should be presented. Nil Einne 12:23, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

I can claim that what happened to the Jews in WWII wasn't a genocide, and for whatever reasons there are some who do, but that doesn't mean it shouldn't be reported as such or that the word "genocide" should be given less weight. Why? Because the claim of "genocide" is supported by facts and experts. Similarly, when facts and experts suggest that Falun Gong practitioners are facing persecution in China, we shouldn't play that down just because some people here don't like that word. Mcconn 15:56, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Nil is correct. The use of words like "persecution" or "genocide" are way too POV for Wikipedia to report as fact. The Falun Gong uses these terms to attack the Chinese Communist Party, but even when it's own supporters, like human rights activist Harry Wu say that the FG is "straying too far from the truth." they ignore that criticism. The bottom line is that Wikipedia itself cannot report these things as established fact, because they are not. --Tomananda 19:57, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Tomananada, there is a lengthy discussion above where a convincing case is made for the use of the word "persecution". If you want to raise issue with any of my points, you can do that and we can discuss them, but your words here don't have any weight. I stated above why I don't consider "persecution" a loaded or "emotionally charged" word. And if that's really the only thing holding us back from using it, then I'd say you don't have much of a case. Mcconn 21:29, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Falun gong practitioners like to use words like genocide and persecution to solicite support from the public. But at the time they continue to lie to the public about their true beliefs. I don't think we should use these terms because they do not reflect the facts. It is offensive to me that Falun Gong practitioners use the genocide of Jews to make their case. The Falun Gong is a deceptive cult, but the Jews are victims of a racist and brutal regime. --Yueyuen 01:33, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Whatever you say. What I said to Tomananada applies to you too. The real discussion about this is up the page a little. If no one has anything concrete to say in response to my points, then I think we should start using the word. Mcconn 04:28, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

McConn, I have replied to your reply. Your insistence on promoting one side's agenda at the total expense of the other is worrying, and shows motivation of personal beliefs rather than neutral Wiki policy. Jsw663 13:26, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

I could easily say the same for you. See my reply. Mcconn 20:06, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Replied. The CCP does NOT admit to suppression and thus I am not promoting a CCP agenda, so once again your fantastical allegations are groundless. I will, however, admit I am trying to promote a Wikipedian agenda. Jsw663 13:23, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Teacher or Leader

Using the term "leader", and calling Falun Gong "the Falun Gong", is a clear attempt of likening Falun Gong to a cult. Li Hongzhi doesn't lead practitioners to do anything. Instead he teaches the exercises (now only on video), teaches the principles of the practice, teaches about the existance of life and the universe beyond what we can see, and in a general sense tells practitioners what they should be doing (ie. studying, clarifying the truth, and sending righteous thoughts). When asked, he might also give suggests for how practitioners can improve some of the things they do. This is much more of a teacher/student relationship than a leader/follower one. There is very little emphasis placed on what he actually does, and there is actually very little known, except for on a more metaphysical level (ie. Fa-Rectification). Mcconn 20:25, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

The following statement is from Li. “Remember these words from Master, however I handle something is righteous, and those who are dealt with are always wrong. The reason is, that's the choice of the cosmos, the choice of the future.” A teacher is someone who you can question and argue with, but Li is a authoritarian leader. --Samuel Luo 21:55, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi Sam. I know they are going to ask for a source and then after it's proven valid they will deny it somehow. Just be prepared. Colipon+(T) 03:48, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

[28]Here's a source. Everyone applauds after the quote (probably for 1 "light year" of time I guess). --Yenchin 09:49, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Like Samuel said, a teacher teaches (thereby allowing for debate); a leader orders (executive decisions are not to be argued against). But I'd like to see McConn try to rebutt this in an non-opinionated fashion. Jsw663 13:25, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

So you are saying that you want wikipedia to say Mr. Li Hongzhi is the "leader" of Falun Dafa, and you consider it neutral?. I saw your link, but i didnt find anywhere that Mr. Li would say "I am your leader" or "I am the leader of Falun Dafa" and so on. If you think he "commands" and "gives orders" instead of teaching and that he doesnt allow for debate, etc. Those are all your personal opinions and interpretations, and that is original research. We are here to report, not draw conclusions or personal interpretations from quotes. If you want to say he is a leader, then find a source from a critic that claims that Mr. Li is a "leader" and attribute it to that critic, otherwise, dont draw such conclusions. "Leader" is not a neutral term, you may think it is an appropriate definition, but we, as falun gong practitioner editors, believe it is not.--Andres18 19:49, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

JSW, Yenchin, and Sam Luo, a note that we need to prepare for the denial part as well. We have to ask ourselves every time before we post these comments if it will be denied in one way or another, and then cover for those possible denials before they even reply. Just a note for next comment.

I just don't know, it is a pretty hefty claim to say all Falun Gong practitioners will become gods or deities because Li can make it so. And that is pretty clear from that link. We should all submit to teachings of Master Li so we can become gods. Colipon+(T) 00:58, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Andres18American cult experts have called Li a “cult leader.” Do you want Li to be called “cult leader” or “leader?” --Samuel Luo 07:52, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Not to mention it is also used in media.

[29]Time: "Li Hongzhi, the mysterious leader of the Falun Gong religious movement"

[30]CNN: "China orders arrest of Falun Gong leader, destroys books"

I also find the "Li didn't call himself 'leader'" hardly convincing. Zhang Jiao of the Yellow Turban Rebellion called himself "Heavenly Teacher" ("Tian Shih", 天師), but it is more than obvious that he is the leader of the rebellion.--Yenchin 14:31, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Yenchin is correct. Li has repeatedly told his practitioners exactly what they can and can't do and has thereby assumed the role of leader. He has even used the term himself. Here are just a few quotes arranged chronologically:

As far as the administration of assistance centers, we’ve already documented our regulations explicitly, and you have followed them. There are requirements for setting up an assistance center. And we’ve told you to have new assistance centers report to the one in Beijing or to one of the several main assistance centers. Talk in Guangzhou to Some Assistance Center Heads from Around the Country (December 27, 1994), p.3.

In the past, all the decisions made by the Research Society have got my approval, and wherever I was, their any decisions would only be made after they contacted me through telephone or fax. . …In the situation I am not here, our Assistants Centres across the country all should obey and carry out the decision made by the Research Society. As an assistant, one should be in no way to shift his responsibility to others. Views of the Law Rectification at Beijing Conference of Falun Dafa’s Assistants (January 2, 1995), p.5

Disciples must remember: All Falun Dafa texts are the Fa that I have taught, and they are revised and edited personally by me. From now on, no one may take excerpts from the tape recordings of my lectures on the Fa, or compile them into written materials. “Awakening” (May 27, 1996) in Essentials for Further Advancement I

…when there’s something I have to talk to you about and I do talk to you about it, it amounts to my telling you what to do. Fa-Lecture at the Conference in Florida, U.S.A. (December 29, 2001), p. 1.

What I am doing is leading you toward godhood in cultivation, leading your understanding, little by little, out of humanness and beyond that of man, and the goal is to lead you to Consummation and the ascension of your being. …. I don’t want to leave behind even one single Dafa disciple, but you have got to improve yourselves through real Fa-study and cultivation! With validating the Fa, you should save the world’s people and do well the three things Dafa disciples are supposed to do. Be diligent! Cast aside your human attachments. Godhood isn't far away. In Fa-Rectification Your Thoughts Have to Be Righteous, Not Human (September 19, 2004) http://www.falundafa.org/book/eng/jw_112.htm

Since when do "teachers" talk about the administration of their assistance centers, the decision making process in their organizations and who reports to whom in a verticle hierarchy? Li has always been the leader/manager/director of the Falun Gong. He even insists on editing and approving all the Falun Gong texts. So he really is a micro-manager of the Falun Gong as well as its leader. The fact that practitioners don't want to honestly acknowledge Li's obvious leadership role is just another indication of the false image of the Falun Gong they so fiercely propagate. --Tomananda 22:39, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Some anti-Falun Gong media has called Mr. Li a "cult leader" or a "leader". Thats what they say, and if you are going to use the word leader, you should then report that these sources claim that Mr. Li is a "leader" but we cannot say, as wikipedia, that Mr. Li Hongzhi is a "leader". Since using your personal conclusions in order to write the wikipedia article is a violation of the rules, i guess we should just concentrate on other aspects of the article, like the lead section perhaps.--Andres18 01:21, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Andres, these are not my "personal conclusions" but rather reflect what most of the world considers to be the meaning of the term "leader." Would you prefer "Director"? You know there's a Li quote in which he actually says he is directing the Fa-recficiation. Now, if Li were just a "teacher" telling us about the Fa-rectification, do you think he would say he is "directing" it?--Tomananda 02:32, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

To tell you the truth I don't even think the word "leader" has the connotations that Andres suggests it has. To me it looks like the defence of a subject like this is unnecessary, and quite frankly just makes Andres look extremely defensive on a subject he does not need to be. For example, Deng Xiaoping has always been referred to as the "leader" of China.

Oh, and in addition, I'd like to know what this "anti-Falun Gong media" you talk about is. The BBC? CNN? or Time? All of these sources have called Li "leader". Could you tell us which one you consider anti-Falun Gong media? Colipon+(T) 04:31, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Ok fine. While I do disagree with most of the conclusions being drawn by Tomananada and Colipon, I can see that they are serious about having this view presented. Why not then, since this is obviously a matter of dispute, call the section something different like "Li Hongzhi"? And rather than simply stating that he is the "leader" of Falun Gong, we can say that some have called him a "leader", while others have called him a "master" or a "teacher". This way wiki won't be making a stance on it, but merely reporting the views. Mcconn 16:58, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

A more accurate term, and one that translates well the usual Chinese term, would be "founder". Within FLG, if Li doesn't teach it, it isn't orthodox FLG. His public positioning is such that he assigns all teaching authority to himself, so leader and teacher are both appropriate. Anyone teaching in his organisation has to teach exactly what he has dictated. "Director" or "authority" are other English words that may be suitable. --Fire Star 火星 17:17, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

I've just finished making some changes to the section that I think are appropriate, including what I just mentioned. Mcconn 17:55, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Just for the record, I'm fine with Colipon's version as of this post. Mcconn 19:29, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Health Benefits

I must say I am very impressed by the findings of Li et al. (2005) on the Journal of Alternative and Complementary Medicine (JACM). I have read the journal, actually, and this is just a perspective look on how these studies are not presented in the right fashion, and actually don't prove that much.

I do not doubt whatsoever that Falun Gong has health benefits. However, the fact that in the JACM Qi Gong studies are extensively covered should not be ignored. It is fair to say that FLG is but an offshoot of Qigong on a purely physical level, and that through empirical evidence I would argue that many Qi Gong studies have proven health benefits, and by the way the section looks now it seems Falun Gong is taking exclusive claim to these health benefits. Let me expand by quoting the study itself (Li et al., 30):

Subjects

Eligible subjects were 18 years of age or older. Six (6) Asian FLG practitioners (3 males and 3 females, mean age, 46.7 _ 13.3 years) and 6 Asian normal healthy controls (3 males and 3 females, mean age, 41.3 _ 11.3 years) were recruited by advertisement for our study. The practitioners had practiced FLG for at least 1 year (range, 1–5 years). The practice includes daily book reading (Li, 1994) and daily FLG exercises lasting 1–2 hours each time. Selected normal healthy controls had not performed Qigong, yoga, t’ai chi, any type of mind–body practice, or physical exercise for at least 1 year . With the approval of the Institutional Review Board and after informed consent was given, 30 mL of heparinized blood was taken from each subject.

I do not have the qualifications to debate any of the results myself. However, in the methodology, one must note the part about "...or physical exercise for at least 1 year", I am a bit unclear as to what this refers to. In addition, 12 people were used as subjects in total. The sample space seems awfully small. Most importantly, however, when the authors of the study are emphasizing the fact that these people who are non-FLG have also not practiced QiGong, Yoga, T'ai Chi, or any type of mind-body exercise, to say that Falun Gong can claim exclusivity to these benefits (as any western reader may interpret while reading this section) is absurd. I myself have practiced QiGong, and so do many family members as a way of keeping healthy, to me, to say that FLG is more effective than any other mind-body exercise seems an unfair assertion. To have a few studies support these seemingly exclusive benefits from Falun Gong is somewhat inappropriate.

This is a suggestion, that we find studies relating to how Falun Gong compares with conventional QiGong or even Yoga in terms of health benefits. Then these claims to health benefits can be fairly brought to light. I think the section should remain, but needs work. Feedback would be greatly appreciated.

I just looked at the Chinese study. I can only gasp in awe at its sheer simplicity by which the "conclusions" are based upon. I don't think I even have to debate the methodology there. I can't believe there's even a link on here to that. Colipon+(T) 01:26, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

I just took a look at the Health Benefits section on the Tai Chi article. Let us be reminded that most of these studies are from PubMed's Database. These are the types of studies that Wikipdia should be citing, not studies posted on Falun Gong's official website (such as the Chinese study from 1998 in Beijing) that has little ground in the scientific community. The sheer contrast of the studies between Tai Chi and Falun Gong show an obvious gap, which I invite you to look for yourselves.

I invite refutations to my contentions based on the merit of the studies alone, refutations that do not involve denial or an attack on my character. If there are no valid contentions in the next few days, I will be bold and remodel the section on Health Benefits. Colipon+(T) 22:44, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

I suggest you do not be bold and remodel the health benefits section, unless you want to initiate another edit war. Also, remodeling the health and benefits sections based on original research and without trying to reach consensus doesnt seem really appropriate to me. After all, we are all working on the article right?--Andres18 01:28, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm afraid you outright ignored the fact that I am welcoming direct refutation to my comments on the merit of these studies. Actually, now that I review your comment, I'm afraid you outright ignored my comments in their entirety. Anyway, the point is, if you have nothing productive and reasonable to say against the content of the issue I have raised, then I am afraid if an edit war is to occur, whoever will come to mediate will know clearly who is at fault. Meanwhile I welcome any refutation or compromise, in an attempt to avoid an edit war. Colipon+(T) 01:58, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Colipon, I think you've got some good points here. I wish there were more studies, like those done on Taichi, done on Falun Gong. To Falun Gong practitioners, the health benefits are not only clear, but often astounding. We'd like to report those in anyway we can, but it's hard when so little scientific studies are available. Actually, I believe that during the 90's there were more studies done in China that simply aren't available now. It's a shame. I would be open to see what changes you suggest for the section, although I suggest that you post them here first before making them. I also want to say that I've seen in your edits that you are striving for neutrality. So although I still may not agree with all of them, I see your effort, and respect that.Mcconn 16:42, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

The problem for health studies (I've been involved in a few) and faith healing like FLG is that in Li's teaching there is no independantly reproducible mechanism for any health benefits which may accrue from the practise. Physically, there are 5 simple qigong-like exercises, but most other qigong systems, especially the martial ones, are more complicated and more thoroughly defined in their range of motion and application. What Li proposes energetically in his lectures is that his students have to surrender their will entirely to him and then he somehow (either directly or indirectly) puts his energy into his followers to get the FLG wheel turning internally. Most medical doctors or academics (outside of psychologists or perhaps anthropologists) would laugh you out the door after such a proposition. They want to see a chain of cause and effect from A to Z, with every stage discussed and diagrammed. If you get past that stage, then there is the issue of the critical stream of a controllled study that the hopeful devotee will have to be able to swim in. Science is a tough business! --Fire Star 火星 17:32, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

The above comment appears to be a deliberate mispresentation of the teachings of Falun Dafa or a demonstration of willful ignorance. The book is right there and there is never any mention of "surrendering the will", or the rest. If you want to talk about the teachings you are better of quoting them, unless you are strictly or accurately paraphrasing. We waste time with these comments so let's try not to do them anymore. I have made some additions and alterations to the lead which I consider improvements. They will be apparent. We should discuss them. Misrepresentations and falsifications should never be posted, such as that "judging all beings in a process called Fa-rectification". --Asdfg12345 01:03, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry they are embarassing, but these are things Li has said many times in his lectures, implicitly and explicity. Don't shoot the messenger. --Fire Star 火星 14:50, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Give me a break, Asdfg. When an editor does quote Li, you object to the quote. I have repeatedly quoted Li (directly or indirectly) ony to have those quotes blanked by you. Fire Star is only posting a comment in disucssion here, not posting an edit entry. And regardless, "submit to Li's will" is a pretty accurate description of the relationship between a practitioener and the master, isn't it? Are you willing to state right now that Li is wrong in his teachings on any subject? Or that you are comfortable disregarding his directives if you don't agree with them? --Tomananda 01:36, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

I'd like ASDFG to respond to my comments about the health benefits which he seems to have forgotten. Colipon+(T) 02:33, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Sorry. I think what you are saying, you are just pointing out flaws in the study, right? That's fine. We just report things simply and tell it like it is. If 12 people were surveyed then we say so. If the meanings of some terms like physical exercise were not defined in the report we should state that the terms were not given a definition, if the report could not prove a causal relationship between health benefits and Falun Gong - I assume that is what you are saying (but what causal relationship can be proven?) - then we can put that. Actually, for that last one, it seems a bit unrelated to state that. That is a metaphysical statement. Maybe if the report says that there is a causal relationship between the practice of Falun Gong and health benefits, then we can give them a bit of Hume to chew on, but this seems not a part of stating what is contained in the report, but crosses into what is called "Original Research", perhaps. Anyway, I am not sure if I have responded to you well. I think all that is fine.--Asdfg12345 02:47, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

No, I don't think you responded well at all. I don't really understand what you are trying to say, and I don't think you truly understood what I was trying to say either. My contention stands until you reach this understanding, and gather some evidence to back up these circumstantial claims of yours. Colipon+(T) 07:26, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Criticism and opposition

• If you always reject reproaches and criticism, always point your fingers at others, and always refute others' disapproval and criticism, is that cultivating? How is that cultivating? You have grown used to focusing on other people's shortcomings, and never take examining your own self seriously.

Given the founder's teaching on reproaches and criticism, I wonder if the best response to "suppression" or "persecution" is to point a finger at the "evil suppressors" (as the Epoch Times has done at great lengeth). It appears followers are departing from the recommended course.

But the real question is what Wikipedia contributors should do. I would not make a fuss over whether the ban amounts to "suppression" or "persecution". Clearly, everything about Falun Gong is controversial. Every claim is balanced by a counter-claim. They're tortured like animals, they're left alone. Their deceptive hooligans, they're fine upstanding people. It's a religion, it's a cult. And so on.

Unless you all agree that you "cannot tell whether I have a dog in this fight" from the above, I'm not going to be able to supply "neutrality assistance" here. But I'd be glad to help if I could. --Uncle Ed 18:16, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I love how no one replied to this. Colipon+(T) 19:11, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Criticism/Controversy summary on main page reduced to one or two paragraphs

I'm reposting this section since it never really took off when it was originally posted. Tomananda, I hope you can write a response since you are the one mostly concerned with this section. Mcconn 17:49, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

How do people feel about a more concise single or double paragraph summary of the criticism subpage similar to that used for other subpages? Mcconn 15:38, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

That would be fine w/me. There should be consistency. --Fire Star 火星 18:39, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

All of the subpage summaries on the main page are one or two paragraphs except for the criticism/controversy subpage, which has individual subsections with links and summaries for each subsection on its main page. So I am suggesting reducing this to one or two paragraphs, like the summaries of other subpages. First, I'd like to know who supports this idea and who doesn't. If you don't support it, then please state why. If most are in favor then perhaps someone can take up the responsibility to write a draft and post it on the talk page for review. Mcconn 23:01, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

No, I do not support this obvious attempt to dilute the Criticism and controversies summary on the main page. You seem to be bothered that there are separate links to sub-articles which happen to appear on the same Criticism page, but not bothered that at the same time this material was created the FG practitioners created a bunch of separate pages to promote the FG. As I've said before, the placement of some of the sub-sections in the Criticism page is rather arbitrary. For example, the "Is Falun Gong a cult?" subsection probably belongs on the main page, where it was at the very beginning of our discussions. And there are other sub-sections in the Criticism page which could easily warrent their own separate pages. Why should we have multiple pages which FG practitioners created, but only one Criticism page? Is that really balanced? --Tomananda 00:06, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Ya, it really is balanced. Because there is a lot more to Falun Gong than criticism and controversy. Do you think half the page should be criticism? That's silly. What precedence does that have? There are many elements to this subject of which Criticism and controversy is one. And, like it or not, it is but one subpage of the article. It does not deserve the special treatment that it has been getting. I know that you originally modeled this section after the one on the scientology page, but the fact is Falun Gong is not scientology, and the two pages are different. The criticism section for scientology does not have a seperate page, while ours does. If you really have a problem with having this section's mainpage summary be just like the others, then another option would be to do something in bullet form like the christianity article. I do believe that in the current state it is being given unfair treatment.

The "Is Falun Gong a cult" section rightly belongs in that page because this is a controversal subject, and the academics' explanations of why they think Falun Gong is cult amount to criticism. Mcconn 03:50, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I made a mistake. The Scientology page does have a seperate subpage for criticism. Mcconn 04:19, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

For an example of a well-sourced critical page on a well-known subject, please have a look at Criticism of Coca-Cola. We have a lot of one-subject editors here, both pro- and anti-, so hopefully this should be interesting. --Fire Star 火星 15:56, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Edit wars - those who start one to ensure their view is 'locked from editing

I find it curious that the page is always locked on pro-FG versions, even for paragraphs that were broadly agreed upon (ie except for a few things here and there) before. It seems certain users, including (worryingly) Asdfg12345, who returned just when a constructive solution was being discussed by users from both sides, and who also previously claimed to be working towards a Wiki solution, is taking advantage of lockdowns in edit wars to get their version across. If this persists we can never have a proper Wiki entry, and sysops should do more to rectify this. I know non-involvement should be practised, but if people are taking advantage of a supposedly non-involvement Wiki policy to their advantage (in essence, Wiki vandalism via section blanking) then it is clear that they have no interest in seeing an ultimate compromise. They only have an interest in seeing their version being put forward and will do ANYTHING to ensure this is the case - even be willing to start an edit war to ensure their version is locked to prevent further edits of it. And if this remains the case, sadly, it will be up to those with Wiki powers to rectify this, but if they don't, will point out a severe failing of Wikipedia as a supposed encyclopedia in general. An alternative solution is mediation, but that hasn't worked, nor has the ArbCom thing. See next section for the rest of this reply. Jsw663 19:24, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Proposed three-strike solution re editors' behavior

So, I propose a three-strike solution to apply to the Falun Gong entry. Users from both sides who are heavily involved will have to sign up to it / agree to it first, of course. If agreed by at least six regular users on this discussion page, then it will apply. Finally, an administrator-level or above Wikipedian editor will have to see that this is enforced. This can maintain the admins' non-involvement in content issues. These rules are chiefly concerned with editors' behavior.

The rules are:

• 1. If you propose an edit to Wikipedia's Falun Gong entry, it MUST be posted in the discussion board of the Falun Gong Wiki entry or one of the special and related talk pages (e.g. the FG introduction discussion page). Exceptions only apply to administrators or sysops when playing their admin / sysop function.
• 2(a) An edit by any editor here is defined as the alteration - addition or deletion - of content of the Falun Gong Wikipedia entry.
• 2(b) Alterations of format, settings, including font size, etc., will be subject to direct approval by an administrator-level editor or above.
• 2(c) The inclusion of pictures is subject to Wikipedia copyright rules, the approval of editors AND the direct approval of an administrator.
• 3(a)(i). This proposal has to be on there for a minimum of FIVE FULL DAYS (120 hours) without disagreement from any other editor, except those editors blocked by Wikipedia during that time for violation of this rule IN RELATION to this proposal.
  • 3(a)(ii). To prevent abuse of the term "five full days", aka 120 hours, the time that Wikipedia is down or not accessible (if more than 1 hour at any one time during those 120 hours), then the time that Wikipedia was down will NOT count to those 120 hours.
  • 3(b) If, during those five full days any other editor disagrees with the proposal, the five full day time clock is reset. A reset time clock applies to any edit of the main Falun Gong Wiki entry of the proposal's section(s).
  • 3(c) If, after five full days, there is no disagreement from any user, then the main Falun Gong Wiki page will be edited accordingly. Reversion of such an edit is not permitted unless another proposal is made, which must then adhere to the above rules.
• 4. Any deletion or addition of content of more than 25% by any editor who is not a non-involved (in content) administrator or sysop of any one section will constitute as vandalism, except -
  • a) The addition of more than 25% is to revert a deletion of more than 25% of the same content
  • b) Violation of the above rule shall be deemed in violation of WP:Vandalism and thus incur the same action(s) / penalty(ies).
• 5. If a user edits in violation of this, then they will be given a warning ('first strike'). Similar action will be taken if they do it a second time.
• 6(a) If the user edits the main Falun Gong page without discussion, or with discussion but with less than 120 hours for disagreement, or in violation of any of the above rules, and they do it three times, then BOTH sides will HAVE to agree to take action against this user.
  • 6(b) Actions to be taken have to include one of the following: consulting an administrator or sysop, or going to the ArbCom to have them temporarily blocked. The length of the block is to be determined by the relevant administrator, sysop or ArbCom. If these short blocks don't work, nor the longer blocks, then blocks ranging up to being permanently banned from Wikipedia will be considered.
• 7. This proposal will apply only to Wikipedia's Falun Gong entry, and not to any other related entry.
• 8. Any change of these rules is subject to a proposal in a similar fashion to the above.

Let me know what you all think. Special circumstances should pertain to this page. And a side note to McConn, I'll reply to your posts later. Jsw663 19:24, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree to this suggestion in the latest attempt to build the Falun Gong article. Colipon+(T) 21:39, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

It is great that would take such an initiative and draft this up. I find the "If agreed by at least six regular users on this discussion page, then it will apply." a little curious, as I had never heard of anything like one group of users taking control of editing procedures over other views. I am not sure if that proposition has a place here. Of course, if everyone agreed to it then there obviously would not be a problem, but otherwise that clause might be seen as an attempt to crush pluralism. Anyway, in principle I agree to what you are proposing - in one way it may be seen as an attempt to make things more ordered and civil, and to prevent extreme editing behaviours. One potential worrying thing to me is that the article posted on wikipedia originally, the one that we will need to propose our edit for, discuss, and wait five days until editing, is one that has false, misleading or misrepresentative information about Falun Dafa. I also often get a distinct feeling that in some cases, even when points are so clearly stated and made to some editors, right in front of their faces, they still muddle up the issue, deny, ignore, or obscure. One concrete example of that is the protracted discussion on "What exactly is Fa-rectification", which also included explaining the issue of why practitioners clarify the truth about the persecution and talk about the CCP, with Tomananda. I won't go into specifics here. This, more than any other case, demonstrated to my mind that some editors are simply bent on going ahead with what they want to do and will not actually acknowledge things that are contrary to what they are pursuing, even when the evidence is right there. So getting an edit done on the pages becomes quite a process. So, if the version that is going to be up, originally, is in conformance with wikipedia policies and presents a balanced, fair and neutral tone, and does not misrepresent or falsify anything, then I would happily agree. If that is not the case then I do not agree. So, which version of the article would you be proposing? --Asdfg12345 11:01, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

I too am willing to back a consensus to adopt the procedure. The edit warring is a way of gaming the system in this case, as there is a 50% chance that your version will be protected. I hope any admins who protect the page will also consider sanctioning chronic edit warriors in future. --Fire Star 火星 22:10, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

I've deliberately suspended any replies to any debates I have had here with FGers (e.g. to McConn's) for a good reason - it is pointless debating if all it will come to is a ridiculous edit war in the end on the main entry.

Asdfg, there have been pro-FG edits and anti-FG edits on the main Wiki page. To achieve a 'balanced, fair and neutral tone', we will have to undergo some bias at first. This is why any edit or reversion must undergo the 5-day rule. It is not too long so as to mislead 'too many' neutral readers (should they view this Wiki entry). I am more concerned about your behavior in seeing only a pro-FG stance be aired on the main Wiki page. Wikipedia's NPOV rule does not mean NPOV for a pro-FGer. It means NPOV for the community at large. This is why discussion between pro-FG, anti-FG and third-party camps are necessary. But to ensure both sides get a say (so that we reach a compromise before editing to prevent edit wars) this is what the 5-day rule is for.

The 'six regular users' thing was only meant to include at least one main contributor (apart from myself) from each of the camps. The vast majority of those editing the Falun Gong Wiki entry are the same few people.

I also note that my 'objection from any editor' rule is subject to abuse. But how do we propose a rule to curtail this? We could, for example, place unregistered users under 'probation'. Another is to say that objections can only be concerned with content, and must cite a Wikipedian policy violation. But then there will be undue WP:NPOV being thrown around. Still, an option remains whereby a 'vote' is held for each proposal, and where at least two from each of the three camps must agree to it. However, there is no substitute like placing more broad rules into practice, and adopting more as we go along. I have changed tiny bits to the rules above accordingly.

Nevertheless, Asdfg, unless you have an alternative proposal to my above proposed rules to be adopted, are you basically saying OK? Because an objection for the sake of objection does not demonstrate a commitment to Wikipedian policies. At this time of writing I have received two approvals but both from the 'non-pro-FG and non-anti-FG' camp. Jsw663 17:09, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Quite frankly, if debate is impossible, dialogue with results is probably an even further stretch. Colipon+(T) 19:09, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

It's always easy to take a nihilist attitude, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't try to work for a compromise. Always better to do something than nothing in situations like these. Jsw663 19:42, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, after thinking it over for a few days, I've decided that it's worth a shot. While it would prevent edit wars, I think it might also really slow down the progress of the article. But we won't know unless we try it, right? If it doesn't work, then we can try something else. Mcconn 16:24, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi McConn. I know that at first it seems to slow down the progress of the article, but every time we make progress towards an agreed compromise, it gets ruined by those who blank out entire sections to see their POV be 'locked down' by an administrator. All this does is postpone progress (that is essentially what lockdowns as a result of edit wars do) and a compromise will need to be discussed again. Thus, overall progress without these rules ends up being nothing, or next to nothing. These rules I propose is to ensure that all camps agree on a compromise, and that anybody seeking to upset this compromise (providing they're not willing to sufficiently discuss it) will be (temporarily) banned from editing the FG page. This latter point is what I must stress; it is these disruptions that are disturbing progress. I see this as the only way to progressing towards a FG Wiki entry, unfortunately. It's slow, but it should make progress. Jsw663 18:11, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Yeah Jsw I agree with the idea, but I am saying that i want to know which version will be up that will be subject to this. If it has anything in it that goes against wikipedia policies or that contains bias and POV I will not agree until it contains none of that content. If that means a slightly stripped back version of the introduction until we agree on things then that is fine too. I am just asking which article you propose to go up first. However, if all edits were clearly explained and followed, maybe even cited when necessary, the relevant wikipedia policies, and everything was laid out clearly, then that would be another approach. --Asdfg12345 16:18, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

The current version is locked down. To discuss which version this will be reverted to when this lockdown is lifted, it will need to be in the form of a proposal in a manner similar to my above proposed rules. I am aware that different people will have different opinions as to what constitutes a 'neutral' page. This is why a compromise is necessary - and a compromise, to put it in an undiplomatic way, means nobody gets what they want completely. Sure, almost all users will probably eventually compromise on a version that is slightly POV before working on each paragraph in detail, but it may be necessary in the short-term.

So to answer your question, Asdfg, I am not proposing any version to 'go up' first. However, we can always open a new section to discuss this. Please be more tolerant of versions of the Wiki FG page that will not be one that you agree to. That is why negotiations / discussions / debates are necessary in the first place! I hope that section blanking will not be resorted to again, Asdfg, because that is the least helpful of all to any progress towards a finished Wiki article. Any temporary, unfinished version will have POV in it, and unless you can recognize this reality, a final article will never be agreed to. This is why I proposed rules regarding editing behavior. This is also why I am saying every edit, section and sentence will be subject to debate for that reason. It should all be explained and followed. Jsw663 18:11, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

At 28 January 2007 18.10 UTC, I now have

*Support from 1 pro-FG (McConn), 2 third-parties (Fire Star, Copilon), 0 anti-FG.

*Objection from 0 pro-FG, 0 third-parties and 1 anti-FG (Mr. He).

*The rest have not replied or are undecided. Jsw663 18:11, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

I cannot vote for this proposal at this time, because it seems to only address the addition of edits, rather than the deletion of edits. Asdfg's comments above suggest that he is planning to delete sourced material once some of these pages are unfrozen, rather than proposing modifications on the talk page. Just to remind everyone: the last big revert war we had was initiated by Omido blanking material, with Asdfg following his lead. Typically the material that is deleted amounts to direct or indirect quotes from the Master himself, but these invariably are quotes which the FG practitioners find objectionable. Asdfg's complaint about the material on Fa-rectification is very telling. A quick review of this talk page will show that multiple edits about Fa-rectification have been proposed, yet never with agreement from the FG practitioners. This is because Falun Gong practitioners are not comfortable simply reporting what their master says about the Fa-rectification. In the last big edit war, Omido and Asdfg were able to delete all reference to the Fa-recitification on the main page. So unless this agreement explicitly addresses this on-going problem of blanking of material, I can't vote for it. As to what version of the main page...obviously it should be the version that is up now that forms the basis for discussion. Any other approach would confuse the issues. We also need to systematically go through the main page content, rather than randomly propose changes. As I recall, we were discussing the introduction section when the last revert war began. We should return to that discussion before making any changes. --Tomananda 20:30, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

No, it's not the quotes that we find objectionable, it's the way they are presented. Fa-Rectification is a big concept, and one not easily understood. And your comment about Asdfg's "plan to delete sourced material" is jumping to conclusions and not assuming good faith. Mcconn 04:19, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Tomananda, I'll reply in greater detail below. The edits I made above should cover addition as well as deletion of edits, but I'll probably propose a newer clause. As for disputing the way something is presented, that should be left to discussion rather than rules, which is only to limit behavior. Jsw663 17:26, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

I totally agree with Tomananda. The revert wars can only be stopped when FGers refrain from deleting material directly referenced to their group's websites. --Yueyuen 21:24, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

OK, another proposal for two additional clauses. How about explicitly adding the following -

2(a) An edit by any editor here is defined as the alteration - addition or deletion - of content of the Falun Gong Wikipedia entry.

2(b) Alterations of format, settings, including font size, etc., will be subject to direct approval by an administrator-level editor or above.

2(c) The inclusion of pictures is subject to Wikipedia copyright rules, the approval of editors AND the direct approval of an administrator.

and......................

4. Any deletion or addition of content of more than 25% by any editor who is not a non-involved (in content) administrator or sysop of any one section will constitute as vandalism, except -

a) The addition of more than 25% is to revert a deletion of more than 25% of the same content

b) Violation of the above rule shall be deemed in violation of WP:Vandalism and thus incur the same action(s) / penalty(ies).

Unfortunately, I don't think I'm able to add a clause regarding deletion of sourced material, or the way it is presented. This should be discussed rather than enforced as a rule. Deletion of any material without prior discussion is already covered by the clauses above. My proposed addition is to prevent section blanking. 25% is an arbitrary value, but it is in these extreme cases that heavier penalties must be taken. Jsw663 17:26, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Jsw: with the clarification that this agreement would apply to deletions as much as to additions, I'm inclined to vote yes, assuming we will begin with the edits as they exist rather than trying to go back to some other version of the edits as Asdfg wants to do. I do have one question, though, what do some of the administrators think of this proposal? --Tomananda 22:39, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Then I need someone from the opposite camp to OK it, or say what they don't agree with, and if so, why. Jsw663 17:28, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

I think this should be fine. However, since some of this is resting on the admins, I think they should state their stance on it before it is a go. Mcconn 22:37, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Admins don't make policy, they just enforce violations of existing policy. Consensus and Jimbo Wales are the tweo ways new policy is actually made at Wikipedia. If enough of us here agree to comply with the procedure, then it can become a new editing guideline for a tendentious article. If it works and works well for this and other articles, then it could even become official policy someday. --Fire Star 火星 22:55, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

These new rules are fine with me. Fgers have not followed existing Wiki rules, I am not optimistic that they will follow these new ones. --Samuel Luo 00:03, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Glad to see progress in consensus.

:: At 2 February 2007 19.50 UTC, I now have

*Support from 1 pro-FG (McConn), 2 third-parties (Fire Star, Copilon), 2 anti-FG (Tomananda, Samuel Luo).

*Objection from 0 pro-FG, 0 third-parties and 0 anti-FG.

*Abstention from 0 pro-FG, 0 third-parties and 1 anti-FG (Mr. He).

Since there are enough votes with no objections, this policy will be 'passed' once at least one admin-level or above person enforces this. Thanks for all those who have contributed. Jsw663 19:52, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

It won't take an admin to enforce it at the basic level, just at a secondary. It will take the vigilance of the agreeing parties to revert edits that don't comply with the new guideline. Where an admin comes in is if the person not following the guidelines violates WP:3RR and needs to be blocked, which I'll be happy to enforce. --Fire Star 火星 20:39, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

You can consider my statement an objection if the page contains any misrepresentations or lies. If it has Tomananda and Samuel's definition of Fa-rectification or any other rotten stuff then I object. Otherwise I am all for it. Except there is one clause which will need to be explained please - why the rule about photos? I know it is not assuming good faith, and I am sorry, but experience has shown me that you guys will revert any photos that are put up, except maybe the Falun emblem. Photos of people practicing Falun Gong have all been taken down repeatedly with no real explanation. At least one photo of people practicing Falun Gong must be included. You mentioned that thing about the little girl meditating, I told you that it was not my intention to portray Dafa in an innocent way by using a child and replaced the photo, but it was still removed by Samuel with no explanation. All good articles have photos. Featured articles have photos, sometimes a fair few photos. Photos brighten up and enhance articles, and they are good to see on wikipedia. If adding a photo has to be approved by everyone, what I think will happen is that the people who are against Falun Gong will always object to any photos of people practicing Falun Gong. That is not in the interests of a good article. So what I am saying is that I think we are in a deadlock, and that this set of rules will mean that the initial version that we start with basically will not change for a long time. We will discuss and in the end two intractable positions will be reached, like it has always happened. I can site examples of these if you like. These are cases where the arguments have been laid out very clearly and there is still an objection or may I say, obfuscation. So I will not give up my right to revert and alter the article (as I understand what subscribing to these rules means), without knowing that the article does not contain any defamatory material. Now I will try to sum up really quickly:

I agree wholeheartedly with the proposal if: the article does not contain Samuel and Tomananda's NPOV, OR, and misleading interpretations of Fa-rectification; it includes a brief summary of third party perspectives on the persecution; it includes at least one photo of people practicing Falun Gong; does not in any othe way violate wikipedia policies with regard to NPOV, OR, actually, any of the guidelines;

So if it is a skeleton of an article that we then work with, that is put up on the page, that is better - I am in general proposing that it is better that it provide minimal information rather than misinformation. I am sort-of abstaining until I hear a response, but it is also an objection to enforcing it right now. I am calling for my concerns to be addressed, and that you do not rush ahead and dismiss what I am saying because there is consensus. If you wanted to enforce it right now you can consider this an objection. I want to discuss it further and for my concerns to be thrashed out. It would be a big problem if we started this process with one of the negative against Falun Gong articles, and I am not willing to allow that to happen.--Asdfg12345 16:45, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Asdfg12345, what is Tomananda and Samuel's definition of Fa-rectification? All we have ever used was definition provided by your master. Yes, there is rotten stuff on the article, they come directly from your master’s mouth. --Samuel Luo 19:30, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Asdfg, I find your comments very disturbing. In effect, you are accusing me and Samuel of lying when, in fact, we simply report what master Li has said. The sentence on Fa-rectification you conintually object to is this:

"Li claims to provide salvation for mankind[1] and his Dafa (great law) is judging all beings in a process called Fa-rectification.[2]"

You'll notice that this one sentence is supported by 2 footnotes from Li's own writing. You yourself agreed that it was an accurate statement of what Li has said in the discussion above. The truth is that you don't accept that Li's teachings "at the higher levels" should be simply and clearly reported in Wikipedia. In your comments earlier on, you seemed to object to this statement because more needed to be said about Fa-recfification. If that's the case, then why not add your own sentence to follow this sentence? We need to respect the work of other editors and whenever possible build on what has already been done. Are you willing to work in a cooperative way to make that happen?--Tomananda 20:49, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

We had a really long discussion about this. We should not use this space for discussing it again. Please see the below section I just created to address this, to keep things more orderly --Asdfg12345 01:44, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Asdfg12345, your behavior is very curious. Let me make one thing perfectly clear, and that is the above rules are not watertight. They are deliberately vague and general, and only seeks to restrict behavior that is disruptive - essentially an embellishment of WP:Vandalism. Now let's consider your objections.

1. No Samuel / Tom's POV - This is why there must be discussion BEFORE editing. It is unlikely either side will get what they deem is 'OK', because this is Wikipedia, a supposedly independent source. If Sam / Tom were to object to your views all the time, then we will also never reach consensus. It takes a little maturity and the will for an eventual compromised version before progress can be made. Your point about 'misleading interpretations of Fa-rectification' means you don't want any subjectivity that doesn't agree with your POV, am I right? Since such a controversial subject inevitably engenders many POVs, then your intolerance of other POVs is not only disruptive, but goes against several guidelines of Wikipedia. Please read WP:NPOV again to familiarize yourself with these rules again, if necessary. Wikipedia is after all not a Falun-pedia. I have already talked about this point before since you have already raised it before, but you seem to be ignoring my address so this paragraph is essentially a repeat of info already stated above.

2. Third party perspectives on 'persecution' - We should include third parties' opinions, but not all of them say or prove what is going on is in fact a persecution. Where in the article to include them is also a key concern. Since the 'persecution / suppression' point is still up for debate above (and I have merely 'paused' the debate with McConn regarding this point), this request can only be partially granted.

3. One photo of FG being practised - The rule written on photos above is only to ensure any photos posted conform to all Wiki rules. Opposing and neutral editors/admins are allowed to challenge it. It is important to note that in the discussion we had about photos above, that the style of the photo, etc. is also very important. It must be seen as a 'neutral' photo instead of a particularly positive or negative one. I referred to the black and white one (was that on the taichi or qigong page, I forgot) and even HiG's counter-examples. Unless you are saying you are HiG, Asdfg, or agree 100% with HiG's points, please air your opinion in that section as well.

4. Does not violate other WP - well, has it? If it has, please say where and how it has, Asdfg. I have asked Blnguyen to look into this matter - and surely he is senior enough as he is on the ArbCom, as well as a sysop or whatever the most senior posts are called. That is basically what I'm proposing the neutral admins to do - to ensure that the rules or its enforcement does not contravene any current Wiki policies, and doesn't go against the spirit of any guideline. I'm inviting you to challenge this point, Asdfg, but if you can't come up with a challenge, then I guess there is no objection regarding this point. Jsw663 11:19, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I appreciate your response; let's just 'pause' this as well for now.--Asdfg12345 11:41, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Something that requires your opinion now - approval or disapproval (unless you need clarifications) - should not be 'paused'. But opposition to these rules for the sake of opposition or accusations of imperfection tend to suggest you are not willing to accept that different people have different opinions, and that your view cannot always be forced on everyone else. Jsw663 11:49, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

here

I made a very long post about the term Fa-rectification and also presented a paragraph to sum it up. You did not respond to the long post, and you did not make any concrete points about how the paragraph I presented did not represent Fa-rectification. It is actually wrong to say that what you are presenting is just Li Hongzhi's words. You are presenting your interpretation of them. "...his Dafa (great law) is judging all beings in a process called Fa-rectification.", based on this:

Foretelling the Fa’s Rectification of the Human World

The Fa-rectification moves through the world, the grand manifestation of Gods and Buddhas unfolds, and all of the chaotic world’s unrighted wrongs and karmic relationships are settled with benevolent solutions. The ones who do evil against Dafa go down into the gate of no-life. As for all the others, people’s hearts return to righteousness and they cherish virtue and do good, all the myriad things are renewed, and every single sentient being reveres Dafa’s saving grace. All of the heavens and the earth celebrate together, congratulate each other, and exalt together. Dafa’s most glorious period in the human world begins at this moment.

Li Hongzhi December 9, 2001

That is your own stuff you draw from that. That statement should not go on wikipedia at all. Fa-rectification should definitely be mentioned in a quick explanation of Falun Dafa in the introduction, because it is in some ways a major part of the teachings, but I hope you understand when I say that your proposal is difficult for me to treat as a serious attempt to actually explain Fa-rectification. So to me, I think that there should be a mention of it, but not an attempt to explain it in the introduction - but that there should be a bit more of an explanation further below in the page. Maybe you think I am trying to hide the teachings. I hope you don't think that. I am not. We can put it in the introduction but I think that would be a bit unwieldy for wikipedia. Of course, I don't have anything to hide.--Asdfg12345 01:44, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

"The Dafa is judging all beings." Did Li Hongzhi say that, or is it something Tomananda made up? Asdfg, I suggest you check here to find that exact quote from your Master: [31] So given that your Master said these words, as well as others which I can also quote, I ask that you tell me exactly which part of the edit you disagree with. --Tomananda 07:38, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

I am not going to respond and explain everything here again. It takes a while every time I do that. When it comes to an editing decision again I will spell it all out again. I have found that most of my time on wikipedia is spent in arguments that go nowhere. Basically it is because those sentences do not represent Fa-rectification and Dafa at all, but they are more like an interpretation of yours which do contain some elements of the truth, but you have actually very badly skewed, misrepresented, and not fully represented the issues. It is true that all beings are being judged - but that is not what Fa-rectification is. The judgement is only whether they oppose Dafa or not, oppose the Fa-rectification or not, which as Teacher has explained it the same as opposing themselves and their own futures. The Fa-rectification is to save all beings, so opposing it is the same as opposing one's own future. May I paraphrase my understanding and say that Fa-rectification is the rectification of the whole cosmos, with the question of judgment and weeding out only having arisen after the interference to Fa-rectification by the old forces in the cosmos who have deviated from the Fa - and now every being has a choice about their future. Fa-rectification is universal salvation. Weeding out only became a question after the interference to Fa-rectification, and furthermore it only applies to those who are opposed to the Fa-rectification (opposed to the universe, themselves, the future). Also, there was that really long post I did which spelled everything out crystal clear, so I can email it to you again if you would like. Let me know. I don't want to post it again here because it there is already a lot of this kind of content on this page.--Asdfg12345 11:34, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

pro-falun gong editors stop concealing info

Pro-falun gong editors, you have again removed two important sections, “Depravity of today’s people” and “Sickness Karma” on Teachings of Falun Gong page. Also, “Interviews with Mr. Li Hongzhi” and “Li's claims of divinity” sections on Li Hongzhi page. Since material in these sections are directly referenced to falun gong’s own websites and some to major US media, there can be no justification for their removal. Edit wars have been provoked by your aggressive and outrageous edits repeatedly. I am tired of reverting them again and I hope you can truly be truthful and stop removing these sections. Thanks --Mr.He 20:39, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

I love how no one replied to this. Colipon+(T) 19:02, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

The reasons for removing these sections are explained on those page's talk pages. If you feel that the reasons aren't good, you can say so there. The divintiy section was not removed, only renamed. Mcconn 19:04, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

I restored the intrview of Li section on Li's page. Pro-falun gong editors, what you are doing will only provoke more revert wars. do you really think that you could delete these sections? --Pirate101 21:31, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Definately the section you are referring to, Mr. Pirate. See the talk page. Mcconn 22:51, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Mcconn, what I and many other editors have said for a long time is that we should not do editing at the expense of other editors. What that means is, wholesale blanking of sourced material should not be allowed. There's a big difference between changing a title of a section (eg: the Divinity section) versus blanking out an entire section (what you and others have done to the Interviews with Li section.) What really disturbs me is that you seem to want there to be a double standard. There is quite a lot of pro-FG material on these various pages which I have often been tempted to delete, because I don't think it meets Wiki standards. Specifically, I am referring to the very long block quotes of Master Li which do not read like an encylopedia article, but rather as excerpts from a book. I have not blanked that material because I assume eventually we will get around to improving those sections. Yet when it comes to things that the pro-FG editors don't like, they simply delete it...even whole paragraphs or sections. Sorry, but that amounts to a double standard. If the material is sourced and relevant, than it should not just be deleted. Instead, as Jsw proposed some time ago, we should have discussions about balance and weight. --Tomananda 20:59, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

It's interesting that you would say this after my reasons for removing that section have been sitting without reply for well over a month now. I repetedly tell people to take their quarrel to the talk page, just as I've done above. And I'm repetedly ignored. Sometimes there are good reasons for deleting entire sections, and if no one has anything to say in response to these reasons, am I just supposed to leave it there? I don't think so. I rarely make edits for which I don't provide an explanation in the edit summaries or on the talk page. If I've only explained my edit in an edit summary, and find that it's been reverted, I almost always go right to the talk page to explain it more thoroughly and initiate a discussion. Mcconn 03:47, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Mcconn, Many editors (including Firestar) have restored those sections you deleted repeatedly, does this mean anything to you? The rule is very simple, you are not allowed to remove sourced material. This is the response you have been getting from me on the edit summary. I don’t think it needs to be repeated on the talk page. Your blankimgs have only provoked revert wars and protection of these pages, why continue? --Mr.He 07:15, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Show me this rule. I've got an idea. How about I create a section called "Lectures of the master" and then quote all the things I think are interesting from all the lectures he's ever given. Or, even better, I could create a section called "adjectives and adverbs". In it I could list all of the adjectives and adverbs that Mr. Li has used that I consider interesting. Don't worry, I would make sure everything was sourced. By virtue of what you said, I suppose these sections couldn't be removed, could they? Do you see how ridiculous this logic is? Get to the talk page. Mcconn 15:52, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Mcconn, you don’t seem to respect others and show no desire for peace. I have tried my best to reach an agreement with you and other FGers; now I will do my best to protect those sections. --Mr.He 22:54, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Study may include "Opinions worth considering"

Any of you who has a bit of time to spare should really read the following study. It really opens up your mind. Entrepreneurial Logics and the Evolution of Falun Gong Colipon+(T) 00:09, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

For those of you who are planning to deny, ignore, or allege inacurracies and biased opinions in the study, or claim that the article is from a CPC spy or agent, please go read it before making any judgments. There is a comprehensive list of references on which the study is based on. Colipon+(T) 00:15, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

That link has nothing at it - is there a mistake or something? You know, since you are really NPOV, why don't you post anything that says favourable things about Falun Gong? Anyway, just a little joke. We find these things interesting and they should be included in wikipedia, have no doubts. I have no judgments and everyone's opinion is worth considering, right? I just want to say, to cultivators we find these things a bit funny. We just read the books, do the exercises, meditate and cultivate our xinxing. We don't want anything like money or power, and especially Teacher, he taught us to be this way, so even less does he want them. It would be wonderful if you were pursuing these things out of a desire to see a balanced wikipedia article rather than a desire to discredit Falun Gong. Like I said, if it were just us the pages would like like falundafa.org, and be short and simple explanations with links to the books. That is not really an encyclopedia, is it, so it is good to bring in all these things and report them. I just wished it would be more like an academic exercise rather than anything else, and that you realise Dafa is harmless and has taught us all to be good and kind people. That is what we want people to know. We just want to cultivate our xinxing and become good. Maybe this old Taoist story will help you to understand the way we think about these things, when people say Teacher is trying to make money or build up some thing. You know Chuang Tzu.

Owl and Phoenix

Hui Tzu was prime minister of Liang province. He had heard that Chuang Tzu wanted his job and was plotting to usurp him. When Chuan Tzu came to visit Liang, Hui Tzu sent police to arrest him. The police searched unsuccessfully for three days and nights, but in the meantime Chuang Tzu presented himself at the palace voluntarily. He said to Hui Tzu: “Have you heard about the bird that lives in the south, the phoenix? It never grows old. It drinks only from the clearest springs. It rises out of the South Sea and flies to the North Sea without touching land or water, except to alight on sacred trees from which it takes its only food, the most exquisite rare fruit. “Once, an owl, chewing a dead, half-decayed rat, saw the phoenix fly overhead. The owl looked up and screeched with alarm, frantically clutching the rat to protect his kill. “Why are you frantically clutching your ministry and screeching at me with alarm?”

--Asdfg12345 02:16, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Dear ASDFG, let me address your assumptions about me and address one of a few misconceptions directly from what you have said.

“ You know, since you are really NPOV, why don't you post anything that says favourable things about Falun Gong? ”

First of all, let me say that my understanding of NPOV is that it must be neutral above all else. If I were to say favourable things, it would, A, undermine my status here as a neutral editor, and B, I do not consider it necessary because there are more than enough pro-FLG editors that seem to only wish to inject favourable material and nothing else. Believe me if there was a group of enthusiastic and overzealous pro-CCP editors my response would probably a lot worse.

Let's see what else you said that is of note.

“ I have no judgments and everyone's opinion is worth considering, right? ”

Please give me and all the faithful editors here a definition of "worth considering". Does it mean, "let's look at it, and if it's critical of FLG in any way, let's get rid of it?" Because it seems so. And let me extend that a bit. What do you mean by "opinion"? I am frank when I ask, which types of information you consider as opinion and which you consider to be fact. For example, could you tell me if BBC's news reports are "opinion" or "fact"? Could you tell me, if Falun Gong's websites are "opinion" or "fact"? Could you tell me if various religious studies and numerous documents published criticizing Falun Gong using verifiable sources is "opinion" or "fact"?

I think there needs to be a removal of the notion, that because the CCP is persecuting Falun Gong, everything Falun Gong says or does is justified and legitimate regardless of context, and everything official Falun Gong sources say can therefore be safely considered a "fact", including Li Hongzhi's purported background with training from various masters from several schools (fact), Falun Gong's refusal in its involvement with politics in any way (fact), the number of members who have quit the CPC as of now stands at 17.7 million because the Epoch Times says so (big big fact). Where is your basis for any of these claims?

“ I just want to say, to cultivators we find these things a bit funny. We just read the books, do the exercises, meditate and cultivate our xinxing. ”

Li Hongzhi is no ordinary human being. I am sure his intellect surpassed that of Jiang Zemin by far. However, I would like to know what are these things that you find "funny". And if you find them funny, could you please laugh at it on your own time. Falun Gong is the true Fa. Time will tell this truth. The CPC will be destroyed because of its inherently evil nature, its willful brainwashing of the Chinese people, and its brutal persecution of the believers of the Fa. It is only a matter of time before Buddha Law cleanses it out of existence. Last time I checked Falun Gong believes in the nature of the Buddha Law, above all else. Therefore, instead of wasting all your time here at Wikipedia in an attempt to convince blind adherents to the CCP's evil policies who are too brainwashed to understand Fa, why, honestly, I beg an answer, would you not just let the CPC self-destruct? Why does Teacher Li and the Epoch Times have to constantly portray the CPC in every negative way possible to further this cause? If it is ensured by Buddha Law, what importance is there to minimal human influence on the subject? Buddha Law ensures the CPC will be destroyed. A truly benevolent practitioner, will, like you eloquently put, just read the books, do the exercises, meditate and cultivate our xinxing. Why even get involved in discrediting the CCP and all Falun Gong critics? They'll be rid of naturally by Buddha Law.

“ We don't want anything like money or power, and especially Teacher, he taught us to be this way, so even less does he want them. ”

Let me say again, I have never said or alleged that Falun Gong practitioners want money or power. The writings on Li Hongzhi that are critical on Wikipedia have been mostly based on his own quotations, all of which are provided by Western media, all verifiable and in context, or based on studies in recognizable journals or recognized educational institutions. Yet most of this is still classified as "opinion that should be considered" by pro-FLG editors. Does something only become a fact if it comes from Li Hongzhi or Falun Gong websites themselves?

I would like to know.

Your Chuang Tzu-Taoist story lacks a source, and even if you can find one, it must be biased, therefore it has been removed by me, and its title changed to accurately reflect Daoist beliefs. The story is misleading, and discredits Taoism as a flawed ideology that overtly and unfairly glorifies "the Phoenix". I find this to be extremely biased. In addition, where is the source that Hui Tzu was actually the governor of Liang Province? And if he is the governor, does that not involve him in politics? Daoism is not a political organization!!! Does this come from a pro-Taoist website? If not then it does not provide facts on Daoism. As there is 0 words on this page that is pro-Daoism, then the parts discrediting Daoism must also be scaled down to 0 words. This is to ensure fairness.

Colipon+(T) 07:17, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

On a related note, the study found at http://www.baylor.edu/content/services/document.php?id=19014 is a PDF document (Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion (2005) 44(2):173–185). For those of you who allege it cannot be opened it is suggested that you check your computer software support. Please notify me if you continue to have trouble opening it. It is entitled "Entrepreneurial Logics and the Evolution of Falun Gong". I am more than willing to copy and paste the report onto a subpage for those of you interested. Dr. Yunfeng Lu, Ph. D., published the studies, and is a Postdoctoral Research fellow at the Center for Religious Inquiry Across the Disciplines and Sociology Department of Baylor University in Waco, Texas. Dr. Lu can be contacted at Yunfeng Lu, Baylor University, Department of Sociology, One Bear Place #97236, Waco, TX 78798; E-mail: paul_lu@baylor.edu. Colipon+(T) 07:17, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

I just remembered, posting the study on Wikipedia will be a copyright violation. I will gladly e-mail it to people if they wish to see. Lowe (2003:263–76) is also a good read, let me pinpoint a location for it first. All these studies provide ample, sourceable, and reliable material for the article itself. Colipon+(T) 08:17, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

I've restored Asdfg's story. Colipon, your deleting part of Asdfg's post and putting your own words in it's place is in serious violation of wiki policy. Mcconn 18:02, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

You offer me very valuable advice, McConn. In the near future I will probably incorporate your advice above in a big quotation on the talk page so every can see understand Wiki policy in an emphasized manner. Meanwhile could you pro-FLG editors please go read the study. That is the topic of discussion, please do not try to change it. After that perhaps read all my comments from above again and try to refine it to find deeper meaning. Colipon+(T) 18:56, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Just a side comment. If pro-FG editors keep on insisting other parties read pro-FG sources, studies, etc., the least they could do is practice what they preach as well by reading and considering non-pro-FG sources. This assumes that FGers are receptive to criticism. However, try not to let this sink into a FG discussion forum again. Jsw663 19:45, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

I do, and I believe the others do too. I've been looking for that study, and now that you've presented a link, I'll gladly read it. Mcconn 21:18, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Yeah me too, I read that stuff, and please can you email that thing to me Colipon, because I could not open the link you sent. Also Colipon, maybe your intentions were good, but it is not allowed to alter posts on the discussion page. Even if I made it up and did pass it off as representative of Taoism, wikipedia states that you cannot alter it. Read about it here:vandalism. I will put the story back now with the original title. I first read it in a book by Thomas Merton, but I also found that story in Lin Yutang's translation, and i remembered and wanted to post it, so I looked up "Chuang Tzu Owl Phoenix" in google. It was on a website. You'll be able to find it by doing that. Here is a link to Lin Yutang translation of Chuang Tzu, you can find it in there, just hit search and type "phoenix" or "owl": http://www.religiousworlds.com/taoism/cz-text2.html#HUMAN. --Asdfg12345 16:39, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Okay I can open it now, I am not sure what happened before. You don't need to email me the pdf. Will save and look at it later.--Asdfg12345 16:42, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Again. You should read my comment in its entirety. I still don't think you understand. If you still do not understand after. Then... well, there is very little I can do. Oh and I'd like to hear responses to the study please. Put them on my talk page if you please as there is probably enough useless content on this page. Colipon+(T) 21:38, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Strange idea of history

The current version of the article says:

The foundation of Falun Dafa are teachings known in traditional Chinese culture as the "Fa" (Dharma), or "Dharma and principles" – that are set forth in the book Zhuan Falun.

Since taking over the government of China in 1948 China has striven to uproot "traditional Chinese culture" and even though that attempt probably could not be called an unqualified success, nevertheless what exists in China today is a far cry from the kind of life, the kind of values, that were uppermost during the time before the fall of the Qing dynasty. Yet whoever wrote the above sentence seems to think that the new is the traditional. If these teachings were "known in traditional Chinese culture" they would not be causing such controversy today. Moreover, they could not be "set forth" in the Zhuan Falun, they could only be repeated or given a commentary.

If there is any truth at all to the statement, then the author should be able to provide ample evidence that the expression "Dharma and principles" was a common one before the "Falun Dafa" came on the scene. If there was a regular association of these terms, the the words "set forth" should be changed to "explained." P0M 07:58, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Quite so, there has been a couple years of POV creep as the pro- side pushes an agenda of one sided advertising. As larger matters are reverted back and forth smaller (in size, not importance) details like this have gotten missed in the rush. The Chinese word fa is actually a common usage, not just in Buddhism, and the following wiktionary link will give some background info: 法. --Fire Star 火星 14:42, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Supression of the Falun Gong or remove the

We currently link to Supression of the Falun Gong which doesn't exist. Should it be the Falun Gong or Supression of Falun Gong which does exist? 203.109.240.93 14:53, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Ah IC, the silly persecution argument came up again with a revert war and the last version happened to be slightly wrong. 203.109.240.93 14:59, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

falungong outside china

i think i made clear there are rejected case in chinatwon jakarta i didn't know why they erase even i am prove there picture about the rejected banner (i didn't understand why falun gong people can not ecept concept falungong could be reject cause they activitydid they think every place would acept and welcome them every where? such absurd if they think every place would acept them [well i see as denial phase they are not ecept any rejection, see]) did my foto not prove there is reject case? and certainly i have put link adress about the incident so both side argument would be put in there to read, not only one side story. http://www.indonesiamatters.com/570/falun-gong-in-jakarta/ Daimond 06:15, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Falun Gong is rejected from participating in the San Francisco Chinese New Years parade. --Mr.He 06:43, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Why? Colipon+(T) 21:34, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Because the parade organizers insist that the parade remain non-political. In a prior year, the FG had been granted permission to march on the condition that they not engage in political activities, but they distributed anti-CCP propaganda anyway. Chinese New Years is meant to be an inclusive holiday celebration for everybody, not an opportunity to divide the community into two camps: those for and those against the CCP. In order to participate in the parade, the practitioners need to let go of their attachment to progandizing against the CCP, but I doubt they can do that since Master Li requires them to work towards the destruction of the CCP as a condition of their salvation. BTW: by using the word "political" I merely refer to the agenda to destroy a foreign government. FG practitioners always claim they are not "political" because they define the term very narrowly. So please, guys, let's not get into another discussion of whether the FG is "political." Clearly your Master's goal, and your required activity as Fa-rectrification Dafa disciples is to work to destroy the CCP. --Tomananda 22:21, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

I see. Thanks for the reply. Colipon+(T) 22:24, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

You're welcome. For background information about the parade denial and actions by the San Francisco Board of Supervisors at that time, check out: [32] Towards the end of the article the Chinese Chamber of Commerce president is quoted about the reasons for the parade denial.--Tomananda 22:26, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

This info would be very useful in the Falun Gong outside China article. --Sumple (Talk) 23:43, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

"Falun Gong people" did not remove your content, Daimond. Someone else did. The problem was that your section was simply a clearwisdom article copied and pasted onto the page. I thought that it was very relevant and even began rewriting it into more appropriate language (I never posted it), but I stopped after it was deleted by another user. If you want, I can continue editing it. Now that you've presented another source, I think there shouldn't be any problem. Mcconn 03:56, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

• • No i don't want your edit Mccon, cause it clearly diffrent interpetion than what i wrote first. both argumention let it be hears as references(in indonesia matter). as prove and comparison with and what epoch time did and falun gong did, who damage's and too blind to see other sufer cause them, the falungong selfesnes and egois act WHO think, only them who have the right and other people didn't have right to live too. and as you see the date of the foto are 7 desember 2006. Daimond 14:20, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

• and Mccon i look the history (who erase my article), the vandalisme certainly looklike from falungong folowersDaimond 15:35, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

More News On Harvesting Organs

Came across this article on Yahoo news[33] and wanted to know more about this "Falun Gong"- admittedly I was ignorant to what "Falun Gong" was. So straight to Wikipedia I go and find quite the little mess and a bigger mess on the talk page. I think this article holds the record for protect/ unprotect. As a completely neutral (ignorant) reader who came here to educate myself on a topic that I had never heard of before (hence the pedia part of Wikipedia)- I certainly hope the editors can find some middle ground as this article could be very good given the amount of references. Currently there are nearly more references than there is body to the article. For my two cents I hope that editors on both sides and in the middle just don't lose sight of why they are doing this so that people like me can come here and read a good "encyclopedic" description of this topic.Cireshoe 08:24, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

I think it is just another piece of FLG-manipulated "investigation" by an ignorant group of Canadian human rights lawyers. Just because the evidence is enough to "paint a picture" does not change the fact that the evidence is still, by and large, a SECOND-HAND source. Even if the facts conform with the evidence, it is simply irresponsible to blame on the Chinese Government for something that supposedly certain "evil" Chinese doctors are doing. In fact, this kind of flaming on an unverifiable fact is itself, on the part of David Kilgore and David Matas, "evil". Anyway, back to the article. I believe it has done a very good job on protecting NPOV. Kudos to ALL the editors (incl. those FLG practioners) Btmachine333667 23:35, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

If these harvesting organs allegations are true (I actually do not doubt it), whoever is in charge of it should seriously make the smart decision to stop harvesting people's organs. It is not only quite terribly immoral and inhumane, but gives Falun Gong ample ammunition to mask Li Hongzhi and Falun Dafa's real background, exacerbating the current problem with mainstream western media which focuses on Falun Gong's persecution but not its origins and very doubtful leader. Colipon+(T) 02:52, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, but if David Kilgore and David Matas are truly sincere about correcting a "disgusting form of evil", I challenge them to go live on TV and present their findings. Instead, so far, they have been doing this type of investigation secretly, largely without any oversight from the general public.Btmachine333667 03:38, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Btmachine, thanks for having the same opinion as I did when I challenged the Kilgour/Matas report in one of the above sections on the discussion page. Their evidence is suspect at best, and that is sad for a lawyer to start drawing firm conclusions on such shaky evidence really. Why have they suddenly committed themselves to a FG cause where they can get next to no reliable evidence if they were truly 'independent'? Seems a little suspect. Anyway, thanks for Cireshoe / Btmachine for airing their views on here. Jsw663 19:46, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Sometimes people will not be convinced no matter what you say. But if that is not the case here: Kilgour has been on TV to discuss/debate the validity of the article. He appeared on Lateline on the ABC, an Australian free-to-air channel. He was interviewed by the host and the host asked him a range of questions. Here is the link and you can read the transcript: http://www.abc.net.au/lateline/content/2006/s1715849.htm Lateline is taken seriously in Australia and is generally highly-regarded. It is considered important in Australia that this show would talk to Kilgour about this. Kilgour and McMillan Scott also talked to the Australian parliament about this. They went to 30 countries. Many people are taking this with a lot more seriousness than Jsw.--Asdfg12345 16:57, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

I thought we were not going to sink back into a FG discussion forum on Wikipedia. You are entitled to your own views, but please don't simply crush any views aired by those who aren't heavily involved in the editing simply because they don't agree with yours. After all, I could equally say that the US State Dept dismissed the Sujiatuan thing yet you insist that it took place; is your opinion worth more than the US State Dept's? But this is not a helpful comment and breaches the Wiki guideline on Civility. Jsw663 11:22, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, just wanted to respond directly to his query.--Asdfg12345 12:03, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

(Ex?)-Mediator apology for long absence

Hello. I would like to apologise to all of you for my long absence from Wikipedia. I hope you don't feel I mean any disrespect by it. If you do, please believe that I didn't. I guess I owe you an explanation. Basically, there were a variety of off-Wiki problems I had to deal with, which drained my time and energy. The top two were a friend who needed significant emotional support, and my own financial problems. I would have said something about it, except that I kept expecting the issues to be resolved sooner. I'm sorry my explanation is so brief, but since the details are rather personal I hope you will be satisfied with that. If you feel like yelling at me, please feel free to do so by email.

Anyways, I'm not sure if you've found another mediator or some other way of resolving your dispute. If not, I should have time now to mediate at least a few times a week (once I've caught up on the reading), if you still want me to.

Also, if there's anything urgent that you would like to draw my attention to quickly, I've set up my email to forward anything with both the words "Wikipedia" and "zxcv" in it to my cell phone. Just click on the mail link in my signature.

Thank you for your patience,
Armedblowfish (talk|mail) 20:19, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

I had wondered what happened. I do not think anyone harbours any ill-will towards you, and I am sure everyone understands. I feel that I can speak for everyone involved in this project when I say that. I think it is great that you can spend time on this, and we appreciate your efforts. So I don't know how much time you have or are willing to invest, but the only thing I would like to do is reiterate my request that you (1) familiarise yourself with the Nine Day lectures: http://www.falundafa.org/bul/lectures/index.htm#audio - that is basically to know what Falun Dafa is and in essence what it teaches - and (2) read some third-party reports, information, investigations, about the persecution. Some of the more well-known are the UN 2004 report: http://www.flghrwg.net/index.php?option=content&task=view&id=1027&Itemid=, the Kilgour-Matas organ harvesting report: http://investigation.go.saveinter.net/, maybe this Amnesty International factsheet: http://www.amnesty.org.nz/web/pages/home.nsf/dd5cab6801f1723585256474005327c8/83fba691f912206bcc2571d3001824ed!OpenDocument. That is basically what I would request of a prospective mediator, that they familiarise themselves with a bit of the background of what is happening, but it depends on how much time you have and so on. If you listen to the lectures once then read the UN report, scan the kilgour-matas report, and look at the factsheet, I think you would have a good idea. There are probably some good critical things written about Falun Gong that you should look at too. Maybe Colipon or another editor could suggest some. There might also be other serious, third party reports that say different things about the persecution, and you could take a look at that as well. I am not aware of any. It is a fairly entrenched and protracted disagreement, even about some fundamental things, so I think it will require a lot of patience and an even keel. But I also think it will be fine if we work through the issues clearly and rationally, and abide by the wikipedia policies. Good luck!--Asdfg12345 21:05, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Armedblowfish, Welcome back. We need a structured approach to editing (eg: specific goals and timelines) and you can help make that happen. Just one word of caution: Asdfg has asked you to read Zhuan Falun, the standard text of Falun Gong written more than 10 years ago, and propaganda about the "persecution" of FG practitioners in China. He says you can get a good idea about "what's happening" if you read that material, but actually you can't. The key to understanding the current behavior of Falun Gong practitioners and why they have dedicated themselves to destroying the Chinese Communist Party cannot be found in the Zhuan Falun. Instead, you need to read some of Li's many lectures delivered to his world-wide network of disciples. It's in the lectures that you'll get a clear picture of how Li controls his disciples, demanding that they work to destroy the Chinese Communist Party as a condition for their salvation. It's only by reading Li's material written after the ban that you'll get an accurate and current picture of Li's manipulative tactics and his real agenda. The practitioners are fully aware of this material and have worked overtime to censor it from Wikipedia.

Li says that his Dafa (great law of the cosmos) is judging all beings, and that beings who do not meet certain standards which he stipulates will be "weeded out" in a process called "Fa-rectification." Li's standards have changed over time. When he wrote the Zhuan Falun in the early 1990's in China, the main targets for elimination by Fa-rectification were people such as homosexuals who have accumulated a great deal of karma. After the ban of the Falun Gong in 1999, Li began to focus his Fa-rectification targets on the "evil and wicked" CCP, and those who support the CCP. Li's teachings have changed over the years, but the basic message is the same: mankind has become so corrupt and degenerate that even the gods no longer look after people and traditional religions no longer can offer salvation. Only Li and his great law, the Dafa, can save people during this period of Fa-rectification, which is thought of as a disintegration process in which beings who are not "eliminated" will be returned to their original higher selves. All FG practitioners look forward to returning to their higher selves and even becomming gods. In order to reach that goal, Li demands that they help to destroy the CCP through a variety of peaceful, but not always legal, means. --Tomananda 23:40, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Okay, note that I will not respond to the above comment, and I do not think anyone else should respond to it. By now we all know how these discussions go. I would like to express my disappointment with Tomananda's behaviour. We are supposed to be working together to make these wikipedia articles. Besides, that kind of thing does no credit to your cause.--Asdfg12345 00:38, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Quoting Master Li Hongzhi does no credit to my cause? You know everthing I said about the teachings above is true, why can't you at least acknowledge that? I don't delete your material, but you delete mine over and over again. Actually, you delete Master Li himself, because almost all that I post about the teachings (other than the opinions of critics) represents direct or indirect quotes from Master Li. The problem is you don't like these quotes because, I guess, they too starkly display the extreme teachings of the Falun Gong. So instead of being honest and admitting that, yeah, that's a pretty accurate summary of the Fa-rectification, you resort to vague accusations against me. --Tomananda 01:55, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Asdfg + Tom: Asdfg started FG discussion by posting the FG-advertising link and then Tom countered it, so technically both of you are at fault from Asdfg's "supposed to be working together to make these wikipedia articles". I suggest a halt in link advertisements on this discussion page. Armedblowfish's adding of three pages, dividing them into pro and anti FG, was thus a wise move. Jsw663 11:44, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Armedblowfish welcome back. In your absence we had a few rounds of revert wars and as you can see some pages are protected. These revert wars were initiated by Falun Gong practitioner editors, attempting to conceal information, they repeatedly removed material referenced directly to Falun Gong websites. In response, none practitioners editors repeatedly restored such material.

You can help stop/prevent these senseless edit wars by becoming our judge. If you can make judgments on these conflicts (inclusion or exclusion of certain material) that would be great.

We all have our busy lives, thank you for helping. --Samuel Luo 02:01, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Asdfg12345 when you ask Armedblowfish to watch the Nine Day lectures tapes and read Dafa books you are violating one of the many rules of your master. Li has made it very clear to all practitioners that they should show people Falun gong exercises first and only when these people are hooked, practitioners can then show them (brainwash them with) the Falun Dafa. How could you forget this rule? Do you need me to tell you when and where your master made that a rule? --Samuel Luo 02:31, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Hooray! Welcome back Armedblowfish. I've been ridiculously busy the last few months as well, my particiation is only about a quarter what it was, because of "real world" reasons. We do what we can. Cheers! --Fire Star 火星 04:17, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks to all of you for your understanding! Asdfg12345 and Tomananda, rest assured that I can look at material from both sides. You can help me organise my reading priorities here.

To all of you, in order to help you continue productively editing while the article is protected, I suggest editing on working drafts in the talk or user namespaces. I have created three such drafts, all from the most recent version of the Falun Gong article, with disclaimers on top explaining that they are not articles.

• Talk:Falun Gong/Working Anti-FG
• Talk:Falun Gong/Working Pro-FG
• Talk:Falun Gong/Working Compromise

Please edit the draft for the side of the dispute you feel you are on, or, if you don't feel that you are either pro- or anti- FG, whichever draft you think is the best place for your edit. I encourage all of you to try to find a middle ground on the compromise draft. I hope that helps!

Thank you again,
Armedblowfish (talk|mail) 04:38, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Hi Armedblowfish, please see the Falun Gong / Introduction and other pages linked near the top that discusses pro- and anti-versions variously already. We are focused still on the 'pre-intro', i.e. the first few paragraphs before the sections start. Jsw663 11:46, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Armedblowfish, welcome back. Could you tell me what kind of help mediatiors provide? thanks --Mr.He 08:09, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Basically, I try to understand all sides in a dispute, and help the parties reach a compromise. Better yet, if I can, I try to offer a choice all parties will be happy with. As a minimum, I will at least try to help the parties communicate better with each other. If the dispute is particularly heated, I may try to help calm things down. I may offer suggestions, but I do not issue binding decisions. You can read the Mediation Committee's description of mediation at WP:M. I hope that answers your question, but feel free to ask more questions. — Armedblowfish (talk|mail) 14:17, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Hi Armedblowfish, I know you have taken on a case that is far larger than probably any mediation case that is currently out there by taking on this case. I also agree that it is best to read both sides' material, but note that there is far more available online from one camp (pro-FG) than the other (anti-FG), because there has been a sustained campaign from one side whereas the other has not launched a counter-campaign to combat this. Striving to be neutral is damned near impossible as well. Being drawn into a content war is also probably not wise, but familiarizing yourself with the basics is pretty much a requirement here.

Thus I suggest controlling editors' behavior to be a good first step. Apart from your positive action, I have proposed an extra 'three-strike rule' to restrict editors' editing behavior when it comes to section blanking or POV wars. This has generally been adhered to by members of all three camps, except Asdfg so far, who refuses to accept that there are different POVs of Falun Gong - a controversial belief system in itself (as to what it is really trying to promote, its agenda, etc.). I have asked ArbCom member and sysop Blnguyen to pay special attention to this page / enforce these rules. I hope you will not disregard this.

Naturally people will try character assassination, trying to bully you into saying you are biased / Communist / radical liberal, etc. Thus not losing sight of the main points, i.e. keeping your feet firmly rooted to the middle ground, will be no mean feat in itself. Jsw663 11:36, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Hello Jsw663! This mediation is challenging, but the more challenging things in life are generally more rewarding, and I would like to be able to help you all reach a compromise you can all be content with. I know things can get hot, but I've seen them get a lot hotter, so I'm not really worried about that. (And if someone does get upset, I would rather they insult me than one of their opponents.) Mostly, I was worried that during my long absence I had let you all down, but everyone has been kind regarding that.

As a mediator, I am not a security guard. I may try to lead a policy-focused discussion, but I do not police the edit histories for policy violations. I am not here to enforce anything. If others want to enforce stuff, that is between you all and those enforcing it. Hopefully, I needn't be involved with the enforcement of your three-strike rule. That said, good luck (to all of you) in using it towards descalation and not escalation, as such things can go both ways.

If you have any reading material, online or otherwise, to recommend, I encourage you to do so here. That said, there is no guarantee I will be able to access offline material.

Thank you for the well-wishes,

Armedblowfish (talk|mail) 02:43, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Hi thanks for the reply Armed. Although things may not seem very 'hot' here now, the repeated lockdown of FG pages should tell the story. This situation is a lot more complex, because what constitutes as 'obvious vandalism' in a controversial matter like this is highly debatable in itself.

I think it's probably better for anti-FGers to post links that qualify under the anti-FG banner. Alternatively if you have the time you could do google searches for the anti-FG (in other words, CCP/CPC views of it) (I found a source that was translated into English but it was removed by pro-FG editors during the edit war, and this version is locked down at present). Pro-FG sources are readily available, because pro-FG people are doing a heavy campaign via the media. Their complete intolerance of any neutral or negative interpretation of the FG leader's teachings is a little suspect, though.

Anyway I won't say more about this now. Just glad to see you back. I just hope there won't be any more users who declare a unilateral edit war like Asdfg did again. Jsw663 17:16, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't think content disputes and revert warring really qualify as "vandalism", which implies the intention to make Wikipedia worse. In situations like this, everyone wants to make Wikipedia better, but have completely different ideas of what "better" is, leading to much unpleasantness. Or at least, that is how I see it.

Regardless of what any editor does in the heat of the moment, I hope you all will still be able to discuss a long term solution, that will hopefully remove the motivation for edit wars. Perhaps I am being overly optimistic if I think this has a very high chance of happening, and then again maybe optimism will actually affect the chances.

Thanks for your understanding and advice on research,

Armedblowfish (talk|mail) 00:14, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

On the whole I agree with you Armed. However, I am trying to limit SUBSTANTIAL content edit-warring. 25% may be an arbitrary figure - but I don't think you'll disagree that blanking entire sections qualifies under WP:Vandalism. Unfortunately this issue isn't addressed in Olaf's new proposal. Jsw663 19:01, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Strike One for Asdfg12345 ?

Since we have already agreed to a new standard for editors, I ask that we issue a strike one "warning" to Asdfg12245 for his inappropriate blanking of a sentence about Fa-rectification in the Epoch Times page. Please note that he has blanked this sentence three different times, with no discussion or justification. Check history for these three dates:

• 2 February
• 3 February
• 4 February

The sentence which Asdfg seeks to delete is fully sourced. Here it is:

"The term Dafa refers to Li’s “Great Law of the cosmos” which offers salvation to those beings who are worthy, while “the dregs of humanity and degenerate world that are left behind will be weeded out” in a process he calls “Fa-rectification.”[34].

He is not deleting this material because it is not accurate, but rather because it represents Li's teachings "at the higher level" and Li directs his disciples not to talk about the teachings "at the higher levels" when talking to "ordinary people" because we wouldn't understand. If there is any point in the exercise that Jsw just went through in the post on the proposed "three strikes" rule, it is to stop this kind of blanking behavior. --Tomananda 02:16, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Post a notice if any of us see these sorts of things happening so that the agreeing editors can act. Not all of us have all the FLG articles on a watchlist so some get by. We should record our efforts to keep the articles to the guidelines here as well. --Fire Star 火星 04:15, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Notice to agreeing editors: we now have an anyonmous FG editor deleting a portion of the above sentence from the Epoch Times page, using the argument that the quote from Li makes the Falun Gong "look bad." As Fire Star well knows, there are many quotes from Master Li which have been deleted from this article for the same reason. It seems to me that at some point this blanking behavior by Falun Gong apologists needs to be addressed. --Tomananda 21:07, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Tom, unfortunately the rules above only apply to the FG page. You can propose one for FG-related pages if you want, but I don't have the time for so many Wiki pages. Once Blnguyen thinks those rules are sufficient and unlocks the FG main page, then we can propose strikes for this kind of editing behavior. Jsw663 11:39, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

I will continue to remove all edits which misrepresent Falun Dafa and force a POV on wikipedia.--Asdfg12345 11:59, 5 February 2007 (UTC) -- I hearby solemnly declare that the previous post does not accurately express my intentions, heart and attitude toward editing on wikipedia. I now retract this statement and apologise for any confusion or miscommunication, as it was not intentional. My statement of intent and understanding of my role on wikipedia are more fully and accurately expressed in a later post. --Asdfg12345 16:50, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

I should warn you that this unilateral declaration to edit war in the face any consensus you disagree with is contrary to Wikipedia policy and will definitely result in administrator sanctions if pursued. --Fire Star 火星 15:45, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

The question is, are you trying to force your POV on Wikipedia? Jsw663 12:37, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

To Asdfg12345: You may not like it, but it is possible that you are not the only one who holds CLAVIS VERITAS. Therefore, you should also try to remove all edits by Falun Dafa practitioners which misrepresent China and its reality and force a POV on wikipedia (that is, if you actually try). Btmachine333667 12:45, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I will do that if I see it. Right now I am working on putting together some stuff for the Falun Gong overseas page. I don't think anyone should put up unsourced things on wikipedia, or misrepresent the sources. If some people think that I am doing that I would like to be told, and I will think about what you say and then examine the circumstances, for sure. I don't think it should be so hard to put this stuff together as the wikipolicies cover everything, so I know if we stick to them it will be fine. I have explained very much how what Tomananda has so far proposed as an explanation of Dafa and Fa-rectification does not belong on wikipedia and is merely his own very inaccurate point of view and skewed interpretation of Li Hongzhi's words, so I won't do it again here. Look at my posts from before. There has still been no actual response what I wrote, nor any attempt to address in a concrete way the issues I raised and my criticism of Tomananda's formulations. Also, the representation I gave based on the teachings has not really been challenged. I am going to copy it now and put it on my talk page, so look for it there if you like.--Asdfg12345 13:42, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Until you retract your previous statement above, the one which I have indicated is a unilateral declaration on your part to edit war in the face of any consensus you disagree with, you aren't as likely to be considered a good faith editor on Wikipedia. Please see WP:AGF and item 7 of WP:ABF. --Fire Star 火星 15:59, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Okay I'll get back to you after I look into it.--Asdfg12345 16:13, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

I do not think any consensus would be reached that violated wikiguidelines about neutrality, NPOV, OR, or one that misrepresented Falun Dafa, or was a really skewed portrayal of the teachings. I do not think the problem is as you imagine it to be. I don't have an axe to grind. I feel that I have always well-explained my editing practices, intentions and opinions. I think too, though, that I have explained myself too strongly at times. Maybe we don't need to discuss these things so much, as over time we have formed, and will continue to form, our own understanding of our peers' editing agenda, behaviour and willingness to be understanding of and compromise with other parties' views. The degree to which we explain ourselves and the tone we adopt, the reasonableness of what we say - it is all there for everyone to see. I aspire to be really above board in my behaviour on wikipedia, both in editing and interacting with other users. I feel deeply that I have not achieved this, and I feel regret for that, and also that I want to pay particular attention to these aspects of using wikipedia now. I believe such attributes are an extremely important basis for being a reliable editor. I will never, ever simply revert things I don't like, just because I don't like them and without explaining the reasons properly and with reference to relevant wikipolicies and the subject in question. In any case of contestation I will always explain myself fully and refer to the relevant wikipolicies and the material in question. So as long as we are all doing that, and we say we all will, I do not think the situation you have envisaged could come to pass. I am describing a situation where other editors do not explain themselves adequately, do not really address the issues raised in relevant discussions, and/or pursue a clear agenda of misrepresentation. I will put my foot down in those cases and exercise my right as an editor to prevent that from taking place, and I will fully explain myself on every occasion. I think everyone should do that. I have just elaborated further on my understanding, approach and attitude toward these things. Please point out any problems you see.--Asdfg12345 05:42, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

The problem for Wikipedia lies with this declaration:

"I will continue to remove all edits which misrepresent Falun Dafa and force a POV on wikipedia.--Asdfg12345 11:59, 5 February 2007 (UTC)"

It declares unilateral intent to thrust your personal interpretation of FLG on Wikipedia, no matter what is decided by any other group of editors. That may not be what you meant, but that is what the sentence says. With a statement like that, admins could make a case to just use the rollback button on any edit you make on these pages in future, and many admins would go farther and say that WP:3RR wouldn't apply to anyone reverting your edits, while it would to yours. In the context of an ongoing edit war, many admins would temp-block you just for saying that.

The way to retract such a statement is to use the strike-through feature on the original post, saying that it didn't come out the way you meant it. This isn't a content issue, it is an intent issue. Users who come to Wikipedia blatantly saying they are simply going to vandalise are banned indefinitely on sight, because of their stated intent. A stated intent to revert what you yourself don't like no matter what, while not vandalism, is still something that invalidates participation in discussions such as these for administrative purposes, as well as drawing a provocative line in the sand for your fellow editors. --Fire Star 火星 15:02, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

It appears we need to modify the three-strike rule immediately, with any person trying to force their POV on wikipedia immediately be qualified for a ban. Forcing your opinion on others also violates the 'free speech' principle which apparently Falun Gong advocates. Asdfg, please think again about your intent on Wiki, or else action will probably be taken against you, especially if your editing behavior backs up this statement. We don't want anyone to be banned, right? Constructive editors won't. Jsw663 16:50, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Amending the sources

Hi, guys. It's good to be back. I've had a lot of other projects to attend to, but now I've decided to join your ranks once more, and I hope our co-operation will bear some fruits. I remember how we used to reach some agreeable consensus with certain editors way back when I was still here almost every day. Of course, as I've been away for many months, I'm not totally aware of the current situation. I still have some points to bring up, and I see no reason why you shouldn't agree with them.

I think that a befitting approach would be to scrutinize our sources. I've collected a wide variety of material concerning Falun Gong from many peer-reviewed journals and independent, major newspapers - all accessible by academic search engines and fully complying with Wikipedia standards - and I'm going to start writing them up in the near future. I've always tried to advocate a dialectical approach to the edition process instead of edit wars and blanking. In other words, I think the critics are fully entitled to their opinions, on the assumption that they can provide decent sources for their statements. If anyone feels that a well-sourced statement is misleading or inadequate, we should not remove any essential content but seek to contextualize it further. This applies to everybody, regardless of our subjective position in the dispute.

However, such an approach requires that everybody pays more attention to the discourse. Could we all agree that, from this point on, with the exception of self-evident truths like "Falun Gong is suppressed in China", we should always provide a source that complies with Wikipedia standards? Therefore, if someone wants to say something like "the suppression of the movement has gained more attention in the Western media than the movement itself, whose legitimacy (independent of the Chinese government's claims) has been seriously questioned upon by academics and religious experts" (from Suppression of Falun Gong), such a statement calls for removal in case it doesn't refer to any verifiable source. On the other hand, if all the editorial requirements are met, there's no legitimate basis for removing the argument without discussion. However, we should do our best to quote the sources truthfully, not adding any value judgments that are not present in the source material.

A dialectical approach - a text that systematically puts forth a thesis and an antithesis - is respectful towards the reader, who can ultimately decide for his/herself. It is fair towards all parties, as everybody has to base his/her arguments on an outside source. The quality control will naturally improve, and the discussion can be shifted from Falun Gong per se to what is requisite in Wikipedia, and how a good article is constructed whilst giving everybody a chance for free speech within the set boundaries. ---Olaf Stephanos 16:26, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

I'd also like to suggest the following: starting from today, we start marking each and every controversial text passage in the articles with the "" tag. After a certain period of time, say 3 weeks, all the statements that haven't been backed up will be removed. After this transitional phase, every unsourced controversial statement can be removed without caution. If a source is provided, but its validity is disputed, we'll take the discussion onto the talk page, where proponents and opponents of the source will put forth their respective arguments in a cool, logical fashion - not disputing the subject matter in and of itself, but explaining their stance by directly drawing upon the Wikipedia source policies. ---Olaf Stephanos 23:54, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Olaf: You've nicely summarized the means to cooperative editing. I agree with you that many disputes can be resolved through a dialectical process. And you're also correct in saying we had a lot more cooperation between the different editor factions when you were editing. Admittedly, there's been some modest progress since you left. One small example: I had written a well-sourced paragraph on the Li Hongzhi page, "Making money from the Falun Gong," which I expected would be deleted by a hot-head editor. But instead, a more reasonable editor, I think it was Mcconn, came along and just added an additional paragraph which presented the counter-point to my paragraph. (See paragraphs #3 and # 4 in that section.) So I count that as one small success.

Meanwhile, we have a little edit war going one in the Epoch Times page, instigated by Asdfg who has declared above his intention not to honor consensus. It's his way or the high way. This same editor has posted a long justification for his POV which I am supposed to take seriously and respond to point-by-point. But as long as there is no sanction for the inappropriate blanking of material, I don't think discussions by themselves will yield progress. There must be some agreed-upon standard for making actual edits, which is what Jsw has proposed above. Without those standards, and some mechanism for enforcing them, I question the usefulness of yet more discussion. --Tomananda 00:32, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

I think it is unfair to disregard the arguments I have put forth explaining my behaviour and intentions. I don't expect you to respond to my message point by point (I never indicated that). I have explained the situation with that little edit-battle.--Asdfg12345 04:32, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

It's equally unfair for you to continue to use blanking as an editing strategy. My feeling is what's the point in responding to your arguments if you've already blanked the material you object to? Here's an offer: I'll read and respond to your post-blanking discussion points if you promise to swear off blanking for the month of February. --Tomananda 06:47, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

If you swear off introducing fallacious material I'll swear off blanking it. And not just for February! Olaf has proposed a good idea, that we can put the on questionable content and if it remains unsupported it may be removed. I do not think that I am being unreasonable in removing and challenging that content. To tell you the truth, if I added content that was much disputed and subsequently removed, I would discuss it before engaging in a revert war about it. I gave a range of reasons and proposed alternative strategies for presenting that - at least what I think contains elements of - valid material. This is all on the talk page so I won't repeat it here. --Asdfg12345 11:58, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

The problem is, it is your opinion that the material is false. Others are going to object to simple blanking of their material in the context of statements like: "I will continue to remove all edits which misrepresent Falun Dafa and force a POV on wikipedia.--Asdfg12345 11:59, 5 February 2007 (UTC)". These articles are broken, and without the aid of outside mediation, they aren't likely to be fixed any time soon, IMO. --Fire Star 火星 15:13, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Fire Star, for raising that point.

To Olaf, I have proposed a three-strike rule regarding editing behavior. It isn't the same as what you proposed, but makes it mandatory that any edit from now on be discussed before it is edited on the main page. Please have a look at those 8 rules, as they have been put in bold. Your opinion of that in that section will be of great value, thanks. Jsw663 16:40, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

The statement I referred to above has been struck through, which is good. I think a self-imposed structure is a necessary step, but an outsider will be the final arbiter so that we may be assured of neutrality in future. If we can get enough to agree, then we'll ave a framework to work with. Even the people who have agreed already should be enough. I like Jsw663's proposal, and Olaf has some commonality there, so I hope he should be able to sign on; as an entirely new proposal at this time is somewhat distracting. If we get a majority to agree, (and I think it should extend to all of the FLG articles) then we can have, simply, practically, a larger body of reverters than anyone who tries to edit outside of the consensus. If someone does try to go against consensus, then an admin will block them for 3RR, problem solved. That (if it actually works) may give us some stability while our mediator above sorts through our enormous backlog of discussions. --Fire Star 火星 18:04, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

A more straightforward alternative to the "three-strike rule"

To be honest with you, the proposed three-strike rule seems extremely bureaucratic, although it has good elements to it. I understand that a frustrating situation requires drastic measures, but please let me propose an alternative. Don't reject it just because "an entirely new proposal at this time is somewhat distracting". I'm sure you can be convinced of its assets: it saves time, space, energy, and resources, and it's equally fair to all editors, not only those who are married with Wikipedia.

If we have to wait for five days every time we want to make a contribution, and the counter is reset every time someone disagrees, we'll encounter some major hindrances. The articles will stay in this broken state for a long time, and their evolution will be extremely slow. My proposal gives a certain flexibility to all editors, and if everyone agrees to it, edit warring shouldn't happen. My point is that all the statements must be backed up with outside sources that fully meet with Wikipedia standards, such as newspapers, scientific journals, etc. Basically, the articles should only report what different people have written about Falun Gong. In the long term, I think this is an excellent way of getting out of the current situation. No original research. Editors can impose a POV only if a third party has already stated it.

Let me suggest that we try my approach by immediately unprotecting all the Falun Gong articles. I don't think we have anything to lose. We've been discussing this matter with other practitioners by e-mail, and I think we've reached a consensus about it. No more blanking; if that happens, we'll agree to put on some peer pressure, and I hope you'll do the same. If this approach doesn't work, we'll protect the articles again, and then I'm ready to consider other means. However, if things start disentangling, the process will become a lot easier for critics and proponents alike. In addition, it doesn't consume so much of our time. Jsw663's paradigm would require constant attention from all parties. Following Wikipedia would become a full-time job. I know that some of you are very engaged with it already, but I really can't spend all my days commenting on your proposals. Maybe you'd have time for that, but a lot of people don't. That shouldn't rule us out as contributors.

I restate and amend my proposals here:

I. With the exception of self-evident and uncontested truths like "Falun Gong is suppressed in China", we should always provide a source that complies with Wikipedia standards.

II. The only thing that carries weight is the admissibility of the source, not the presumed veracity of the subject matter (or the lack thereof), because it could and would always be disputed. Even if something is said to originate from "the Chinese government" or "Falun Gong", but it's published by an admissible third party, the material is valid.

III. Any value judgments that are not found directly in the source material can't be interpolated. If the source doesn't speak of a "horrible persecution", we cannot say that. If the words "ridiculous lies" are nowhere to be found, we can't add them ourselves, either. This also applies to quoting Li Hongzhi directly. We can summarize, but the text has to adhere to the source in a strict fashion. If that's not the case, the opponents can add a "" tag. After two hours from placing the tag, the contested wording can be removed legitimately.

IV. If all the editorial requirements are met, there's no legitimate basis for removing an edit without discussion.

V. The only way to counter an admissible edit is to balance it by adding sourced material, not by removing it. Paragraphs with no value judgments on the editors' part should basically stay intact. The opponents can create a new paragraph with their antithesis. Meanwhile, a good tag is "".

VI. When the articles get too long, the editors will have to discuss about removing an equal amount of opponents' and proponents' material.

VII. All currently unsourced and contested statements will be marked with the "" or other appropriate tag. We will not remove anything at the moment. If the statements are not backed up after a certain period of time, they'll be snipped off.

VIII. If the admissibility of the source is contested, the edit is tagged with "" (for the lack of a better tag), and the discussion is taken onto the article's talk page. The editors will present their arguments by drawing upon the Wikipedia guidelines. In difficult cases the issue will be resolved by a neutral moderator who is not involved in the dispute. Before a decision is made, the edit cannot be forced out. If the source is deemed valid, the tag is removed regardless of factual disputes.

IX. All parties must enforce these rules and use peer pressure to keep their flock in control. An editor who violates these principles will be given a warning. After three warnings, actions to be taken have to include one of the following: consulting an administrator or sysop, or going to the ArbCom to have the user temporarily blocked. The length of the block is to be determined by the relevant administrator, sysop or ArbCom. If short blocks don't work, nor the longer blocks, then blocks ranging up to being permanently banned from Wikipedia will be considered. (thanks Jsw663)

X. This proposal will apply only to Wikipedia's Falun Gong entry and its daughter articles, including the article on Li Hongzhi, and not to any other related entry.

XI. These rules can be changed only by mutual agreement between all involved editors.

Please let me know what you think. This could work, don't you agree? ---Olaf Stephanos 21:14, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

I made some additions to make the rules even more clear and concise. We have to find a set of rules that applies to all parties in all situations. These principles, if not overstepped, would give us all the freedom to act. They would also protect the rights of casual editors and those who don't have time for a daily dose of Wikipedia. Talk pages would calm down and revolve around the admissibility of sources instead of factual disputes. Actually, I don't see how this approach wouldn't work with any controversial Wikipedia article, not only Falun Gong. ---Olaf Stephanos 01:08, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree with the general principle set by Olaf. Each editor should state briefly about their opinions and then vote on each article of proposal separately (Yes, no or comment/abstention -- after all, democracy is about each and every person having an equal weight in shaping decisions through voice and vote).

YES I II IV V VII VIII X XI

Abstention III VI IX

Comment Regarding III, strict and two are too vague; regarding VI, what does it mean to be too long?; regarding IX, although I agree that all vandals must be dealt with according to existing wikipedia policies (incl. blocking if necessary), what about legitimate users such as certain die-hard (with no personal harm intended) unenlightened users on both sides, or people using sock puppet after getting banned? Can you, Olaf, please explain it further? Btmachine333667 03:55, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Of course, we can make necessary modifications to certain minor details. Rule number IX was almost directly taken from Jsw663; it is the essential control measure of his "three-strike rule". The "die-hard" users would probably calm down after getting some space of their own. If they keep overstepping these boundaries, they'll be expunged, no matter what. "Strict" adhesion to the sources means that the summary shouldn't claim anything that is not found in the source material. This is a basic principle in all scientific writing. For example, if someone says that "Li has called mixed-race people 'defective'", a person opposing this statement could place a "" tag after the word "defective", because Li hasn't used such a word in his speeches. The best way to report a controversial passage would be: "Li has said in Teaching the Fa in ...:", followed by a direct quote. If another editor thinks that this quote does not suffice to explain what Li might have meant, he can't remove it; he has to add another quote to further contextualize the matter.

I also suggest that the introduction chapters of the articles will be left as "bland" as possible. Otherwise each party will try to flood them with their own material to get their highlights on the top of the page, and because the new rules don't allow the removal of well-sourced edits, the introductions would easily get too long. There isn't a simple way around this. Maybe we could apply Jsw663's approach here: a suggestion for an introduction chapter must always be posted on the discussion page and approved by both parties, keeping in mind this "bland" approach. No brutal pictures, no cute little girls practicing the fifth exercise, no controversial quotes that call for a large amount of background information. If we take a step back, we can easily distinguish what the other party wouldn't want to have in the introduction. I think that the freedom granted by this set of rules can make such co-operation possible as everybody's not fighting tooth and nail about every single edit.

Articles becoming "too long" is decided on the talk page. It shouldn't become an issue very soon. Sometimes blanking has occurred with the excuse of "cleaning up the chapter" or "chapter is too long". Such behaviour should be clearly forbidden. If and when the articles start getting huge, the editors of different parties can "bargain" about what they want to remove. Each party can only remove their own arguments, but the other party has to snip off an equal amount of their respective edits. This can also be achieved by summarizing quotes instead of removing any essential contents. By all means, all editors can suggest abridgements to any given text block. ("We see that you have a very long paragraph here. Could it be possible that you summarize it a little bit? As a sign of reciprocal goodwill, we could do the same with this paragraph of ours.")

Also, I think we should control against flooding: it just shouldn't happen that someone copies & pastes a full page of material from a single source. If there's a lot of things to say, the text should be summarized (in a strict fashion, of course), and the quotes should only be used in moderation to accentuate certain points. Do you think we could reach an agreement about this, maybe set a character limit for quotes? ---Olaf Stephanos 09:56, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

This all sounds good to me. I'm in support. I want to add that sometimes even when content is well-sourced, that's not always enough. It also needs to be relevent and contextual. Perhaps this problem is one that should be resolved through discussion after the edit is made. If a person considers someones edit as such, then they can say so and explain why on the talk page. If no response is given to the comment in a day, then perhaps the content in question can be removed. What do you think about that? Mcconn 16:57, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't think that would work. It's too much for a group of editors who've been brawling for such a long time. It would only lead to edit wars, protection of articles, and failure of this approach. Whether something is irrelevant or not is a question of POV. If the context is not good, we can only add supplementary material or place the thematic entity under a different subtitle. Little by little all the various topics stipulated by different editors will be included. Remember that all the rules we agree upon can be used both in favor of and against any given editor. ---Olaf Stephanos 17:16, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

I am in support of the proposition, but I just want to say why. I hope I made clear that basically my only concern with Jsw's was that the articles would be stuck or very difficult to edit, and that they would start from a basis of somewhat disputed content. I also made the comment that "However, if all edits were clearly explained and followed, maybe even cited when necessary, the relevant wikipedia policies, and everything was laid out clearly, then that would be another approach." This is to express that I think flexibility in editing is quite important, and that if content meets the editing standards it should be able to be simply included. Olaf also phrased in a better way another thing I tried to point out, what he described as the need for "blandness" in the introductions or summaries - I think I said minimal or skeletal. Anyway, if we stuck to these rules the articles would progress and after a while start to look quite okay. I think a great deal of the problems we have been having are the oppositions between the two sides, some degree of stubbornness, and the constant reverting. This prevents constructive editing behavior. If a simple set of guidelines can be followed by both sides then we have ways to get around those problems. So what I think is, if we followed the guidelines proposed by Jsw I think the articles in the end would come out how they should, but that the guidelines proposed by Olaf serve the same function but are more flexible and slightly simpler, plus do not require as much time spent or attention to wikipedia. I think many of us really do want the articles to read like neutral, encyclopedic articles with sourced content and unbiased writing, and as long as that is the case and we are all committed to that, these guidelines accommodate that. Interested in hearing what other editors have to say.--Asdfg12345 17:44, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

I have an adjustment to the "blandness" guideline: even if something is considered important, but has a "spicy" quality to it, it can't be added to the introduction. The introductions will become "demilitarized zones": they have to be so neutral that readers musn't be able to discern any implicit agendas behind the inclusion of individual elements. We'll still have to formulate them together on the talk pages; this is just to make cooperative editing a lot easier. We will have to find the lowest common denominator. In addition, it is the only way to keep the introductions from getting ridiculously long. As a rule of thumb, all controversial images, quotes, descriptions, and even figures have to be placed elsewhere. Because we can never reach an agreement about what exactly is the Most Important Thing about Falun Gong, it's no use to waste our time on that. I believe this is the best solution for all parties, because we won't be able to delete any material that complies with the standards. ---Olaf Stephanos 22:35, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

I am still waiting for your comments. The original proposal has been here for almost two days, but only three editors have expressed their opinion, despite the fact that I left a request on your user talk pages. ---Olaf Stephanos 10:23, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

I am in support of most of the propositions, basically I give a YES to all with the following comment.

Comment: First I would like to mention that we should revise these rules in 2 months after they were applied, because then we can see what works and what does not work.

Second: I would like to add that I strongly support Mccon suggestion about a text needing to be relevant and contextual. I’m not saying that we should delete immediately if something is considered otherwise. I’m proposing adding a tag to it and moving it to the talk page. If in max 3 days there is no response about how is this relevant and contextual, the text content should be deleted. If there are contradictory discussions about it being relevant or not, the text will stay and a neutral mediator will decide (or perhaps by voting, I don’t really mind), although I agree that the we should always encourage working towards a consensus, and ideally the goal should be to always reach consensus. So perhaps this should be rule nr. 12 (XII)?

I don’t agree with the following statement: No brutal pictures, no cute little girls practicing the fifth exercise. This is because there are pages where these are extremely relevant. One strong example would be the image of a tortured practitioner on the Suppression/Persecution page, so having that online then if there are disputes, having a mediator decide about it, I think it would be the best approach. About the cute little girl doing the fifth exercise, it would be nice to put it in the intro and also somewhat relevant, but not as strongly relevant and so I don't mind waiting for a mediator to decide on that. --HappyInGeneral 12:05, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

There are pages where such pictures are relevant, but they shouldn't be placed into the introduction. Otherwise, introductions would become a fertile ground for edit wars. I think we all have to make this compromise. We can, of course, decide upon the relevancy and contextual appropriateness of any given paragraph or picture on the talk page. It can be tagged and contested (could we create a new tag for this, as I was unable to find a good one? Something like "Contextual relevancy is disputed - see talk page"), but the edit shouldn't be removed without discussion. We have to find a couple of neutral mediators who can help us with admissibility disputes whenever necessary. ---Olaf Stephanos 12:37, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

So you are saying that the intro should be changed only and only after full consensus is reached upon it? While the rest of the article should be free for edit, by respecting the 12 rules mentioned above? I think I can agree with that as long as the image with the tortured practitioner is very visible. This is a well sourced fact and a very important one and very relevant to this Suppresion/Persecution page. Nobody should try to hide this. --HappyInGeneral 13:35, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes. By respecting the 15-step principles below. The Amnesty photograph of the tortured practitioner could be placed next to the chapter on different torture methods in China's detention facilities, for example. Anyone would have a hard time contesting that. ---Olaf Stephanos 15:50, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

No, no, no. I do not support any of Olaf's recent proposal that provides rules and regs outside of existing policy. Olaf complained about the earlier proposal being too "bureacratic"? His has grown into what looks like a government grant application, and with proposals like: "even if something is considered important, but has a "spicy" quality to it, it can't be added to the introduction" which seems to indicate (to me) an attempt to make the article another advert for FLG. Who decides what is spicy? FLG advocates? Simpler is better, Li Hongzhi's statements are indeed "spicy" (at least), FLG is demonstrably controversial and Wikipedia has policies in place to fairly report on these things, one of which is mediation when discussions break down. I support the earlier proposal, as a voluntary construct if we are to do anything, or am otherwise content to await mediation. --Fire Star 火星 17:50, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Olaf, your objection to the three-strike rule is that it requires constant attention? Is that actually a PROBLEM for a page that is subject to constant edit wars? What is too 'bureaucratic' about it?

Your proposal is immensely problematic because it doesn't establish just a few general ground rules. It leaves much room for interpretation and that is exactly what rules should NOT be liable to.

Now to consider point by point

• I. Disagree on what constitutes as self-evident truths. This is subject to interpretation, and should be discussed before editing.
• II. WP:Reliable_Sources already covers this ground. An encyclopedic article will also become a 'source war', with each party placing as many sources as they can find to support their case. This will not help in the compromise. What must be communicated in the FG wiki article are the points of contention, not volume of sources.
• III. Apart from the reason I gave for II., you will not find a smooth-reading, encyclopedic article if everything must be directly quoted. Context is required. It's funny you should say that it only takes two hours to legitimately remove a failed citation tag when you complain that my proposal requires constant attention of Wiki users. 5 days or 120 hours is there precisely so that constant attention is NOT required.
• IV. Disagreed because of disagreement with first three rules.
• V. Again, no. Editors like Asdfg have said that every non-pro-FG statement is lopsided. You will end up with another edit war with an article that has more tags than content.
• VI. This just prolongs the editing process. Such a dispute should have been made within content discussion beforehand. Objection should be on points of content, not just length.
• VII. Definitely not. Again, this should be discussed prior to editing the article. It will also cause edit wars as one disputes, in conjunction with your II, what constitutes as a 'valid' or 'reliable' source.
• VIII. This draws supposedly neutral and non-involved moderators into judging on content. This should not be the case. Moderators are not 'third-party-opinion enforcers' as Armedblowfish has previously pointed out. Thus this must be rejected entirely.
• IX. Although largely copied from mine, the responsibility to keep users under control should not be only within their own camp. This should be done anyway. The whole point of allowing people from all 3 camps to challenge is so that people won't have to be 'eternally vigilant' on Wiki - once again one of your supposed complaints against my rule.
• X. Completely disagree. The reason I said rules for now should stick only to FG articles is so that we can focus on editing one article at a time. If these rules are successful after implementation, then we can apply it to FG-related articles. Until then, we should focus on increments to make progress. We don't want to spend years of our lives on this matter, do we?
• XI. What constitutes an 'involved' editor? The reason I said any challenge can be allowed by any editor is in keeping with Wiki rules; limiting it to 'involved' editors would suggest that only a certain group of people are qualified to edit the FG Wiki article. This contravenes the spirit of Wikipedia in the first place.

So, Olaf, please respond on each of the 15 points above. I have posted by objection to each for what I deem are good reasons, but I await your reply / modification. Jsw663 18:27, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

• I. "Self-evident truths" are not a problem. If anything is written into the article without a source, it can be removed; however, things that are agreed upon by both parties (and believe me, such things exist, like "the crackdown on Falun Gong began on 20th July, 1999") are less likely to be deleted. If somebody contests these "truths", we will have to back them up with sources. The one who demands a valid source should always have the upper hand.

• II. and III. There have been major problems with sources. If everybody would have paid attention to them in the first place, we wouldn't have to be so strict on this matter. You are saying that we must address the points of contention; true. My proposal makes this possible, while at the same time putting a stop to original research. Maybe you don't want to admit that it's a problem, because a major part of the original research in the current articles is against Falun Gong. We want to get rid of it by tagging it all and demanding you to back up your claims. Let me quote Wikipedia policies: "Original research (OR) is a term used in Wikipedia to refer to material that has not been published by a reliable source. It includes unpublished facts, arguments, concepts, statements, or theories, or any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that appears to advance a position — or which, in the words of Wikipedia's co-founder Jimmy Wales, would amount to a "novel narrative or historical interpretation." Wikipedia is not the place for original research. Citing sources and avoiding original research are inextricably linked: the only way to demonstrate that you are not presenting original research is to cite reliable sources that provide information directly related to the topic of the article, and to adhere to what those sources say." Does your idea of a "smooth-reading, encyclopedic article" involve one of these things? Do you want to create a "novel narrative" of Falun Gong? In addition, waiting for two hours after tagging was just a suggestion. Please note that I did not consent to removal of any elements that are perfectly consistent with the source. Let me also remind you of the NPOV policy: "All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), representing fairly and without bias all significant views that have been published by a reliable source." What views can be represented in the article is not up to any clique of editors to decide, as long as the material fulfills these criteria. That's as neutral as it gets.

• III. I'm not saying that everything has to be quoted directly. However, all statements must be backed up with sources. Otherwise, we're talking about original research. That is the principal bone of contention of this article, whether you admit it or not.

• IV. I do not see how this principle would disagree with the first three rules. If all the requirements are met, that's it. No original research, all points of view have to be represented, and sources have to be verifiable.

• V. Some anti-FLG editors think that any pro-FLG statement is lopsided. We'll have to admit that. It's better to have an article with a lot of tags than too few of them. If a balanced thesis and an antithesis are put forth, we don't need this tag.

• VI. The content is controlled by Wikipedia policies. We'd rather have a long article that represents "all significant points of view" than a short one suffering from inadequate representation of all sourced POVs. We have to admit that both sides can find material that complies to all Wikipedia requirements but is not agreed upon by all editors. With your approach, it would never get in.

• VII. Definitely yes. If something is not directly backed up by a source, it is original research or a "novel narrative", and thus doesn't belong into Wikipedia. Do we need to ask Jimmy Wales about this? The guidelines are very clear, and I ask you to read them carefully.

• VIII. The neutral moderators will not judge on content; they will only help us evaluate the admissibility of the sources. I'm sure there are a lot of experienced people in Wikipedia who can help with this one. When it comes to what is OK and what is not, Falun Gong is no exception to any other articles.

• IX. I'm ready to adopt the control measure you suggest. You are right, it's better that the responsibility is not limited to one's own party.

• X. The Falun Gong article was originally only one. The daughter articles, with the exception of Li Hongzhi, were created because the article got very long. We shouldn't limit our efforts to one article only.

• XI. You're right, we need to think about this one. It's not fair to limit anything to "involved editors" only. Note that this principle was only about changing the rules.

In addition, I respond to the three points you made about the rewritten 15-step principles:

• VI. I'm ready to give up "without delay". In fact, I'd like to have a relaxed, unhurried atmosphere as well. Let's just say that after the tag has been placed, it's good to discuss it within a reasonable period of time.

• VII. This rule makes it impossible to use the sources as one pleases. We have seen it happen: something important has been omitted from the context, and another editor would've liked to add it, which has lead to edit wars. Anyway, if another party wants to exploit the same source, there shouldn't be a problem. If there's nothing to exploit, I don't see how anybody would append irrelevant text just for the fun of it.

• XI. I wonder why you oppose the introduction principle so much. What is wrong with a description that clearly doesn't try to force the readers' thinking into a certain direction? I couldn't be more clear in my proposal: "[The introductions have] to be neutral to the extent that readers musn't be able to discern any implicit agendas behind the inclusion of individual elements." We can make a test. Let's ask any outsider: "Why do you think this sentence/image is the introduction? Is there an implicit purpose behind its inclusion, or is it completely neutral? Is it there to advance somebody's agenda? Does it try to set a frame of reference for the interpretation of other content?" (We had a lot of exercises like this in high school.) No matter how "spicy" you deem Li Hongzhi's writings, there's plenty of room to exhibit them in the articles. We just want neutrality according to Wikipedia rules, not a puff piece for Falun Gong or its critics. We're trying to strike a compromise. If we evaluate different subjects by the media attention they have received, the Kilgour-Matas report[35] would be one of the first things on the Falun Gong main article. Do you want it into the introduction? What about the Amnesty photograph of disfigured Gao Rongrong?[36] Now that seems really important to me. I'm just suggesting that we demilitarize the introductions, and I see nothing wrong with that. ---Olaf Stephanos 19:57, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Olaf, I'm quite busy now but I promise I will give a full reply to your reply above. Meanwhile, I have addressed your (from what I can discern, two) objections to my proposal. Have you nothing to respond to this? I have already warned about not imposing any time limits at all in the section below (15 v 8 section). It seems that your 15 is infinitely more detailed than the 8 I proposed. This is why I can't understand why my rules cannot be passed first, before editing my rules accordingly to make it more detailed by incorporating yours (after agreement). It's just that if you ask me to consider your proposals in such detail + seriously, which I have, the least you could do would be to consider mine / reconsider your objections! PS I am not Fire Star.. (just a comment on the 'spicy' thing) - it's just that we happen to share the same opinion in this case. Jsw663 20:13, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Most of my points has been made in the section below. However, there are some specific points that ought to be dealt with here -

I - III. 'Self-evident truths' is problematic because it will lead to edit wars again. Admissibility of sources is not the only challenge available.

III. I agree that content has been the principal controversy, but allowing interpretations of sources to push an agenda is more problematic. Your rules leave this vague and merely justify any 'self-evident truths' edit; this is what led to edit wars on this page in the first place.

IV. Your rules allow edit wars. My rules seek to prevent it. Your rules restrict content. If this does not contravene existing Wiki policies or guidelines, why bother making extra ones? My rules restrict editors' behavior. This is not covered in unquestioning detail and is necessary to prevent edit wars on the page.

V. Actually I think the opposite is true - any non-pro-FG statement is viewed as anti-FG and thus a skewed interpretation. This was even the case when some editors quoted directly from Li's lectures. Since these are all backed by valid sources, what's to prevent an edit war? How do you determine when someone is pushing an agenda? Your policies don't seem to add anything to the existing WPs if this were true.

VI. With your approach, there will be constant edit wars. This will mean no progress. With my approach, the only way there will be no progress is if someone constantly challenges within the 5-day limit.

VII. Broad guidelines already exist on governing content, and you say your proposals fit in with Wiki rules but seek to add more restrictions. This means you are effectively reinterpreting Jimbo's policies - are you saying you know better than him!?

VIII. Admissibility of sources is not the mediator's job. They only propose compromises, but should not take any one side exclusively. If they do, they will no longer be neutral / non-involved.

X. On the whole, I agree we shouldn't limit policies to one page only. But getting the proposal passed on this page is hard enough. Besides, different pages have different content disputes, and your content-prohibiting rules may not be applicable to all pages. After all, if they were applicable to all FG pages, why aren't they applicable to all Wiki pages?

XI. I oppose the introduction part because progress is already being made in this direction. Why is there a need to add extra information specific to the intro? Note I am opposing this rule even if it said "no brutal persecution / pictures of cute little girls".

If you respond, again, please do it point by point. Jsw663 14:40, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

I have basically covered all these points in my reply below, and I hope we can keep this discussion in one thread from now on. Please do not try to avoid substantial issues this time. We don't need any of my ad hoc rules if you don't want them. You can rest assured that I will not consent to any arbitrary censorship of peer-reviewed or otherwise high-profile material. The bland introduction principle was meant to counteract edit wars, not to privilege either party. I thought it might have worked fine if everybody would've been ready to back off a little bit. Pro-FLG editors will, of course, benefit from the fact that well-sourced and widely publicized information that exposes the persecution can be placed into the introductions.

Do you know where the real problem lies? Many editors on this page have not acknowledged official Wikipedia policies to begin with. Unencyclopedic agitation has been sanctioned too often, which has lead into a vicious circle. Edit wars, mediation, and arbitration are logical results of corrupt procedures. Illegitimate edits have been forced in, and nobody has penalized the vandals, even though a brief look at the Wikipedia guidelines would've revealed what is acceptable and what is not. No doubt some administrators have quietly looked the other way because of personal opinions. I have come to dissect the root of the problem, and many things have been unambiguously proven to you, even if you don't want to admit them. The rotten state of certain articles substantiates my claims: their original research and weasel words are so blatant that they sear my eyes. ---Olaf Stephanos 00:10, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Although I disagree with you and note that you insist on imposing rules restricting content rather than editors' behavior, I'll reply in the section below. I note you insist on justifying 'self-evident truths', for example, as if my arguments merely bounce off you and has never really sunk in. Consider WHY I make these objections; they are not just made for the sake of it. Jsw663 19:11, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Another problem is, Olaf, that I for one don't believe your protestations of academic innocence. Indeed, since you've brought it up, I feel you sound like you are trying to push an "unambiguously proven" (really?) theory that the "real problem" isn't that Li Hongzhi is an insane religious megalomaniac, but that anyone who disagrees with you about him is guilty of a conspiracy of "forcing" edits, "rotten" articles and "weasel words"; a conspiracy to tarnish FLG's presupposed (by you) spotless reputation. From the other side, a better case can be made, simply from the article history function, that you lot as followers of Li Hongzhi are conspiring to use Wikipedia to advertise his books, at least. --Fire Star 火星 15:33, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Actually Fire Star, how about pointing out exactly what is incorrect in Olaf's proposal in accordance to Wikipedia policies. Right now all you are doing is using some unfounded words to carry out an attack. May I kindly remind you that you pointed out to me that WP:NOT#SOAPBOX. --HappyInGeneral 11:52, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

I think Fire Star is accusing Olaf of POV pushing, violating WP:NPOV. That should be more than obvious, HiG. Jsw663 12:36, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Basically you are saying that his rules proposed rules are POV pushing and yours are not? Are you sure that this is not your POV pushing? Anyway since we are on Wikipedia, how about following it's rules, there are plenty already. Please take a look to my proposal below.--HappyInGeneral 12:45, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't accuse Olaf of POV pushing, actually, I was commenting that his arguments could be turned on their heads to show the self-evidence of those he disagrees with, too, and consequently are not compelling. His arguments, his proposals, and the editing patterns of pro-FLG editors in general are always patterned, consciously or not, to make Li and FLG look good rather than contributing to a neutral, stable Wikipedia article in my opinion. They do not accept anything else. Since Li's teachings and FLG's history are indeed demonstrably controversial, that is where the pro- sensibilities and mine collide. That and the fact that the pro- editors are almost all single subject guys makes me suspicious of pro-editors, as their adherence to FLG seems to trump their desire to have a proper Wikipedia article every time. That is the problem I have with them in a nutshell. Since this is Wikipedia and not an organ of the Epoch Times, they are going to continue to have this problem with secular Wikipedia editors until they can sort it through. Some pro- editors are somewhat more reasonable than others, but any article where you have "True Believers" debating critics is going to have this impasse, hence the need for mediation, at least, because the huge amounts of discussion with them is largely fruitless, which is why I am mostly just waiting on the mediator. To be fair, I am also of the opinion that the anti- editors go too far sometimes, as I've noticed there are valid "critical" sources about the CCP's activities that are sometimes removed when they shouldn't be. --Fire Star 火星 13:02, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

What do you think of having a list with the infringements of the Wikipedia Policy rule. I think this way we can at least know who is breaking which rule. --HappyInGeneral 13:39, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

I've replied to HiG's proposal below, hoping that a more positive voluntarily-retraction method after a warning is better than playing a mudslinging blame game. Jsw663 14:01, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Fire Star, I know all people believe their own bias is more justified than that of others. Some editors even keep others amused by trumpeting their own "objectivity" and "neutrality". However, I'm not commenting on your martial arts trip and your crusade to "police the articles concerning somewhat less orthodox groups". All I'm asking is that we evaluate the content of these pages by the Wikipedia policies and guidelines. There are plenty of obvious violations that can be clearly demonstrated. I am definitely not opposing any POV, on condition that it's backed up, verifiable, not original research, and not infused with weasel words. Either you didn't understand what I said, or you simply don't want to admit certain things. Indeed, you haven't even commented on my essential points. I don't rate highly your ad hominem insinuations, but it could be that you don't know what else you'd say, as my criticisms were well and truly in order. ---Olaf Stephanos 14:38, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Olaf, if you have the time to accuse Fire Star of the above, why are you putting your reply to my concerns to your proposal on hold? Are you trying to avoid criticism in the hope it will be swept under the carpet? Jsw663 14:42, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Because I'm going to write you a long message, and it will take several hours to dig up all the necessary information and instances I want to showcase. Like I told you, I'm extremely busy and in North America until next Tuesday. This is just a random computer I can borrow for short periods of time. ---Olaf Stephanos 14:57, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

I'd also like to apologize to Fire Star for using slightly pejorative language. I will try to pay more attention to civility from now on. ---Olaf Stephanos 18:12, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

The "15-step principles" vs. 8 rules for three-strikes

This is an upgraded suggestion, taking into account the new proposals:

I. With the exception of self-evident and uncontested truths like "Falun Gong is suppressed in China", a source that complies with Wikipedia standard must always be provided.

II. The admissibility of the source outweighs the presumed veracity of the subject matter, because the latter could and would always be disputed. Even if something is said to originate from "the Chinese government" or "Falun Gong", but it's published by an admissible third party, the material is valid.

III. Any value judgments that are not found directly in the source material can't be interpolated. If the source doesn't speak of a "horrible persecution", this expression cannot be edited in. If the words "ridiculous lies" are nowhere to be found, they must not be added, either. This also applies to quoting Li Hongzhi directly. Summarization is allowed and recommended, but the text has to adhere to the source in a strict fashion. If that's not the case, the opponents can add a "" tag. After two hours from placing the tag, the contested wording can be removed legitimately or made equivalent to the source by any editor.

IV. If all the editorial requirements are met, there's no legitimate basis for removing an edit without discussion.

V. If the admissibility of the source is contested, the edit is tagged with "" (for the lack of a better tag), and the discussion is taken onto the article's talk page. The editors will present their arguments by drawing upon the Wikipedia guidelines. In difficult cases the issue will be resolved by neutral moderators who are not involved in the dispute. Before a decision is made, the edit cannot be forced out. If the source is deemed valid, the tag is removed regardless of factual disputes.

VI. If the contextual relevancy of an element is contested, it will be tagged but not removed. Each party has to present their arguments on the talk page without delay. Whenever necessary, neutral mediators will state their opinions. If the element is deemed appropriate, the tag is removed. If not, the element is removed. This rule also applies to material that is considered inappropriate for an encyclopedia.

VII. If a summary or a quote is deemed to omit significant elements of the source, other editors are permitted to append this material directly.

VIII. The principal means to counter an admissible edit is to balance it by adding sourced material, not by removing it. Edits with no value judgments on the editors' part should basically stay intact. The opponents can append text to an existing paragraph or create a new paragraph with their antithesis. Meanwhile, a good tag is "".

IX. When it is decided that the articles are getting too long, the editors will discuss about removing an equal amount of opponents' and proponents' material. The editors of different parties can "bargain" about what they want to remove. Each party can only remove their own arguments. This can also be achieved by summarizing quotes instead of removing any essential contents. All editors can suggest abridgements to any given text block.

X. All currently unsourced and contested statements will be marked with the "" or other appropriate tag. Nothing is removed at the moment. If the statements are not backed up after a certain period of time, they'll be snipped off.

XI. The introduction chapters will be left as "bland" as possible. A suggestion for an introduction must be posted on the article's talk page and approved by all parties. It has to be neutral to the extent that readers musn't be able to discern any implicit agendas behind the inclusion of individual elements. Introductions will be crafted in accordance with the lowest common denominator. All controversial images, quotes, descriptions, and even figures have to be placed elsewhere in the article.

XII. Flooding is not permitted. Excessively long quotes from a single source have to be summarized according to the aforementioned standards.

XIII. All parties must enforce these rules and use peer pressure to keep their flock in control. An editor who violates these principles will be given a warning. After three warnings, actions to be taken have to include one of the following: consulting an administrator or sysop, or going to the ArbCom to have the user temporarily blocked. The length of the block is to be determined by the relevant administrator, sysop or ArbCom. If short blocks don't work, nor the longer blocks, then blocks ranging up to being permanently banned from Wikipedia will be considered.

XIV. This proposal will apply only to Wikipedia's Falun Gong entry and its daughter articles, including the article on Li Hongzhi, and not to any other related entry.

XV. These rules can be changed only by mutual agreement between all involved editors.

VS.

The rules are:

• 1. If you propose an edit to Wikipedia's Falun Gong entry, it MUST be posted in the discussion board of the Falun Gong Wiki entry or one of the special and related talk pages (e.g. the FG introduction discussion page). Exceptions only apply to administrators or sysops when playing their admin / sysop function.
• 2(a) An edit by any editor here is defined as the alteration - addition or deletion - of content of the Falun Gong Wikipedia entry.
  • 2(b) Alterations of format, settings, including font size, etc., will be subject to direct approval by an administrator-level editor or above.
  • 2(c) The inclusion of pictures is subject to Wikipedia copyright rules, the approval of editors AND the direct approval of an administrator.
• 3(a)(i). This proposal has to be on there for a minimum of FIVE FULL DAYS (120 hours) without disagreement from any other editor, except those editors blocked by Wikipedia during that time for violation of this rule IN RELATION to this proposal.
  • 3(a)(ii). To prevent abuse of the term "five full days", aka 120 hours, the time that Wikipedia is down or not accessible (if more than 1 hour at any one time during those 120 hours), then the time that Wikipedia was down will NOT count to those 120 hours.
  • 3(b) If, during those five full days any other editor disagrees with the proposal, the five full day time clock is reset. A reset time clock applies to any edit of the main Falun Gong Wiki entry of the proposal's section(s).
  • 3(c) If, after five full days, there is no disagreement from any user, then the main Falun Gong Wiki page will be edited accordingly. Reversion of such an edit is not permitted unless another proposal is made, which must then adhere to the above rules.
• 4. Any deletion or addition of content of more than 25% by any editor who is not a non-involved (in content) administrator or sysop of any one section will constitute as vandalism, except -
  • a) The addition of more than 25% is to revert a deletion of more than 25% of the same content
  • b) Violation of the above rule shall be deemed in violation of WP:Vandalism and thus incur the same action(s) / penalty(ies).
• 5. If a user edits in violation of this, then they will be given a warning ('first strike'). Similar action will be taken if they do it a second time.
• 6(a) If the user edits the main Falun Gong page without discussion, or with discussion but with less than 120 hours for disagreement, or in violation of any of the above rules, and they do it three times, then BOTH sides will HAVE to agree to take action against this user.
  • 6(b) Actions to be taken have to include one of the following: consulting an administrator or sysop, or going to the ArbCom to have them temporarily blocked. The length of the block is to be determined by the relevant administrator, sysop or ArbCom. If these short blocks don't work, nor the longer blocks, then blocks ranging up to being permanently banned from Wikipedia will be considered.
• 7. This proposal will apply only to Wikipedia's Falun Gong entry, and not to any other related entry.
• 8. Any change of these rules is subject to a proposal in a similar fashion to the above.

Why is this section necessary? Propose any amendments to the above rules in the preceding section. There is no need to make two sections for rules that have received dissenting voices. Jsw663 18:29, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Because your set of rules is not fair towards all parties, like I told you, and they haven't been applied yet. You can't limit the contributions to those users who have plenty of time in their hands. In addition, the articles are not in a good state right now; their evolution would became very slow. Why do you think my principles would not work better? I used so much time for this that I expect to see some good arguments instead of a short rebuttal like that. ---Olaf Stephanos 18:41, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

My response for the added rules here (after the above 11 in the preceding section):

• VI - "Each party has to present their arguments on the talk page without delay" - I thought you were objecting to my rules because it required eternal vigilance of articles. This definitely does; even your 2-hour rule in the 11-rule thing in the previous section is dubious. My 5-day/120 hour rule by far does not.
• VII - too much room for interpretation. Should be discussed beforehand anyway.
• XI - No specific section-rules should be made on written content.

Olaf, I responded in the previous section. Your only objection to my principles were on two points - too bureaucratic + takes too much time, yet your rules has infinitely more bureaucracy + requires eternal vigilance with 'immediate response' requirements. Jsw663 19:10, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Moreover, Olaf, my response to your objections to my rules are simple. You say it takes up too much time yet you require 'each party to present their arguments on the talk page without delay '. This makes a mockery of your objection. From the 11 in the preceding section, you state the figure of 2 hours - that is substantially less than the 120 hour thing I proposed. So what is your objection really on this point!? On the other hand, putting no time limit isn't helpful either. Drawing out the editing process is of no use unless you have no interest in seeing a neutral version of the article on the page.

You then say it discriminates against users. However, your rule about only 'involved' editors being qualified to edit / object does precisely this; which users are being discriminated in mine? I am opening up discussion and editing to ALL editors, including possible vandals. I also notice your rules have nothing to prevent section blanking. Jsw663 19:11, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Replied to you above. What do you mean by "section blanking"? If it's sourced content, not original research, I don't see how anybody could blank it. I still think we should control against flooding. ---Olaf Stephanos 20:05, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

You asked me to comment on your set of rules. I will not do it formally step-by-step, but I will clearly explain why I think they are biased and ineffective.

First of all, who decides what is a legitimate disagreement? You have stated: "If, during those five full days any other editor disagrees with the proposal, the five full day time clock is reset. A reset time clock applies to any edit of the main Falun Gong Wiki entry of the proposal's section(s)." From now on, our party has decided to add content that is perfectly sourced and complies with the Wikipedia standards. There shouldn't be any disagreement about it. Your only chance to get it out is to contest the admissibility of our sources, and this is perfectly in line with the aforementioned Wikipedia policies of no original research, neutral point of view and verifiability. Many editors have distorted the idea of "neutral point of view" completely: what it means is that no significant views from a valid source can be left out. It has nothing to do with "arguments, concepts, statements, or theories, or any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that appears to advance a position" and has not been published by an acceptable source. Let me also remind you that "because the policies are complementary, they should not be interpreted in isolation from one another, and editors should try to familiarize themselves with all three. The principles upon which these policies are based are non-negotiable and cannot be superseded by other policies or guidelines, or by editors' consensus." Read the official policies carefully. A lot of material in the current articles is in gross violation of these principles. As concerned editors, our task is to expunge it. Mind you, we would have a legitimate right to remove these things immediately; because we want to cooperate with you, we'll give you some time to establish your ground on external sources. Therefore, we agree to tag all the dubious arguments with "", "", "" or other convenient sign. On a side note, I find it staggering that some editors have tried to pull this off. A lot of our problems would've been solved a long time ago by carefully scrutinizing the Wikipedia policies. There are a lot of interesting things I found out, but I will get to them later.

I asked you: who's to decide whether an edit should be postponed? A simple disagreement shouldn't do in case the material is well-sourced, right? We're also perfectly aware that the critics of Falun Gong on this page outnumber the pro-FLG editors. What if none of the latter could attend for a few days? I, for one, have my university degree, Falun Gong practice, music, friends, and badminton to attend to. I don't want to get hooked on Wikipedia out of necessity. I might stay away for two weeks or two months, but I will vehemently oppose to any material that goes against the Wikipedia standards. What if somebody could get it in just because none of the opposing party has been vigilant for a few days? What could we do about it afterwards, except watch somebody "reset the five full day time clock"? In addition, what about the heaps and piles of original research that are already there? Do you think they go with a NPOV? You can twist and turn this fact, but the rules are clear and concise. My 15-step principles, with slight amendments to time limits and other minor factors, are in the spirit of Wikipedia, like I have proven you by quoting the guidelines, whereas your proposals have no control over content aside from rule of the mob.

I am ready take this matter into ArbCom if necessary, explaining the general situation, demonstrating how the current articles violate the policies, citing all the relevant guidelines, and convincing them about the assets of my approach. I'm interested to know what Fire Star meant when she said that my approach provides "rules and regs outside of existing policy". In fact, the "three-strike rule" is a true redefinition of the spirit of Wikipedia. It has no control over the most basic foundations upon which an encyclopedia article is supposed to be built. I'm accustomed to the rules of scientific writing, and I don't want to see this article turned into a chaotic playground of ochlocrats. ---Olaf Stephanos 21:52, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

OK before I start discussion Olaf, you need to stay cool. I don't mind a good debate or challenge, but to hurl insults by labeling a proposal different to yours as a 'chaotic playground' or say that FG critics make up a 'majority' is simply not constructive. Just because more than half of the editors are not pro-FG does not automatically make them anti-FG.

First you ask "who decides what is a legitimate disagreement?" This is a question that Asdfg and Tomananda has raised before already. The whole point is that nobody decides what is legitimate or not. As long as there is disagreement, it is not finalized, unless those users are deemed to be vandals for other reasons. This is clearly not majoritarian (ochlocratic) rule but rather something that requires 100% consensus (or at least, no objections, much like how the UN Security Council works). This misunderstanding seems to form the basis of most of your argument by saying it contravenes the spirit of Wiki. I agree majority rule CAN contravene Wiki, even if majority rule actually applies to most Wiki pages; the majority threshold informally being set at 60%. Anybody having viewed many other Wiki pages instead of FG ones will be aware of this, including admins. But nevertheless, in the spirit of generosity, I have expanded it to allow disagreements by anybody. Why did I do this? So prohibitive rules are not seen to be too prohibitive, but rather reinforce Wiki policies.

Secondly, I have read WP:NOR in detail. It says that no original theories or ideas or arguments must be introduced, and that unsourced arguments cannot be made. Have you actually read the content on Samuel's website? Does it violate WP:NOR? Please give an example if you think it does - from what I've read it doesn't contravene WP:NOR outright.

Thirdly, WP:Verifiability. It is true that things should be sourced, but Copilon early made fun of this fact of excessive tagging. This is what I meant by an article not 'reading' smoothly. It is a highly relevant policy, I agree, but when taken to the extreme then it won't be an encyclopedia any more. However, I'm not contesting this point.

Fourthly, I am more than aware of that Wiki policies cannot be judged in isolation of one another. I agree they cannot be superseded by editors' consensus or any guidelines. But what's your point here? They would apply to anything in addition to the three main Wiki policies, whether it be my 8 rules or your 15. Is this an actual objection? Because I never once said that the rules I proposed supersede WPs.

Fifthly you say that the only challenge available is the admissibility of sources. This is simply not true; read WP:NOR and WP:Verifiability in detail.

Sixthly, you challenge the time of 5 days. But you were also the one who proposed even stricter time limits saying challenges could only be made in 2 hours. On the other hand, proposing no time limits at all is not good. This will mean progress simply cannot be made. You then say, well, if someone takes a Wikibreak for over 5 days they won't be able to register their objection. That is precisely why you can make another proposal challenging the status quo. But allowing an infinite amount of time for objection is as unhelpful to progress as very restrictive time limits.

Seventhly, I once again stress that even if FG neutrals and critics do outnumber the pro-FGers, that does not mean that there should be any 'majority' rule like I said before. FGers form a significant minority. But this does not mean that any proposal that does not allow outright vandalism is necessarily unacceptable to FGers because it was not proposed by a FGer. This is the attitude that must be corrected. It is NOT an us versus them situation.

Eighthly, I have said time and time again that your 15 principles impose far too many restrictions, essentially reinterpreting Wikipedia policies and guidelines. They are made with the clear intent of advertising pro-FG material. Such extensive additions cannot be accepted because then there will be no room for disagreement on content issues even if they are made by verifiable sources. It is true that Wikipedia is not a lexicon for 'truth', because there is no such rightness out there. This is why pushing a clearly pro-FG view whilst hiding under WPs is clearly unacceptable.

Ninthly, if you have a rule banning flooding, there must equally be a rule banning mass deletion of content.

Tenthly, you say "your proposals have no control over content aside from rule of the mob." I agree there is no control over content; it only seeks to restrict editors' behavior. Guess why? Because it is the content that is controversial. The rules do NOT allow the rule of the mob, unless you are referring to editors who will seek to destabilize the editing process by disagreeing just before every 120 hours is up. My rules also do NOT allow the rule of the mob because it prevents mass deletions. Does yours?

Eleventhly, the ArbCom. Similar cases to yours have been taken to the ArbCom before already regarding this page / related pages, and guess what the result was? The Arbitrators refused to take up the case. Read the reasons why they refused. If you take this matter back up there, you will only get the same result. This is why I specifically asked one ArbCom member, Blnguyen, to keep watch over this page, including over the proposal(s). However, he has not commented yet so we have been unable to move forward. If you disagree with this approach, then please go ahead - I think you're just wasting your time, that's all. I also note with interest you insist on passing your 15 rules despite objections from some people. If this is not majoritarian / ochlocratic rule, what is it!? My rules specifically allows the editors' consensus approach to allow for different opinions, in the true spirit of Wiki.

You may want to reconsider your wild accusations, Olaf. I await a response to my above points, which is a direct response to yours. Jsw663 14:21, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

1. "As long as there is disagreement, it is not finalized". Basically, inclusion of any controversial material would become impossible, even if it complies with all Wikipedia policies. The three rules of No original research, Verifiability, and NPOV are the principal standards of judgment. If the subject is controversial, it is even more important to follow them narrowly. Accepting a set of rules that regulates all content on the basis of arbitrary "disagreements" or "agreements" is in direct violation of these principles. I've been editing this page for almost two years, and even though I can only speak for myself, I can tell you that I've never removed content that conforms to all the necessary requirements, regardless of its agenda. On the contrary, just the other day I saw "critics" blanking quotes from peer-reviewed journals and a torture photograph published by Amnesty International. What if we tried to introduce this material but somebody "disagreed" just because he or she doesn't want to publicize such information? Wikipedia guidelines make it possible to add content that is controversial but adheres strictly to admissible sources. In fact, they are made to protect editors who want to do this. I already asked you: how does your set of rules make this possible?

2. I have read Samuel's entire website, and there is no doubt about it: it is a prime example of original research. You could tell that only by looking at the title: "The untold story of Falun Gong (Falun Dafa) and its Master". Of course, he is fully entitled to do this in a private domain. WP:NOR states: "Original research includes editors' personal views, political opinions, and any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that appears to advance a position. That is, any facts, opinions, interpretations, definitions, and arguments published by Wikipedia must already have been published by a reliable publication in relation to the topic of the article", and "[An edit counts as original research if] it introduces an argument, without citing a reputable source for that argument, that purports to refute or support another idea, theory, argument, or position". Without even getting to the other definitions of original research, it's patent that Samuel has been trying to expand his website into Wikipedia, creating an "unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that appears to advance a position". Looking back, I can see how our party has been desperately trying to remove these rants, knowing perfectly well that they don't conform to the standards, but lacking sufficient knowledge of the official policies to stand up for our rights. I was browsing through the Suppression page today, and even though it's relatively good at the moment, I was startled by the amount of illegitimate paragraphs and statements, not to speak of words to avoid. Of course, I made some modifications and put on some tags. I can only imagine how much "analysis or synthesis of published material that appears to advance a position" can be found from the Criticisms and Controversies, as I haven't even started with that one. I bet I could find a couple of "facts, assertions, theories, ideas, claims, opinions, and arguments" that have not been published by a reputable publisher. Do you suggest that we'd actually leave this waffle lying around until nobody "disagrees" about its removal?

3. Tags mean that there are disputes, and they are actually a good thing. Are you trying to make the visitors believe that they're reading uncontested truths? Our first task is to clearly point out which statements fail verifiability and NOR. Wikipedia is in the process of development, and the Falun Gong articles are still in their infancy, so of course there will be unfinished material. Maybe the tags serve to activate other Wikipedia editors as well.

4. I have shown you how the eight rules you proposed violate fundamental guidelines. Absolute consensus on article content is never a requisite in Wikipedia. What matters is the quality of the material, not a group's opinion. The current situation has come about because of vandalism and disrespect of common rules. I am not playing that game anymore, nor will I consent to any suggestions that would prolong this lawless corruption. Our aim is to purge the articles of unauthorized content, and I am assured that the Wikipedia community at large supports this undertaking. Did you know that "editors should provide a reliable source for material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, or it may be removed?" [37]

5. I would like to know which guidelines you are referring to. Admissibility of the sources is certainly one of the most important things in Wikipedia. I am aware of the fact that "it is important that editors situate the research; that is, provide contextual information about the point of view, indicating how prevalent the position is, and whether it is held by a majority or minority." [38] However, I also know that this contextualization must be sourced and adhere to the three basic principles. This is actually a good thing, as I can cite good secondary sources to back up my claim that "cultic studies" is not an acknowledged part of the scientific community at large, among other things.

6. I already backtracked on the two hours. Anyway, this tag would be placed only if the edit is not consistent with the provided source to begin with. In fact, it's no big deal whether the edit is adjusted by the editor who made it or someone else. I just thought that it would be nice to give the editor a couple of hours to correct his or her own mistake. You are confusing two entirely different cases here. Your five days is an inherent part of the editorial process. It would always be there, a real nuisance, impelling all concerned editors to log onto Wikipedia at least once every few days. Frankly, I don't understand your analogy.

7. It is not Us vs. Them, it's a group of heterogenous contributors that needs to be clamped down by official policies. We need to penalize those who don't let others do legitimate work. I'm against vandalism, not any particular group of people. I'm sure that each faction has editors who can behave and cooperate well. Let's put a stop to all original research and unverifiable sources. Let's get rid of behaviour that is "explaining why evidence supports one view, but omitting such explanation in support of alternative views; making one opinion look superior by omitting strong and citable points against it, comparing it instead with low quality arguments for other POVs (strawman tactics); not allowing one view to "speak for itself", or refactoring its "world-view" into the words of its detractors; entirely omitting significant citable information in support of a minority view, with the argument that it is claimed to be not credible; ignoring or deleting significant views, research or information from notable sources that would usually be considered credible and verifiable in Wikipedia terms (this could be done on spurious grounds); concealing relevant information about sources or sources' credentials that is needed to fairly judge their value." [39] I'd like to know how your approach tackles these problems.

8. My set of rules is not pro-FLG, and the only thing that differs from normal Wikipedia standards is the demilitarization of introductions. It was only a suggestion, because I feel there are people who're simply trying to force an inceptive frame of reference onto the readers. Otherwise, none of my rules essentially reinterprets Wikipedia policies. On the contrary, they put forth important guidelines that have been completely ignored by this batch of editors for quite some time. I know some of you would rather see an "exposé" than an encyclopedia article on Falun Gong. My set of rules makes that impossible, but it gives equal chances for all parties to exploit admissible sources, regardless of whether they are in favour of or against Falun Gong. Therefore, I don't understand why you call my set of rules a "clearly pro-FG view". We're just reclaiming our Jimmy Wales-given rights that have been hijacked from us. Actually, any approach will do, as long as it serves to give us these rights. It's also fine if we just start enforcing the official policies and put a halt to this trickery.

9. There is already a rule against blanking, see Wikipedia:Vandalism#Types_of_vandalism. There must be some kind of control over flooding as well, it's probably happened before. I will get to know the policies even better and tell you if I find one.

10. So you agree that your rules have no control over content. Nevertheless, such control is at the heart of Wikipedia. The users' behaviour is also controlled by Wikipedia policies. I heard you stating that "I never once said that the rules I proposed supersede WPs". No, you didn't say that, but why do I see a contradiction? I have unambiguously proven that some editors' repetitive violations of Wikipedia policies have never been constrained, and the current articles substantiate this fact with their illegitimate content. Your approach would seriously encumber our corrective measures.

11. In the end, whether we choose to adopt my 15 rules or not isn't the integral part of my demands. I want to start working with all the Falun Gong articles without constantly having to ward off harassment and anarchy. This isn't a conflict between "pro-FLG and NPOV", like Colipon put it; it is a conflict between vandals and responsible contributors to Wikipedia, no matter who they are. ---Olaf Stephanos 17:18, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Olaf, first of all you need to know why I want to pass rules limiting editors' behavior rather than content. I see that it still hasn't sunk in yet. You think that by limiting content, editors' behavior will be automatically limited. But this is either a) clearly not necessary, if it merely reproduces Wiki policies like you claim it does, or b) does not allow discussion of controversial content, which occupies a gray area in Wiki policies. I realize you want to exploit the fact that there are many more English-language sources that are sympathetic to FG rather than to the CCP/CPC point of view. But by your mere dismissal of 'cult studies' we can see that you are intending to force a POV on the Wiki page in itself. Why are cult studies any less valid than FG studies? Both fields have been done by academic experts as well as cult / health experts. Why are they not equally admissible?

Now I ask you why limiting editorial behavior "violates fundamental guidelines". Since you are such a fan of policies, rules and guidelines, quote one. As far as I can tell you have only made two, on the issue of five days (time), and that allowing disagreement on content is not OK because Wiki has been clear on what content is allowed. I have already responded on the first issue, that the time is arbitrary. Not imposing any time limits just means that the editing of the FG Wiki page will never end, and we don't want this. If a version is deemed unfair, a subsequent proposal can be passed to override it, again only after discussion. The whole point of Wiki is that there is no one, authoritative 'version' - it is an encyclopedia that can be edited by anyone. You are seeking to impose a strict version by flooding the Wiki FG page with 'legitimate sources' sympathetic to FG, and that in itself should not be allowed.

Now to the points -

1. This is exactly what I meant by different interpretations. You may see one thing as a clear violation of Wiki Policies such as removing pictures that you deem to be in line with Wiki guidelines, but others deem it to be a violation. What makes your interpretation better than someone else's? Are you going to say that content will be policed by people who thinks they are always right? And what if we always need a mediator or arbitrator to intervene? Such decisions on content are highly dubious, which is why there was so much controversy in the first place!!! So, examples like 'self-evident truths' is highly contestable because different people will regard different 'truths' as 'self-evident'. Moreover, Wiki guidelines have made it clear that there is no one authoritative version of the truth. If this rule is merely WP:Vandalism reproduced, then why bother writing it? Anyway the main point I am contesting is that that rule allows for different interpretations. Different interpretations will lead to edit wars as to 'who is right' about the admissibility of a source, whether it violates WP:NPOV, etc. This is what we do not want to see. Hence, my rules on limiting behavior, not controversial content.

2. I am well aware of WP:NOR no matter how many times you requote it. Also note the exceptions to the NOR rule. Is Samuel introducing any new arguments? His website consists of primary AND secondary sources, not just mere opinion. Can Samuel be deemed non-expert on FG despite his parents being actively involved in FG? Just because he may not have a PhD in FG does not mean he is necessarily not an expert. He may be deemed to have an agenda, but as long as he quotes directly from primary / secondary sources and places it in 'appropriate context' as you say, then what has it violated? This is also another instance of what I mean by controversy. You can clearly see that even Wiki Policies can be interpreted differently, because they are vague when it comes to defining content. I know you say they are specific in defining content, but if so, why bother with an extra 15 rules? I specifically want to limit editors' behavior, so that even after we have agreed on an Introduction, say, the hard work won't be undone by a POV warrior. Regarding your comment about leaving something on the Wiki page until somebody disagrees and proposes a removal, yes that is true. It is a shortcoming of Wikipedia we have to recognize. Remember, there is NO authoritative version for an encyclopedia that can be edited by all. If you want to correct it, do so by a proposal. If you go ahead and edit something on the Wiki page saying it was a 'self-evident truth' then guess what happens? Right, another edit war!!!

3. People reading Wikipedia should be aware that it does not state uncontested truths. This is why people quoting Wikipedia as an academic source, for example, is deeply worrying. But by placing a 'neutrality is disputed for this article' tag at the top, readers should be aware of this already. There will always be some part of the article that isn't perfect. Again, 'self-contested truths' is worrying; allows for multiple interpretations; does not prevent edit wars. That's why my rules seek to curb this behavior. It RECOGNIZES that different people have different interpretations of a controversial subject. Yours does not allow for this, and if it does, only seeks to polarize different camps, each with their 'justification' by a WP.

4. I agree 100% consensus isn't required on Wikipedia; I have already stated so in my reply, assuming you actually understood my critique rather than just dismissed it as wrong before reading it. My system doesn't "violate" any guidelines as you say because it is only widening the scope, allowing for different views on a controversial matter. Your rules does the opposite, it seeks to cause another edit war by polarizing both camps via WP justifications. If WPs were watertight there wouldn't be controversy; the whole point is that you are reinterpreting them to allow a flooding of FG sources and dismissing any anti-FG source as opinionated and thus in violation of WP:NPOV or a little too original, hence WP:NOR. I am sick and tired of edit wars and want to stop it; all you are doing is strengthening your side's case or justification for it.

5. I've addressed this at various points of my reply above.

6. What does imposing no time limit do? If you are really committed to progress on Wiki, you'll want to see it completed asap, not be drawn out in some fruitless argument and/or edit/war indefinitely.

7. Wow, I thought FGers were ones who opposed being 'clamped down' by any policies! Seriously though, no matter how many policies you quote, if you were truly neutral you will see that they can be interpreted both ways, for the pro- and anti-FG camps.

8. If you don't want readers to Wikipedia be 'misled' by the introduction, attach a neutrality is disputed tag to it at the top. Otherwise, your rules do little to add to WPs. I worry that you are opposing any critique of the FG article by dismissing them as opinions rather than legitimate concerns and in some cases, facts. This is another reason why I strongly object to your content-limiting proposals in the first place.

9. There is no rule against flooding on Wikipedia!?!? But like you say, if your rules merely reproduce WPs then there is no need for them.

10. Rules restricting editors' behavior on Wikipedia are extremely broad. Rules restricting content are also broad, but less so. Why do I want to restrict the former and not the latter? Because the content is controversial in itself. As a pro-FGer yourself, you dismiss any of Samuel or Tom's critiques as violating NPOV, NOR etc. But a case could also be argued that FG + Li Hongzhi's view on the CCP / CPC is also NPOV and NOR, and in some cases, outright fabrications. Is this not just a fancy way of saying the same thing Asdfg did before, that they are merely trying to 'correct any misrepresentation of the FG/FD', thus not preventing the other side from using a similar excuse not to have the FG 'misrepresent the CCP/CPC'??? Please read this section twice. This is at the core of my objections that your rules don't address. My rules deliberately allow leeway on content for discussion, but only seeks to restrict outrageous behavior. And if restricting outrageous behavior is 'violating Wiki guidelines', I'd like to see it.

11. As long as your intentions aren't too similar to Asdfg's previous declarations which he now has retracted, I appreciate your effort at putting a NPOV version of the FG page. However, I cannot allow abuse of WPs for any one camp's benefit, because this is what really contravenes the spirit of Wikipedia. Jsw663 19:52, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Olaf: If this is a conflict between responsible editors and vandals, we need to address that behavior, don't we? And right now we have an out-of-control edit warrior named Asdfg who continues to demand the right to do unilateral blanking and editing of anything he considers "falacious." In an environment where this blatant disregard for the consensus proces of Wikipedi done by a self-procaimed POV warrior isn't addressed, I don't see the point of our working on the fine points of any new understandings. IMHO, existing Wikipedia policy supports..in fact demamnds...that Asdfg's inappropriate editing behavior be addressed by an administrator. If it is not, what are the reasonable editors meant to do...seek arbitration? Start writing to Jimbo Wales? --Tomananda 03:28, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Asdfg12345 has obviously made a careless statement. He should read all the guidelines and learn what is considered fallacious in Wikipedia and what is not. Nevertheless, some major problems will be resolved by uprooting the rampant corruption on these pages. I am not surprised that very few editors have commented on my list of demands. ---Olaf Stephanos 11:54, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Tomananda I wish that you would read and respond to what I wrote on the discussion page about that material. I will write some more things now to clear it up further. Other users have also voiced there opposition to that edit. You have not responded to those things. I do not think it is right to say I am unilaterally blanking that material when other editors have expressed their disagreement with its inclusion and when I have also requested several times that you read what I have to say about it and respond, and you have not done so. I also think this page is not the best place to take up the discussion. Please address the issues I raised with the material on the appropriate page, point out any problems you see, and we can go from there.--Asdfg12345 15:28, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Asdfg12345 is right about this particular quote. Tomananda is not allowed to exploit a primary source and make his own interpretation about it: "Dafa refers to...", etc. That is a good example of original research, as defined by Wikipedia policies: "Any interpretation of primary source material requires a secondary source." [40] However, if this statement is published by a reputable secondary source, and the source comments on an alleged interrelationship between the Epoch Times and these words, anybody is entitled to report the existence of such allegations in the article and summarize or quote them directly. Of course, this doesn't mean that primary sources are altogether proscribed in Wikipedia. "Although most articles should rely predominantly on secondary sources, there are rare occasions when they may rely entirely on primary sources (for example, current events or legal cases). An article or section of an article that relies on a primary source should (1) only make descriptive claims, the accuracy of which is easily verifiable by any reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge, and (2) make no analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims. Contributors drawing on entirely primary sources should be careful to comply with both conditions." (ibid.) ---Olaf Stephanos 16:52, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Like I said above, I agree with the rule, but you can see that it can be interpreted with equal force by pro-FGers to anti-FG material AS WELL AS anti-FGers to pro-FG material. Jsw663 19:58, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Olaf, you are distorting the rules on original research for your own purposes. It is not original reseach to report Master Li's own definition of the Dafa...the Dafa is "the Great law of the cosmos"...it is simply reporting what Li says. I have done an entire post on this issue on the Epoch Times page which I ask you to read. What's truly outrageous about your accusation of "original research" is that I have repeatedly invited FG practitioner/editors to suggest their own edits which would convey the idea that, as Li says, "The Dafa is judging all beings." Even Asdfg has admitted that this material is relevant to an understanding of the mission of the Epoch Times (see his comments on that Talk page), yet no meaningful language is suggested.

Also, you failed to report part of the section on "Original Research" which has a direct bearing to your argument:

"Original research that creates primary sources is not allowed. However, research that consists of collecting and organizing information from existing primary and/or secondary sources is, of course, strongly encouraged. All articles on Wikipedia should be based on information collected from published primary and secondary sources. This is not "original research"; it is "source-based research", and it is fundamental to writing an encyclopedia."

So "sourced-based research" is not only allowed, it is encouraged. An excellent example of this is the section we wrote on homosexuality. It is virtually all "sourced-based research" meaning that it is a collection of Li's statments about homosexuality. Although commentators have characterized Li's writings about homosexuality as "homophobic" the Wikipedia article does not itself make that claim. Since you were one of the editors involved in the writing of that section (together with McConn, who actually made some changes), are you now suggesting that it is not permissible under Wikipedia guidelines for "original research"? --Tomananda 20:30, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

I'd love to reply both you and Jsw663 right now. However, I flew to North America yesterday, and I won't be back in France until next Tuesday. I'm extremely busy at the moment. In addition, it seems that I can use the Internet only in short periods. You deserve good replies instead of short summaries. Let's have a brief pause with this debate. ---Olaf Stephanos 00:01, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

I like this quote from Jsw: "This means you are effectively reinterpreting Jimbo's policies - are you saying you know better than him!?" How about taking the Wikipedia:Policies_and_guidelines seriously and applying them. Also administrator should only help enforcing these. We are on Wikipedia right?

I think that the only thing we need is a page where the list of violation of Wikipedia rules is kept track of and explained keeping in mind the assuming of good faith. People might not know all the policies but we should try to educate them. :) --HappyInGeneral 09:30, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

There isn't a place to list violations on every editor, outside of the history function. It would be unmanageable for starters, and would lead to a self-appointed secret police cabal in the end, IMO. We already have things in place to deal with policy issues. As for explaining policy, you really have the responsibility to find it out for yourself. See the Wikipedia:Topical index and dig in. We're editors, not babysitters. If the FLG crowd would go outside of the subject they are seemingly obsessed with, they would see that most of the "anti-" FLG editors do actually edit other articles and cycles of articles.

Jsw663 proposed some temporary self-policing rules, then Olaf popped up after a prolonged absence and sidetracked that productive discussion by proposing his set of rules with occasional weighting towards suppressing valid criticisms of FLG in the articles. Personally, I believe that was due to Li Hongzhi ordering FLG practitioners to obscure his actual teachings to the general public. Since most pro-FLG editors are single subject guys, here under orders from their leader to obscure his teachings, I'm going to be extremely critical of proposals from them about how I should edit. Since I'm on record many times as saying that I don't trust that situation one bit, I don't feel it is fair to use my administrative position here, outside of obvious WP:NPA violations and the like. I'm just another editor who will not allow these articles (or any articles on Wikipedia) to become simple adverts. But, as a long-time admin myself (I flatter myself that I know how things work around here, at least a little) I can say, in my opinion, that those are two very good reasons why this cycle of articles definitely needs an outside mediator. Since there is now an active mediator, who deserves all of our attention if we want to fix this mess (again, IMO), all of the above discussions for voluntary editing rules are moot. --Fire Star 火星 15:17, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Fire Star, you say: "There isn't a place to list violations on every editor" actually what I am proposing is a page like: Talk:Falun_Gong/Collection of Wikipedia Policy violations done on the Falun Gong pages. This would be a list that anybody can maintain, no admin required for maintaining it. Also it is a good place to point out what not to do, according to the WP policies. This way people who brake the WP policies will be informed and in the mean time educated about these policies because then they will have to read it. Also this way we can keep track of those who violate these rules. This is a very simple and WP fair alternative to the 8 point rule version proposed by Jsw, which if you take in consideration the sub points turns into 16 rule, and the 15 rule of Olaf’s, both of which I’m having difficulty keeping track of. --HappyInGeneral 12:24, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

HiG, if you do make a 'list' then it must also apply retroactively. But that is not the main point. All that does is much like what Olaf's 15 'rules' does - create further division, polarizing the pro- and anti-FG camps, causing incivility and edit wars. I don't see why it is a 'fair' alternative to justify a police-state on Wikipedia when Falun Gong has supposedly been campaigning against this treatment by the CPC. It is hypocrisy to the max. PS I thought Olaf's rules were to combat the need to be constantly vigilant on Wikipedia. Your proposal requires that we enforce this to the uppermost limit. Wikipedia is not a dictatorship! Jsw663 13:02, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

1. It doesn't have to be retroactive, but I agree that this would be ideal.

2. I would be imposing a dictatorship if I would ask that everybody do as I say, however I'm not even imposing to enforce the rules just yet, which would be how a country ruled by law would work, usually understood as democracy. I am proposing something even more lenient, like for babies. We make a note of everything that is wrong so we have a central place where we can point out and inform those who did wrong from the Wikipedia Policy point of view what was it exactly that they did wrong. Then as time passes and the baby is getting matured, he or she will no longer say that he did not know that rule this is why he/she was acting out of ignorance. Actually having the list might make it obvious enough for the wrong doer to back off and so administrator’s actions & ArbCom will not even be needed in most of the cases. --HappyInGeneral 13:49, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

My main concern, apart from this being a 'police state' (because we are all watching out for each other's behavior - this is not democratic), is also that it will lead to constant mudslinging by all parties concerned by laying blame on someone else. Why can't we take a more positive role? After all, although Omido engaged in section blanking and was warned non-stop, I dropped the mediation case against him as soon as his behavior stopped. I also warned Asdfg about declaring POV wars in the hope that he will retract it himself; indeed, he has done so. Privately I have aired concerns to Samuel about his editing behavior, but haven't received a response from him yet. This is what I mean by a more positive role. It allows people to voluntarily step back and have nothing against them on permanent record.

Whilst your proposal may appear valid, it fosters a very negative attitude. What achievement is there for making a record of who infringed what rule? Enforcement should be done, but tolerance should also be practised. This is why a warning rather than some permanent record, and allowing the user to voluntarily retract (thus avoid blame) rather than establish blame by the book may be more beneficial in the long run. Jsw663 13:58, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

There is no way to stop the parties from blaming each other, especially if they only have the impression that the other party was doing it wrong, without even measuring it up to the rules. However this way we can put some rationality behind that and we can at least see if is valid or not. Actually my main wish is that all parties get civil and involved knowing better the Wikipedia rules since we are on Wikipedia, and thus we are using at least some of Jimbo Wales money right now, which means that we should do things as he intended it to. --HappyInGeneral 14:35, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, let's get other editors' input on this matter first, okay? Jsw663 14:37, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Fire Star, I have no "leader", and I take no "orders". I'm going to show you concrete examples of original research, weasel words, and tendentious editing. In fact, I already told you that I don't mind whether my 15 rules are adopted or not. These articles contain plenty of inferences, interpretations, and weasel words that are not backed up by sources. I'll get back to you later. ---Olaf Stephanos 22:30, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Olaf, even if you deny you take orders, you can't deny you have a leader! Falun Gong practitioners abide by Falun Gong, whose one and only undisputed leader is Li Hongzhi - surely you acknowledge this! Don't stretch logic too far. Moreover, I am still waiting for a reply to my concerns about your 15 rules, regardless of whether they are adopted or not. But your objection to my 8 rules still rings hollow. Jsw663 12:55, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Olaf and me are reading the same thing. You can also read the same stuff since it's available on the internet for everybody. Nowhere in those scriptures are the words: "I order you to ...", those scriptures are just like a scholar book, the more you read the more you understand about everything. And now tell me this what is wrong in saying "STOP the torture and persecution against Falun Gong!"? Actually nobody deserves that no matter what they did! This is where I really don't understand you jsw and Samuel (who is trying his best to hide this on the persecution page). Also just ask anyone in China if they would dare giving out a flier which says the same thing as the Amnesty International [41]. We are all humans, and I strongly believe that no human should torture another, especially in this way. --HappyInGeneral 14:01, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

I thought I explained my stance very clearly before. The alleged torture and persecution made by the FG against the CPC has not been proven to a sufficient degree to justify a criminal charge, which requires proof beyond reasonable doubt. Unfortunately, at least the majority of allegations' "proof" definitely leaves enough doubt for one to wonder whether these claims are necessarily true. This is not muddying the waters or whatever; it is merely requesting that such allegations meet the burden of proof imposed on the accuser by law. As FG is a highly controversial issue, passing off these as facts when it has not been proven as facts make me wonder if there isn't a hidden agenda. The FG insists they are facts; the CPC insists that no such thing is happening. I'm just taking the "I wonder if it did happen?" middle-road stance WITHOUT deciding one way or another. Jsw663 14:35, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

This is a bit coincidental. May I draw all your attention to this page: Persecution of Falun Gong. Please also read the comments here. I hope you're all reading this. From right now I might just stop editing the pages and start collecting evidence of the rampant and flagrant violations that have persisted over these pages for who knows how long now. This latest by Samuel is a really good example. Unfortunately, it is also somewhat typical. Fire Star: this would be a great opportunity to step in as an admin and respond to this. Otherwise, I don't really mind waiting until all this is thoroughly investigated and the problem is resolved from the root. I hope you all understand what I mean. There are processes for all these things, we have nearly exhausted them. When it's all laid out for ArbCom to see I know how it will end up.

I won't touch that page again until this is sorted out, whether that is voluntarily or involuntarily. Since all the other pages are locked, I might take a break for a week or so, too, while we figure out the best way to proceed. --Asdfg12345 01:39, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

I forgot we had a mediator: what do you have to say about this, Armed?--Asdfg12345 01:43, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Asdfg, just a few thoughts.

• 1. That page is titled suppression of Falun Gong at present. Armedblowfish has proposed the CPC v FLG conflict as a title (or something like that). To insist it is still persecution despite a mediator's proposal consensus by all three camps (including, surprisingly, yourself) is POV-pushing. Do you see me go about insisting Falun Gong is a cult? At least restrain your POVs on Wikipedia.

• 2. Asdfg, the vast majority of us have probably tested some Wikipedia rule or guideline at some point during our discussions, but none of us have decalred POV wars before. If you want to accuse people of 'rampant and flagrant violations' then you have to match it with a more moderate tone in the previous sentences. Otherwise, you are not on any 'higher' moral ground yourself.

• 3. Asdfg, your content/POV pushing on the Suppression of Falun Gong page is also a little worrying. Labelling FG criticism as 'analysis' for the Tiananmen self-immolation incident, for example, is clearly NOT NPOV. Insisting that all sources critical of anything the CPC says is merely 'third-party', or the liberal use of the word 'some' to enforce your view, is also distinctly unencyclopedic. Remember, the WP is important to follow, but not to twist it out of context or logic. To insist pure criticism as 'analysis' (as if it were unbiased) as adhering to 'NPOV' is clearly NOT true, and qualifies as POV-pushing. I've taken these minor steps to correct it. I've deliberately restrained from editing any pro-FG substance (content) though. I hope you can learn from this in the future when contributing the pro-FG view to FG-related pages.

• 4. Picture flooding on FG-related pages recently is a little worrying as well. Sure, entries can be more attractive when illustrated, but Wiki is not a picture book. Moreover, almost all the pictures have been distinctly pro-FG. By all means choose a select few pictures that represent your cause, Asdfg, but do not flood pages with pictures, because Wiki is not a propaganda place for your cause exclusively.

• 5. Admins should apply each rule equally to all, but also practice tolerance if it is a viable alternative. Fire Star has been more than tolerant with pro-FG vandals such as section blanking, so to suddenly take a strict line on anti-FG on a disputed view would be bias in action. You aren't campaigning for unequal treatment, are you? Because if you are, there is plenty of evidence already to take your behavior to the ArbCom level. Practice a little more tolerance; it may win your cause more support.

• 6. My 8 rules were designed specifically to curb editorial behavior instead of content yet Olaf has insisted on opposing it. Well, your camp's loss in situations such as these, I guess, Asdfg. Jsw663 12:55, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Could you please point out the Wikipedia Policies for each point? Thank you. --HappyInGeneral 14:43, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

The delay by the more radical FG editors by seeking explanation on everything is quite ridiculous, but I have made it quite clear that my proposals seek further restrictions on editors' behavior, and are entirely voluntary until it is 'passed'. That is why I've allowed for objections. Olaf is the one who is saying his 15 rules only reproduce Wiki policies. If that's the case, then why the need for it? Jsw663 14:49, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Although Asdf already answered, I would still would like to point out to you that we are on Wikipedia and I want to know the policies and guidelines, I want to know my rights. If you decide to be critical you should back up your blame with the Wikipeda policies and guidelines. --HappyInGeneral 09:45, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

If you want to know your 'rights', read the Wikipedia policies yourself. The people who were being critical of my policies indeed should back it up with Wiki policies. How was I being critical, or how were my policies critical? You never answered the question. Are you opposing for the sake of opposing? Moreover I've already said that my proposed rules are in addition to WPs and are voluntary as they govern only editors' behavior, including yours, unless you have a WP objection. Well, I await your 'criticism'. Jsw663 12:30, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Firstly, I have not yet engaged in one of these discussions with numbered points and numbered answers, so I feel it is quite an honour. Let me respond now. I do not know if I am changing or you are changing, Jsw, but I feel quite distinctly that you are saying more reasonable things in a kinder way these days. I hope to make a disclaimer that I just want to let you know what I think, you are free to respond in kind, but I hope you will not take issue if at some point I choose not to respond. I will accord you the same comfort. I have seen these things spiral out of control before:

• 1. I am sorry and I agree. I will no longer refer to the conflict between the CCP and Falun Gong as a persecution on these discussion pages. That is what I personally believe that it is, however you are requesting that I adhere to the now consensual term, and I am happy to do so.
• 2. I am only recently realising what has been happening on these pages. There is plenty of evidence for this, and what I am saying is not at all unfounded. I am guilty too, I do not believe as egregiously, but I am making a very conscious and concerted effort to keep my edits above board. It is hard to do that flawlessly, all the time, and you have gently pointed out some problems -- I do welcome that. I should tone down my comments anyway, but I won't excuse these disuptive editing behaviours if they continue.
• 3. I agree with the change from "analysis" to "criticism", and I was not conscious of that bias myself. This is one instance where it is good that there are editors from opposing viewpoints who agree to work together; this is healthy. If they are third-party they should be called third-party. If they are presenting criticisms people will be able to work that out for themselves, or can we use “third-party critics”? I can openly declare that I have no intention of weaselling things in, like that “analysis” change, I agree with you and apologise for my oversight, so we can work these things out on a case by case basis and haggle over the best way to do things. This is not a fundamental problem. I have learnt from this, and in the future when contributing I will do my best to keep it in mind and try to police myself.
• 4. The page is for documenting the conflict between Falun Gong and the CCP, reporting what verifiable sources have written about it, and presenting that material in a neutral way. All pictures added were strictly documenting said conflict – there is a difference in that and going overboard with it, and I have no intention of loading up 10 pictures of dead practitioners and jamming them all over the place. (I may need to be corrected when I say things like “dead practitioners” – alert me to any euphemisms you would prefer.) The FAs have relevant pictures to illustrate their content, and your concerns are noted.
• 5. Thank you for this comment. I do need to practice more tolerance. I hope we can all be broadminded in dealing with our peers’ shortcomings, that we can forgive them, and that each one makes an effort to look within themselves in this process, improve their own editing, become more aware of their own bias, become more familiar with the policies and guidelines of wikipedia, and consciously try to behave better. Of course, there are ways of dealing with editors who have no interest in those things. Let’s see what the future holds.
• 6. Actually, I think with reference to the above point, that if each of us policed ourselves, accepted relevant criticism, and made an effort to abide strictly by wikipedia policies and guidelines, as well as accepting corrections when deviating from them, we would have no problems. In cases like these it is fine, too. If Samuel keeps doing it he’ll simply be blocked.

--Asdfg12345 17:41, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, the more you familiarize yourself with Wiki guidelines, the less I will have to lambast you for not adhering to them! Although I personally find your content still POV, in the sense that only one side's case is being promoted, at least there are fewer dubious claims involved. In other words, my 'noxiousness' is only a reflection of your own behavior - the more radical you get, the more 'noxious' I appear, and vice versa.

1. Well to really clear the air here, it would be better if you could strike out the 'persecution' term and replace it with the mediator-proposal term that has been agreed on.

4. I'm glad you don't intend to picture-flood entries. I also welcome your comment on another page of leaving some pictures after the introduction of that entry.

6. Hey, if we were all reasonable, I wouldn't have had to resort to proposing the 8 rules in the first place! It was just that I was fed up with all our discussions being rendered worthless by editors who section-blanked without any discussion, like Omido. But this will never be tested until these pages are unlocked again. Jsw663 12:30, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Mini-mediation on suppression / persecution / genocide / outlawing / other

Hello. Since my view on the matter was requested some time ago, I have made a suggestion that I hope all will find equitable, although I am not sure how likely that is to actually be the case. I encourage you to share your views on the matter, especially considering my suggestion is rather bold.

You are encouraged to discuss the matter at Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/Falun Gong/Suppression, persecution, genocide or other.

Thanks!

— Armedblowfish (talk|mail) 02:29, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Mediation on hold pending Arbitration

Based on this Arbitration this Arbitration, I am officially putting the mediation on hold. Sorry for failing you all, ArmedBlowfish (talk|mail) 01:42, 26 February 2007 (UTC) Cross-posting elsewhere

I think it would be difficult for a mediator to remain a mediator if he were to take any side, despite how reasonable. This is an issue of Samuel's longterm editing behaviour and is no reflection of your mediating. You have no control over what he does. In fact, I think you have been doing a good job mediating and have been balancing this difficult situation extremely well. At least speaking for myself, I would like to see you remain as mediator on these articles -- we certainly need your help. There is certainly no failing.--Asdfg12345 02:12, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Asdfg12345. We're not questioning your skills as a mediator; indeed, your kind assistance is highly esteemed. Unfortunately, Samuel has been out of control for a long time, and you can't do much about it.

On a side note, now that we've handled the arbitration request and the necessary "paperwork", I will reply Jsw663 as soon as possible. ---Olaf Stephanos 10:30, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Hi all. This arbitration attempt is most unfortunate. Armedblowfish - you have not failed us. I wish more steps to dispute resolution would be tolerated. The time this will take for an article as complex as this one would be long. Yet, despite justified grounds for the anti-FG camp to launch cases against various pro-FG users, they have restrained themselves. Remember, I am just advocating that we should be more patient and tolerant to work things out. I am NOT suggesting either way as to whether a case should be taken to the ArbCom against Samuel later. However, Tomananda did make a good point in his statement - that pro-FG users only cleaned up their behavior in the recent few weeks to launch a 'justified' case against Samuel. This is the sort of destructive behavior that should be avoided, and is essentially trying to pass Olaf's 15 rules without consensus or sufficient debate among users not in the pro-FG camp. A real shame, truly. Jsw663 15:20, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

I wouldn't say Luo is "out of control", he has been blocked 5 times, the last time for a week. That is pretty effective control, and such control is ongoing as usually, if he is blocked again, the next block he gets will be for a month or longer and eventually indefinite. Personally, I agree with Jsw663 in suspecting that the arbitration request is an attempt to derail ArmedBlowfish's promising mediation and get an extraordinary article-specific pro-FLG set of rules in place, as Jsw663's proposal was derailed by a similar suggestion, and I will mention my opinions on the Arbcom request. --Fire Star 火星 17:35, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Fire Star, I have not tried to get any "article-specific pro-FLG set of rules" in place. You're obviously not content with my 15 principles, and that's just fine - we don't need to adopt them. However, we won't compromise existing policies. It seems my words have fallen to deaf ears; this is probably the fourth or fifth time I have to say this. Meanwhile, you fail to see the inherent bias in Jsw663's proposition, as if something perfectly neutral and constructive had been "derailed". Tell me, if the same editors who've frequently introduced illegitimate content would be allowed to prevent its removal, how could it ever work?

You know, I started editing Suppression of Falun Gong in good faith after a long period of absence. Samuel flauntily removed material from Critical Asian Studies, American Asian Review, American Academy of Psychiatry and Law, and various other excellent secondary sources. Do you know how he characterized a scholar writing for one of these journals? Julia Ching "is unaware of the Falun Gong's attacks against critics in China before the ban and the cultish nature of this group". This is what he actually wrote in the article. In addition, Samuel alleged that we can't be sure of the identity of a tortured woman, even though the information came from Amnesty International, and thus he removed the material. You said that Samuel has been banned five times already. How come he hasn't changed in spite of such sanctions? I'm tired of this vandalism, and I know that mediation does not work with these kinds of people. Don't deny it, Fire Star: if you weren't more or less against Falun Gong yourself, you would've never tolerated Samuel's behaviour to this extent. ---Olaf Stephanos 19:28, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Olaf, once again your bias towards pro-Falun Gong and a deluded sense of NPOV (essentially MPOV) has led you to be unable to accept any non-pro-FG-friendly opinion. I specifically stated above that I am not ruling either way as to whether future action should be taken against Samuel. But what you're proposing here is not only to have content-specific rules for FG by having all of your (or at least your most significant) opposition banned, but also an unequal application of Wiki policies. To want to have Samuel banned but not want any section blankers in the pro-FG camp banned (e.g. you condemned me for launching a mediation case against Omido even though his actions had NO discussion whatsoever AND he engaged in mass section blanking) shows that your own bias is affecting your judgment. Think twice before you hurl accusations at others or lump me with the anti-FG camp. There is a reason I wasn't involved with the FG or anti-FG before the case a long time ago, and once the FG-related Wiki articles are fixed, I never want to involve myself with either camp again. Jsw663 14:47, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

What? When have I accused you of launching a mediation case against Omido? What on earth are you talking about?! I've always thought that Omido's behaviour was extremely counterproductive, and I've never supported his actions. You must immediately remove such claims from the ArbCom request. I couldn't have forgotten something like that, so you're obviously confusing me with somebody else. However, Omido hasn't been editing for quite some time. I don't make the mistake of talking about "pro-FLG camp" or "anti-FLG camp" and their mistakes. There is no collective guilt. I'm against individual editors who repeatedly violate the policies. Samuel has been banned five times already, and he hasn't changed his behaviour. He is, by far, the most banned editor on these pages.

Let me state this one more time: I am only against material that does not conform to Wikipedia policies, regardless of its agenda. I can prove you that there are heaps of illegitimate content in the current versions. Anything that complies with the standards can stay, and anything that doesn't must go. That's what Wikipedia is all about. I know how to edit, and I've never been banned. I am not representing any cliques or groups. Tell me, why should I tolerate continuous vandalism, harassment, and distractions to my work? This is why I filed the ArbCom request. ---Olaf Stephanos 16:33, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Okay Olaf, I mistook you for Andres18, and I apologize. I shall edit the ArbCom statement accordingly. I also agree that disruptive behavior should be clamped down on, as I have said many times before. But jumping straight to an ArbCom decision based on previous bans, without going sufficient mediation, is not the way forward. I also disapprove of wholesale reversion without discussion, but Samuel has treaded an in-between line - editing with discussion, to which there hasn't been sufficient pro-FG response / debate. Jsw663 16:56, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't oppose to mediation as such. I'm just saying that there's an editor among us who seems completely incapable of respecting the Wikipedia policies. I told you, mediation does not work with such people. Why hasn't Samuel changed despite the bans? Is it really that hard to get the point? Does he consider Wikipedia as some kind of a game? If you think he hasn't deserved sanctions from the ArbCom, why don't you let the case unfold? The ArbCom is surely capable of evaluating the evidence, and you can provide them with diffs from other editors to prove your point. They'll easily see whether the blanked material is WP:Verifiable and WP:NOR, and whether each and every sentence is backed up by the cited sources. And they'll be able to tell whether the edits on the Li Hongzhi page conform to WP:LIVING. It's not very difficult, after all.

You know, the root of our problem isn't really a content dispute. Mediation should happen after evaluating what kind of material violates the rules and what does not. After going through Samuel's track record, I can tell you that some of the most serious edit wars have resulted from introducing material that has nothing to do with the Wikipedia standards. If everybody would've observed the policies to begin with, there would be much less ambiguity about what is acceptable and what is not.

You asked me what makes me think that we should be more strict with Samuel than with users like Omido. Well, we haven't heard from Omido for a few months, right? Samuel has been here continuously for over a year, and his edit history is at least tenfold compared to Omido. I don't think you could even start an ArbCom case against somebody who hasn't been active since December. In addition, Samuel has been in an extremely active role, both a) introducing illegitimate material, and b) blanking legitimate material. I can prove all of this. Unless I get a written statement from Samuel in which he promises to immediately stop such behaviour for good, I won't drop the case. In any event, I insist that everyone of us reads the Wikipedia policies and guidelines carefully, and that we use them to gauge the current versions. If insoluble problems persist, we may reconsider mediation. Excuse me for being coarse, but I don't see why these articles would need official dispute resolution when some editors haven't even RTFM. ---Olaf Stephanos 17:59, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Although debates can get passionate, please don't forget WP:Civility. I am fairly sure Samuel is familiar with Wikipedia policies but has grown tired, in his opinion, of seeing pro-FG POV being excessively pushed on Wikipedia. This is precisely the kind of situation when we all need to take a time out and cool our heads a bit. I realize I am advocating a very high level of tolerance, but that's because in my experience on Wikipedia, getting each other banned has not resolved any core dispute. Things resurface; people get indefinitely banned; people re-register, etc. etc. This is a vicious cycle that should be avoided at all costs. This is also why I say your inflammatory attitude does not help matters in an already highly controversial topic. If you come across as someone who is reasonable rather than as someone who is desperately pushing his own agenda, trying to see his 15 principles be put into practice at any cost, you may find me with no more objections. But until then, since you are so familiar with WPs, respect the WP:Civility one at least. Jsw663 21:37, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

I'll agree that the anti- bunch have gone too far the other way, as I think there is valid material for at least reporting claims of CCP abuses, torture, organ harvesting, etc., that the anti- group removes. On average though, the pro-FLG side has been swarming the page for a year now with an uncritical view of an organisation that even a cursory read through of pertinent available info shows a marked new religious bent. So what we have is a religious edit war. I'll welcome the arbitration if it only draws more attention from WP editors who haven't otherwise looked in. I'll be adding my opinion at the Arb request page tomorrow, hopefully. --Fire Star 火星 02:22, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Rebuttal by Samuel Luo

Fire Star’s statement about the edits of anti-FLG editors is disputed; see my rebuttal here and here and Fire Star’s response here. --Samuel Luo 07:12, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

It is not up to Wikipedia editors to decide what Falun Gong veritably and objectively is about, be it "a new religious movement", "metaphysical cultivation practice", "a political plot to overthrow the red liberator of the Chinese people", or something else. We can only report what acceptable and verifiable sources have stated without any modifications, weasel words or insinuations, and that's it. In addition, no significant point of view can be left out. Wikipedia is a tertiary source. Strictly following these policies is even more important with controversial articles. The root of the problem lies here, not in any insoluble "religious edit wars". You, in the role of an administrator, should have constantly reminded all parties of these principles, which you have not done. I'd like to hear your explanation. Were you not aware of the implications of the policies, or did you have personal reasons for compromising them? ---Olaf Stephanos 10:02, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Olaf, Fire Star has already said she won't administer her 'normal' administrator duties on the FG-related pages. If you are making a personal attack on an administrator, I suggest you either do one of two things - report it officially, or retract your accusation. None of us have been able to strictly adhere to every single WP at all times, but what you are accusing Fire of is wilful negligence. That is serious. Please reconsider your statement; you can always 'strike it out' like Asdfg has done with his previous statement re the POV war issue if you retract it. Your inflammatory attitude does you no credit - remember, if you are so keen in 'strict enforcement' of WPs, WP:Civility also applies - and you are clearly stepping over the bounds with that last statement. Jsw663 17:23, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

seems more like a question than a statement...?--Asdfg12345 18:49, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Fire Star has not responded to any of my inquiries, nor commented on my long, justified criticism of illegitimate edits. I know she doesn't exercise her administrator duties on these pages because of COI, and that's why I'm not accusing her of wilful negligence as an administrator. Besides, even though she's biased like all of us, I think she's quite reasonable after all. My point is that she should be clearly aware of all relevant policies; I could pose the same questions to anyone who claims to have read the rules thoroughly. It couldn't be more obvious that the necessary regulations have not been followed. My basic thesis is that most edit wars on these pages have merely reflected this anarchy. I have my own beliefs about the reasons behind this dereliction, but I don't need to elaborate on them. I'm satisfied as long as we pass the broom around a bit. Finally, let me quote you: "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!" [42] ---Olaf Stephanos 19:12, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

(Looking over a sea of colons to my left, I feel like a gastroenterologist) I haven't responded directly to Olaf recently because I didn't feel it would be helpful. I don't want to further muddy the waters with reams of discussion, first because of the mediation, and now because of our pending arbitration. As a side note to Rickyrab, I may not indeed be a "she" FYI. I just think it is funny that English doesn't have gender neutral third person personal pronouns... --Fire Star 火星 16:47, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

From Gender neutral pronoun: Historically, there were two gender neutral pronouns native to English dialects, 'ou' and 'a', but they have long since died out. According to Dennis Baron's Grammar and Gender:

In 1789, William H. Marshall records the existence of a dialectal English epicene pronoun, singular "ou": "'Ou will' expresses either he will, she will, or it will." Marshall traces "ou" to Middle English epicene "a", used by the 14th century English writer John of Trevisa, and both the OED and Wright's English Dialect Dictionary confirm the use of "a" for he, she, it, they, and even I. This "a" is a reduced form of the Anglo-Saxon he = "he" and heo = "she". By the 12th and 13th centuries, these had often weakened to a point where, according to the OED, they were "almost or wholly indistinguishable in pronunciation." The modern feminine pronoun she, which first appears in the mid twelfth century, seems to have been drafted at least partly to reduce the increasing ambiguity of the pronoun system....

Baron goes on to describe how relics of these sex-neutral terms survive in some British dialects of Modern English, and sometimes a pronoun of one gender might be applied to a person or animal of the opposite gender. So I guess you're an "ou", then. :) — Rickyrab | Talk 04:28, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Based on the advice of the Mediation Committee, I put the mediation on hold because trying to build consensus could be difficult during Arbitration. This does not mean mediation cannot be resumed later, depending on how the Arbitration goes, further advice from the Mediation Committee, and whether or not you all still agree. I would also like to remind you all that the contents of the mediation should not be used as evidence in the Arbitration, per Mediation Committee rules. Thank you, ArmedBlowfish (talk|mail) 23:58, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

I have only one comment. WP:NOT a battleground. You guys have mistakenly used it as a battleground. That is not a job for an encyclopedia: it is a job for blogs and forums. If you hadn't used it as a battleground, then there wouldn't have been an Arbitration. Go ahead and pour yourself some WP:TEA (preferably of the green variety since St. Patrick's Day is coming up and since many of you are Irish Chinese anyhow. :) — Rickyrab | Talk 12:47, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

In about three or four weeks my capacity to access the internet will be significantly limited for about 2 or 3 months. Just want to say this early, now with the arbitration beginning. From late March to mid June is the rough time, but I will be able to check from time to time, I should think.--Asdfg12345 05:29, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Important that you mention that in the ArbCom case too, Asdfg. CovenantD 10:59, 5 March 2007 (UTC)