Talk:Falun Gong/Introduction

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.

Please make your contribution for the 1st paragraph in this section.--Andres18 21:40, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Colipon's Compromise

Falun Gong, (Traditional Chinese: 法輪功; Simplified Chinese: 法轮功; pinyin: Fǎlún Gōng; literally "Practice of the Wheel of Law", or otherwise the "Practice of the Wheel of Dharma") 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 Dharma") is a controversial system of "mind and body cultivation" introduced by Li Hongzhi (whose surname is Li) to the public in 1992. Over the years it has gathered characteristics that makes it difficult for it to be classified as a spiritual movement, a religion, or a cult. The system itsself refers to five sets of meditation exercises, and spiritual teachings based on Li's principles of "Truthfulness, Compassion, and Forbearance", which he has stipulated as 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.

Please see what you think and feel free to edit over anything. Colipon+(T) 21:43, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi there! well you know, for practitioners, Falun Gong is neither a cult, nor a religion or a spiritual movement so let me think about a proposal on how we could modify your idea to make it fit more neutrally into the paragraph or what i believe we could do with it and ill get back to you as soon as i can.--Andres18 04:32, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Andres, if FG is neither a cult, religion or spiritual movement, what is it exactly? Jsw663 13:00, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

We consider Falun Gong an inner cultivation system of mind and body. Mind because of the improvement of the human nature and heart, and body because of the changes of the body achieved through practice. Religions can be cultivation systems, but not all cultivation systems are religions. For example Tai chi is a cultivation system, but it is not a religion. If you notice, the focus of a religious cultivation system and a qigong practice cultivation system like Taichi is different, religion centers on heart and mind nature while Taichi nowadays merely centers itself on body cultivation. I believe that for the practitioner editors, the definition of a cult, a religion or a spiritual movement doesnt fit the criteria for defining Falun Dafa.--Andres18 22:22, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes. But some characteristics of a cult, religion, or spiritual movement fit Falun Gong here and there, that is why I specifically said "Over the years it has gathered characteristics that makes it difficult for it to be classified as a spiritual movement, a religion, or a cult." If you cannot even accept this very much NPOV intro then I don't know what you can accept aside from Li Hongzhi's official doctrine found on his textbooks. The fact that it is a "controversial system of "mind and body cultivation" introduced by Li Hongzhi" is not under doubt, and has already been presented in the intro. Colipon+(T) 05:31, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Colipon's version seems pretty NPOV to me. It is simply laying out some of the different possible labels, but not making a judgment. My only objection is the last sentence. It should read: "Li claims that only he and the Dafa can save sentient beings at this time." There's a direct quote to this effect. The problem with saying "The Falun Dafa cultivation system is one of the means to provide salvation for mankind." is two fold: first, Li no longer says that you have to be a cutivator to be saved. More recently, he has simply said that providing you do not have a bad attitude towards the Dafa and do not support the CCP you can be saved. In his earlier teachings, individual consumation was taught, but with his new campaign against the CCP, he's really broadened the idea of salvation. However, he has also repeadely said that only he and his Dafa can save people during this period of Fa-rectification. It's clearly the only way. I can produce a bunch of quotes to support this language, and already have in previous discussions.--Tomananda 08:03, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Well i believe that none of these 3 options or labels are a neutral way of defining Falun Gong, they are your opinion about it and i respect it but Falun Gong practitioners have their reserves regarding such definitions. I believe that if you want something to be neutral, you have to merge both POV into it right?. According to Falun Gong teachings, Falun Gong is not a religion and even less a cult, by having these two labels added, the balance is leaning towards the other party. Besides this sentence does not come from any sourced material so i believe it is original research. Also, "controversial" system of mind and body cultivation? from what source did you get that information? it is not controversial for us, but it i guess it is controversial for you, this is not a neutral definition either. Dont get me wrong, this is my opinion and im sure all the pro Falun Gong editors would agree with me.--Andres18 23:35, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Of course it's not controversial to you. But you cannot deny controversy exists, or else the Wikipedia article would be fair and complete by now. And sources? Check the entire article on controversies about Falun Gong. It's basically a source farm. It only contains more sources FG groups will deny, of course, but worth a look. And actually the definition is pretty neutral for all non-FG people, I would say. Colipon+(T) 04:19, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Exactly, we cannot deny controversy exists, but that doesnt mean we should define Falun Gong as a "controversial system of mind and body cultivation" thats a definition that needs to be sourced simply because it is not neutral. I understand you see it as controversial, and i respect it, but there is no controversy in Falun Gong teachings for Falun gong practitioners or people who support Falun Gong, so if you include that word it tends to break the balance a little bit towards the other side.

What i mean with sources is that if you want to say it is controversial then you should say something like "According to Pedro, critic of falun gong, Falun Gong is....." and then add a footnote. The idea of the sources is that you can push on the link next to that sentence and learn more information about it. But then if you make such statement, a counter statement should be made in order to restore the balance, then we would have to include a sentence in this fashion "In Zhuan Falun, Mr. Li has mentioned that Falun Gong...." and i think it would make the introduction longer than it already is.--Andres18 23:31, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

We need to mention "Truthfulness, Compassion, and Forbearance". Fnhddzs 07:33, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

---

Falun Gong, (simplified Chinese: 法轮功; traditional Chinese: 法輪功; pinyin: Fǎlún Gōng; literally "Practice of the Wheel of Law") also known as Falun Dafa, (simplified Chinese: 法轮大法; traditional Chinese: 法輪大法; pinyin: Fǎlún dàfǎ; lit. "Great Law of the Wheel of Law") is a system of "mind and body cultivation" introduced by Li Hongzhi (whose surname is Li) to the public in 1992. Falun Gong includes five sets of meditation exercises (four standing, and one sitting meditation) and spiritual teachings based on the principles of "Truth 真, Compassion (or Benevolence, Goodness) 善 and Tolerance (or Forbearance, Endurance) 忍". Li claims to provide salvation for mankind and his Dafa (great law) is judging all beings in a process called Fa-rectification.

---

For the moment this is the current version.

Is it OK? Is there anything else that need to be changed? --HappyInGeneral 14:41, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, i believe something needs to be changed, the last two sentences about "and His Dafa is judging all sentient beings in a process called Fa-Rectification" Pro-Falun Gong editors have said several times that Fa rectification is not a process of Judgement but a process of rectification, i think that idea should be discussed. Still i think it would take more than just two sentences to define Fa rectification. Also when we say "Dafa" i believe that it should be noted that the Dafa is Truthfulness, Benevolence, Forbearance or else people who do not know Chinese language might get confused.

Another thing also, i checked the link to the sentence i just mentioned at the beggining and i saw nothing that could support those sentences. If you check it, you will notice it is a writing of Mr. Li which is made in a poetic form, i dont understand how this can be appropriate for providing additional information about Fa rectification, also It only says Fa rectification in the title and in the rest of the article i could not find any words that would resemble something like "His Dafa is judging all sentient beings in a process called Fa-Rectification". This is the article:

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

Can you explain how did you extract something like "His Dafa is judging all sentient beings in a process called Fa-Rectification" from here or did you came up with that conclusion after reading it?. When you add a footnote it is because what you are saying is contained in that material. I say i do not believe this is an appropriate source for such statement and i do not think they should be included in this paragraph, not only because they are not properly sourced, but because Fa rectification is a concept that should be given its own space in order to define it propoerly.--Andres18 23:31, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I've added the correct footnote for "The Dafa is judging all beings"...but left the original footnote in as well. Concerning Li's claim to offer salvation to mankind, it should probably be more precise: "Li claims that only he, personally, and his Dafa can provide salvation for all beings." Do you like that better? Here's the source:

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 think maybe the readers shoud know the whole truth of Li's teachings: not only does he offer salvation to mankind (or "all sentient beings" if you prefer the more macrocosmic rendition), but that ONLY he and the Dafa can do it. He explicitly states that religions can no longer offer salvation to mankind, doesn't he? He uses the words "save" or "salvation" multiple times in speech after speech. Maybe we should also mention about how he promised to turn you guys into gods (his words...note I am using the little "g"). --Tomananda 04:26, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

This is in reponse to Sam's post below. If you ask any Falun Dafa practitioner in the world what the difference is between Falun Dafa and Falun Gong, they will say they are the same thing. AS far as I know, you are the only one here who says they aren't. I know that "Dafa" and "Gong" have completely different meanings themselves when looked at literally, but in this context they are taken as the same thing. This is something that happens often in any language. We use these terms completely interchangably.

Falun Dafa is not "going to rectify the human world and weed out the bad guys". You are taking the terms "Dafa" and "Falun Dafa" as the same, and while "Dafa" is sometimes used as a shortened form of Falun Dafa in speech, this is not so in this case. "Dafa" in the sense you are refering to is the original law of the universe, not the practice that Mr. Li has taught over the last 15 years.

If you ask any practitioner in the world if Falun Dafa is based on Truth, Compassion, Tolerance, they will say it is. The teachings in the most basic sense state that these principles are the characteristic of the universe, that these are what Mr. Li teaches, and that only through assimilition to them can one ascend in cultivation. Falun Dafa, in practice, is about assimilation to these principles. This is the most fundamental aspect of the practice. Of course, there is now clarifying the truth and sending righteous thoughts, but remember that these things only came in response to the persecution. They didn't exist before then. Mcconn 23:36, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Zhen Shan Ren (Truth, Compassion, Tolerance) are the characteristics of the universe. Practitioners of Falun Gong assimilate to these and cultivate these simultaneously. Fnhddzs 02:52, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Paragraph about what is Falun Dafa

Note: at this time this paragraph is not present on the main page. --HappyInGeneral 15:14, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Proposal from the critics editors

Li claims to provide salvation for mankind[5] and his Dafa (great law) is judging all beings in a process called Fa-rectification.[6] 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.” [7] 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.” [8]

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."

Please make your contribution for the 2nd paragraph in this section.--Andres18 21:40, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Isn't the pro-FG version a little long-winded for the pre-introduction!? I propose that we stick to a maximum of two quotes from Li Hongzhi himself in this paragraph, and that they cannot be more than 1 1/2 lines long across (25-30 words max.). We should only highlight the most basic and core teachings of FG to give a general idea. If people want to learn more, they can read on, but if you try to say so much in the beginning most neutral observers will actually be bored / turned off and look elsewhere. A paragraph of 5 medium-long or 6-7 short sentences should be sufficient for a pre-intro. Use the qigong (shorter) or Buddhism (longer) entry for reference. Jsw663 13:07, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, i understand what you mean, I personally believe that the critics version left many questions unanswered so perhaps thats why we decided to extend ourselves a bit more on the practitioners version. I personally do not agree to such complicated definitions being posted at the pre-intro because it is not easy to define them in such a few words and doing so may generate misunderstandings to the reader, or the other party may believe their point of view is not being considered.--Andres18 22:35, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Or easier yet, why not just cut this paragraph and explain this later? Colipon+(T) 05:34, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Here's a compromise which would drop the last two sentences in the Critics version (the two Li quotes which I had orignially added) and then revise delete the last sentence in the first paragrpah to come up with two shortened paragraphs as follows: (I've also added a footnote source and changed a bit of Colophon's language):

Falun Gong, (Traditional Chinese: 法輪功; Simplified Chinese: 法轮功; pinyin: Fǎlún Gōng; literally "Practice of the Wheel of Law", or otherwise the "Practice of the Wheel of Dharma") 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 Dharma") is a controversial system of "mind and body cultivation" introduced by Li Hongzhi (whose surname is Li) to the public in 1992. Over the years there has been much debate as to whether Falun Gong should be classified as a spiritual movement, a religion, or a cult.

The system itself refers to five sets of meditation exercises, and the spiritual teachings are based on Li's principles of "Truthfulness, Compassion, and Forbearance", which are thought to be the essential characteristics of the universe whose existence is only detectable by Falun Gong practitioners. {Footnote: Zhuan Falun, 2nd edition p.27} Li claims to provide salvation for mankind[5] and his Dafa (great law) is judging all beings in a process called Fa-rectification.[6] In the Fa-rectification process, all beings will be judged based on their moral quality and the attitude they have towards the Fa-rectification. --Tomananda 08:30, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

...Which are "thought" to be truthfulness benevolence forbearance? who said that? could you give me a sourced material that says that Falun Gong says that the core principle of their teachings is not Truthfulness Benevolence Forbearance? This way you could make such statement and attribute it to a source. I understand you may be unsure of wether those are the principles, but the pro-Falun Gong editors are all really aware of those being the principles and i believe our view should also be included. I dont see what is wrong with "Mr. Li says that what he calls the cosmic characteristic of the universe, the principles of Truthfulness-Benevolence-Forbearance are the criteria for judging all sentient beings." In this sentence we are reporting something which has already been said by a published sourced and thats how it should be, because on Zhuan Falun, in the first talk, there is a section called "Zhen Shan Ren (Truthfulness-Benevolence-Forbearance) is the sole criterion to discern between good and bad people" On that same section, it says "This characteristic, Zhen-Shan-Ren, is the criterion for measuring good and bad in the universe. What’s good or bad? It is judged by this".

Also, i could not find anywhere in page 27 of Zhuan Falun that Mr. Li says "Only Falun Gong practitioners can detect the characteristic of the universe" I believe you cannot say such a bold statement if you do not have a source that says those exact words. You are adding a footnote, that means you actually have the same set of sentences written on that source you are giving, right? or at least something that resembles it. I could not find those words. Also, on link number 6, please explain to me where are the words "The Dafa is judging all sentient beings in a process called Fa rectification" or did you came to that conclusion after reading it? I read the material of that link and it only mentions the word "Fa Rectification" in the title, besides, its written in a poetic form, i find it hard to understand how it could serve for defining Fa rectification in a way that can be understandable for the reader and i also do not think it is a source which can provide you with aditional and detailed information regarding it. We should look for something more specific and simple. Fa rectification is not easy to define so i still think it should be left for later on. By the way, when you say "His Dafa is judging all sentient beings", we should explain what is Dafa, because the Dafa is Truthfulness-Benevolence-Forbearance. If you say "Dafa" people wont know you are talking about this characteristic and it may generate misunderstandings.--Andres18 00:14, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Okay let's add that in. Instead of "is only detectable by Falun Gong practitioners", let's change it to "Only Falun Gong practitioners can detect the characteristic of the universe". I am fine with either or both, frankly. Colipon+(T) 04:23, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Who says it's only detectable by Falun Dafa practitioners? That's totally false. Instead of "thought" you can say "considered". Also don't say "the spiritual teachings are", it's better if you say "and spiritual teachings based...". Another thing, in my (and probably most other practitioners') opinion Falun Gong is neither a "spiritual movement, religion, or a cult". It's a "spiritual discipline". That should be included. Mcconn 04:55, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

I think that the correct wording is "cultivation way", "cultivation practice" or perhaps "Qigong school". "Our Falun Dafa is one of the eighty-four thousand cultivation ways in the Buddha School."; "Falun Dafa is also a cultivation practice of mind and body, and it requires exercises." "At the first Expo, our Falun Dafa was honored as the “Star Qigong School.”", quotes from Zhuan Falun, 2000 edition. --HappyInGeneral 15:08, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Hello to those of you claiming Falun Gong is not a religion or a cult. Perhaps then you should message the Portal:Religion, tell them Falun Gong cannot be classified as a religion and start your own portal of "spiritual disciplines", and also remove it as part of WikiProject Religions. I'll support you. Colipon+(T) 05:07, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Practitioners never claimed that Falun Dafa is a religion. We actually did mention some main differences between religions and our qigong / cultivation practice. We are not required to worship, to pay fees, we do not have priests, etc ... Falun Dafa does emphasize morality which is similar to any upright faith. If you wish to remove it from Portal:Religion I have nothing against it. --HappyInGeneral 15:08, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

One more thing right now the second paragraph on the actual page is not this one. So I'm changing the title of this section to "Paragraph about what is Falun Dafa". With the present note that this paragraph is not present on the main page. --HappyInGeneral 15:14, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

If people want to consider Falun Gong a religion, then they can do that, but I think very few practitioners see it that way. I'm not saying we can't allow that view to be presented, I'm just saying that it's debatable and that there are more views that should also be presented and given appropriate weight. Is there any response to my other comments? Mcconn 19:58, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Exactly, simply because FLG practitioners do not believe their practice as classified under a religion, spiritual movement or cult, does not mean no weight should be given to the many people that do classify it under such labels. Therefore it is an appropriate NPOV introduction. Again, if you want sources on this claim, check the source farm on the controversies article. Please do not deny the validity of all these sources.

My proposal stands that there be a sentence in the intro saying Over the years there has been much debate as to whether Falun Gong should be classified as a spiritual movement, a religion, or a cult. (tomananda's version) or my version, Over the years it has shown characteristics which makes it difficult to be classified as a spiritual movement, a religion, or a cult. Colipon+(T) 20:57, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

It is not an appropriate NPOV sentence for the introduction because since we do not believe our practice should be classified under such labels, by ignoring our opinion and refusing to merge both POV into the wording, you are not creating a NPOV sentence. We do believe weight should be given to your POV about it, but that doesnt mean all the weight should rely on your wording. When you say it like this "Over the years there has been much debate as to whether Falun Gong should be classified as a spiritual movement, a religion, or a cult." and you do not add any footnotes or do not attribute it to a source, it makes the reader think that Wikipedia is saying so, but then again, you are showing a point of view which is anti Falun Gong, but the Pro Falun Gong point of view is not included in there, to us, none of those options are a valid definition of Falun Gong. We believe "cultivation way" "Qigong School" "Spiritual Discipline" are good options that would describe Falun Gong in our view. If you are not willing to include them or to merge both point of views in a convenient way for both parties, then we cannot accept your proposal. The fundamental problem with your proposed sentence is that you are forcing the reader to choose or understand only these three choices "religion, cult, spiritual movement" and there are other definitions like the ones we have mentioned before that should be included in case you want to make it neutral. If you ask me, labeling like this should be attributed to sources, i think the paragrah was good as it was before this addition.--Andres18 23:05, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Let us further come to a mutual understanding here. I understand that it is in both of our interests to present a neutral point of view. This neutral point of view cannot be created if you constantly shoot down every compromise we try to make. How about Over the years there has been much debate as to whether Falun Gong should be classified as a spiritual movement, a religion, or a cult. Falun Gong states that it is a "spiritual discipline". Again, the introduction on any Wikipedia articles seldom uses sources. I would also argue that the purpose of sources are to clarity the authenticity of information presented, as you would likely agree. In this case these sources are easily made available if you click on the controversies section. And again, Wikipedia is not labeling your practice, Wikipedia is simply presenting an overwhelming fact that is agreed upon by all except for FLG practitioners themselves. If you continue to deny that Falun Gong is controversial, that "there has been much debate surrounding whether Falun Gong can be considered a spiritual movement, a religion, or a cult", or continue to ask for sources when all the sources are right there, then I am afraid you are only discrediting yourself further.

Master Li is great. Colipon+(T) 04:01, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

You now propose Over the years there has been much debate as to whether Falun Gong should be classified as a spiritual movement, a religion, or a cult. Falun Gong states that it is a "spiritual discipline". I still dont agree with your proposal. It not only makes the paragraph longer, but the first sentence which isnt neutral is not attributed to the criticism side and it makes it look as if wikipedia, which is a neutral speaker, is saying those words. If our point of view is not included, we will not agree to your proposal. I believe it was fine the way it was before.--Andres18 05:16, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Of course Wikipedia is saying these words. They are a neutral judgment without any loaded phrases that leaves the reader to judge for themselves. Your views are presented, so are the views of the vast majority of people who are not FLG practitioners. I don't see what's wrong. Remember, the fact here is that we're saying there has been "much debate", which is a fact. A purely encyclopedic fact that you apparently see as an attack on FLG, which it is not. By not allowing something along these lines to show up in the intro wikipedia is ignoring that the controversy surrounding FLG exists. This is not even strictly an NPOV issue because what is being discussed here is a fact and not an opinion.

So to sum it up, in another attempt to come to a fragile compromise, I do not care about how it is worded, but the following fact needs to be in the introduction: Falun Gong is controversial. Would anyone else like to contribute to this issue too? Colipon+(T) 20:44, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Without a legitimate response in a few days, I think I will be bold and post up this line. However, in an attempt to keep a cool head and maintain the current non-confrontational environment, I will await a response before I do so. Colipon+(T) 08:57, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia cannot say these words, because people who are not practitioners may see falun gong as a cult, a religion or a spiritual movement, but they may also see it as a "qigong system" or a "cultivation way". You are forcing the reader to choose between cult, religion or spiritual movement only and our point of view is not included. How can i agree to a suggestion where our point of view is not included?.--Andres18 04:47, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Many media have also called it a spiritual discipline and some have called it a qigong system too. These terms are also within the "debate" that you are referring to, and shouldn't be neglected. I'm also not against have a following sentance that says "Falun Gong practitioners refer to it as a spiritual discipline, qigong school, or cultivation practice." Mcconn 16:14, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

I think that is fair. Colipon+(T) 22:38, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Proposal For the Paragraph about the situation in China

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 then-President Jiang Zemin's personal jealousy over the growing success of the practice and a sense that he could not control the people's hearts and minds.(footnote)

Although there has been resistance to the last proposed edit I made (basically including the word 'harmony', because that is the word Xinhua uses), are there any other objections to this (apart from HiG's attempt to extend the FG view a lot more)? Jsw663 13:02, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, I personally think it is ok as it is right now. Maybe the other editors would like to comment on it as well? perhaps they may know of any details we may be missing.--Andres18 22:26, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

this paragraph is actually alright. Finally, a compromise! Look below for a few things to add:

The government of the People's Republic of China banned Falun Gong in April 1999 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). Since the ban the Chinese government has been subject to international criticism on issues related to human rights. 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 then-President Jiang Zemin's personal jealousy over the growing success of the practice and a sense that he was losing control of the hearts and minds of the general populace.(footnote)

I am also open, however, to adding a bit about Falun Gong's alliance with strictly anti-CPC organizations such as the Epoch Times and its relatively recent crusade against the Communist Party. I think it is somewhat significant.

Colipon+(T) 05:39, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Colipon, there is a danger of wanting to add more and more detail to this paragraph. Can we not add that middle sentence in the 3rd paragraph? It disturbs the balance currently obtained there. I think the HR criticisms already has its own section, and that the FG position already supports this. 'International' criticism is also a little suspect, as it is clearly not the whole world condemning the Chinese government, but a few select (human rights) organizations. Jsw663 13:24, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, the Chinese government has received criticism. We can explain it later too, depends on what others think. What about adding the bit about Epoch Times and other anti-Communist organizations? Will that also open a can of worms? Colipon+(T) 04:13, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Current version on the online article (second paragraph) is this:

Falun Gong has been the focus of international controversy since July 20, 1999, when the government of the People's Republic of China (PRC) began a suppression of the movement nationwide, except in the special administrative region of Hong Kong. The PRC government claims to have banned the group for what it considers to be illegal activities. The Falun Gong claims that the ban was the result of personal jealousy of the group’s popularity on the part of Jiang Zemin, a former President of the People's Republic of China. The suppression of Falun Gong is considered a human rights violation by a number of (mostly western) human rights groups and politicians.

and I propose this version:

Falun Gong has been the focus of international controversy since July 20, 1999, when the government of the People's Republic of China (PRC) began a suppression of the movement nationwide, except in the special administrative region of Hong Kong.

- I think this part is neutral. Although the word suppression we might change to persecution at some point.

The government of the People's Republic of China banned Falun Gong in April 1999 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).

- this is the pro-CCP part (51 words)

Falun Gong claims that these accusations are fabricated and it was banned due to the communist regime's officially atheist nature and intolerance of other beliefs, as well as Jiang's personal jealousy over the growing success of the movement and a sense that he could not control people's hearts and minds. (footnote).

- this is the pro Falun Gong part (50 words).

Can we agree up this version? --HappyInGeneral 16:22, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree, but i believe that in the pro-Falun Gong part: "growing success of the movement" should be changed to one of these options: "growing success of the discipline" or "growing success of the Qigong Practice" maybe "Cultivation Practice" or something like that. I think most practitioners would agree with me that Falun Gong is not a spiritual "movement". What do other pro-Fg editors think about this? any suggestions?--Andres18 23:40, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't know why we still have to be pro- and anti- about everything. This was what destroyed the article before. We must realize that if we are to present a pro- and anti- section on everything then the article itself will spiral into a debate forum rather than an encyclopedic document. If we do not realize this simple fact then it is with regret that another session of mediation and compromise has resulted in failure. Colipon+(T) 04:04, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree with you, but i think the pro and anti sections should be only for controversial issues regarding Falun Gong. Im sure other aspects of Falun Gong can and will be defined without having to take any sides.--Andres18 05:19, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

HiG, your version needs a little modifying. For one thing, there is no need to use the clumsy phrase of "The government of the People's Republic of China" in the second sentence as well as the first. The People's Republic of China already had a (PRC) after it in the first sentence, thus there is no need to repeat the words "People's Republic of China". We can shorten it to "The PRC government", making the pro-CCP part only 46 words. This is why I suggested adding the words "harmony and" after 'social' and before 'stability' in the final part of the pro-CCP part (as they were used by the pro-CCP China Daily), making it 48 words, but acceptably close to the FG's 50. One last thing - it would be better to drop the quotations you added around the words evil cult, because if you do so then we will have to add many more quotations around both sides' beliefs. The quotation marks also appear to mock the CCP's beliefs. So, in essence, the pro-CCP part should read:

The PRC government banned Falun Gong in April 1999 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 harmony and stability of the country (footnote). Total: 48 words, less than the pro-FG's 50 words.

Surely we can agree on this? Jsw663 13:43, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

PS Quick question, was the FG banned in Macau SAR? If not, then we need to add a 'and Macau' after the phrase 'Hong Kong' and before 'SAR' in the first sentence Jsw663 13:45, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

PRC has no legal jurisdiction over either Hong Kong or Macau. They are independent in all areas except for defence and foreign affairs. As such, the ban has no effect in Macau. Colipon+(T) 03:41, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

OK guys/gals, this paragraph now looks like this:

Falun Gong has been the focus of international controversy since July 20, 1999, when the government of the People's Republic of China (PRC) passed a law banning it, applicable nationwide, except in the special administrative regions of Hong Kong and Macau. The PRC government claims to have banned the evil cult for illegal and seditious activities, such as advocating superstition and spreading fallacies, hoodwinking people, inciting and creating disturbances, causing unnecessary deaths of its practitioners and jeopardizing China's overall social harmony and stability.".[4] Falun Gong claims that these accusations are fabricated and it was banned due to the communist regime's atheist nature and intolerance of other beliefs, as well as Jiang's personal jealousy over the growing success of the movement and that he could not control people's hearts and minds.[5]

Pro-CCP part = 42 words; pro-FG part = 47 words. So no more accusations of me being anti-FG since I'm giving you people a 12% advantage in word limit, OK? Moreover, the edit to the pro-CCP part was mainly based on Ed Poor's suggestions - one of the people McConn advocates. Jsw663 19:32, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

PS If people agree with this, please say so so we can at least say all sides have agreed on ONE paragraph of the Wiki entry - an achievement in itself! Jsw663 19:40, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm really just willing to compromise in just about anything right now. The paragraph looks good. Perhaps add a "then-President" before "Jiang"? Colipon+(T) 21:50, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm ok with this except for the phrase "The PRC government claims to have banned the evil cult". This is phrased in such a way that wiki is calling Falun Gong an evil cult. Instead, we could say "The PRC government labeled Falun Gong an evil cult and claims to have banned it for illegal and seditious activities, such as advocating superstition and spreading fallacies, hoodwinking people, inciting and creating disturbances, causing unnecessary deaths of its practitioners and jeopardizing China's overall social harmony and stability."

I think we can also mention "fear" in addition to "jealousy" when referring to the growth of discipline (As was already pointed out, the Falun Gong perspective does not consider "movement" an accurate word). I suggest this because of the following quote from Mr. Li:

Actually, I know perfectly well why some people are bent on opposing Falun Gong. Just as reported by the media, there are too many people practicing Falun Gong. One hundred million people is indeed no small number. Yet why should having a large number of good people be feared? Isn’t it true that the more good people there are, the better, and that the fewer the bad people, the better? I, Li Hongzhi, unconditionally help cultivators improve their morals and gain health, which brings about social stability and allows people to better serve the society with their able bodies. Isn’t this benefiting the people in power? These things have, in fact, truly been achieved. Why is it that instead of thanking me, they want to set as many as 100 million people against the government? What government could be so unfathomable? Furthermore, who among these 100 million people doesn’t have family, children, relatives, and friends? Is it a question of only 100 million people? So the number of people they are going against might be even more. What on earth has happened to "the leaders of my beloved land"? If with my, Li Hongzhi’s, life I can dispel their fears of these good people, I will immediately go back and let them do what they will. Why "risk universal condemnation," waste manpower and capital, and use politics and money to pursue a deal that violates human rights?... [1]

I also suggest that we say "Jiang Zemin" rather than "Jiang" since most people probably won't know who "Jiang" is. With these changes the sentence would read, "Falun Gong claims that these accusations are fabricated and it was banned due to the communist regime's atheist nature and intolerance of other beliefs, as well as some people's fears and Jiang Zemin's personal jealousy over the growing success of the discipline and inability to control people's hearts and minds."

What do you think? Mcconn 17:32, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Mcconn, Falun gong and falun dafa are two different things, we have thoroughly talked about this subject. The Falun Dafa is religious. And it is not based on Truthfulness, compassion and tolerance but Li’s revelation. The Falun Dafa is going to rectify the human world and weed out the bad guys, is it not? --Samuel Luo 22:13, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

I've responded to your comment in the appropriate section above. Mcconn 23:31, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

QUICK OVERVIEW OF NOTABLE THIRD PARTY VIEWS TO BE INCLUDED ALSO:

I really think information about notable third partys on the persecution should be included in this section. So it will go: what the CCP says, what Falun Gong says, what notable Third Partys say. That strikes me as an eminently fair and reasonable way to go about presenting the circumstances. I added this part which was swiftly reverted by Tomananda. Please note that I did not discuss this beforehand, for which I apologise; I was not aware of this well-ordered page outlining the discussions. Accordingly, I now humbly offer this as a brief summary of notable third party findings on the persecution, and suggest that it be added directly below the Falun Gong "statement". Let's discuss and see if we can improve it, add in things, take out things, or just get an idea of what everyone thinks. Notable third party views are as important to include in appraising this situation as those of the CCP and Falun Gong:

Third party investigators, including the UN, Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch have described the PRC's treatment of Falun Gong as persecution or genocide, referring also to allegations of severe torture, beatings, injections with nerve-damaging drugs, rape, and other forms of maltreatment. In July of 2006 David Kilgour and David Matas published a report entitled "Report into Allegations of Organ Harvesting of Falun Gong Practitioners in China", in which they concluded that based on the evidence available to them there has been large scale organ seizures of unwilling Falun Gong practitioners by the PRC government. --Asdfg12345 15:20, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

In a FG v CCP propaganda war, why should we give third-party human rights organizations the same status? Their opinions will be included later on in the page, but not in the introduction. If you include third-party views in the introduction you risk making it very long, as not all third-parties support the pro-FG view. Again, McConn, I'll reply to your post later. I hope you read my three-strike proposal that I think needs to be applied swiftly if we are going to move towards a Wiki solution. Jsw663 19:36, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

"In a FG v CCP propaganda war, why should we give third-party human rights organizations the same status?" I think it really makes sense to include third party views briefly, exactly for that reason. That is giving a quick and more complete appraisal of the situation. After all, in such a propaganda war, who are we to believe, right? What do Falun Gong say? What does the CCP say? What do independent investigators say? Those are three basic questions, so we really cannot leave out what independent investigators have said about the issue. It is actually quite important. If you can find some third party investigators on the persecution who have said some contrary things, then we can say "Third party investigations have come to mixed conclusions... while human rights organisations such as... claim torture, genocide, rape and organ harvesting.... others such as... do not come to the same conclusions." There is no issue of length. Third party views, alongside that of Falun Gong and the CCP, need to be mentioned briefly for a balanced summary. It is just a logical step to explaining the situation. I would like to add, please don't take this as an accusation, but that if any of us were harbouring our own motives which negatively impacted on a fair, balanced, and neutral attitude toward editing - or if for example maybe you do not want third party investigators's views included just because they say there is a persecution - then we really would not be truly participating in the spirit of wikipedia, and we would be working against achieving a good article. Of course, if there really is an issue of length, we can shorten it a little.--Asdfg12345 10:36, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Very short reply to Asdfg. Primary issue of this paragraph is length; always has been. This is the pre-intro. Independent investigators are defined also by their political stance - so human rights orgs aren't really 'independent' per se; they do qualify as 'third-party' though. Note I am proposing to exclude third party sources who say there is persecution AND those who say that such accusations are groundless. Yes, I do think third-party views should be aired and in the Falun Gong entry, but just not in the pre-intro (this is what I meant by different status). OK? Jsw663 19:37, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

I think you are lumping those who say there is a persecution together with Falun Gong views and calling them biased like that. Why can't the sentence just read like: "some third party investigators such as... have found numerous human rights abuses such as..., while others have investigated and say there is no persecution at all" - okay, that is fine and will take up 3 or 4 lines, what's the problem? It will not interrupt the balance or flow or make the article worse at all. It is such obvious and basic information to include in a brief appraisal of the situation between Falun Gong and the CCP, and I seems tat you only want it excluded because they say there is a persecution. Find some that don't and we'll give them a quick mention too. --Asdfg12345 15:56, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Number of practitioners

I suggest that the current third paragraph on the article should simply be cut and explained later. Colipon+(T) 05:40, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

You think so? could you tell us why? this way we could share our opinions and perhaps reach an agreement.--Andres18 00:20, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

I thought so because the intro is longer than it needs to be. Instead of quoting the New York times and further make a claim from that, maybe we should just give a range. Say... Sources vary on the number of Falun Gong practitioners, different sources have quoted the number being from 2 million to 70 million. Colipon+(T) 04:11, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Could we also add the number of country's, I usually saw these two informations given together, which is kinda normal since they are in context? --HappyInGeneral 16:29, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

What to do after the intro

Since the article is split into three main sections after the intro, the historical, the pro-FG then the anti-FG, I suggest we cover the historical paragraph in the same fashion as the intro. The pro-FG and anti-FG sections will then be discussed at length by both sides. This will take a long time but it should result in a fairer outcome. However, when I talk about discussion, I refer specifically to general parameters, e.g. length, depth, etc. The content will obviously be written by the different sides themselves. I know I'm probably two steps too far ahead, but any thoughts on this? We can then have more sub-pages for each of these sections, then finally arriving at a Wiki entry - and a sigh of relief whenever that will be! Jsw663 13:32, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

I think you have proposed the right approach. Assuming the content on the main page is sourced, NPOV and not original research (and for the most part it already meets these standards), the only remaining issue is the overall weight (length and depth of content) given to the "pro" and "anti" FG positions. It seems to me there can even be some horse trading here. For example, if there's going to be yet another attack on what I condsider to be a modest (in terms of length and depth) summary of the Criticism and Controversy page, I will demand that for balance we need to delete the entirety of the Reseach into medical benefits page for reasons of balance. Thus we could wind up with a zero sum game in which the main page is even shorter than it is now. Alternatively, if both sides are willing to compromise on issues of length and depth, the main page will come out much better. --Tomananda 19:46, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

About length, on the Falun Gong it is like this: "5 Research into health benefits" has 464 words; "6 Criticism and controversies section" has 466 words which means that they are pretty balanced. So all we need to do is to drop the Criticism_and_controversies_about_Falun_Gong page which has 9191 words and it will be nicely balanced. Right? --HappyInGeneral 16:37, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

HiG, your proposal is so radical that I'm not sure it warrants a reply. Maybe we should drop the Teachings of Falun Gong page, and any other pages that promote FG as well, because you outrageously insist that one separate page on criticisms is too biased!! What are you trying to promote here? Jsw663 13:34, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Actually, you can write all you want about the studies done on the benefits of Falun Gong. Give it a good 100,000 words or so. Leave the Controversies article as it is, please. Colipon+(T) 03:37, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

I have restored intro to the pre-edit war version, let's talk before changing it. --Samuel Luo 20:38, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

The Criticism_and_controversies_about_Falun_Gong on the main page is over weighted. That seems the only section with subsections on the main page. Please give a reason. Otherwise, I would remove all subtitles and integrated as other sections. Fnhddzs 03:04, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Let's not jump to changing it ourselves right away. This discussion was initiated on the talk page here, but as you can see it was ignored. Perhaps we can try to rekindle this discussion by copying it and pasting it at the bottom of the talk page, and writing some new posts. How about that? Mcconn 03:53, 24 January 2007 (UTC)