Talk:Falun Gong/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Some quotes by several "famous" people regarding Falun Gong:

1) Letter from U.S. President George W. Bush to Representative Benjamin A. Gilman:

"The White House Washington

March 13, 2002

The Honorable Benjamin A. Gilman House of Representatives Washington, DC 20515-3220

Dear Representative Gilman:

Thank you for your letter concerning the persecution of the Falun Gong in China.

During my visit to Beijing, I reiterated to China’s leaders that my Administration and the American people remain firmly committed to the defense of human rights around the world, including the freedoms of religion and conscience. The protection of the fundamental freedoms was the central theme of my nationally televised address to the Chinese people.

While in China, senior members of my Administration also expressed concerns about several specific cases of unjustified imprisonment with Chinese authorities, urging that the prisoners be freed immediately. We will continue to press the Chinese authorities to end the crackdown of adherents of non–traditional spiritual movements. We have repeatedly stressed to the Chinese government that there is no justification for its brutal repression of Falun Gong members.

My Administration will continue to work with the Congress to do everything possible to advance the cause of human rights in China.


George W. Bush"


"HCON 188 EH 107th CONGRESS 2d Session

H. CON. RES. 188


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

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

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

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

Whereas propaganda from state-controlled media in the People's Republic of China has inundated the public in an attempt to breed hatred and discrimination;

Whereas the number of known deaths from torture has reached 422 so far, tens of thousands have been tortured while confined in labor camps, prisons, and mental hospitals, and hundreds of thousands have been forced to attend brainwashing classes;

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

Whereas women in particular have been the target of numerous forms of sexual violence, including rape, sexual assault, and forced abortion;

Whereas the campaign of persecution has been generated by the Government of the People's Republic of China, is carried out by government officials and police at all levels, and has permeated every segment of society and every level of government in the People's Republic of China; and

Whereas several United States citizens and permanent resident aliens have been subjected to arbitrary detention, imprisoned, and tortured in the People's Republic of China: Now, therefore, be it

Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring), That it is the sense of Congress that--

(1) the Government of the People's Republic of China should cease its persecution of Falun Gong practitioners, and its representatives in the United States should cease their harassment of citizens and residents of the United States who practice Falun Gong and cease their attempts to put pressure on officials of State and local governments in the United States to refuse or withdraw support for the Falun Gong and its practitioners;

(2) the United States Government should use every appropriate public and private forum to urge the Government of the People's Republic of China--

(A) to release from detention all Falun Gong practitioners and put an end to the practices of torture and other cruel, inhumane, and degrading treatment against them and other prisoners of conscience; and

(B) to abide by the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights by allowing Falun Gong practitioners to pursue their personal beliefs; and

(3) the United States Government should investigate allegations of illegal activities in the United States of the Government of the People's Republic of China and its representatives and agents, including allegations of unlawful harassment of United States citizens and residents who practice Falun Gong and of officials of State and local governments in the United States who support Falun Gong, and should take appropriate action, including but not limited to enforcement of the immigration laws, against any such representatives or agents who engage in such illegal activities.

Passed the House of Representatives July 24, 2002."


3. Quote from T. Kumar, Amnesty International USA's Advocacy Director for Asia and the Pacific: "This movement is not a political movement. This is average citizens of China who are exercising their fundamental rights. They've never done any harm to other people...It's time the Chinese government opened up, take this as an issue that is fundemental to their country at large, and move forward with dignity. In that sense, as a human rights organization, we are demanding and urging the Chinese government to release all the prisoners who are imprisoned for the practice of Falun Gong"

4. Statement by mister Li Hongzhi:

"We are not against the government now, nor will we be in the future. Other people may treat us badly, but we can not treat others badly, nor do we treat people as enemies." Li Hongzhi July 22, 1999 (the day the persecution started)

Falun Gong has been the most beneficial thing to a people stripped of thier moral direction and forced time after time to succomb to violent revolution. Falun Gong stresses non violence and cultivating oneself. In contrast the persecuter, Jiang Zemin's policy is all about ensuring the continued exploitation of the Chinese lower class for the benefit of the few political elite. He is truly, by any and all sane definition(s) of the word- an evil man. ANYTHING said by his party or the government under his control should be first considered a lie and the ultier motives for saying it be examined.--

NPOV --Jiang

There are also very many people and groups outside of the Chinese govt. who have questions about the public statements and apparent policies of Li Hongzhi. There are links to official Fa Lun Gong sites on the page and they have an opportunity to tell their side of the story, but that can be done without sweeping their critics under the rug. Fire Star 15:00, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC)

This page does a decent, if vague, job of exposing the persecution of Falun Gong practictioners. A little more research, balance, and meat would be in order.

I fully agree. Someone needs to present the Chinese point of view. 172

Too many rumours/unprovable comments

1. Just for the record, the reference to the 2 billion year old nuclear reactor is proven scientifically, known as The Oklo phenomenon, no reason to awe.

and li is so and so light-years old, quarks and neutrinoes are buddhas, science is introduced by aliens and medicine is bad for you...

2. The Cristian Churches banned in China, maltreated tibetans and uighurs, etc will all tell you that the actual Chinese regime has a terrible human rights record and frequently use the excuse of "evil sect", "contra-revolutionaries", etc when brutaly dealing with differently thinking people and needs cover-ups. In the case of Falun Gong, the thuth is no other government besides the Chinese one ever had any problem with Falun Gong. Nor do they classify Falun Gong as sect, more so "evil" sect.

If we talk about the deaths by torture in police custody of the Falun Gong practitioners, the public torture sessions that happened in Tibet, or the mass murdering of the uighurs or the massacre in Tian an men square, pls keep in mind: these people were just thinking different than the chinese authorities, that's all.

3. "Today Falun Gong is no longer influential in mainland China". Ok, but who says that? How can that be proved, since all of the Falun Gong practitioners have to hide or are already inprisoned? The press is controled by the state and nobody can count them anyway. Since the movement is banned, one cannot now. Right?

4. A lot of things seem just inuendos and rumours: "some believers hurt or kill themselves after reading the books by Li Hongzhi". "Some report that Li did not even write the books himself". "Some people also think that Li's purpose of introducing Falun Gong is just to earn money".

One cannot prove these things, there's no evidence and even no cited sources. I think that these have no place in an enciclopedia. They make the whole article look really bad. -[1]

All that we need is an unbiased article. Present opinions otherwise... Colipon 23:14, 5 Nov 2003 (UTC)

No Reports

Several days later, about 10,000 people gathered outside Zhongnanhai, the headquarters of Chinese Communist Party in a peaceful protest. Premier Zhu Rongji had met with them and promised to release the practitioners that were caught illegaly. He then received high and positive complements around the world. It is speculated that this had made Jiang jealous and this is believed that the government's efforts at crushing Falun Gong began after this demonstration.

Can anybody show any confirmed reports regarding this?? Zhu Rongji is widely respected by the Chinese people, but not because of Falun Gong, but his contribution to the country. It is also funny to say that Falun Gong is cracked down because Jiang Zemin is "jealous". After all China now is not in Mao's era, where one can make a decision all by himself. You can say CCP is dicatatorship, but you can never say any one person is a dictator in PRC.--Formulax 04:50, 4 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Changed the article section saying that no one knows why the CCP has singled out Falugong. I don't know of anyone who seriously proposes that it wasn't the direct result of the April 1999 demonstration Roadrunner 04:26, 14 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Roadrunner, sorry to intrude with edits, without having had a chance to discuss further. I felt it were best to correct some factual misstatements regarding the practice. I believe that I kept it as small as necessary. I will explore this wikipedia system further, so I can find out how better to work with you, who seem to be the main contributor recently.

Would it be helpful to interview some of the people involved for this article cluster? For instance, I can review with one of those who talked with Zhu Rongji that day at Zhongnanhai. Ditto with some others of several nationalities who have been injured by police for displaying the words "Falun Gong" on Tiananment Square. Ditto with some others who have deconstructed several PRC media pieces to show malicious intent (such as the so-called "self-immolation" sequence on Tiananmen Square, where one "immolator" is shown being clubbed from behind and an apparent assailant escaping thereafter). Joseph Beckenbach 18:19, 2004 Feb 15 (UTC)

The problem with these sorts of interviews is if they are unpublished then they fall under personal research and are very difficult to verify. If you can add information that is published this would be very useful. (i.e. the deconstructions of the TAM video are very widespread.) Just as a personal note, the trouble with the deconstructions is that while they are convincing to true belivers, they sound very much like conspiracy theories to outsiders. Something akin to right-wing analysis of Ruby Ridge and the Branch Davidians. Roadrunner 18:53, 15 Feb 2004 (UTC)
 :: Good points. I will see what I can dig up. Thanks! Joseph Beckenbach 19:04, 2004 Feb 15 (UTC)

But the number is high enough for the Chinese government to justify its efforts in the continuing persecution.

Doesn't follow. If I go into a street corner and loudly proclaim say "Shandong independence", I'm sure that I will get a knock on the door even if no one else believes me. Roadrunner 18:53, 15 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Hmm. Perhaps "But the Chinese government claims the number is high enough to justify continuing its persecution" would be more accurate? I'm not sure whether excising the sentence is more beneficial to understanding the current situation than leaving it in. Joseph Beckenbach 19:04, 2004 Feb 15 (UTC)

On second thought, it would be more accurate to remove. The PRC government claims plenty of other justifications beyond mere numbers. Joseph Beckenbach 19:11, 2004 Feb 15 (UTC)

I cut the statement that gong is "essentialy different from "Qi"". Is there any reason to think that they would be the same?

Gōng (功) means "work" or "technique." The Falungong people have been known to state that their qigong is better than anyone else's, and when challenged on it they say that they don't use qi, they use gong, and that gong is more spiritual than qi. Since the two aren't analogous (it is like saying that station is better for fueling your auto than gas), it does give one the impression that they are talking out of their arse.Fire Star 15:19, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)
I found [2], which I'll try to paraphrase. Markalexander100 02:58, 6 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Ah, good. That goes a long way towards explaining what they mean by that. I will probably present a critique of this theory of theirs as well (it seems a lot of doubletalk to a professional in the field), I'll try to be perfectly NPOV in the article, of course... Fire Star 20:16, 6 Mar 2004 (UTC)


This article is oddly organized. The "Crackdown" section is just a list of events. Could it either be A) arranged like a timeline, with the first part of each entry being a wiki-formatted date, or B) separated into sub sections, making it easier to read and navigate for a reader? --DropDeadGorgias (talk) 14:40, Sep 16, 2004 (UTC)

Lead section

I removed the following from the lead section because it is not introductory material:

As CNN's Willy Lam reported a Communist Party veteran providing his analysis: "By unleashing a Mao-style movement [against Falun Gong], Jiang is forcing senior cadres to pledge allegiance to his line. This will boost Jiang's authority-and may give him enough momentum to enable him to dictate events at the pivotal 16th Communist Party congress next year."
The Falun Dafa Information Center, a representative organization for Falun Gong, has stated that more than 1,000 deaths have been verified in police or government custody due to the government's crackdown on the practice.

Please add it to the relevant section of the article. --Jiang 03:58, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)


In the "Origins and Beliefs" section -

[...] Earth is currently being invaded by aliens.

nowhere in any of Mr. Li's works will you find any mention of an "alien invasion", but there is acknowledgement of the existence of extraterrestrials. I wonder where the author got this from.

[...] Li has declined to name his own teachers or to delineate the actual provenance of Falun Gong when asked directly.

In all of Mr. Li's 9-day seminar/lectures given in China, he mentions the origins during first few sections of the first lecture. Also, in the Chinese edition of the book "Zhuan Falun" (prior 1999, i will try to look up publisher), there is a 20-30 page or so postscript/addendum gives more detailed information.

the whole paragraph looks like a poor paraphrasing job.

In a Time magazine article dated May 10, 1999:

"TIME: Who were your teachers? Li: I do not wish to have their names known. I had masters in two schools. Prior to the Cultural Revolution people enjoyed quite a bit of religious freedom. Chinese were quite used to such things. It was like going to church in the West.

TIME: When did you start teaching? Li: I am more than 40 years old, and I have been practicing qigong for many years. When qigong became popular, I did not come out in the public. I did not want to teach about stopping illnesses or keeping fit.

TIME: What made you finally come out? Li: When these masters asked me to come out. At the time I said that there were too many people practicing qigong, and I said that I did not want to cure illnesses or to help people keep fit. They said, "What you do will be different. These people who are teaching how to cure illnesses and teaching fitness, are paving the road for your coming out."

TIME: Where were these masters? Li: They were in the mountains."

So, the sentence about his reluctance to discuss Falungong's provenance goes back in. Fire Star 21:55, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Falun Gong's stance on homosexuality

A Chinese battle on U.S. Soil

Homosexuality--Leader spreading idea of perversion

Though Li is often vague about how to become a better person, he is specific on a few points. One is that homosexuality is perverse. The disgusting homosexuality shows the dirty abnormal psychology of the gay who has lost his ability of reasoning at the present time, Li wrote in Volume II of Zhuan Falun, or Turning the Law Wheel, which was translated into English in 1996. It is now posted on Falun Gong's main Web site only in Chinese.

In a 1998 talk in Switzerland, Li said gay people would be eliminated by the gods. Asked in Frankfurt, Germany, that year whether gays could practice Falun Gong, Li answered, to a round of applause, You can cultivate, but you must give up the bad conduct.

Those lectures can be read on or ordered from Li's publishing company in Chinese, but they have not been translated into English. Two organization officials said they did not know why. The Mercury News read Li's comments in Chinese.

Li also regards mixed-race or cross-bred people as rootless and deviant, a sign of morally bankrupt times.

In Li's world view, mixed-race people are a plot by the evil extraterrestrials who populate his cosmology, which spills over with accounts of lost civilizations, higher realms and mysteries that science cannot grasp.

By mixing the races of humans, the aliens make humans cast off gods, he said in a lecture in Switzerland.

(But Li says practitioners may marry people of other races -- one of many contradictions in his philosophy.)

Li told followers that aliens came in droves during the Industrial Revolution and that they aim to take over human souls through science, monitoring people by assigning every computer a number.

By embedding their technology and science in human bodies, aliens control their thoughts, Li said.

Photo of Falun Gong activists in NYC

I don't want to jump in the middle of ya'll's debate, but I do feel including this photo I took in NYC would be encyclopedic. Notice I simply put "enacting" and not "reenacting" in the caption to be NPOV. At your leisure, of course! --Alterego 20:58, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Falun Gong activists enacting torture scenes in New York City
==Segregated Heaven?==

Would someone explain what this means? Segregated by what factor? Race?

NPOV has been making some heavy edits, and I seriously question the POV of most of them. --InShaneee 03:57, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)

(I've moved the most recent comments to bottom of the page, where they will be easier to find) I agree. I've reverted them. Such cosmetic changes are going to have to be discussed and consensus reached before they will stand. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, and articles about any religious group or New Age fad, whether it be Falun Gong, Reiki or the Roman Catholic Church should be balanced and NPOV, warts and all. Reporting on the things Li Hongzhi has actually said pertaining to Falun Gong and where it may have come from, even if they make him look like a crackpot, has a place in the article. should read Wikipedia is not a soapbox. Fire Star 15:11, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The recent changes by are also quite POV, and have no regard to English grammar or spelling. I'm considering reverting them all. --DropDeadGorgias (talk) 14:47, Mar 1, 2005 (UTC)

Agreed. Reverted. Fire Star 15:32, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Apology... Re: Changes by

Hi, I wanted to apologise for making corrections to this article before discussing. I'm not yet sure of the correct protocol, as I'm relatively new to Wiki. At the time I didn't have a user login. I tried to make the corrections objectively, providing more 'meat' while trying to maintain neutral POV.

Please see the reasons for the suggested changes below, I understand if you want to roll any back.

Removed the following links as they were broken:

Replaced the broken link:


Minor correction to:

replaced with:

(to make it clear a U.S. citizen is actually imprisoned in China, not U.S.)

Replaced: On the other hand, there has been several incidents in which China's state-owned television networks were jammed with Falun Gong promotion materials. with: On the other hand, there have been several incidents in which China's state-owned television networks were jammed with reports on the persecution of Falun Gong.

I replaced this because to the best of my knowledge, the cable hacks were about the Chinese government's denying basic human rights to Falun Gong practitioners, not actually promoting the practice per se.

Added: According to WOIPFG reports, eight Falun Gong practitioners were arrested after one of the jamming incidents in Changchun city, including Liu Chengjun, who was allegedly tortured to death after 21 months incarceration in Jilin Prison.

I thought this should be mentioned if you mention the cable hacks... I felt it's fairly important to mention what happened to those people.


Jason Watson

Greetings Jason. As far as I can see from a cursory look, they seem like good edits. Congratulations and welcome to Wikipedia. Fire Star 02:58, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Purported cult

This material is from the article List of purported cults, which we are paring down to a pure list. Editors here can best evaluate its statements and decide how to integrate it into this article. Thanks, -Willmcw 11:08, Mar 14, 2005 (UTC)

Falun Gong
Falun Gong, or Falun Dafa, is a quasi-spiritual group that practices Qigong with some overtones of Taoism and especially Buddhism. The group became so popular in China (alleged to have at one point upwards of 100 million adherents) that it was repressed and eventually criminalized as a cult by the Chinese Communist Government of the People's Republic of China. It has remained relatively popular regardless, and has gained a sizable following internationally as well. Some see it as harmless exercise, yet the public statements and methods of Falun Gong's founder, Li Hongzhi (now living in the U.S.), seem controversial to many more traditional Qigong schools (schools not necessarily sympathetic to the communists) as well as the Chinese Government.

I suggest considering Falun Gong as part of Buddhism. Sarcelles 11:44, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

According to Falun Gong's teachings and it's representatives, Falun Gong is NOT part of Buddhism or Taosim, but, instead, encompasses Buddhism and Taoism. Also, it is extremely important to note that, according to its own literature, creator, and representatives, Falun Gong is NOT a religion but a spiritual practice. User:Mas5353 04:09, 22 Apr 2005 (EST)

snake oil.

“snake oil” has nothing to do with qi-gong, or anything closely related, and clearly denotes a false connotation – “Snake oil is a term used for fake, fraudulent, and usually ineffective potions and nostrums.”

Nor does it have anything to do with traditional Chinese techniques and practices. It’s not even in the right hemisphere.

It's not implying that qigong is snake oil, the link is merely one of list of contextual references to aid people in researching Falungong's claim that gong is better for you than qi (which, for traditionalists anyway, seems like they are saying something analogous to: station is better for your car than gas). Fire Star 14:19, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Neither 'gong' nor 'qi', however, are even remotely referenced, nor is the practice of snake oil oriental, much less ancient. Neither is the claim "Falungong's claim". Also, it's not analogous to station being better than gas, but more akin to "1" being "more existent" than "0".
I disagree. Since we aren't speaking of mathematics, semantically, my analogy is more accurate. Gong means work or skill, so there is qigong, wugong, etc. in chinese. To say that gong is more effective than qi means, to a professional, that they are engaging in word games to claim some form of exclusive effectiveness in the eyes of the gullible. As it stands, I don't see Falungong practitioners doing much "work" and they demonstrate no perceivable objective "skill," so their claims of exclusivity don't stand on any demonstrable merits other than their verbal claims, which is why the snake oil reference makes sense to me. We aren't saying that Falungong is snake oil, but having the reference there, in with several others, gives the reader the ability to research one possible context for such an unverified statement. Also, you should sign your contributions if you want them to be considered towards consensus. Fire Star 01:01, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Snake oil is not an NPOV term. I think it would be sensible to say the government views their techniques as snake oil, but it is unfair to make a declaration in wikipedia that a given method is snake oil. We do *not* tell "the truth" here, we tell perspectives on what might be truth. Ronabop 12:29, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
"We aren't saying that Falungong is snake oil" by having a link there, as I said. We aren't saying that it is kung fu, either, are we? The link is provided for context, just as cold reading is linked to the John Edward page. We aren't saying the John Edward is cold reading, we are saying that that is one explanation for what he does, whether or not it is true. Falungong's public claims that gong heals better than qi, with no evidence presented for the claim whatever, certainly can be contextualized editorially for people by a link to a description of the snake oil phenomenon. Other New Age disciplines share this feature, Reiki, for example. To be fair, if we get a consensus of other editors wanting it gone, at least two or three more, then I won't object. Fire Star 01:43, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I understand the attempt to place other items with similar context. However, to determine the true position of "snake oil," consider the following example: Have you ever been given a list of words and then been told to identify the word that did not belong in the list? Pretend you had a list of words such as "Falun Gong, gigong, kung fu, alternative medicine, and snake oil." Even to someone who was anti-Falun Gong they would still see Falun Gong as something associated with practice or exercise despite the perceived purpose. I think it's safe to say the same about qigong and kung fu. When you read "alternative medicine" you've ventured away from that frame of thought but then you can see how it might relate because of the claimed healing properties of Falun Gong. I'm afraid that "snake oil" ventures a little too far off however, as it has to do with fake potions and what not. This is just my understanding. 20 Apr 2005 (EST)


We're dealing with a dynamic IP vandal right here. So far we've seen him blanking this article on three different IPs. They can all be blocked, sure, but maybe this calls for IP range blocking. If someone could do that, it would be nice. I could, but since range blocking is a little tricy, I'm not sure I should risk it myself. Anyone?--Kaonashi 01:19, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Make that four IP's. Maybe we should try contacting the ISP / doing some requests into the NIC to see if it would be damaging to innocent users or not? -- Natalinasmpf 01:24, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I've protected the main and talk pages for now. Perhaps someone who can do a range block can be contacted at Vandalism in progress before we unprotect these pages? Unfortunately, I have to sign off soon. Cheers, Fire Star 01:28, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Recent changes, April 2005

The spate of recent editing has been productive for the most part, but Wikipedia has to be careful not to imply that Falun Gong actually works to develop subjectives like "moral character" etc. Wikipedia policy is one of (especially) NPOV where we can only report, not support, such claims. Unfortunately, there are no medical tests or even universal agreement on the constitution of either morality or character, for example. Fire Star 12:45, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

There is no mention of selective translation by FLG?

in FLG's website you can find Chinese version of ZhuanFalun part2, but you can't find English version of it. i don;t think you can find ZhuanFalun part2 in any language other than Chinese. you can ask other people do an independent study if you wish.

Chinese version of ZhuanFalun part2:

no english version:

no, it's not "Essentials for Further Advancement II" or any other stuff. it's not added into zhuanfalun. i found all other Li's books got translated(some with questionable translations/choice of words), just not ZhuanFalun part2.(note that Chinese version of ZhuanFalun part2 is kind hidden on their website, i think it's interesting that people can't access ZFL2 normally by clicking on their book links, but you still can access it if you google it.)

It is somewhat interesting as to why an English translation is not readily available. Do you really care why any of the books are written, or what their purpose is? If so why do you harp on ZF v2; could there be some significant reason for it's non-English translation? Why should you be allowed to know the truth of the situation if you don't even respect the practice? For the sake of an interesting thought experiment, what if this extended to the universe? Would you really be allowed to know the truth of the universe if you didn't respect it? These are just questions.User:Mas5353
the right questions are what are they hiding from rest of the world and why are they doing it? from my understanding, part2 is more radical and has more school kids mistakes(light year is a unit of time etc) than part1. --Weaponofmd 23:19, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
To answer your question: "What are they hiding from the rest of the world?" The interesting thing about the practice Falun Gong, (as I've gathered from reading Zhuan Falun) is that its purpose is to do the exact opposite of what you mention. They (practitioners) don't want to hide anything; they would like the public to know everything (about the universe). My understanding of why Zhuan Falun 2 is not available is that because its author feels that (at least the English version) is not yet ready for the public. I don't see the since in publishing something that hasn't been properly edited or translated either.User:Mas5353
right, after what? more than ten years of publication and it's not ready for rest of the world? and it's the only thing not available in english? how about use your common sense?--Weaponofmd 18:58, 2005 Apr 23 (UTC)

to answer your "respect" question, let me ask why are you defending them? have you read those book before? i can careless if you want to defend them, i just want to make sure it's worth my time. i saw so many people who never read their books started to defend their religion. i can hardly believe one man with elementry school education can find the ultimate truth of universe. oh well, since wiki is not a place for personal search and i can't find any article to mention this interesting fact. i guess i can let this part to rest.--Weaponofmd 23:19, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
In response to your questions: I would not say that I am defending Falun Gong. I would just say that I am not intentionally and deliberately trying to slander the practice unlike some other posters I see. If anything, I am defending a Wikipedia article and the purpose it is supposed to represent. Perhaps I should return a similar question to you: Why are you trying to "sink" Falun Gong? It appears as if you want the practice destroyed. I can say that I've read all or almost all of the books associated with Falun Gong, so perhaps you view this post as something that is worth your precious time. From the books, I can see that it teaches people to uphold Truthfulness, Compassion, and Forebearance (Zhen-Shan-Ren), and, quite frankly, I don't find those three things to be very offensive. In fact, I think a bit more of that in this world would not be a bad thing. As for other teachings, such as those on the structure of the universe: well, it seems to me that a person has a choice: they can either agree with the structure conveyed by Falun Gong, or they can agree with some other proposed structure (such as that publicly published in scientific journals or religious doctrine). You stated that you "can hardly believe one man with an elementary school education can find the ultimate truth of the universe." To me this implies that you believe either it would take more than one person to do it or they would have to have a Phd or something. Well, I don't know the truth of the universe but I think it's great that it appears you are seeking it. However, if I were seeking the truth of the universe I wouldn't be looking for it through my head, I would be looking for it through my heart. Perhaps you can see why in this situation, education doesn't matter. And last but not least, you called Falun Gong a "religion". According to the books and practitioners, it is NOT a religion but a spritual practice. If you don't know the difference then maybe you should either read the books or study religion in general. --User:Mas5353 03:53, 23 Apr 2005 (EST)
my intention doesn't matter, what matters is if whatever i added are factual and NPOV, apperently, you don't understand this. i'll added whatever i want to as long as it follows the guideline.
they claim it's not a religion, so what? this is a discussion forum, therefore i can post my understanding of their religion.if you go to check a dictionary,how about wikipedia? see religion.FLG is a belief concerning the supernatural, sacred, or divine, and the moral codes, practices and institutions associated with such belief.--Weaponofmd 18:58, 2005 Apr 23 (UTC)
Chapter II( is mainly about the "Limit of modern science, buddism and taoism" and claimed that Falun itself is beyond the limit and contains the truth of buddism and taoism. Selective translation of Falunist can be also found here[3], where the last four Chinese topics can be translated into:"Evolution, a wrong belief", "Falun, a super science by medic point of view", "not a religion, but a great science" and "The moon is hollow and artificial".

i posted last comment about selective translations.

anyway, i want to put one interviews to help people understand the nature of FLG.

Interview with Li Hongzhi

about Charles Lee's case, which has a link listed under External links.

in they claimed "Nevertheless, Chinese authorities arrested Lee as soon as he arrived in Guangzhou Airport in southern China." but in it's a totally different story.

is it worthy enough to be mentioned on wiki? i donno. but i think if someone list that website on wiki, then other people should be notified about the different stories wrote by FLG.

his appeals detail a previous visit to china, of one which he returned to the US on the 20ish-th of october (look at the time gap ...). his subsequent visit did result in the immediate arrest at the airport AFAIK.

you are right, i didn't read that part careful enough.

can't mention world war three?

funny, he said it and i can't mention it.

yes, i read the whole NPOV thing.

how could it be biased when everything were out from his own mouth? i didn't post any judgemental opinion, only reported what he said.

can you enlighten me on this problem?

alright, lets try this one

Mr. Li claimed that after ten years of spreading Falundafa, "predestinations have been greatly changed", and "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."

If you have good citations, then I don't see why it can't be mentioned in the article. We just can't say "Li says X, Y and Z, therefore he is obviously a nut." Let Li's statements say that for him. Fire Star 22:44, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
i DID NOT say he was a nut, if you want, you can check the history, i tried to be as much NPOV as possible. i believe people will judge the informations themselves.--Weaponofmd 23:11, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I'm sorry, I didn't mean to say that you did. I was just saying that as an example. If you have good citations for quoting the guy, I'm all for leaving the quotes in. Fire Star 03:02, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Doesn't seem to matter. This poster has made it clear that his intentions are to slander Falun Gong with his recent post (which has been removed)(also not too surprising given this poster's username). This was done by posting an interpretation of what was said, not by posting the actual quote. I would hope that the poster could reread whatever work they have read and see their own bias bleeding into the interpretation. Regardless, the post was deleted because no reference or citation was left. User:mas5353 03:02, 23 Apr 2005 (EST)
what is your problem? last time i checked, my original intention doesn't matter, the only thing matters is if whatever i edited on wiki's article pages are factual and NPOV!
and what is wrong with my username? you can judge people and read their minds by looking at their usernames? funny!
anyway, sorry for did not cite the source properly.--Weaponofmd 18:47, 2005 Apr 23 (UTC)
Thank you for posting the reference this time. Because you posted the reference I was able to check what you posted against the reference. It turns out that you grossly distorted the reference. Nowhere in the reference did Li Hongzhi state that he was the one that had prevented the actions that you mentioned. So much for you claiming to post things that are factual and npov. User:mas5353 15:45, 23 Apr 2005 EST
after spreading falundafa for ten years.. right, he didn't do it. but thank you anyway, for trying so hard to play with words here, i learned alot. --Weaponofmd 02:07, 2005 Apr 24 (UTC)
I'm glad you chose to edit your above post to not include your casting of the word "moron." I thank you for your thought at least. Since you insist, I've edited your most recent contribution to the article to improve it's English and put it into the context of the sub-section you placed it under. I hope it is to your approval.User:mas5353 20:49, 23 Apr 2005 (EST)
well, please forgive me, i was angry, but i realized you were right to a certain extent.i believe one thing on your new edit is wrong. the "end of the world in 1999" is different from "comet" and "ww3".--Weaponofmd 04:23, 2005 Apr 24 (UTC)
I'm sorry. The only reason I didn't include your deduction on that is because it isn't really clear that that is what he is referring to. In fact, I don't think that anyone could really make sense of that except practitioners. Go figure.User:mas5353 00:56, 24 Apr 2005 (EST)

Pro-Falun Gong Epoch Times

It seems that there has been some debate over The Epoch Times' platform on Falun Gong. The wording surrounding this claim has been altered to be as NPOV as possible (so that it isn't taken necessarily as fact) and links to articles which supposedly support this claim have been added. If anyone finds references to suggest Epoch Times' neutrality on this issue please add links. mas5353 1:52 AM April 21, 2005 (EST)


hmmm, Wall Street Journal's article mentioned The Epoch Times' tax record shows the newspaper's chairman is a top FLG speaker. donno if i can post the whole article due to copyright issue. --Weaponofmd 17:58, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

i'll post 2 paragraphs, check out the rest at your local library or university.

Falun Gong Adds Media Weapons In Struggle With China's Rulers

Susan V. Lawrence. Wall Street Journal. (Eastern edition). New York, N.Y.: Apr 14, 2004. pg. B.2I

"Right now we are labeled a Falun Gong TV station, even though we are not," says NTDTV's President Zhong Lee. NTDTV "really has nothing to do with Falun Gong at all," he adds. Yet tax records show that a top spokesperson for Falun Gong in the U.S., Gail Rachlin, is one of three directors for NTDTV, officially registered as Universal Communications Network.

As for the Epoch Times, Editor in Chief Annette Jun Guo says to call it a Falun Gong media organization would be "completely wrong" and dangerously "misleading" because Falun Gong, she says, has no political goals. Yet tax records show the chairman of the paper's board is another top Falun Gong spokesperson, Kangang Xu.

--Weaponofmd 18:05, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

More on recent edits

Hello everyone. In order to preserve the neutral nature of the article, I've had to change a few small things. Li has said what he said, we shouldn't try to softpedal that. As well, we can't simply say that Falungong goes beyond the teachings of Taoism and Buddhism. We can say that Falungong claims to, but to simply say that it does won't work. Fire Star 20:07, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

You're right, particularly with respect to apologists. However, particularly well chosen words can distort anything, and for an article as controversial as this, I think it deserves a thorough treatment of, especially to maintain a NPOV, putting things into context. As an example, even Fire Star has said that "Falungong goes beyond the teachings of Taoism and Buddhism. (clearly above)" Oh, I'm sorry... did I take an excerpt of your words and take them out of context? I think you see what I mean. Mas5353 16:15, 24 Apr 2005 (EST)
Hello, Li Hongzhi said in the Time magazine interview: "aliens have begun to invade the human mind and its ideology and culture" Italics mine. He used the word invade, so it can stay in the article. I know you are pro-Falungong, and some other editors are anti. I'm neither for nor against it, but we cannot have the article become an advertisement. Fire Star 20:21, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
You're right, I apologize. But the article says that "the Earth has been invaded." I will fix this. Mas5353 16:29 24 Apr 2005 (EST)
You are correct, it is kind of a mixed bag. Perhaps we should use a direct quote? Fire Star 20:34, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Thanks for the suggestion. That's what I was thinking as well. I've also (re)added something to assist the readability of that section plus another example. I think you'll agree that it's better suited than my initial attempt. Mas5353 16:53, 24 Apr 2005 (EST)

Falun Gong presence in major metropolitan areas

This is a very Non-NPOV addition. If you don't rewrite it, I will do so. The other thing is that these protests are not just happening in America but throughout the world. Jingoistic and other emotive terms are inappropriate for an encyclopediac article. --Peacenik 23:28, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

No need to wait for the revision. They can try again. I reverted to Peacenik's version because I could not find any changes in the minor versions immediately after Peacenik's. mas5353 22:30, 27 Apr 2005 (EST)
Whoa, why did you revert the change altogether? If you had issues with the wording of individual sentences, you should have edited them to your liking. I get the feeling that you are strongly trying to control the content of this article, when there are many aspects to this complex topic. "Jingoistic" certainly is appropriate in wikipedia articles, you can find it in articles such as Conservative Party (UK), Spanish-American War and List of patriotic songs. I don't think that it is at all inappropriate to say that New Yorkers are by and large confused by these demonstrations as they are provided with little context in a traditionally non-trustworthy medium, the street performance. I myself live in New York and of the other New Yorkers I've talked to, most are confused by the simplistic message of "Falun Dafa is Good", and have no clue what action is requested of them by these demonstrators. Please understand that we are trying to write an encyclopedic article and must present all the facts around a particular topic. I, for one, have not figured out what the Falun Gong expects New Yorkers to do. If you know, maybe you could add it to this section, and then confused New Yorkers that look the Falun Gong up here could know what course of action they are being recommended to take? You should understand that I have no prior knowledge of the Falun Gong, all that I am trying to convey is that, on average, New Yorkers are a generally cynical lot, and that they may think that the demonstrations are unnecessarily graphic and orchestrated for shock value. In any case, this article would not be complete without an account of the Falun Gong demonstrations in major cities. However, so we can resolve this, I will first post what I intend to post here, and you can edit it as you see fit. --DropDeadGorgias (talk) 03:27, Apr 28, 2005 (UTC)

Falun Gong presence in major metropolitan areas

Falun Gong practitioners enacting torture scenes in New York City

More recently, the Falun Gong have taken on the policy of directly addressing the American public in major metropolitan areas, most notably Manhattan. They have set up several aggressive streetside demonstrations where they re-enact gruesome scenes of government brutality complete with simulated beatings and crying victims while holding up signs with simplistic slogans, such as "Falun Dafa is Good". Despite the sympathy generated, most New Yorkers are confused by the lack of a requested action from them, and the fact that they have chosen to communicate primarily through street pamphleteering, a medium that is traditionally associated with mass-market advertisers in New York.

I know that these reenactments are happening in major cities throughout the world. I am aware of them in Sydney, Melbourne and Toronto. Your point is valid that they are not spelling out any action. I think they are trying to combat the 6-10 campaign that the Chinese government is carrying out, but that they are trying to do this without being overtly political, but that is just my guess. Certainly, I am here, because of the demonstations that they performed outside the Supreme Court in Sydney. Below is my preferred wording, making it more generic. (Some of us don't live in NY ;-))

More recently, the Falun Gong have taken on the policy of directly addressing the public in major metropolitan areas, in many Western countries, most notably Manhattan. They have set up several confronting streetside demonstrations where they re-enact gruesome scenes of government brutality complete with simulated beatings and crying victims while holding up signs with simplistic slogans, such as "Falun Dafa is Good". Despite the sympathy generated, they do not make a clear call to action, leaving members of the public uncertain of what to do. --Peacenik 04:10, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

That looks fine to me. Also, if more involved users, such as mas know what action is being requested of the audience, this might be a great place to mention it. --DropDeadGorgias (talk) 04:36, Apr 28, 2005 (UTC)
I waited for mas to comment, but decided he can edit later if appropriate.

--Peacenik 00:47, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

<smile> You guys are awfully polite and I appreciate it (there was no need for that), but I especially appreciate you going ahead and working with the article in the way you saw best. I find the new edit to be much more appropriate. I do have a concern though with respect to a cited source for that information (particularly with respect to opinions of New Yorkers), otherwise it could just be hearsay. It is interesting for the demonstrations to be done publicly without suggesting a course of action. Is it enough to just make the general public aware of what's going on and then let them decide what to do? I'd find it particularly interesting to see what a person does upon discovering the persecution was going on, and how they felt in their heart. Of course, a person may feel compelled to do even something little, but if it isn't clear what can be done then how are they supposed to do it? Actually, I've been approached by Falun Gong practitioners a few times here in Florida and they have shared information in different ways. In each of the situations, I was informed about some rather unpleasant things happening to pracittioners in China. I was then told that if I wanted to learn more then I could read some flyer that was then given to me. I was told that if I felt compelled or "felt it was a worthy cause" then I could go to some website and sign a petition for some thing or another. I was also told that even if I didn't think it was worth it, then I should at least know "Falun Dafa is good." I believe the website with the petitions was There seem to be different ones you can sign.
I think you guys are right and that this would be a good thing to incorporate into the article, but I think it's important that we cite sources/publications. Are the reenactments really gruesome or where they just gruesome to you? Maybe "graphic" is a more npov word. Also, the phrase "... complete with ..." sounds kind of inappropriate. Also, there is a blatant statement of experience by the poster where it says "they do not..." where clearly they do in other places. We also don't know if this is just the poster's experience.
I hope that you can understand my concerns on these. I will try to find some source (perhaps an actual pamphlet) that explains what Falun Gong practitioners do this for or what the suggested course of action is. Perhaps posting the entire pamphlet is a good idea. By the way, if there is an appropriate way of posting a flyer, please let me know. I am going to place what I consider a good revision of the current edit here below. I will allow you to make any changes that you think might be more appropriate given the concerns I've expressed above and my suggestion below. Thank you.
More recently, Falun Gong practitioners have been seen, on the streets in major metropolitan areas, directly informing the public of the persecution of their fellow practitioners in China (and worldwide according to some pamphlets). In many cities of Western countries, (particularly the Manhattan area of New York) several elaborate streetside demonstrations can be seen that re-enact graphic scenes of government brutality. Amidst these public displays are signs with simple slogans, such as "Falun Dafa is Good". and "Bring Jiang to Justice." It is not incredibly clear what the desired effect of demonstrations are, whether it be to create public awareness or motivate individuals to action. Falun Gong practitioners are seen suggesting individuals to, sign petitions against the alleged crimes committed by the CCP, or just, "at least know" that Falun Dafa is Good"
I like your revision. I would remove "incredibly" though. --Peacenik 22:29, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Thanks for the suggestion. It's been added. --Mas5353 02:04, 1 May 2005 (EST)

history lessons

Since the point of view exists and seems notable [4] [5] [6] [7], perhaps this article ought to touch on the history of, e.g., the Taiping Rebellion and the Yellow Turbans. —Charles P. (Mirv) 07:34, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

recent news on FLG , and can we have seperate external links?

1, the lawsuit aginest Jiang ze min in the united states was denied by the court.

No. 04-1070 Title: Wei Ye, et al., Petitioners v. Jiang Zemin, et al.

2,indonesia can be added as a country suspicion toward FLG.

3,FLG's media started an media campain against Singapore

4, li admited/implied FLG is behind "Nine Commentaries on the Chinese Communist Party (jiuping)" in his most recent manhattan meeting speech (2005 april 24th). so, you can safely say that The Epoch Times is a FLG media for a fact. of course, with the tax record as hard evidence. the english version is not out yet, maybe you people have to wait a while for it.

Really? Wait, he admitted/implied? those aren't the same thing... which one are you saying he did? Or did he just say it was a good thing for Falun Dafa and you're all bent on that? I'd like to see that speech. Incidently, if it doesn't show up in the translation are you going to, yet again, proclaim and accuse "selective translation?" I guess there's no way for me to verify anything you say since I don't speak Chinese. It is truly sad what some people are willing to do to slander people who try to assimilate themselves to Truthfulness, Compassion, and Forebearance. I'd have to wonder what you are striving for or assimilating yourself to... Some_IP
it's not my fault that you are ignorant and you don't read chinese. why don;'t you log in with your account name and answer me in this matter? are you afraid of showing people your account name? or you just want to keep a false image of neutrality when you edit something? i admit that i do not like FLG, but i'll try my best to be NPOV, i welcome people to question my NPOV if i ever edit something. --Weaponofmd 07:04, 2005 May 12 (UTC)
I'm glad you're so open to have others check your NPOV. This would seem necessary, however, as based on the history I've seen under this username in Wikipedia, your NPOV gets challenged quite often. --Mas5353 18:55, 2005 May 18 (EST)
like you never being challenged?? keep your ignorance to yourself, thanks.--Weaponofmd 07:29, 2005 May 24 (UTC)
I'm confused. What exactly are you saying that I am "unaware" of? Oh well. At your request, I will try to keep those things that I am ignorant of to myself so that not everyone has to know. --Mas5353 18:00, 2005 May 24 (EST)
sorry, forgot people can edit without log in, oh well. --Weaponofmd 07:22, 2005 May 12 (UTC)
btw,i have a question for other forum viewers. do you people ever question FLG's slow translations? visit and look at the right side. compare the time they posted and the time when master Li made those speeches. well, i guess you'll have to wait several months to get this speech translated.--Weaponofmd 07:16, 2005 May 12 (UTC)
I went ahead and checked out what you were referring to. I don't quite understand what you mean; the most recent conference "2005 Manhattan" was on 4/24/05 and the translation was out less than a month later. Also, I wanted to check out what you said on item #4 above. I went ahead and read this conference. Though a lot of it seems like it could only make sense to practitioners, I don't see what you're referring to at all in item #4 above. On an interesting note, as a responsible Wikipedestrian, in reading the resources that are posted, I read Nine Commentaries on the Chinese Communist Party. It's funny how your attitude and words, Weaponofmd, come across so much like they've been poisoned by the Chinese Propaganda Machine proposed in the compiled commentaries. I'm sorry for you. --Mas5353 18:51, 2005 May 18 (EST)
you being poisoned by the western anti-china propaganda machine. how about that? you are really good at lable people. --Weaponofmd 07:29, 2005 May 24 (UTC)
Since you asked: Yeah, the United States is apparently so anti-China that almost everything in my office says "Made in China." Go figure. --Mas5353 18:00, 2005 May 24 (EST)

Who do you think you are? So it's wrong to criticise FLG is it? Yeah anyone who disagrees with FLG is a communist agent. Do you know why so many western politicians support FLG? It's because of the Cold War mentality, and that anything the CCP doesn't like must be good. Many of them are clueless about the conservative cultish nature of FLG and LI's hatred of homosexuals. "Investigator" AnonymousCoward

I've read the discussion above and I don't see anyone saying what you purported to have been said. You also don't have to be a communist agent to be a victim of the CCP's propaganda, great firewall of China, and government controlled television. You only have to live inside China to be brainwashed by human violators. And if you take Mr. Hongzhi's opinions (as they have been expressed) of homosexuality (a sin in most Western religions I mind you) to be hatred, then you have a problem interpreting things my friend. In that sense; OH, SO YOU ARE SAYING THAT WESTERN POLITICIANS ARE STUPID ARE YOU? OH I SEE. After a while, when you watch what Chinese internet agents say online, you can see a pattern in what they say. Usually, it has to do with some crazy interpretation of what has been said so that they can just put their words out in the open. All of this is done in an attempt to sway those readers that don't actually analyze words but only read them. You're pathetic. Try reading Zhuan Falun sometime rather than believing what some atheist "cult investigator" says on their two-bit website. Surprise! Rick Cross doesn't like spirituality. We get the point. --AnotherAnonymousCoward

like pro-FLG links one side and others another side?

What's your purpose in that? I don't really see any pro-FLG links. I just see factual links to justified sources. Some_IP
you have the right to ignore the fact that the links in external links are mostly pro-FLG links.--Weaponofmd 07:04, 2005 May 12 (UTC)
Generally, pro, anti and neutral external links are usually listed together in articles, in alphabetical order to avoid any appearance of favouritism. Fire Star 03:08, 14 May 2005 (UTC)
i can understand that, but i think since there are disagreement on those links, the best way is to seperate them, just like what the chinese wiki did for FLG section. --Weaponofmd 04:46, 2005 May 14 (UTC)

Media Reports

This section has severe grammar issues, but also is very POV. Anyone else want to edit it? I will if noone else does, but haven't got the time right now. --Peacenik 23:11, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

I found it to be this way as well. I have reverted that section. That much information on the newspaper should probaly reside in a new wiki devoted to that topic. Mas5353 15:13, 14 May 2005 (EST)

Falun Gong presence in major metropolitan areas

It seemed that the most recent edit to this was not gramatically or stylistically very good. Furthermore, in the previous information offered, all midwestern cities are encompassed by the phrase "cities in western countries" and is, therefore, not necessary. The only reason that Manhattan was particularly pointed out, I believe, is because Li Hongzhi lives there and there seems to be a significant amount of activity on the streets there. I for one, am a proponent of not singling out any city, but I can understand why some posters felt that that city should be singled out. --Mas5353 15:26, 14 May 2005

Observer's Comments

After reading the whole page, I just want to say the content is not very NPOV. The thing is quite clear to most of chinese people, say 99%(100% of the people around me). People think FLG is right probably because they see the FLG now but not what they used to be. FLG changed a lot after Li Hong Zhi went to USA. He tried to make FLG a right spiritual organization. This maybe works on foreigners, but totally no use for the local people(like me) whom know the truth. I know our government is not perfect, but no government is. Some(not all) of the criticises towards chinese government are right I accept. But the thing you don't know is the good things our government did. You couldn't imagine the changes in China these 20s years. Sadly most foreigner's views about social status of China still stay in 1990s or even 1980s. If you are not a Chinese living in China, don't make too much comments. You know nothing. Chinese people is not stupid. We will stand out arguing and fighting with unrighteous things. So if FLG is right, China would be in chaos now. Are we? of cause NOT.

Do you even know what NPOV means? Of course it's NPOV; otherwise it wouldn't be there. It's unfortunate that you don't find documented facts to be to your liking. Oh, so Falun Gong changed after Mr. Hongzhi went to the U.S. how and why? I suppose the way I approached a government would change as well once they started beating and torturing me. But from what I see, the government uses violence, and Falun Gong practitioners use flyers. One group terrifies and censors it's people, and the other believes has Truthfulness, Compassion, and Forebearance as their core principles. --Random Wikipedian
Yes, you are right I did not know what is NPOV means when I first see this word when reading the discussions. But I DID check the word in Wiki, so I know what it means before I wrote my comments. And what I want to say is I like the Chinese version wiki's content about FLG. Not because it says FLG is bad. In fact it didn't. But it got all opinions from both side, supporter and opponent, and also some neutrally. FLG have an explaination about the analysis of the video in slow montion, the opponent also have(not the orignal comment but another one made according the slow montion video). If you see both you will find it's hard to tell which side is telling the truth. And as you know according the way of wiki doing, it's unlikely chinese version wiki is controlled by government(If so there will be all bad things about FLG on that page). But I DO believe the English FLG page is controlled by some FLG people! And apparently you don't understand what CHANGES I'm talking about. And I can tell you we did not get the truth from the newspaper, since we know lots of things changed after it come to the newspaper in China. But we do get the truth from people around us.-- 04:57, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

And by the way, most people in China don't care about FLG so there is not much anti- comments. But it just keeping annoying us. The mailbox I used to use receive at least one Ad from FLG each day with almost same content but different address(the address just random letter and number which doesn't make any sense). If any people from FLG organization see this, stop spamming please... -- 04:42, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

<sarcasm>Yeah... these comments aren't just complete heresay.</sarcasm> WAKE UP fellow Chinese people! You don't have to believe everything your government tells you, you don't have to bear witness to blood baths every decade, and you have the right to ignore the fact that your government is controlling everything you are allowed to see and listen to. Don't be afraid to look at things pragmatically; it's engrained within our culture. --Random Wikipedian

Be patient According to chat robots apparently developed by FLG activists, you have no right to refuse their "truth". P.S. These annoying chat robots use some techs to send intriguing messages first, and then trap unawared chatters to try to chat with a FLG propaganda machine. I have such messages everyday since 2003. --Skyfiler 06:47, May 25, 2005 (UTC)

That's funny, because in a chatroom the other day, I saw a bot repeating over and over again phrases similar to those things which I've witnessed to be broadcasted on Chinese Media Outlets, slandering Falun Gong, and mentioning the Tiananmen Square self immolation. There was also (clearly) a person in there who was apologizing for the robot, and to not think anything bad of the CCP for doing that, because they did not know any better because they are so closed off from the rest of the world and forced to believe whatever they are told. Have you people not seen the critical analysis of the video in slow motion?[[8]] It clearly shows that it was staged. It's as if we Chinese want to erase from our memories the brutal nature of our Communist Party, the brutal practices and suggestions contained within it's doctrine that teach how to terrify a people and maintain power, and finally, it's as if we want to forget that the rest of world views the government as human rights violators (of course the bloody Tiananmen Square protests of 1989, where our beloved people were ran over by tanks, didn't help). WAKE UP! --Random Wikipedian
I have no interest in your story and CCP's, they're none of my business. I am a mathematician, not a politician. I don't care what your truth is, that is too fay away from my state, and I don't think I must listen to it to make my life going. But I DO ANNOYED by the FLG spams and chat robots, which are comsuming my time. Image how frustrating it is, to find your time wasted, the email with an innocent title is in fact a FLG letter telling me how to pass the Chinese internet firewall to access FLG websites, which make nonsense because I live in the united states; and your chat opponents are only robots, as often as almost EVERYDAY? Aren't you feel guity to waste other's time and energy? You have no right to trap people like this! If you want start your propaganda, begin it with your topic so I can turn it off!--Skyfiler 07:01, May 26, 2005 (UTC)
It's interesting why, since you're so uninterested, you're even on this Falun Gong page in the first place. Something doesn't smell right. You live in the United States eh... then why are you using (UTC) as the time zone? However, if you really are receiving email with instructions for passing the Chinese firewall and you are a mathematician (and especially if you're Chinese!) then why don't you use some deduction or logic and see what's going on here. Isn't that information important for viewing all kinds of information across the world (not just Falun Gong sites) for Chinese people? Aren't they being held captive within their own country and unable to see anything outside their borders that their government doesn't want them to see? Isn't that a serious issue? If you live in the United States, then I hope you enjoy your freedom, because elsewhere, clearly, people are being censored, and others (FG practitioners) are being brainwashed, tortured, imprisoned, and murdered for believing in Truthfulness, Compassion, and Forebearance. You may not care about anybody else's issues, but I would hope that you have enough of a heart for humanity to do something small about this, like visit and sign a petition for these poor people. --Some_IP
I'v told you I am annoyed almost EVERYDAY by FLG spams and chat robots that I can hardly ignore them and I don't believe them. How do you believe one when you are constantly decieved by one's action? If you want be believable, won't you first be responsible? Is cheating chatters with chat robots believable and responsible? If cheating is your Truthfulness, I will never believe this kind of truth--Skyfiler 01:40, May 28, 2005 (UTC)
Here is one of many articles about how the CCP uses the internet to "guide public opinion." -- Random Wikipedian

Hey folks, talk pages are places to discuss changes to the article. Discussing Falungong itself is off track for that, whether it is complaining about their harassing robotic glassy-eyed cult-like spamming behaviour or prosyletising its healing benefits to the world in the face of CCP oppression, it still doesn't really help the article in any concrete way. Fire Star 06:08, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

I believe you mean proselytizing. I'm so disappointed. :( Also, NPOV please, especially as an administrator. --Fire Star Is Always Right
Editing my comments on a talk page by highlighting them is not quite, but close to, vandalism. It is rude, but somehow I don't think that will matter much to you. ;-) Also, you are assuming I'm male. Another mistake you are making is assuming that my comments betray a POV. I am going to complain about your user name to the proper channels. Cheers. Fire Star 04:23, 29 May 2005 (UTC)