text:
Li against practitioners who do not live up to the requirments of his Dafa constitute, in my own point of view, "undue influence"  in the legal sense. The practitioners are made to be fearful of what will happen to them if they should stray from Master Li's control. It's the old carrot and stick approach: do what my Dafa requires of you and I will turn you into Gods,  but disobey the Dafa and I will no longer protect you from all those demons. --Tomananda 01:25, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Response to Olaf's Post Above
Olaf,

You say I don’t seem to “assume good faith” on the part of Falun Gong practitioners in this editing process. As someone who has had a great deal of communication with Falun Gong practitioners over many years, I need to point out that if you view Falun Gong as an authoritarian cult,  as I do,  then the  tendency of practitioners to conceal their core beliefs makes a lot of sense. I don’t think Falun Gong practitioners think they are doing any thing wrong when they do this, so it would be inaccurate to accuse them of not acting ”in good faith.”

But at the same time, surely you can see in the series of communications above that there has been a stubborn resistance on the part of multiple practitioners to acknowledge even the basics of their beliefs. For example, something as simple as a statement that Li Hongzhi offers salvation to people in this Dharma ending period (forget for a moment which people can be saved),  was never once acknowledged by Dilip or the other practitioners who followed after him. In fact, Dilip outrageously said that my edits weren’t even “remotely factual” and then proceeded to substitute two paragraphs of his own making in which no mention of Li Hongzhi’s role as savior is mentioned. This kind of behavior is typical for Falun Gong practitioners. On more than one occasion I have sat through a formal presentation of Falun Gong lasting more than an hour, and virtually no mention of Li Hongzhi has been made. Instead, we hear all about the health benefits of the exercises and words like “cultivation,” but no mention of the critical role Li Hongzi plays in cultivation and certainly no mention of “Fa-rectification.”

My goal in making modest (in terms of length at least) edits is to insert into this article some facts about the teachings which, as you suggest, may make Falun Gong practitioners uncomfortable. Fire Star has stated that when we add something in an edit, we shouldn’t do that at the expense of another person. In other words, where there is a debate about what needs to be included, we should add rather than replace content. Using that as a guiding principle, I will suggest some additions to the two paragraphs that now appear at the bottom of the Beliefs section to accommodate some of you concerns.

1. You point out that in Turning the Wheel Towards the Human World Li Hongzhi said that Fa-rectification is actually saving all beings, not just the good ones. I agree that some mention of this needs to be made, but not at the expense of other statements Li Hongzhi has made about Fa-rectification and the weeding out people who think that the Dafa isn’t good, “the dregs of humanity and the degenerate world.”  Li Hongzhi has made many statements about Fa-rectification and the categories of people he says who will be “weeded out.”  As with any prolific author, he sometimes seems to contradict himself. When that occurs, a good article will report the apparent contradictions, not hide them.

2. You point out that Master Li states that it is for the purpose of saving people that “we help people to see the wicked CCP for what it is.”    Although I know Li Hongzhi has said words to that effect, I do not believe that it belongs in the two paragraphs we are now talking about. Keep in mind that I had originally inserted a version of those two paragraphs in the introduction. When Fire Star modified the paragraphs slightly and inserted them at the end of the Beliefs section, it was an acknowledgment that some important teachings had been left out.

In terms of the overall composition of the piece,  we can either have a separate section on the controversies surrounding Falung Gong (see the Wikipedia piece on Scientology for a possible model) or we can continue using the overall organization we presently have. Under the present structure, I strongly argue that a discussion of the beliefs of Falun Gong must be presented independent of the situation in China, which is covered in great detail in other sections.

Also, I need to point out that language such as “wicked” to describe the CCP is, itself, a point of view. There’s a counter argument that can be made about the status of Falun Gong practitioners in China along these lines: While we all condemn the persecution of Falun Gong practitioners for their beliefs,  the ban of Falun Gong that was instituted by the government in 1999 was justified based on the need to protect society from Li Hongzhi’s dangerous teachings (eg:  “sickness karma”) and the harassment by practitioners of Falun Gong critics. Although I make this point, I do not intend to pursue any edits along these lines, so there is no need for us to get into a debate in this area. I am just pointing out that in terms of over-all structure, the Beliefs section should not be bogged down with POV’s about the situation in China, since those POV’s are best handled in their own sections.

3. In this item you get into some of the details of Li Hongzhi’s cosmology which, if fully presented in the Wikipedia piece, would probably best be handled in a separate section. But as to your basic point that “Fa-rectification is to save all beings that can be saved,” I think I responded to that idea in item # 1 above.

4. You provide more of Li Hongzhi’s quotes here which demonstrate that his priority for practitioners at this time is for them to focus exclusively on the persecution in China  when they are “clarifying the truth”  and saving people during the Fa-rectification. You don’t need to find any more quotes along those lines, because I fully understand that this is, in fact, the priority. But priorities change, while the soteriological beliefs of the Falun Gong would  remain, even if Li Hongzhi did achieve his goal of reducing membership in the CCP to zero. To argue that this is not a political goal of the Falun Gong because it also helps practitioners to reach salvation during Fa-rectification strikes me as nothing but weasel words, to use Fire Star’s formulation.

In my own point of view, the Falun Gong is an authoritarian cult which uses the promise of salvation to achieve a political goal. However, I am not arguing that this point of view needs to be inserted into the Beliefs section of the Wikipedia article. But by the same token, I would hope that you would agree not to gloss over the essential teachings of Li Hongzhi concerning his role as the only savior of mankind during this Dharma-ending period. That is the basic teaching and it holds true regardless of what happens in China. --Tomananda 20:45, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Fire Star: Please Intervene Again
Fire Star: Your revision at 18:45 17 March has been replaced with new words from Dilip, who continues to do what he accuses me of:  replacing whole paragraphs, rather than discussing changes to existing text in this section. Again, I feel like I am being bullyed by a host of Falun Gong practitioners. Olaf made some substantive suggestions about possible additions to the Beliefs section which I have just responded to above.

Please revert the text, again,  to the earlier version.

--Tomananda 21:00, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Proposed Edit in Cultivation of Mind and Body Section
I am proposing the addition of a few sentences to explain "sickness karma" in the section entitled "Cultivation of Mind and Body." As with other core teachings, I was surprised that some mention of sickness karma was not already in the text. Rather than assuming lack of good faith, I will assume it was just an oversight.

Although the teachings on "sickness karma" are quite controversial, I have crafted a presentation which, I believe, is devoid of bias or POV. To show the context, I have included the existing sentence in the affected paragraph in italics:

It is believed that though the purpose of cultivation practice is not healing and fitness, an illness free state can manifest even from the beginning stages of cultivation practice of mind and body and that this has directly to do with how much one can elevate one’s Xinxing (mind-nature). When sickness is experienced, practitioners are taught not to be attached to the idea that they are actually experiencing sickness in the traditional sense, but instead to think of sickness as an opportunity to eliminate karma. In Zhuan Falun, it is said:

 * “I will purify your body. The body purification will be done only for those who come to truly learn the practice and the Fa. We emphasize one point: if you cannot relinquish the attachment or concern for illness, we cannot do anything and will be unable to help you.”:

Although practitioners are not told that they cannot take medicine when they are sick, they are challenged, as part of their cultivation practice, to avoid seeking traditional medical help in order to realize the karma-eliminating benefits of sickness. In Falun Gong, it is said:

 * “Taking medication during cultivation implies that you do not believe in the disease-curing effects of cultivation. If you believed in it, why would you take medication?”:

--Tomananda 05:19, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

 * Simply reporting the sourced material, as you have proposed, seems fine. It gives some context to another bit of copy in the article about FLG's approach to medicine. --Fire Star 06:07, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Not Apologetics
This is an article. Not a collection of quotes. Our purpose is to present an as accurate as possible article on Falun Gong. The contextual version is not apologetics. We try to explain to the greatest extent we can through the context behind any quote we put in. The editor himself must first arduously and in-depth study the teachings of the school. I had been doing the same so that we may have an encyclopaedia quality article here. The contextualized version explains a lot of things including what Fa-Rectification is. Most editors felt the other vesion is simply not accurate... We have some serious thinking to do. I donot plan to bent down and sacrifice a bit on accuracy ... Or to let the article go down a bit in quality.

Tomananda, I didnt have any clue as to what your sexual orientation is( how was I to know?). If I knew I wouldnt have posted those quotes on homosexuality. I am terribly sorry. Friend, I would like to exchange something which I consider is of great and urgent importance with you over email... it is more than just about Falun Gong... my email id is<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
Putting in Quotes Out of Context
Fire Star, I am surprised that you support putting in all these out of context quotes... I am even more surprised that you fail to see that the person has a strong POV. With regard to sickness karma and its relation to medicine SO MUCH is said in the lectures.... To take an aribtrary line from it and put forward it as the belief of Falun Gong... ARE YOU DOING JUSTICE TO THE BELIEFS OF FALUN GONG WHEN YOU DO THIS??

In regard to the previous paragraphs... it is not that you want it in there... or that I dont.. It is that majority of the editors preferred the contextualized version.... Yet, somehow the other version is in there!!  Nobody owns wikipedia. Do you call this a discussion?? Tomananda... I can only call your strategies perverted - I hope that you will be more upright.You deleted  paragraphs from the orginal text and when I pointed that out... you start whining and present it as if I deleted your paras.... I wanted the editors to reach a consensus on which version to put in.. AND BY EDITORS I MEAN MAJORITY OF THE EDITORS I am replacing it with a contextualized version -which was better accepted.

Let me emphasize this - When majority of the editors prefer a contextualized version, whining is not the way to get your version into the text.

I repeat that your claims like "even death" would return to those who stop practice are nothing but abonimable lies. Yet they find their way into the article.

When an everyday person gets sick and doesn’t go to the hospital or doesn’t take medicine, that doesn’t conform to the principles of everyday people, it doesn’t conform to the principles of this world, and people can’t accept it: “Of course a person needs to take medicine when he gets sick.” “Of course a person needs to go to the hospital for treatment when he gets sick.” This is how people deal with this, and it isn’t wrong. But as a cultivator you can’t confuse yourself with an everyday person. To put it a bit seriously, you’re no longer human. As I just said, humans have various emotions and desires, and live for emotion (qing). During the course of cultivation you are gradually taking these things more lightly and gradually letting go of them until you completely discard them. Humans live for these things, but you don’t. Could you be the same as a human? You aren’t the same. Since that’s the case, why don’t you apply high-level principles that aren’t the same as those of humans to evaluate problems and to evaluate yourself and the things you encounter? That’s the way it should be. That’s why I’ve told you that when we cultivators feel uncomfortable somewhere in our bodies it isn’t sickness. Yet what everyday people consider a sick state, and the state that’s reflected in a cultivator’s body when his karma is being reduced, are the same. It’s hard for everyday people to tell the difference. That’s why cultivation practice stresses enlightening (wu). If they weren’t the same, everyone would practice cultivation and the question of enlightening wouldn’t exist. If only wonderful things happened in a person’s body and even a little discomfort felt like what immortals feel, tell me, who wouldn’t cultivate? Everyone would, but then it wouldn’t count—it wouldn’t count as cultivation. Besides, people aren’t allowed to cultivate that way, as there would be no enlightening involved. So in cultivation you’re bound to be tested amidst the uncertainty of what’s true and what’s false to see how you deal with the matter at hand—to see whether you’ll regard yourself as a cultivator or as an average, everyday person. Isn’t this to see whether you can cultivate? Of course, you appear to be ordinary and no different from an everyday person on the surface, but you are in fact a cultivator.

Yesterday I discussed Buddha Fa cultivation. Cultivation is the most important thing in the cosmos. A human being wants to ascend to a realm that high, and become an Arhat,[4] a Bodhisattva,[5] a Buddha, a Dao, or a God; if a human being with a body full of karma is to become a God, wouldn’t you say it’s a serious matter? Shouldn’t you view these matters strictly with a high standard and hold yourself to righteous thinking? If you still view these matters from an ordinary human perspective, aren’t you an ordinary human yourself? This is such a serious matter—enabling you to become a Buddha—yet you still regard yourself as human and still evaluate these things with human principles. Then it won’t work; you aren’t serious about it, so you can’t cultivate. Buddhas, Daos, and Gods aren’t like what today’s monks and today’s people think. As you know, Buddhas and Gods don’t have ordinary human emotion, nor do they have an ordinary human way of thinking or the notions that are in ordinary humans’ understandings of things. Their way of thinking is of a completely different realm, and they’re free of human concepts and notions of things. Now people have humanized Buddhas and Bodhisattvas, and think of them as if they had human emotions and humanness. When some people go to temples to worship Buddhas and burn incense, they don’t go there for cultivation or out of respect, but to ask for things—asking Buddhas with their attachments. Think about it, what a bad intention that is!

Let me talk to you more about the relationship between taking medicine and eliminating karma. Just now I said that it is the karma accrued lifetime after lifetime that causes sickness. What is that karma? The smaller the particles of the karma that exists in other dimensions—the smaller its grain—the more power it has. When it seeps into our dimension, it’s a microorganism, the most microscopic virus. So would you say that sickness is accidental? It can’t be understood by modern medicine or modern science, which can only understand the kind of phenomena that manifest in this surface dimension composed of the layer of the largest particles, which are formed by molecules. So it’s considered a sickness, a tumor, an infection somewhere, or something else; but today’s science can’t see the fundamental cause of people becoming sick, and it always explains with the limited reasons that can be understood by everyday people. Of course, when someone gets sick, it usually conforms to the principles at the level of this world, and there’s usually an external factor in this world that induces the sickness to manifest. Then it appears to really conform to the principles of this world. In fact, it’s just an external factor that makes it in conformity with the principles of this world or the state of this world. But the fundamental cause and the sickness don’t originate in this dimension. So when you take medicine now you’re killing this sickness or the virus at the surface. Medicine can truly kill viruses at the surface. Yet a practitioner’s gong[7] is automatically destroying viruses and karma. But as soon as medicine kills the surface virus that has seeped over from other dimensions, the virus—karma—over on the other side will know, since everything is alive, and it will stop coming over. Then you feel that you’ve recovered because you took the medicine. But let me tell you that it nonetheless accumulates over there. Life after life human beings are accumulating this stuff. When the accumulation reaches a certain extent, the person becomes incurable and when he dies he’s totally destroyed. He loses his life—forever loses his life. That’s how horrifying it is. So here I’ve explained to you the relationship. It’s not that people aren’t allowed to take medicine. When an everyday person gets sick he definitely needs medical treatment.

But how do we cultivators deal with it? Aren’t we purifying your body? Like the annual rings of a tree, there is karma at the very core, and at every layer, life after life, of your body. When you practice cultivation, I keep pushing this karma outward from the center; I push, and push, and push, and push until I completely push the karma out for you. And not all of this can go through the surface of our bodies. You wouldn’t be able to bear it if all of it were to go through the surface of your body. Only a portion of it comes out through the surface. But you still feel that you’re suddenly getting sick, you find it terribly uncomfortable and painful, can’t bear it, regard yourself as an everyday person, and go take medicine. Then you can go ahead and take medicine, as we’ve never said that everyday people can’t take medicine. We only say that your enlightenment quality isn’t up to par and that you didn’t pass this test well. We have no rule that says you can’t take medicine when you practice cultivation—we don’t have a rigid rule like that. But I’m teaching you the principles of the Fa. You want to let out this karma, yet you take medicine and press it back in—how are we supposed to cleanse your body? Of course, we could push all of it out for you in other dimensions. But the Fa of this cosmos has a principle: You have to endure suffering in this regard when your karma is eliminated for you. You have to endure the same suffering you caused others before. But for cultivators, we can’t let you endure all of it in the same way, as you’d die and then you wouldn’t be able to cultivate. As a cultivator, after you reach Consummation you will repay the harmed lives with blessings. But you do have to endure the portion of mental pain. While enduring the part owed to others, you pay off the karma, because you suffer. Things aren’t isolated. While paying off the karma, you must regard yourself as a cultivator in the midst of the pain. When you don’t consider it sickness you truly have a high-level understanding of this matter, rather than an ordinary human way of thinking. Then haven’t your realm and mind improved in this regard? Isn’t that the issue? It’s a joke to think that one can improve in cultivation by doing the exercises alone. The exercises are a supplementary means to Consummation.

Dilip: I did not delete paragraphs that were previously there. The two paragraphs that are at issue, placed at the end of the Beliefs section by Fire Star, were then replaced by your paragraphs. A mere check of the Wikipedia history will prove that to be the case. You are correct, no one owns Wikipedia, yet you act like you do. You also are engaging in name calling, using words like "perverted." Are you calling my actions perverted because I am a homosexual?

In any case, there is a separate discussion going on with Olaf concerning the content of the second paragraph in question. I agreed with Olaf that some mention of Master Li's most recent statements on who gets saved in Fa-rectification should be added to that second paragraph. By simply deleting it, as you have once again done, you are not being cooperative in the editing process.

Concerning the death quote, yes, Master Li does say that. I provided you with the citation. He also says that cultivation prolongs life, but that the effect only lasts while you are cultivating. Once you are returned to the status of an "ordinary" person, those life-prolonging benefits go away. Your quote above actually supports what I am saying. The Master is saying that ordinary people go to the hospital when they are sick, but cultivators shouldn't confuse themselves with ordinary people. As a cultivator, you are no longer human. But when you loose the status of cultivator (by not following the requirments of the Dafa), you return to human status and can no longer benefit from the life-prolonging and disease-curing effects of cultivation. This all seems quite understandable to me, why do you have a problem with it appearing in the Wikipedia article?

By the way, one of the characteristics of cults is that cult leaders create a sense of separateness between the followers and the rest of society. Cult leaders offer their followers a special status...like Master Li telling his disciples they are no longer human...and perpetuate that wall of separation by saying that the rest of society really can't understand the high level or secret nature of their own beliefs.

Another characteristic of cults is the practice of deception. In the case of Falun Gong, while it is true that all the teachings are there on the internet for everyone to read, most people trust that the practitioners themselves will report the complete story. So this Wikipedia article becomes important. It is an article that needs to tell the whole truth of Falun Gong beliefs and not gloss over the parts about Master Li's critical role in cultivation.

Oops--I forgot to acknowledge that in your quote above Master Li does say practitioners will become Buddhas, which I know is your preferred language. But the Master also says, repeatedly, that Falun Gong practitioners will be turned into Gods. He even uses God in the quote you yourself provide above. (I hope you don't mind that I bolded that clause in your post.) To omit the word God or Gods merely because you want all of Falun Gong to sound like orthodox Buddhism...which it isn't...is, in itself, a point of view. I will acknowledge you for your consistency, however. Just as you don't want to see the word Gods appearing in this article, you also apparantly don't want to see the word salvation.

--Tomananda 17:16, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

 * We all have POV, some are pro, some are anti, even boredom with the subject is a POV - but we don't have to act on it. Quotes may seem out of context, but our linking features are to provide context. Where it gets dodgy is when we start to assert things that aren't in the public record. We should only say Li says "blah". If there is a controversy, we should actually name the groups that find FLG controversial, and provide links to their info. As well, if there is FLG apologetics providing context, we should also link to that. Also, not instead of. It is a balancing act. The drier the citations, the less emotional resistance they will engender, and the more likely it is that we will all be happy with the article in the end. We aren't supposed to argue the validity of any philosophy ourselves, we only have to give people the tools, all the tools, to research further if they want. That is why encyclopaedias are found in the reference sections of libraries. --Fire Star 19:26, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Not Apologetics
This is an article. Not a collection of quotes. Our purpose is to present an "as accurate as possible" article on Falun Gong. The contextual version is not apologetics. We try to explain to the greatest extent we can the context behind any quote we put in. The editor himself must first arduously and in-depth study the teachings of the school. I had been doing the same so that we may have an encyclopaedia quality article here. The contextualized version explains a lot of things including what Fa-Rectification is. Most editors felt the other vesion is simply not accurate... We have some serious thinking to do. I donot plan to bent down and sacrifice a bit on accuracy ... Or to let the article go down a bit in quality... Allowing one bit of inaccuracy is as good as letting pages of inaccurate material inside... We need to revise the paras... especially so when so many editors consider it inaccurate..

Tomananda, I didnt have any clue as to what your sexual orientation is( how was I to know?). If I knew I wouldnt have posted those quotes on homosexuality. I am terribly sorry... there exists bad things in all of us; eliminating those things is what is meant by cultivation... and schools of cultivation tell us that they are not of our true selves and that only by freeing ourselves of those aggregates (called egos in the Gnostic school) can one's true self rise up in its ineffable glory... The greatest cultivators have emerged from the sinners of the past.. It is only greater glory if one can completely rise above all those things.. the lotus grows in mud .. though you may call this a POV :) .. the red rose is more beautiful than the white one... I also want you to know that what the ancient cultivation ways tell us is not mere philosophy.. but a mathematically precise description of reality... which you may validate for yourself... there is far more to reality than what we think we know... the mammal intellect in itself is incapable of understanding higher teachings... but there are higher faculties in the human...

Friend, I would like to exchange something which I consider is of great and urgent importance with you over email... it is more than just about Falun Gong... my email id is<EMAIL_ADDRESS>... could you kindly give me your e-mail id?

Dilip rajeev 09:35, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Quote by Master Da Liu
Master Da Liu, being the first Master to introduce the West to QiGong and Tai Chi, and being the author of several books on qi gong and taichi.. and Falun Gong being considered a system of Qi Gong of the Buddha School, I would like to know what the editors feel regarding pointing out Master Da Liu's opinion on Falun Gong in the article.. Dilip rajeev 09:44, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Proposed Edit on Fa-rectification
Olaf has pointed out that the last paragraph in the Beliefs section does not report that Li Hongzhi's teachings concerning the Fa-rectication have changed over time. He now offers salvation to all people, good and bad alike. In order to address that concern, as well as provide additional context as requested by Dilip, I have expanded that paragraph as follows:

Existing paragraph:

Also found is the idea that Master Li protects all his disciples, but that if they fail to follow the requirements of his Dafa he will withdraw his protection and their bodies will be returned to those of ordinary persons and that sickness, old age and even death will return to them. If practitioners follow the requirements of the Fa they are promised salvation, while people who think that the Dafa isn’t good, the dregs of humanity and the degenerate world.

Proposed New Text:

Also found is the idea that Master Li has numerous Fashen (spiritual Law bodies) which protect practitioners from harm. These Law bodies “exercise great supernatural power and the mighty power of the Fa.” They surround practitioners at all times and know everything that is on their minds. Li Hongzhi states in the Zhuan Falun : “If you can really cultivate in the right way, nobody dares to touch you rashly. What’s more, you are under the protection of my Law bodies, so you will never be in any danger.” While protecting practitioners, the Master’s Law bodies also cure the illnesses for those who practice at the Falun Gong exercise sites. However practitioners are warned that if they fail to follow the requirements of the Fa, bad consequences will result. In Zhuan Falun Li Hongzhi states: “If you do not follow the requirements of the Fa, you are not a practitioner of Falun Dafa. Because you want to be an everyday person, your body will be reset to the level of everyday people and the bad things will be returned to you.” In addition to providing disease-curing benefits, it is believed that cultivation practice will actually prolong one’s life. But there is danger for those who might not live up to the Fa’s requirements. In Zhuan Falun Li Hongzhi states; “When you continually practice cultivation, you will constantly prolong your life. …There is a criterion, however, that the life prolonged beyond your predestined time to live is completely reserved for your practice. If your mind goes wrong a little bit, your life will be in danger because your lifetime should have long been over.”

There are more serious dangers for those who directly violate the Dafa. For example, a practitioner who plagiarizes the Dafa is subject to the ultimate penalty of death. In The Essentials Li Hongzhi states: “Did you know that in recent years some students suddenly died? Some of them died precisely because they did such things. Don’t think that your master might do something to you….. Once you are reduced to the level of an everyday person, no one will protect you and demons will also take your life. It’s even useless to seek protection from other Buddhas, Daos, and Gods, as they won’t protect someone who undermines the Fa. What’s more, your karma will also be returned to your body.” If practitioners follow the requirements of the Fa they are promised salvation, or what Falun Gong also calls consummation. The idea of salvation for a practitioner has developed over time. In Li Hongzhi’s earlier teachings the focus was on an individual practitioner reaching consummation. In 1999in what many would consider an apocalyptic prediction, Li Hongzhi warned: “Mankind! Awaken! The vows of Gods in history are being fulfilled. The Dafa is judging all beings. What path a person takes in life is his own choosing. One thought a person has might determine his future.” Underlying this prediction is the teaching that the entire cosmos is undergoing a process called “Fa-rectification” – a kind of spiritual cleansing in which corrupt  people will be eliminated,  leaving behind only those who are worthy according to Dafa standards. In 2001  Li Hongzhi  made clear that this Fa-rectification would target people based on their moral qualities, or xinxing: “Moreover, when an Enlightened Being descends to the world, it is usually at a time when people’s morals are declining day by day, when people’s sins and karma are enormous, or when people’s morality is degenerate. 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.” It is still believed that one’s moral quality is an essential component of Falun Gong cultivation. However, in responding to the persecution of practitioners in China after the ban of 1999, Li Hongzhi has apparently opened up the categories of people who can be saved. In his more recent lectures and writings, he has stated that all human beings, not just the good ones, can be saved during the Fa-rectification process. In 2005 Li Hongzhi stated: “In the Fa-rectification, Master is actually saving all beings, not just the good ones; evil ones are of course included as well. I have often said that during the Fa-rectification I don't hold the past faults of any sentient being against him, and that I look only at a sentient being's attitude toward Dafa during the Fa-rectification. In other words, no matter which beings they are or how huge the mistakes and sins they committed in history, as long as they do not play a negative role with regard to the Fa-rectification, I can give them benevolent solutions and eliminate their sins and karma.” In order to be saved one must not have “a bad attitude” towards the Dafa which apparently means that one must side with the Falun Gong in its fight with the Chinese government concerning the alleged persecution of practitioners. In the same lecture Li Hongzhi states: “It is the CCP itself that chose to make Dafa its enemy. From the moment it proclaimed that it must defeat Falun Gong, the evil spirit of the CCP and the CCP's wicked, base group that has been persecuting Dafa disciples in the human world were condemned to death by all of the cosmos's gods.” --Tomananda 10:57, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

It is the Wierd commentary
Absurd. Anybody can be a Falun Gong practitioner provided he lets go of all his bad traits and fundamentally changes himself - otherwise just by labelling himself so he is not.... you put it as if some criteria for being a practitioner has been suddenly relaxed... I dont have a problem with putting all the quotes in. It is the wierd commentary you add to them. I would be glad to have your email id, as there is a lot I want to discuss with you. Fire Star, I request you that you be wary that people donot put in absurd POV( the above material i dont think is just a POV..) content into the article -- and use a couple of quotes from here and there to fool the un-informed.

Further, the article is already far larger than the recommended size for a wikipedia article. Dilip rajeev 12:00, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Olaf and Dilip
I have posted a shortened version of the above and I consider it to be a compromise from my earlier, two paragraph version. I've tried to accomodate what Olaf documented concerning the change in Li Hongzhi's teachings on Fa-rectification. I am open to amended language there, but I am not open to concealing the basics about Li Hongzhi turning practioners into Gods (a word he uses almost constantly, as opposed to your use of Buddhhood), his protection of practitioners, or his earlier formulation of Fa-rectification which includes categories of people being weeded out.

I orginally said all of this in two short paragraphs but you, Dilip, complained that I had not provided context. Now I have. Most of the content in this piece is highly favorable to the Falun Gong. It even includes questionable health claims, such as those of Lili Fong. As Fire Star has said repeatedly, edits should not be done at the expense of other people's writing. Dilip, your repeated attempts to delete certain vocabulary and ideas...all part of Master Li's teachings...is really troublesome. An enclyclopedia needs to cover all the basics of a religion, not just those aspects you are proud of. And what could be more basic and important than Li Hongzhi's idea of Fa-rectification and who it effects? If anything, some of the other puff pieces, such as the awards section, could be taken out.

Dilip, concerning your comments on homosexuality, you and Li Hongzhi do not know what you are talking about. It is not appropriate to get into a discussion on this topic on this site, but suffice it to say that homosexuality is a God-given trait just as heterosexuality is. You are wrong in asserting all religions condemn homosexuality. Some do, some don't. If you want to debate with me on that topic, please do a posting on the SF.indymedia.org website. --Tomananda 12:37, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

It is not my aim to argue homosexuality. I responded against your accusations. "Lili Fong" is a Phd at Baylor College... well respected by the academic community.. I am also willing to present statements ( which you may call "highly favourable") by a reputed French Neuro scientist. If presenting the truth as the truth causes Falun Gong to appear good - then it should...Tomananda, I hope you donot manipulate Fire Star's good faith. I am sure he wouldnt allow a single edit that you have put into the article had he read all the material of Falun Gong in-depth.. which I am sure he will do when he can get the time.

In response to the issue you raised: You may argue that hatred, greed, karma, the murderer's mentality and everything was made by "god".. there exists suffering in the cosmos.. beings are given free-will but when they act against the nature of the cosmos, they accumulate karma... and karma, the traditions say, is the cause of suffering... homosexuality is only considered an act that brings terrible karma on oneself... see discussion on homosexuality on the page... http://www.gnosis-usa.com/forum/lofiversion/index.php?t261.html ( which answers the issue you raised in-depth) ... there is order in the cosmos... suffering itself becomes benevolent when you want to go back...

Friend, I request you, in utmost sincerity, to address the same question here on the forum http://www.gnosis-usa.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=261 ( starting a new thread...) Dilip rajeev 13:24, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Dilip rajeev 13:15, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

 * I agree that what Tomananda put in does seem weird, but it seems weird to me because Li says these things. Condemnation of homosexuality is common in organised religion, so the most remarkable feature of Li's teachings for me are the theories on alien mind control a la Scientology. The quotes are sourced and laid out in a form that contains no condemnatory commentary. We have links to FLG websites if people are intrigued by any of the things put in the article. It is straightforward. The article size issue isn't a big one (no pun intended) apparently... --Fire Star 14:08, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

You can make it sound wierd or beautiful- depending on your POV... depending on the quote you pull out... I could pull in a 100 quotes from the books add my own interpretation to it and add it to the article...

Falun gong's concept of alien beings differs starkly from scientology's. Clubbing both together stems from a lack of understandig. Further, that is a central belief in scientology. Dilip rajeev 14:15, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Olaf responds
Greetings, dear editors.

I apologize for not having time to carefully evaluate the proposed changes and write a detailed commentary. There's just too much going on, and you seem to be really engaged in this issue. However, I wish you could all calm down a little bit, especially Dilip, who seems to reflect somewhat passionate emotional outbursts in his text, in my opinion. This is a friendly reminder! We all tend to get excited and even provoked every now and then. But I have to say that I disagree with Dilip regarding certain issues, and I can see why some of you feel he doesn't want the article to cover certain questions. However, I don't blame him for that, because I also see that the new additions are not entirely balanced interpretations of Li's teachings as a whole. Here in Wikipedia, if you feel somebody's editions aren't neutral or just, you can provide a better context and thus strive towards a NPOV. I have found that revert wars are practically a waste of time. Somebody's always going to disagree with you, and it's a vicious circle that makes people react even more fervently. It's better to leave the article in an unbalanced state for a while and do some research to eventually provide conclusive information and sources.

Tomananda: Yes, I am the same person who posted on the Indymedia website. And I do practice Falun Gong. If you read through my previous discussions (mostly in /Archive4), maybe you'll get understand my position better. I have talked about biases and subjectivity before, so I will not repeat myself here.

Falun Gong is a terribly complicated issue, because many people absolutely cannot agree with its ontological and epistemological theories. Criticizing the master-disciple relationship is one good example: such things exist in all genuine cultivation practices, and Falun Gong is considerably less rigid in this regard. It's the sheer immensity of the phenomenon that makes it particularily suspicious to some observers. Personally, I think Falun Gong has nothing to do with an authoritarian cult. (Of course, if I did, I probably wouldn't practice it myself.)

The most unfortunate thing is that sometimes people agree with the crackdown because they have strong opinions against "pseudo-science", "quackery" and "superstition". This applies to some so-called cult experts as well. We must remember that the scientific community's viewpoints on Falun Gong are incredibly varied, while Scientology, for example, is denounced by practically everybody. Pointing out the opinions of some extremes (like Margaret Singer, for instance) or self-proclaimed and highly controversial "experts" with no academic education (like Rick Ross) is not sufficient, even though you certainly can mention them in an encyclopedia article, if you also tell about the criticism they have received. I intend to elaborate on this issue.

If you feel that something absolutely cannot be true, it is sure to smell fishy to you, and you're prone to suspect a hidden agenda or conspiracy. I have enough self-reflectivity to admit that I cannot know whether everything about FLG is true. But I know it has supernatural effects on the human body that surpass the capability of modern science, and that's just about enough for me. Why, I look several years younger than before, I can see certain things in other dimensions, etc. And I know a lot of perfectly sane, well-educated practitioners with similar (or even more peculiar) experiences. How could I not find it worthwhile? I take Falun Gong seriously because the practice manifests a tangible reality, it's not just dogma or mind-blowing theories. Mind you, I do find some of Li's statements quite far out, but his method is indeed astonishing, and I'd like to hear what such a person has to say. Teaching an intricate system of qigong is not like teaching aerobics, and it's not a new Jane Fonda fitness video. Maybe he does know what he's talking about, maybe the truth is somewhere in between; who can say at this point? Interesting, isn't it?

I've also studied authoritarian cults and ideologies, and I'm well aware of different manipulative techniques. Actually, I've probed quite deep into these issues in my studies. These things are not entirely within the scope of this article, so I won't discuss them here. Maybe we can exchange personal e-mails or move to some other discussion forum if you're interested in my points of view and why I disagree with your categorization of Falun Gong. But, as I said, first you could read what I've written here before. I can see from your discussions that you're a good writer, and I'm genuinely interested to hear what you have to say.

When I have time, I will scrutinize your new additions into the article. I already browsed through them quickly, but there's just too many other things to take care of right now.

Best regards,

Olaf Stephanos 16:41, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

So anyone critical of FLG is automatically wrong. You're the prime example of a brainwashed cultist.--PatCheng 05:15, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Olaf: In additioin to what's said below, just a few comments in response to your personal observations above:

--I think you know that my text was not "cricizing" the master-disciple relationship in Falun Gong, but rather reporting it. When I use words like "deception" in my discussion posts, I am referring to the common practice of Falun Gong practitioners to "conceal" (my word) that there even is a master-disciple relationship. I find this incredibly dishonest, but attribute it to the Master's teaching that when practitioners talk to ordinary people they must not talk at the higher levels.

--Like you, I am busy. But I will read up on your prior posts as you suggest.

--Concerning cult experts, I do not rely on Rick Ross in any way. However, Margaret Singer was a highly respected pioneer in the cultish studies community. Many people in that field do not agree with her theory of brianwashing, but by the same token no one who has followed her has been able to establish a consensus position on what constitutes "undue influence," "brainwashing," or "coercive manipulation." Meanwhile, Steven Hassan continues to have direct working experience with cult members and ex-cult members and his opinion matters. Having said that, I see your point of reporting other opinions. Maybe creating an entire section on "Critics of Falun Gong" is the way to go. But for now I have been focusing on putting into the Beliefs section material that I consider essential for any real understanding of the Falun Gong.

--Since Dilip brought up the subject of homosexuality, I felt I had to respond, but I am not planning to do any edits in that section. He seems to be very attached to the idea of justifying the homophobia of the Falun Gong, but ironically at this point I would rather put that entire discussion on a back burner.

--Right now, I feel frustrated at this continuing back and forth between me and Dilip. I sincerely hope he answers the questions I posed to him below.

--I appreciate your openess to discussion, willingness to ackowledge divergent views and often insightful observations about the subject matter.

--Tomananda 23:19, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Fire Star: Please Revert Again
Yesterday Dilip said that there was agreement of the editors about replacing the existing paragraphs at the end of the Beliefs section with his own revisions. Today we have just heard from two editors. Fire Star is not bothered by the text, it's use of quotes or it's connecting language.

Fire Star comments: ''I agree that what Tomananda put in does seem weird, but it seems weird to me because Li says these things. . . . The quotes are sourced and laid out in a form that contains no condemnatory commentary. We have links to FLG websites if people are intrigued by any of the things put in the article. It is straightforward.''

Olaf has now weighed in. He says: I will scrutinize your new additions into the article. In an earlier post, Olaf said he did not have any objection to any of the insertions I had made, but he pointed out in a detailed post how it lacked important information, especially concerning Fa-rectification. In response to Olaf's commentary, I went back to the original sources and created a version to answer some of Olaf's concerns. I am totally open to more changes from Olaf about those revisions.

Now today we have Dilip, once again, deleting all of this work and replacing it with his version which fails to report the whole story of Li Hongzhi's teachings.

Dilip: Why are you uncomfortable reporting that Li Hongzhi says he offers salvation and is the only Savior for mankind at this time? Why are you uncomfortable reporting that as part of the master-disciple relationship in Falun Gong the Master protects his followers from harm? Or that his Fashen (Law bodies) play a key role in that protection, as explained in the Zhuan Falun? Why are you uncomfortable reporting that Li Hongzhi tells practioners they will be turned into Gods? Why do you insist that the only word that can be used for this idea is Buddha or Buddhahood?

Please Fire Star: do another revert, and then we can go from there! I'm open to all kinds of compromises, but to engage in an edit war with Dilip rather than addressing my concerns that important content is being withheld is a waste of time and effort.

Wikipedia etiguette asks that we answer each other's questions or concerns. Dilip: in the spirit of cooperation, are you willing to answer my questions above?

--Tomananda 21:08, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

 * Make that one more. Dilip's "majority of editors" does not exist. -- Миборовский U 21:13, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

 * Very well, but you guys can revert, too. Now I'm done for another 10 hours due to WP:3RR. Since I do edit this page I'm not functioning as an admin, I'm just another editor. I think the contribution makes sense as it is, but if Dilip can contextualize it more without removing anything, that would be OK too. My main goal is to have a good, neutral article that people can live with. --Fire Star 03:09, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Dilip Replies
First of all, we have a well agreed upon and readable version of the article here... we must make sure that it is not converted into a random(?) collection of quotes.... Then anybody can come and put in a 100 quotes..

q.Why are you uncomfortable reporting that Li Hongzhi says he offers salvation and is the only

Savior for mankind at this time?

For A LOT of reasons including, but not limited to:

1. First of all it is said in the book Zhuan Falun that Tibetan tantrism, Pure Land

Buddhism etc are all true cultivation ways - i.e. they offer salvation

2. It must be made very clear what Falun Gong mens by the word "God". Falun gong has an

intricate set of teachings on higher dimensional realities (to put it loosely) a "god" being

just a higher being, limited by his level... just like a human is limited by his

level...even gods being able to move up by cultivation... gods considering higer beings as

their gods... none of the beings knowing the ultimate truth of the cosmos and so on.... If

you willing to let me write on all these things(concisely) I am willing to introduce term

god... The teachings and beliefs of Falun Gong can only be accurately portrayed with

context...

3. Falun Gong's concept of "offering salvation" must be made clear... praciting falun gong

doesnt automatically lead to salvation....

"If any of you sitting here can’t cultivate your xinxing to the point of Consummation, then

I can’t do anything about it either. I can teach you the principles of the Fa, I can help

you evolve gong, I can eliminate a portion of your karma for you, I can protect you, and I

can do a huge range of things for you that you don’t know about but that are necessary when

you Consummate and afterwards. But if your heart doesn’t change and your mind doesn’t

elevate, then all of that is in vain."

"Without cultivating the heart, no one can make it. Conversion is a formality of everyday people. Are you a member of the Buddha School after conversion? Will Buddha then take care of you? There is no such thing. Even if you kowtow everyday until your head bleeds, or even if you burn bundles of incense, it is still

useless. You must truly cultivate your heart to make it work."

q. Why are you uncomfortable reporting that as part of the master-disciple relationship in

Falun Gong the Master protects his followers from harm?

If we can explain the concept of Fa-Shen, in detail and accurately before we touch upon

them, then we may. We cannot irresponsibly use terms in an article... We are providing links

to all the teachings of Falun Gong-- So we are not hiding anything and we are allowing the

reader to read it in proper context. Again so much is said about Fa-Shen in the lectures...

q. Why do you insist that the only word that can be used for this idea is Buddha or Buddhahood?

First, it is a cultivation practice of the Buddha School, so what it cultivates is

Buddhahood. Seondly, To make the aspect of cultivation involved clear... I prefer the term

"cultivation of Buddhahood".. achieving buddhahood through cultivation... Inshort that term helps outline the context...

When you write about Fa-rectification, you present it as if it is something for wiping out

bad people.. The term fa-rectification must explained very clearly before it is used...

attempt in the direction has been made the contextualized version....

I am willing to explain the concept of Fa-Shen, Law Bodies etc with context and concisely if

you think we must do so in the article. Plucking out random(??) quotes is not the way to do it. Kindy give me a few weeks time as I need to study oer a 1000 pages of material in-dpeth to come up with something that can be called factual..

I want to ensure that things are explained accurtly and with context. For Instance, to explain the concept of Fa-Shen, one must explain the concept of higher dimensions... (Remember, this is an encyclopaedia article not a newspaper article) which is explained in pages of material in the books... just to pull out a few paras...

"This cosmos is so vast and its structure is so complex. I’ve told you about the composition of dimensions. For example, matter is composed of molecules and even more microscopic particles. The dimension that we know of is also composed of these particles. Today, the particles known to science include molecules, atoms, neutrons, atomic nuclei, and electrons; and then there are quarks and neutrinos. What’s further down is unknown to today’s science. So what I’ve said is that the realm of each level of these particles is what we call the plane of that level. Actually, particles aren’t

distributed on a plane; instead, within a given level, they exist everywhere—not on a plane. Humankind doesn’t have a term for it, so we’ll just call it a plane; this is the only way we can describe it. Right within that realm—within that layer of particles’ realm—a dimension is formed. Between particles are dimensions, and inside particles themselves are also dimensions. Yet particles can also make up particles of different sizes. Then, among the particles of different sizes that are composed of one particular particle are again dimensions. This is the concept of dimensions that I explained to you last time. I’ve always said that between atoms and molecules is a vast dimension. We humans live between the layer of the largest particles made up of molecules, and planets that we see, which are a layer of particles. Humans live in that dimension. A planet is also a particle. Going further, the Milky Way galaxy also has an outer shell. Might the Milky Way galaxy and the countless other galaxies spread throughout the cosmos form a dimension? They’re also interrelated. Then beyond the galaxies, there is still another cosmic expanse—then is this cosmic expanse a layer of particles? It sure is a layer of particles. The cosmos is incredibly vast—there’s simply no way to describe how vast it is. Furthermore, three thousand universes like the one we inhabit make up a larger layer of universe, which has an outer shell and is a particle of a universe of an even larger layer. Yet the particles I just talked about was expanding from just one point. As a matter of fact, particles of each layer are spread throughout the entire cosmos. Yet even what I just described are only two layers of universes and you already find it mind-boggling. In fact, the future humankind’s science won’t be able to know this, either—humankind will never be able to know things that high-level. Even with the extent we discussed to, that layer of particles is but a speck of dust—a tiny speck of dust—in this vast cosmos. Think about how enormous this cosmos is! This is the type of dimension I’ve been telling you about all along.

Last time I again discussed the composition of dimensions. In addition to the type of dimensions between atoms and molecules and between planets and molecules, the atomic particles in each layer also make up particles of different sizes. Then between the layers of these different-sized particles are again dimensions. Take molecules, for example: We normally know that there’s a dimension between molecules and atoms. If atoms are to make up molecules, many atoms need to be arranged together to make up a molecule. Then, between a layer of larger particles composed of fewer atomic particles and [another layer of] larger particles composed of more atomic particles is yet another level of dimension. As I’ve said, molecules can form any thing at the outermost surface—things like what we humans can see, such as steel, iron, water, air, wood, and our human bodies. This is the layer of matter at the surface that humans can see, and it’s composed of the layer of the largest particles that are composed of molecules. Yet molecules also make up a second, counting downward, layer of particles that are slightly smaller than these largest molecular particles. They can also make up a third, counting downward, layer of particles—all of these are composed of molecules, because molecules can make up particles of different sizes. Then among them are also dimensions, so this cosmos is extremely complex. There’s more to this, because within each level of dimension there are also vertical ones, that is, dimensions of different levels. In other words, there are dimensions of different levels that are like the many layers of heavens understood by religions. In addition, in dimensions at different levels there also exist different unitary paradises. It’s extremely complex. I’ve only told you about a common phenomenon."

To many fallacies in Tomananda's version
There are too many fallacies in the text introduced. At one point, tomananda claims that the criteria for becoming a practitioner has been somehow loosened. The idea makes no sense when you measure it with the concept of cultivation practice found in Falun Dafa. See that from very early lectures, for example, this one from Germany says: "No matter what kind of person you are and no matter how many bad things you’ve done, I will look after you as long as you can truly cultivate with a sincere heart. If you don’t cultivate, then nothing can be done. "

From the very earliest lectures it is said that anyone may cultivate irrespective of the karma, if he can strengthen his will and has the heart for cultivation.

The prolonging life quote is for extremely old people. You could only be hiding that intentionally as Zhuan Falun says that extremely clearly in the paragraphs/sentences before.

Aparna r 04:07, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Another Violation of Wikipedia Etiquette
Aparna, we don't just delete entire sections of a text...especially one that is currently being discussed for possible revisons. It is yet another example of the bullying tactics that Falun Gong practioners engage in.

--Tomananda 06:20, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Response to Dilip
First of all, we have a well agreed upon and readable version of the article here... we must make sure that it is not converted into a random(?) collection of quotes.... Then anybody can come and put in a 100 quotes.. q.Why are you uncomfortable reporting that Li Hongzhi says he offers salvation and is the only Savior for mankind at this time?

For A LOT of reasons including, but not limited to: 1. First of all it is said in the book Zhuan Falun that Tibetan tantrism, Pure LandBuddhism etc are all true cultivation ways - i.e. they offer salvation You seem to be saying that you agree Li Hongzhi offers salvation (the first part of the sentence) but that you don’t agree that he is the only one offering salvation for mankind at this time. Yes, there are other cultivation ways which Master Li talks about in Zhuan Falun, but isn’t the larger point that Master Li makes in Zhuan Falun that he is the only one offering salvation to mankind during this period of Fa-rectification? That message, permeates his teachings. In Zhuan Falun he repeatedly contrasts the cultivation he teaches at the higher levels with those of other traditions. He even calls the original Fa taught by Sakyamuni “primitive” and says it cannot save the people of today. He also states in Zhuan Falun: “Today, we have made public to you such a great cultivation way, and I have delivered it to your doorstep. It will be up to you whether you can practice cultivation and make it…..If you cannot do it and cannot practice cultivation, you should not think about practicing cultivation from now on. Except for the demons that will deceive you, nobody else will teach you and you will not be able to practice cultivation. If I cannot save you, nobody else can.” 2. It must be made very clear what Falun Gong mens by the word "God". Falun gong has an intricate set of teachings on higher dimensional realities (to put it loosely) a "god" being just a higher being, limited by his level... just like a human is limited by his level...even gods being able to move up by cultivation... gods considering higer beings astheir gods... none of the beings knowing the ultimate truth of the cosmos and so on.... Ifyou willing to let me write on all these things(concisely) I am willing to introduce termgod... The teachings and beliefs of Falun Gong can only be accurately portrayed withcontext... Yes, there are Gods at higher levels whom Master Li refers to, and different traditions have different ideas for what the word God means, but there is no need to explain all of Li Hongzhi’s cosmology to simply say he promises to turn his practitioners into Gods. Yes, the Gods Li refers to at the higher levels are limited (Li will teach them his Dafa after all) and I get all of that. But we do not need to introduce a great deal of complexity in this section to get the basic point across. If you can suggest a short clarifying phrase, or even a sentence, to qualify the meaning of the word God in this section, fine with me. But to recast the whole thing into an exposition of Master Li’s cosmology or his version of the creation myth would destroy the cohesiveness of these paragraphs. If you want to really expand on all that, I believe you should write up a separate section. 3. Falun Gong's concept of "offering salvation" must be made clear... praciting falun gong doesnt automatically lead to salvation.... "If any of you sitting here can’t cultivate your xinxing to the point of Consummation, then I can’t do anything about it either . I can teach you the principles of the Fa, I can help you evolve gong, I can eliminate a portion of your karma for you, I can protect you, and I can do a huge range of things for you that you don’t know about but that are necessary when you Consummate and afterwards. But if your heart doesn’t change and your mind doesn’t elevate, then all of that is in vain." "Without cultivating the heart, no one can make it. Conversion is a formality of everyday people. Are you a member of the Buddha School after conversion? Will Buddha then take care of you? There is no such thing. Even if you kowtow everyday until your head bleeds, or even if you burn bundles of incense, it is still useless. You must truly cultivate your heart to make it work." Here again, you are introducing a level of complexity that is not needed here. Of course Falun Gong cultivation does not automatically lead to salvation. And, yes, a very short description of what salvation means might fit in this context. But if you envision a lengthy exposition on salvation, then I think we are talking about something different than what is now being discussed. Keep in mind that Olaf intends to offer some additional context, too. Let’s at least attempt to proceed by modifying the existing text, rather than creating whole new sections…at least for now. q) Why are you uncomfortable reporting that as part of the master-disciple relationship in Falun Gong the Master protects his followers from harm? If we can explain the concept of Fa-Shen, in detail and accurately before we touch uponthem, then we may. We cannot irresponsibly use terms in an article... We are providing links to all the teachings of Falun Gong-- So we are not hiding anything and we are allowing the reader to read it in proper context. Again so much is said about Fa-Shen in the lectures... Again, I think it is a matter of length and overall cohesiveness. This is an encylopedia article, not a book.   As Fire Star has suggested, additional context can always be provided though the external links.   I would prefer that you suggest modifications to the wording I have proposed. q)  Why do  you insist that the only word that can be used for this idea is Buddha or Buddhahood? First, it is a cultivation practice of the Buddha School, so what it cultivates is Buddhahood. Seondly, To make the aspect of cultivation involved clear... I prefer the term "cultivation of Buddhahood".. achieving buddhahood through cultivation... Inshort that term helps outline the context.. Sure, it is clear that you prefer the term Buddha or Buddhahood, but the problem is that Li Hongzhi uses the terms God and Gods in this context and that language needs to be reported as well. In fact, I am a bit surprised that you would want to alter Li Hongzhi’s words so much. It is almost as if you want to edit the teachings in such a way that the finished result does not reflect the original. Since you are a practitioner, that surprises me. Oddly, it appears that I care more about being faithful to Master Li’s formulations than you do. Also, there’s no reason why different sections can’t use their own vocabulary. Keep in mind that the two paragraphs that were added at the end began with words like: “It is also believed that….”

q) When you write about Fa-rectification, you present it as if it is something for wiping out bad people. The term fa-rectification must explained very clearly before it is used...attempt in the direction has been made the contextualized version.... Well,yes and yes.  Master Li does describe Fa-rectification in those terms, so blame him, not me.   And you already provided a pretty good  sentence which briefly explains the the bigger picture: “It is also said that the cosmic firmament, from very high levels, has deviated from the Fa( Dharma ) and that all levels are being rectified by the Fa in the process of "Fa-rectification".  I would reformulate that wording to appear as follows: Underlying this prediction is the teaching that the entire cosmos is undergoing a process called  “Fa-rectification” – a kind of spiritual cleansing in which corrupt people will be eliminated, leaving behind only those who are worthy according to Dafa standards. It is said that the cosmic firmament, from very high level, has deviated form the Fa (Dharma)_ and that all levels are being rectified by the Fa in this process. In 2001  Li Hongzhi  made clear that this Fa-rectification would target people based on their moral qualities, or xinxing: I am willing to explain the concept of Fa-Shen, Law Bodies etc with context and concisely if you think we must do so in the article. Plucking out random(??) quotes is not the way to do it. Kindy give me a few weeks time as I need to study oer a 1000 pages of material in-dpeth to come up with something that can be called factual. Again, I think you are making this more complex than it needs to be. Master Li himself introduces the idea of the Fashen fairly succinctly in Zhuan Falun and we don’t need to write a whole book about it. But, yes,  I do think that the Fa-shen as a means of protecting practitioners (as well as knowing what they are thinking and in my point of view controlling them) is absolutely essential. I want to ensure that things are explained accurtly and with context. For Instance, to explain the concept of Fa-Shen, one must explain the concept of higher dimensions... (Remember, this is an encyclopaedia article not a newspaper article) which is explained in pages of material in the books... just to pull out a few paras... Please refer to my comments above. It sounds like you want to write an entire section on Master Li’s cosmology. While that’s fine with me, it is really not needed to get across the point that Master Li’s law bodies protect his practitioners. These ideas are not that difficult to grasp. Are you just trying to burry them in a mountain of irrelevant teachings? An encyclopedia article needs to present the basics, not all the details. --Tomananda 07:03, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

People Differ
The point is - what you present as the "truth" is far from it. Moreover this is not the format required of an encyclopaedia article. An article should be an article. The quotes are all put out of context. There is no violation of wikipedia etiquette - on the otherhand you are casually messing up the article ignoring what is being pointed out by other editors. I am not deleting any information - just mis-information. I think others understand that too. Aparna r 12:14, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

 * But it is only your opinion that it is misinformation. Someone else may say that it seems like you are saying that anything that isn't approved by official FLG dogma is "misinformation." You are making a purely religious argument, not an argument based on material in the public domain. You can try to spin Li's comments, saying we don't understand them (again, a rteligious argument, assuming facts not in evidence), but they are still what they are, and he still said them. I'm for including them. --Fire Star 14:34, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

 * Of course, there is always the question of which quotes to select from all the texts we have at our disposal. These are obviously selected because of their controversial nature, but as I've said before, POV doesn't consist only of what is said, it also involves what is not said. By themselves, and without providing a comprehensive background for all the terms and axioms, they're simply confusing, and I can definitely understand why Aparna and Dilip are not satisfied. It's almost (not exactly, but almost) like saying "time travel is possible, according to quantum mystics" - but for a layman who is not familiar with quantum physics at all, such a statement is just balderdash. We should focus on what is implied by choosing particular quotes, and that's what this debate is all about, in my opinion.

 * Shouldn't we also include FLG's theory on the structure of dimensions? How, exactly, Li thinks these fashen exist (e.g. he says they're born in the dantian when high-level cultivation practice is reached, etc.) And when we get here, shouldn't we also explain what is dantian, and what other traditions have said about it? We get into a maze of definitions, gray areas, paradigmatic controversy... you name it. And the article gets way too long.

 * One important thing that isn't mentioned in the article is that a lot of FLG is commentary on the questions in the qigong community that have already been discussed for a few decades. The institutional field where Falun Gong emerged was not religion but "frontier science" or "alternative science" (or "pseudo-science", depending on your viewpoint). Did you know that according to Traditional Chinese Medicine, there exists a "triple burner" in the human body? How many laymen in the West would accept such a concept that is, however, taken quite seriously in certain Chinese scientific traditions? The same applies to the five elements theory, et cetera, et cetera.

 * These are some of the reasons why I also think that your criteria for choosing the relevant quotes only reflect a certain POV (namely, "Falun Gong is an authoritarian cult"), and we must discuss the issue further. ---Olaf Stephanos 16:05, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

 * Thanks for your comments, Olaf. I am well aware of the approach of TCM and qigong to similar issues, as well as those of Chinese Buddhism and Taoism. I am all for as much context as possible, but the quotes are exceptional, sensational pronouncements from an internationally famous teacher, and are discussed as being informative for the general public as to where the guy's head is at on many forums. Having the quotes, sourced, and further detail from FLG sources together is a fine idea, IMO. I think if we have both, then the article will be served. Li's public statements are also overtly religious and centred on his role as a spiritual guide, from a qigong teacher's POV, to the point that he downplays the actual repetition of his exercises in favour of adherence to his doctrine. These things aren't said to imply anything (personally, I don't think FLG is an authoritarian cult, but more of an idiosyncratic new religion, as almost any organised religion can be seen as authoritarian from the right perspective), there are literally hundreds if not thousands of other religious/spiritual teachers who do say (or have said) similar things, but I feel the seemingly eccentric positions reported by Li himself should be covered because he is so famous. --Fire Star 17:03, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Presenting Links to appropriate material
I think it would be much better and un-biased to just provide links to appropriate material. Dilip rajeev 14:03, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

I pointed out those praragraphs as an understanding of such material is needed for the reader to appreciate what the concept of Fa- Shen and higher dimensional realities as taught in Falun Gong is. If we cant do that in the article we can only provide links to appropriate material rather than define thiongs as we please.

Dilip rajeev 14:08, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Fire Star, That it is mis-information is not an opinion. You will understand it if you study the books. Think about it there are many tens of millions world over practicing Falun Gong including many top scientists, medical scientists, and even top most psychiatrists like Abraham L. Halpern, M.D. Professor (Emeritus of Psychiatry, New York Medical College, Former President, American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law) is a board member of FoFG. Do you think if the beliefs of Falun Dafa were like tomananda puts it all these people would practice cultivation in Dafa? Anybody may choose a 100 quotes to put into the article. But that is not what we mean by an article. I dont think everyone who differs with Tomananda is a practitioner.

Dilip rajeev 15:14, 20 March 2006 (UTC) "        By themselves, and without providing a comprehensive background for all the terms and axioms, they're simply confusing, and I can definitely understand why Aparna and Dilip are not satisfied. It's almost (not exactly, but almost) like saying "time travel is possible, according to quantum mystics" - but for a layman who is not familiar with quantum physics at all, such a statement is just balderdash. We should focus on what is implied by choosing particular quotes, and that's what this debate is all about, in my opinion.

Shouldn't we also include FLG's theory on the structure of dimensions? How, exactly, Li thinks these fashen exist (e.g. he says they're born in the dantian when high-level cultivation practice is reached, etc.) And when we get here, shouldn't we also explain what is dantian, and what other traditions have said about it? We get into a maze of definitions, gray areas, paradigmatic controversy... you name it. And the article gets way too long." - Olaf

Precisely. Falun Gong's teachings are not a disconnected set of quotes or religious beliefs. If it were so; so many ( including top scientists and well known intellectuals) wouldnt be practicing Falun Gong. We are not covering up anything neither do we have to present things totally out of context. We are providing links to all Falun Dafa material and the teachings.

Falun Gong's teachings are not a set of "religious" beliefs. In my perspective, it is a mathematically precise science.

For instance, compare this paragraph

"If there were such an instrument through which we could expand and see the level at which all atomic elements or molecular elements could manifest in their entirety, or if this scene were observed, you would reach beyond this dimension and see the real scenes existing in other dimensions” –Zhuan Falun

and its striking similarity to what one of the greatest scientists of this era suggests might serve as an explanation for quantum behaviour:

“…Thus (as is indeed shown by a more careful consideration of the Mathematical form of the quantum Laws involved here) each electron (elementary particle) acts as if it were a projection of a higher dimensional reality”- David Bohm, In Wholeness and Implicate order.

Dilip rajeev 18:02, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

The Role of Master Li
Olaf: Your comments surprise me. Earlier on you did not object to the introduction of this material and now you seem to. The truth is that everything that appears reflects Master Li's teachings and most of it comes directly from the Zhuan Falun. The exposition I have written which surrounds the quotes provides context, and there is continuity in the whole piece as well. It is not because it is confusing that you object, but rather because it talks about Master Li's critical role in cultivation. Falun Gong practitioners do not own this Wikipedia article.

This discussion about the cosmology of Falun Gong is off the point. If there is a desire to write a section on cosmology, then so be it. What's at issue now is a section which focuses on Master Li's role in culitvation, something he himself makes quite clear in Zhuan Falun. If I were putting this material in and then adding my own opinion that because of this master-disciple relationship Falun Gong is an authoritarian cult, I could see that you might object for reasons of POV. But I am not. I am merely reporting the truth of Master Li's teachings in an extremely neutral way.

I'm sorry you don't like seeing in a public article statements about Master Li as the exclusive savior of mankind in this Dharma-ending period, but it is most certainly an accurate reflection of the teachings and you know it. As I have said over and over again, one of the characteristics of a cult is deception about the "higher teachings"  or the "secret teachings"  to the general public, and that is what this current discussion is all about.

But please understand, I am not trying to make that case in the body of the article,  only in this discussion section. Let's report accurately what Master Li says about his role in cultivation, and let the readers decide. --Tomananda 19:01, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

 * That's not what I mean. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think you already mentioned that your involvement in this debate is because you want to show that the characteristics of an authoritarian cult apply to Falun Gong as well. (My understanding of what Li said in San Francisco about talking to people on a layman's level is different, but we don't need to get into that now; I will return to this question later.) It seems, in my opinion, as if you're viewing this whole thing from an ivory tower with a predetermined template of "cultism", and that is unfortunate, because it tends to obscure some valid points others have made. We want a neutral piece of good prose, and I assure that I'm certainly not in opposition to you or any other editor involved in this discussion, I'm just trying to make you guys chew over alternative viewpoints. I promise to consider whatever you have to say, and I sincerely hope that all editors can respect each other in good faith.

 * It's understandable that you're frustrated about the treatment of your additions, and I've not agreed with the revert war (it's not that there are uniform cliques of "Falun Gong practitioners" and their "critics"!). I'm sure you have noticed that I explicitly demand better contextualization, not "concealment". But the quotations cannot be selected to merely prove a point.

 * One last addition: I seriously urge you to read Noah Porter's book "Falun Gong in the United States: An Ethnographic Study". It is a Master's Thesis for the Department of Anthropology, University of South Florida, and it's also been published as a paperback. Personally, and having studied cultural anthropology myself, I consider it the best academic study on the Falun Gong phenomenon to date. Based on his fieldwork among U.S. practitioners, Porter disagrees with the categorization of Falun Gong as an authoritarian cult. He's well versed in literature, and he also provides extensive background for the whole phenomenon. You can find the PDF here. ---Olaf Stephanos 19:58, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

 * Olaf: You've mis-interpretted my motives here. Although I do beleive that the Falun Gong is an authoriatarian cult, I am happy with the very modest statement citing the opinions of prominent cult experts which appears at the end of the "Foreign Views"  section. I believe that very short paragraph is totally in keeping with Wikipedia rules and philosophy: "If a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents."  That is exactly what my "cult" edit did,  but without any real elaboration.  When you mentioned that there are other points of view about whether Falun Gong is a cult, I suggested that we might want to expand that paragraph into an entire section.

 * The reason I have inserted my POV on cults in the discussion section is that for me it explains the behavior of so many FG practitioners. In Wikipedia speak, we are experiencing apologetics in a big way, plus the wholesale blanking of text without any serious attempt to work out a compromise with the author of that text (me). Stated differently, it is unfair tactics to continually blank out a well developed and thoroughly sourced edit, rather than to respond directly to the language that is used in that text.  Keep in mind, I developed that expanded version to replace my original (modest) two paragraph version precisely to address the concerns about context, as well as your concern that I failed to report that Li Honzhi's emphasis now in the Fa-rectification is that he will save all people, the good and bad alike, providing they have "a good attitude" towards the Dafa. (Please feel free to modify my language, but I do think that's a fair representation of the teachings.)

 * Wikipedia says that "Apologists are often characterized as being deceptive, or "whitewashing" their cause, primarily through omission of negative facts..."  I recognize that it is possible for a group to be deceptive without being a cult.  But regardless of how one explains the behavior, I have experienced deceptive tactics from Falun Gong practitioners for the past four years of my life.  To use an analogy, it is like talking to early Christians who might present the golden rule and other teachings of Jesus as the essence of their belief, but steadfastly resist acknowledging that Jesus has some role in their salvation.  All reasonable people would consider such behavior as fundamentally dishonest,  yet it is what Falun Gong practitioners do all the time.  This current edit discussion is a case in point.  So here's my question to you:

If this behavior is not the result of Master Li's instructions, than what else might explain it? Here's what the Master says in Zhuan Falun, 2nd edition,p91:
 * '"It is not allowed to casually disclose so many heavenly secrets to ordinary people."'

With directives like that from the Master, why shouldn't I conclude that practitioners are simply obeying him when they engage in endless apologetics about the Falun Gong. If there's another explanation, I'd like to hear it. --Tomananda 21:17, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Apology to mcconn
Sorry McConn, when I reverted the article to the version that is currently being debated I missed that you had done some editing in the paragraph above the section on Master Li's role as savior and protector of the practitioners. I have now restored the text to include your changes.

By the way, here's what Master Li says about the development of Gong in Zhuan Falun (p.28): "Cultivation practice depends upon an individual himself while transformation of Gong is up to the master. The master gives you the Gong that develops your Gong, which will be at work.  It can transform the substance De outside or your body into gong....If you want to improve Gong, your gong will not be improved withouth paying attention to Xinxing cultivation."

I am not proposing that you make any changes to that paragraph, but thought the above quote...which also goes to the importance of Master Li's direct intervention during cultivation practice...is interesing. Practitioners get their Gong from the Master, as well as their Falun (which he installs). He also is directly involved in the elimination of karma (pushing to get rid of the last bit of karma that a practitioner can't manage on his own.) --Tomananda 20:09, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

The gong that evolves gong, in my understanding, are energy mechanisms that evolves gong from de. It is not the gong of the student. Tomananda, you are not allowed to single-handedly edit the article. I disagree with adding such non factual material

Msriram 01:28, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

 * Msriram, You've got to be kidding!  You've just done a major blanking of text which has, in one form or another, appeared on this page since March 11th and has been hotly debated on these discussion pages (see above). Wikipedia etiquette asks all of us to respect the input of others and not to engage in wholesale, drive-by blanking.  I don't remember reading any recent input from you concerning the edits which you object to.

You make a comment above that is correct, but not relevant to the comment I made. The correct part is: "the gong that evolves gong are energy mechanisms that evolve gong from de." But you have not responded to the quote from Zhuan Falun above, so I have to question why you are being so evasive. The quote is: "The master gives you the gong that develops your gong." Do you agree with that statement? If so, do you have an objection to making it public?

By the way, I assume from your knowledge of this material that you are also a practitioner. Is that correct?

--Tomananda 03:10, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Clarification
I'd like to make it clear, as I mentioned above, that since I edit this page regularly I'm not functioning as an admin in this discussion and would not use admin features unless there were repeated, blatant violations of WP:NPA, which there hasn't been a hint of here. I'm just another editor. I'm sorry if there has been any misunderstanding. --Fire Star 02:54, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

 * Fire Star, If that's the case that leaves Miborovsky and Olaf Stephanos as the only other administrors who have commented on this discussion.  Miborovsky responded to Dilip's assertion that there was a "majority of editors" who supported his blanking of my long-discussed edit by saying that Dilip's majority didn't exist.  Olaf has commented above that he accepts letting my edit stand pending further discussion for context.  So now we have Msriram doing a drive-by blanking. Do drive-by blankings ever become an issue for administrators to deal with, or is this all just a game of survival of the "faction"  that has the greatest numbers?  --Tomananda 03:34, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, both of those editors have editied the page, too, so they are in the same boat I am. Drive-by reversions are dealt with by 3RR just like any other. In this case, however, the editor did leave a note here on the talk page. My suggestion now is to list the disputed quotes here, and each of us can comment on them. I am myself convinced of their validity, but a detailed discussion will help us all see more clearly. If you list each point with a bullet, I'll archive the above talk and we can start with a fresh page. --Fire Star 03:55, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

"Competing Narratives"
I have boldly changed the section heading "Competing Narratives About Falun Gong" to "Controversial Issues Regarding Falun Gong". The reason is that the concept of "narratives" is relativistic jargon from the post-modernist flank of the humanities and social sciences. We are not dealing simply with narratives here: we are trying to present true and correct information about the article's subject. Anybody care to comment on that? Martin Rundkvist (talk) 17:17, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Good call, except for capitalization ;) ...and you're getting really good at avoiding the hot-button word "controversies". Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 17:18, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Some of the other headings also need "bold" fixing to make them more NPOV and in-context. Much of the "history" section headings is the product of asdfg's work in the past few days. Colipon+ (Talk) 03:28, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Martin, I disagree with what you say. Wikipedia is actually not about showing true and correct information about the subject of articles, merely about presenting verifiable information about them—that is, it's precisely about presenting different narratives. This is clear in the policies. Look at WP:V "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—that is, whether readers are able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true." It's all about presenting what the sources say on the subject, in accordance with their prevalence in the literature. According to WP:V, it's not about "the truth" of the subject. This from WP:NPOV is also relevant:

All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view, representing fairly, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources. This is non-negotiable and expected of all articles and all editors.

The neutral point of view is a means of dealing with conflicting perspectives on a topic as evidenced by reliable sources. It requires that all majority- and significant-minority views be presented fairly, in a disinterested tone, and in rough proportion to their prevalence within the source material.

An article should clearly describe, represent, and characterize all the disputes within a topic, but should not endorse any particular point of view. It should explain who believes what, and why, and which points of view are most common. Anyway. Since this is the objection, and that it's based on a view that appears to run counter to policy, I hope it will be okay if I change it again.--Asdfg12345 02:13, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

 * So could you explain what "competing narratives" is supposed to mean, then? And by the way, your "hope" is misplaced. Martin was not talking about "the truth", but rather "true and correct". So don't bring up the NPOV-thing, it doesn't quite cut it here. But back to the meaning of "competing narratives" -- what say ye? Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 02:19, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Seb, it's just supposed to mean what the surface meaning of those words say. Competing narratives. There are competing narratives about Falun Gong. There is the narrative of the CCP, which casts Falun Gong as a well organised money making cult, then there is the narrative from Falun Gong, which casts Falun Gong as a peaceful, unorganised meditation and spiritual practice. Then there are scholars and other people who give a range of views (many, I'd add, leaning toward the Falun Gong narrative and few supporting the CCP narrative). These are the competing narratives. The section exemplifies some of these trends. It kinda needs more information on the commentary about this though, in terms of how Falun Gong and the CCP talk about each other. I will do some more research along these lines. I hope I've explained my meaning. About Martin's remarks, I don't see a difference between "true and correct" and "the truth." Anyway, the point is just to show what the sources say. I think it's just simple, fair and neutral if we make clear up front that there are different takes on these things, then go ahead and lay out what they are in accordance with their prevalence. I understand this to be what wikipedia requires of us.--Asdfg12345 03:37, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

 * All this changing of section headings is more insidious than adding some commentary favourable to the FLG or removing some which is critical as it seeks to define the discussion within the section as an exclusively polarised discourse. Sure there is some polarity in the discourses, but there is in fact a whole range of narratives – an entire spectrum, if you like – so it's not exactly reasonable to refer to the narratives as 'competing'. The word also implies that the views are mutually exclusive, which they are not. I also object to the reinstatement of the reference to the "friction with party state", because that also attempts to set a misleading agenda – the friction was much wider, from others in the qigong movement, sceptics, the Buddhists, etc. If this warring doesn't stop, I'm going to rewind this back to an earlier version and let you cry over it. Ohconfucius  ¡digame! 05:42, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

I'll respond to this later. Disappointed with the accusation of "insidious" editing, and the threats. If the page can be improved, please go and improve it; that's what we're all here for--not to make enemies and make each other cry. There's a lot to say on all these points; in any case, how the article is structured should be a broad reflection of how these things are conveyed in the best sources, of which there are many. I don't think it's controversial having something about the lead-up to the persecution, that's perfectly natural. "Skeptics and opponents" doesn't quite illustrate that, because it was the sustained protests and refusal to be cowed that pissed the authorities off. The section should reflect that it was basically an escalating thing, where Falun Gong refused to back down in the face of the criticism and banning of Zhuan Falun, etc., leading all the way up to April 25. And for "competing narratives" -- doesn't really matter what it's called, but calling it "organisation" predisposes things to a particular POV, which is not what we want. It's even unclear in that section whether it's referring to Falun Gong inside or outside China, the scope isn't clear. Anyway. Doing lots of research now, will have more to bring to the table (yes, the shared table, the table that is wikipedia that we share, that we cooperate on) later.--Asdfg12345 12:21, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Have you got a source for how criticism from the Buddhist association was related to the persecution? If you want the narrative as some kind of, society is rising up against Falun Gong kinda thing, that will need to be substantiated. As far as the sources go, these were just criticisms. The only criticism related to the persecution is He Zuoxiu and his buddies, as far as I am aware; this is what lead to the protests and then the persecution. There was friction with the Party-State, and then there was positive reception from the wider society and negative reception--and, mind you, a great deal more positive reception, given that 70million figure. Anyway, the point is that these discourses need to be traceable back to sources. Finally, I don't know what the big idea is with attempting to sanitise the page of the word "persecution." That strikes me as odd. The sources use it, it belongs as a description of the persecution on wikipedia. At the very least, if that's still disputed, let's muster what material we can and settle the dispute; it doesn't mean that every time the persecution is referred to it needs to have the word "persecution," but we also shouldn't cram in euphemisms all the time and try to purge this word from the pages. Seems a bit silly.--Asdfg12345 12:29, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

 * Most of the work I'm doing is in the History article, which sort of explains why this article hasn't advanced by much. The facts about the Buddhist Association's opposition are there. Ohconfucius  ¡digame! 12:34, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

 * We need a flag which gives a wordcount of the number of appearances of the word 'persecution' in each of this family of articles. ;-) I countt four instances right now in the body of this article. Ohconfucius  ¡digame! 07:10, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

I haven't been keeping watch, let me do that now. Would you care to explain the removal of the Brady remark from the self-immolation section? I find it unusual that you would revert with no explanation. She's a respected academic in the field of Chinese propaganda; the reason for swapping her comment out for a Falun Gong strawman is unclear to me. Thanks.--Asdfg12345 13:24, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

 * Bearing in mind the reams FLG sources have written about the incident being a setup, this comment is 'humorous'. It looked like a throwaway remark, a soundbyte. We don't cite Brady on anything else. I read through the relevant page of the source text and the preceding page, and found nothing there to indicate that this could not have been replaced by something more 'sober'. Ohconfucius  ¡digame! 02:27, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I can understand what you mean. It's the "hollywood stunt" thing, right? I can see how that kind of, changes the tone of things. I agree with making it a bit more straightforward. I demand the same of you, so I'm happy to submit to that here. I forget what happened with this in the end. i have to contribute every day, not so sporadically. Sorry.--Asdfg12345 12:43, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

source: wikimedia

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: Talk:Falun Gong/Archive 5