Talk:Falun Gong

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Asdfg12345 (talk | contribs) at 00:12, 26 June 2007 (→Request/Proposal: Renaming the page to [[Falun Dafa]]). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Jump to navigation Jump to search

Template:Article probation

Template:ACIDnom

Notice: Samuel Luo and his Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Samuel Luo and Tomananda are banned from editing this article indefinitely
The users specified have been banned by the Arbitration committee from editing this article. These users are also prevented from discussing or proposing changes on this talk page.

Posted by Srikeit 06:43, 9 May 2007 (UTC) for the Arbitration committee. See Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Falun Gong.[reply]

Template:Mediation

WIKIPEDIA IS NOT A FALUN GONG DISCUSSION FORUM! Please, add new messages pertaining to editing the FLG article at the bottom of this page.
A panel has been recently set up to discuss the content of the article as opposed to just debate in a prove-disprove cycle. You may contribute to this discussion at /Introduction
The discussions on sections of Origin and History are found at /History

Template:WP1.0

Heavily Biased article - Place this article under Protection

Someone has deleted some of the criticisms of the Falun Gong and changed the topic name to erase any mention of it as a cult. I suspect there are plenty of Falun Gong members roaming wikipedia. Place this topic under protection please. We don't need another cult war like the one over Nation of Islam and Scientology. Intranetusa 14:35, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Someone has delete the main article on critcisms of the Falun Gong

Many western organizations such as the Southern Poverty center lists the Falun Gong as a cult due to its intolerance towards homosexuals and mixed races. Someone has deleted this section which critizes the Falun Gong.

Intranetusa

Archived discussions

It is suggested that new readers of this "talk page" read the archived discussions below. It is likely that an issue of concern has already been discussed. As a result, a would-be poster can save the Wikipedian community time and effort spent on otherwise rehashing an issue if this responsbility is undertaken.
Please remember that this isn't the place to vent our spleens in condemnation or gush praise for Falun Gong itself as much as it is to comment on the actual article content. If we have an objectively neutral, factual article one hopes the truth will speak for itself, however we may subjectively perceive it.

Mediation update

The Mediation Committee is currently discussing whether or not it is possible for mediation of Falun Gong articles to continue. We appreciate your patience and any input you have to offer here. For the Mediation Committee, Martinp23 20:06, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Request for editing restriction on the Falun Gong page

I know that in the past, maybe about 6 months ago or so, the Falun Gong mainpage (and perhaps the subpages as well) had an editing restriction. I don't remember the details of it, but I believe it was that a user had to have been registered for at least a week before being able to edit the article. With a number of unregistered users having come and made very POV edits recently, which admins have had to revert, I think adding this restriction again would bring some order. I also find it interesting that all of these unregistered users have come all at once and so soon after Tom and Sam were banned. Interesting. Mcconn 14:15, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

correction - most of the users that have been editing have been newly registered users with extremely limited or no edit history, and without a user page. In light of this, does anyone have any ideas about something that can be done? Mcconn 17:48, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Reading some of the archives I support this, will make them have to at least register beforehand opening them up for checkuser. Obscurans 04:43, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It is absolutely necessary that newly registered users won't be able to edit this article. What are editors like User:Gtyh, User:Fufg, User:Devilmaycryfan and User:IamYueyuen doing here?! These articles are under attack by anonymous vandals who only seek to preserve Samuel's legacy. In fact, I believe this whole thing is orchestrated by someone. Will some administrator put these articles under semi-protection? ✔ Olaf Stephanos ✍ 07:03, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A-ha! So it was confirmed! Kent888 was a sockpuppet of Samuel Luo! [1] Evidently that wretched malefactor stops at nothing. I bet that quite a few of these new editors can be traced back to San Francisco. ✔ Olaf Stephanos ✍ 11:08, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Olaf, this can never justify you editing other users' pages. Editing Samuel's main user page, after he was banned indefinitely, shows you to be just as intolerant as before of anything critical of Falun Gong. Please cite a Wiki rule that bans personal pages being posted on one's own user page. There is pushing the limits, and clearly stepping over the line. This latest action of yours clearly falls into the latter. This action alone makes a total mockery of all the 'objectivity' you preached about before and adherence to Wiki rules!!! (After all, remember how you condemned users editing pro-FG user pages' links???) Jsw663 12:18, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Samuel is a Wikipedia criminal and no longer a legitimate user. I'm sorry, but I still haven't seen you condemn what he's done to us and these articles. And I'm still waiting for that apology for confusing us with NuclearBunnies and his vandal buddies. I'm not going to touch Samuel's page anymore, but his website won't be included in the article, either.
Seriously speaking, I don't want to fight with you, Jsw663. Let's just focus on improving these pages. You came across as quite reasonable by not trying to singlehandedly revert my edits today. I think we should basically sweep the table clear and move on. Let me just give you a small advice: if you want to appear more neutral and balanced, you ought to honestly admit that Samuel and Tomananda deserved their ban. The ArbCom is not that biased. Only one ArbCom member out of ten would have placed them on revert parole. Surely you understand what deep frustration I and many others experienced while these two crusaders bounced us around for over a year. In response to these actions, several pro-FLG editors made mistakes as well, of course. I'm not denying that. But the root cause was rightly identified by the ArbCom.
But again, thanks for your apparent cooperation (compared to many other editors); I still intend to make these articles featured, and cooperation is just what we need to achieve that. ✔ Olaf Stephanos ✍ 14:38, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
UPDATE: Just wanted to point this out: according to checkuser, Yueyuen and Samuel Luo share the same IP address. [2] I'm dumbfounded. This guy is really something. "Yueyuen" has been around for a year! See my post below. This is far more egregious than that. ✔ Olaf Stephanos ✍ 15:49, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Now that I saw on User:Blnguyen's talk page that you were already aware of these sockpuppets on May 12, why didn't you tell us anything, Jsw663? Imagine if pro-FLG editors had been resorting to long-term sockpuppetry? You'd be better off and earn more respect by honestly admitting that you are not neutral and balanced. It would be really hard to come across as anything but biased at this point. ✔ Olaf Stephanos ✍ 11:34, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ban template

"At the end of the ban, any user may remove this notice." - just looks funny when it's an indef ban. Maybe a new template without the remove-me line. Obscurans 04:43, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed it. --Fire Star 火星 04:47, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Changing the Title

I wish to point out that the term "suppression" used in the subtitle "suppression of Falun Gong" is hardly used in 3rd party literature. The UN, The amnesty International, HRW, papers from Rutgers, Harvard, New York University, U.S Congress resolution 188, The National Review, CNN all refer to it as "Persecution".

I wish to point out this article from New York University : http://lass.calumet.purdue.edu/cca/gmj/OldSiteBackup/SubmittedDocuments/Fall2005/graduate/non_referreed/Yang-Invited.htm

In my opinion the term "suppression" does not represent whats happening in China- which includes, according to reports by ex- Canadian MPs who investigated the issue ( http://organharvestinvestigation.net/ ) , harvesting of Organs from live practitioners, torture and killings.

I have not seen the term "suppression" being used to describe something of this sort in any literature on Falun Gong from a reputed source.

I also want to point out that, if I remember right, the article originally carried the title "Persecution of Falun Gong" which was later changed to "suppression" by some editors. Mainly, the editors recently banned. Attempts to fix this through discussion failed owing to constant reverts by these editors.

Dilip rajeev 07:58, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above are all Western (and human rights) sources who all have a jaundiced view of the Chinese government. The UN source relies almost entirely on (pro-)Falun Gong sources, which is suspicious in itself. Let's not try to twist neutrality into subjectivity! You are fully aware already about the debate that China's official position is that it never persecutes FGers, so suppression was a compromise. Persecution assumes what Falun Gongers say are completely true facts that are verifiable, but after examination of such documents the test fails. Also read my reply on how the Holocaust cannot be compared with FG situation, and how China's view with respect to Falun Gongers is similar to US' view on Marxist guerillas and extremist Muslim jihadists. Let's not carry personal political bias onto supposedly encyclopedic pages!!! Jsw663 12:22, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There are 6 billion humans on this planet and what you said above was just your point of view. What matters is what reputable sources say. It may be normal in CCP to kill innocent people and extract organs from live people. And if you think HR organizations and western countries all have have a "jaundiced" view when they speak against such terrible crimes, it is just your POV.
There is absolutely no question of "compromises" here. If the international community and organizations of authority in the field like the Amnesty International sees it as a persecution we are obliged to use the term persecution in the articles. It is not what you think or I think that matters.
It is not what "FGers" (whatever that means) say that was quoted in the intro but words directly sourced from Amnesty International and other highly reputed sources. Do you think good natured people practicing Qi Gong exercises are making up some stories of a persecution? If you really think Falun Gong practitioners are not persecuted in China would you dare go to Beijing and declare aloud that you practice Falun Gong? Friend, I request you take a good look at your own mentality. Am not asking for lawyers' arguments but just asking you to be true to your own conscience.
Dilip rajeev 15:10, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, I never denied the Amnesty International quote its place in the introduction, but it needs to be in the appropriate place. There is a place for 'other sources' and a place to be informative. Once again learn to control your bias. Jsw663 18:44, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Introduction

I've tried to restore some of what was discussed before to provide balance. Users like Dilip are tilting the balance so it is completely one-sided. Olaf's bias is also indicative in not restoring balance in the introduction. FG has taken up most of the rest of the article (i.e. besides the pre-intro), but the pre-intro should not set a particular tone already, and should only provide a brief overview of the situation. Note also I've tried to reorganize the sections so that each paragraph contains a bit of the pro-FG and a bit of the anti-FG side in roughly equal fashion. If you dispute this balance, please say why!!! Jsw663 12:35, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Facts as cited by reputed sources are what matters. If the facts turn out to be "pro-Falun Gong" we are obliged to present it so. It is not a matter of pro-anti POV balance.
Dilip rajeev 14:52, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not against "balance", as long as all text is verifiable, well-sourced and attributed. If there are more reports that seem favourable to Falun Gong, it's just a reflection of the opinions held in the scientific and international community, and the article should reflect this relationship between majority and minority viewpoints. I don't think there are too many people who oppose the persecution simply because it's the CCP who carries it out; they are against the CCP because it persecutes Falun Gong practitioners and other dissidents. That's the cause and effect. The Chinese government can only blame itself for getting stuck in the muck. ✔ Olaf Stephanos ✍ 15:18, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
For our purposes, it doesn't matter why a person is motivated to act the way they do. Only that there are secondary sources that say what they do. If you look at the language at our Tiananmen massacre article: "Following the violence, the government conducted widespread arrests to suppress protestors and their supporters, cracked down on other protests around China, banned the foreign press from the country and strictly controlled coverage of the events in the PRC press." That is a standard journalistic formula, reporting what happened drily and succinctly, without the added freight of an accusatory word like persecution. We can say that X and Y source call it persecution, but we shouldn't. In English, the academic passive voice is the convention for neutral presentation of an issue. An entire suite of editors not being satisfied with that voice is what got this article put on probation, if you'll recall. --Fire Star 火星 15:46, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You are right, Fire Star, and that's why I changed the word "persecution" in the introduction to "crackdown", as you may see. This term has been employed by all sides. ✔ Olaf Stephanos ✍ 15:51, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Cheers. I do recommend that our editors look at the way other Wikipedia articles, good articles, handle similar situations, like Tiananmen mentioned above. Besides having the nice side effect of consistency within the project, they may save us a lot of discussion time by acting as practical templates for these articles if they are agreeable. --Fire Star 火星 15:58, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Once again, thanks for being the voice of reason, Fire Star. I personally have no objections to the word 'crackdown', even if I know for sure some anti-FG people will protest heavily against this. Another article that should be looked at for good quality BALANCE is Globalization, another controversial topic but now rated GA due to its balance. I think this is how the FG article should proceed. Please let me know if y'all agree or not. Jsw663 18:42, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes! That's just what I had in mind. --Fire Star 火星 02:12, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Because the Intro is too long, I suggest adding a heading for the section starting with "Falun Gong has been the focus of international attention since July 20, 1999,..." What do others think of "Controversy" ? I welcome any suggestion! --Ghormax 10:30, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Samuel and his puppet show

Based on the checkuser performed by User:Dmcdevit, I'd like to inform everybody that the following editors have been sockpuppets of Samuel Luo: User:Pirate101, User:Yueyuen, User:Kent888, User:Kent8888 and User:Mr.He. I'm sorry for not having believed HappyInGeneral and some other editors as they suspected this earlier on. Samuel is not only banned from Wikipedia; he's probably one of its biggest vandals of all time. I don't understand why nobody checked this out earlier. From now on, we must be extremely careful with any new editors who come in and start making significant changes to the articles. It's probable that Samuel will try to continue his deception from other IP addresses. ✔ Olaf Stephanos ✍ 16:20, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I remember CovenantD being shut down rather forcefully when he tried to get a checkuser run on Samuel Luo about a year ago. I'm sure that had the effect of stifling inquiries at the time for all of us. The user who blocked CovenantD has since been asked to leave, so, while slow, the Wikipedia community perhaps does correct itself over time. At any rate, it is in the past, and since these articles are being more actively monitored by the Wikipedia community generally, I doubt that any disruptive contributions will be allowed to stand for any appreciable time. --Fire Star 火星 16:42, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Incidentally, there is some pretty blatant sockpuppetry going on at Teachings of Falun Gong. I will report it. --Fire Star 火星 16:52, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, User:Foullou, User:Shimanan, User:IamYueyuen, User:Gtyh and User:Fufg are probably Samuel as well. ✔ Olaf Stephanos ✍ 17:21, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Samuel keeps vandalizing these articles under different sockpuppets. During the last two hours, he has reverted both Li Hongzhi and Falun Gong. What can we do about this? ✔ Olaf Stephanos ✍ 19:12, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is getting somewhat ridiculous. I am going to protect this page, and have left a note at ANI asking for input wrt to blocks (etc). Thanks, Martinp23 22:00, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to make a note here which applies to everyone in the dispute (I want to make clear firstly that I am not your mediator :)). Please remain civil when dealing with editors who may offend you - edit summaries like this are absolutely unacceptable, and if they continue, blocks may follow. You must keep a cool head when dealing with other editors, even if they are banned and/or get on your nerves. Set an example. On a related issue - looking through the histories of the articles I have protected, and the contribs of the users I have blocked, I see absolutely no vandalism. Ignoring an Arbcomm ruling is by no means vandalism - at worst it can be considered trolling. The assertion above that Samuel Luo is "one of [Wikipedia's] biggest vandals of all time." is frankly laughable - one user using multiple SPAs to attack only a few articles is by no means as bad as some of our worst vandals. Be careful with what you might say in the heat of the moment, in summary :) Martinp23 22:57, 15 May 2007 (UTC) (ps - an RFCU has been filed by me WRT the four accounts I've blocked).[reply]
Thank you Martinp23 for reiterating what I've been saying time and time again to Olaf. However, the words mean very little when it comes from me from Olaf's POV, so I'm glad you repeated the above here to keep these editors in check.
On the issue of Sam's sockpuppets, I was aware of this a few days ago and very surprised, I must admit. However, that does not mean there should be a sharp lurch towards the pro-FG side either to be NPOV. A GA-rated article on Wiki about a fairly controversial topic which seems like a good indication as to how the FG one should proceed is Globalization. Let me know what you all think, as I'm most interested to hear pro-FG views on this. The reason I chose the above entry was because it has the balance that I think this entry should maintain. Let me know if y'all agree or not. Jsw663 18:37, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You're right, Martinp23, I lost my nerves there momentarily, and I apologize for compromising WP:Civility. I acknowledge that the actual scope of Samuel's vandalism doesn't compare with some other people who have behaved even worse, but this is a matter that involves other issues as well. In my eyes, Samuel is more or less directly promoting the agenda of a Communist dictatorship engaged in a genocidal campaign against prisoners of conscience. He has sought to ruin these articles and poison their readers, which, of course, is a matter of interpretation. I think many of his stated opinions are outright fascist, and when he resorts to blatant trolling to push his tendentious edits after being indefinitely banned, you can imagine how many of us, especially those belonging to the targeted group of people or their peers, may feel. This is an extremely complicated dispute with possible reflections on a global scale. In addition, Samuel's sockpuppetry has gone unnoticed for an entire year. Nevertheless, I will mind my speech from now on. ✔ Olaf Stephanos ✍ 23:26, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I personally feel its quite obvious. Anyway we need to scrutinize the edits done by the user and the person who was working along with him.
Dilip rajeev 11:15, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There are disturbing resemblances between Olaf and pro-FG action and McCarthyism. You've got the guy banned already; you should now call for immediate protection of ALL FG-related pages. You also are fully aware that Wikipedia has its weaknesses so instead of seeking to impose authoritarian control over certain pages and content, how about working constructively? For starters, you could answer whether the FG page should retain a balance similar to the GA-rated Wiki entry Globalization. Jsw663 12:35, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Now, now, Jsw663, please remember to be civil yourself. I assure you that I just want order and cooperation, not any kind of authoritarian control over these pages or their content. I'm interested about your suggestions, and retaining a balance sounds like a good idea. However, I'd like you to elaborate a bit more about taking Globalization as a model; what does it mean in regard to these articles? Do you have some concrete examples? Also, I'd like you to keep in mind what Asdfg12345 stated on Talk:Suppression_of_Falun_Gong#Please_read:_note_on_working_methods. If there are any changes to be made, we shouldn't straightforwardly revert to a previous version. Referring to your edit summary, "personally I think it is as outrageous as FG claims about the Chinese Gvt, but the FG claims were kept due to your defense of that, so why not this?" [3], you should remember that "any material that is challenged and for which no source is provided may be removed by any editor". (WP:CITE) That applies equally to pro-FLG, anti-FLG and so-called "neutral" material. If you find any unverifiable and poorly sourced pro-FLG material on these pages and you remove it, I don't think anybody's going to start a revert war. There are no excuses for substandard content. ✔ Olaf Stephanos ✍ 15:51, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please cite the instance where I have not been civil myself. Your civility is laid bare for all to see on this entry's main page. Let me quote from Hoerth on the Criticism talk page, who quotes LHZ: "Others may treat us badly, but we can not treat them badly. We must not look upon people as enemies." Li Hongzhi --Hoerth 21:25, 15 April 2007 (UTC) The only editor between the two of us as far as I can see being incivil is the editor comparing Samuel with JW Gacy - you. Once you learn how to properly control your own temper and bias, I am as always interested in what you have to contribute. But you cannot look upon a process as constructive if FGers only seek to revert anything wholesale that challenges any edits without discussion. This is what I mean by civility - if you preach Wiki rules, then learn to live by them, instead of offering excuses of why you breach them and how you escape punishment. It was these wholesale edits that led to edit wars in the first place. Now that one side is removed, this still does not justify these wholesale edits. The link provided on the criticism page of the section FGers seek to excise is clearly a valid link. Like you said yourself, we shouldn't simply revert, so why do you and other FGers persist in doing so even when I propose compromised versions? Talk about incivil!
Furthermore, to back up my accusation at you being incivil (which is not an unique accusation by myself), you said: "Samuel is more or less directly promoting the agenda of a Communist dictatorship engaged in a genocidal campaign against prisoners of conscience." This is a clear example of where you fail to control your own bias and clearly trample on all prospects of civility. Don't mistake my disappointment in you for supporting anti-FG material though. It just means that you should learn to realize that a GA article like Globalization was rated that because it starts off with a descriptive passage (note the neutral but informative language), then gives the pro- and anti- side a roughly equal amount of space to air their case. There is also no restriction for the pro- or anti- side on amount of content on their respective (linked) Wiki entries either. Why would you oppose the format of a GA article unless you wanted to push through an agenda of your own? I'm interested to hear your side of the argument. It's not like I was giving the article a GA-rating - it was done by the consensus of many Wikipedians, including many highly experienced editors (more than you or I). Time to learn from other Wiki articles that were given GA-ratings, instead of just twisting and focusing on Wiki rules to suit your own agenda. Also, civility means a minimum standard of politeness and respect. Strictness does not mean incivility. Calling other editors names, comparing them to "genocidal maniacs", calling others lapdogs of governments etc. is clearly incivility. Jsw663 20:39, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have given you many examples of your uncivility. One of them is the continued accusations of vandalizing your user pages. You even tried to present this "evidence" to the ArbCom, since these actions were "curiously well-timed as they hardly existed before this ArbCom case". Curiously well-timed indeed - everybody knows who have tried to harness this inanity to their own purposes. You have systematically refused to comment on my inquiries about why you attempted to link our party to these vandals. In addition, I remember you calling pro-FLG editors "an organization that exploits the weaknesses of Wikipedia" [4]. Your sympathies can be tilted, but that is thick, Jsw663.
I am aware of my own flaws, and I wholeheartedly agree that I should learn to control my temper and not look upon people as enemies. It is clearly a loophole in my own cultivation, and I definitely should have kept my mouth shut when I've had nothing substantial to say. That doesn't mean that anybody should just tolerate Samuel's deception, fraudulence, hypocrisy and guile. But please don't twist my words: I've never called anyone a "lapdog" or a "maniac". I just stated what I think, and my tone was rather neutral. Don't you have anything to say after all we've gotten to know? You defend Samuel as if he were simply Mom's slightly overactive little scallywag.
The section I removed from the Criticisms and controversies had a couple of strongly POV sentences that were totally unsourced. The rest, well, I thought it's just not very important or interesting to anyone, but I'm OK with it. If you insist on having it, you should cite the exact words from the original Chinese source and add them to the references. (see: WP:Verifiability#Sources_in_languages_other_than_English)
I never opposed to taking another article as a model; in good faith, I asked you to elaborate on this idea that we could possibly develop - how should we reform the structure of these articles? I'm taken aback by the aggressive tone in your voice. You seem to take up a defensive position as a matter of principle, as if you were already assured that I would oppose anything you suggest. I know that a good article needs to be neutral, balanced and well-sourced. I absolutely don't have anything against verifiable material from reputable sources that are critical of Falun Gong. The problem with Samuel and Tomananda was that they couldn't really provide us very much of that and insisted on their moonshine instead. ✔ Olaf Stephanos ✍ 23:25, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Quoting from the Requests for Arbitration page where I gave my response to your allegations of my incivility: "The pro-FG vandal/apologist is the one hiding behind the IP addresses supposedly from South Korea. See my user page for a brief list of IP addresses. Users like NuclearBunnies did not vandalize my user or user talk page, so I see no reason why I need to condemn them on my user or user talk page. It's not like I accuse you of bias or incivility on my user page, right? Or are you trying to censor me too? Do you see me demanding that you edit your user page for pro-FG bias?" and that strictness is not the same as incivility. Incivility consists of labeling people as a certain stereotype, or comparing them with a person that almost everyone finds abhorrent. I'm not saying the anti-FG camp were guilt-free on this point, but they've been punished for their part. Have you? I suggest you read what the anon IP editor wrote on my user + user talk page (use the history function as most was 'reverted') before understanding why I came to such a conclusion that the editor is pro-FG.
On the issue of content, the reason balance keeps getting promoted by myself is because of insufficient knowledge on content. I may have read pro- and anti-FG sources now thanks to this discussion page and its editors (past and present), but that still does not make me an expert on the subject. However, I am a stickler for defending both sides, and when one side gets removed because of their activism and not the other, it may appear that I am defending one side more than the other. This is what I mean by human rights support - supporting the rights of all, even if they may not deserve it. Upholding the principle, not applying it differently to different people. As mentioned before too, I don't mind you editing content as long as it is not biased towards one side's version of events or "facts" except in the later, relevant section. It has no place in the 'pre-intro' part, where it should be brief and informative. The Introduction workshop where a semi-meaningful discussion took place about the version of paragraphs that should exist seemed to be a comparatively constructive way forward. It was editors on both sides who refused to accept compromises who derailed it, causing edit wars. Now that one side is removed, some edits on these pages clearly revert back to the old biased version, provoking anti-FG editors into another edit war. Like you, I am tired of seeing these FG-related entries not making progress, but you have to accept that your (and other pro-FG) versions will be challenged, just as anti-FG versions will be challenged by others. Constant wholesale reversions are thus not helpful or constructive to both sides.
Since the main two issues I am concerned with are NPOV and balance (essentially the same issue), I may challenge on (length of) content on that front. The Globalization entry was thus for comparison regarding section length and content, as an indicator. But no matter how much you bait me, I cannot give a proper anti-FG version of these pages, because not only am I not in the anti-FG camp no matter how many times you try to label me as such, but because I don't have the expertise in such content and arguments. That doesn't preclude me from challenging and questioning at a more general level though, because that is essential (and why Wiki can be better than the average encyclopedia). So to start off, stop trying to censor others' Wiki user pages would be a positive way forward. It's not like these user pages receives a fraction as much coverage as the main Wiki entries anyway. It is this total crackdown your side seeks in eliminating all anti-FG sources even on other user pages that scares me, and hence merits the comparison with McCarthyism. Jsw663 13:43, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I believe according to the contributions that, User:Ghuigh is yet another sock. Evilclown93 02:21, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Misplaced template

{{editprotected}} {{Controversial3}} is for the Talk namespace (plus is redundant for a protected page). --h2g2bob (talk) 19:45, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Cheers. --MZMcBride 20:00, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello

I've read this article and discussion here. I find Samuel's website useful so I put it back. I don't plan to stay here long since I don't know enough about this group. I believe Samuel's site provides a balance to this article, thanks. --Yellowtuna 17:09, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Samuel. Please remember to take your Risperdal, you are not many persons but only one, OK? ✔ Olaf Stephanos ✍ 17:24, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Yellowtuna (or Samuel, doesn't matter). This site actually does not present the facts about this group of people correctly - it is only the point of view of its author. There are many other points of view and personal experiences of many other people that suggest a completely different interpretation of the quotes, original research, etc. this site contains. Besides, it has been suggested that this website's author has a strongly biased and incorrect view of the facts about this group (may he one day understand it :)!), which are all arguments against the inclusion of this website. This comment was added by Emanuil Tolev 07:15, 21 May 2007 (UTC), sorry about forgetting to sign on 20. May.[reply]

Criticisms parts

Just quickly to explain what I think about this section. I will copy one more thing in now. This whole page needs to be changed, as I mentioned briefly before. It will need to become more like a third party views, and have criticism balanced by counter-criticism/defence, and all the original research will need to come out. Such original research I am referring to includes parts which do not cite any third party reliable sources at all, but are just compilations of quotes of Li Hongzhi with some commentary. This, in essence is not even really criticism, it is just parts of the teachings that whoever wrote those sections thinks are bad. Those things should go on the Teachings page and be written neutrally, with consideration given to due weight as they fit into the teachings as a whole. I am referring to the part about homosexuality and about the Fa-rectification. These should definitely simply be presentations of the teachings on the teachings page, unless there is a third party reliable source who criticises Falun Gong for these aspects of the teachings. I am sure there must be some, it is just a matter of digging them up and reporting them.

The stuff from Chang did not seem to be any kind of criticism either. Maybe there was more to it and she wanted to criticise Falun Gong for saying it is not a religion but for nevertheless, according to her, being like a religion or sharing characteristics of a religion (she refers to Li Hongzhi's direct or indirect claims of divinity)... since this was not couched critically in that section I cited that bit and put it above. I guess it does not really belong there either. Having a third-party views transition will help in this situation too, since she has something to say about Falun Gong, like an analysis, and it is neither critical nor positive. Aside from this, there were some other words in this section about Li Honghzhi's quotations. Here is what I think: Li Hongzhi's claims of offering universal salvation, of rectifying the cosmos and saving it from disintegration, of having fashen, and everything else should really appear in different parts of the teachings section, since these are essentially teachings of Falun Gong. Of course if a third party has referred to these in some way then they should be mentioned in this context, as I just said about Chang. Nearly everyone who has written about Falun Gong has something to say about Li Hongzhi's statements in this regard, so there is ample space for this. The key is to get away from the original-research way of presenting this information, as though it were criticism.

Li Hongzhi's statements about homosexuality go in the criticism section when there is a third party reliable source who criticises them, and the same with Fa-rectification. Otherwise putting them there does not really constitute criticism, but original-research. This information actually belongs in the teachings section and it should accord with NPOV.

I will change the name of it to third party views now and copy a paragraph in about Falun Gong being a cult. There should be a couple of sections here, the one about debateable significance of awards is a good criticism. Of course, these introductory paragraphs should follow the format suggested under WP:LEAD, and should quickly give both sides of the issue. Unlike the current one about the awards where the criticism is given three lines and the defence one, the presentations should be even. Just some thoughts and explanation. I will change the heading and copy in the cult section now. It will need to be adjusted for NPOV becuase now I will just copy the criticism and wait for someone to add in the defence/counter-criticism. This is a prelude to the changes on the criticisms page for now.--Asdfg12345 23:26, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I actually copied both the criticism and defence so it is a bit longer. still needs big improvement, obviously. The arguments from each side need to be pared down and written very succintly, and the section on the criticisms page may need to change to reflect the NPOV "third party views" framing of this information, rather than the former "criticism" framing.--Asdfg12345 23:33, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Asdfg12345. Original research must be purged. Of course, we won't remove material from verifiable critical sources. When they touch upon subjects that are covered in the teachings, we can either provide a link to a relevant section in the teachings page or quickly summarize what Li has said about these issues. Since Wikipedia is a tertiary source and the third-party views on Falun Gong are not limited to this specific daughter article, we should find a better headline. I propose "Controversies surrounding Falun Gong". As a thematic entity, it is delineated yet extensive. See my post below. ✔ Olaf Stephanos ✍ 15:36, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What Li says about these things could be blandly listed in an expository section on the details of what he teaches and espouses. If we have them in a section on "criticism", then we also should reference a notable critic or critics. I think having it framed the way it is is artefact from an anti-FLG agenda. --Fire Star 火星 07:06, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Li Hongzhi

Hello,

the article states, that: "according to some cult experts, Li demonstrates the classic characteristics of an authoritarian cult leader." - could someone point out which cult expert has this (exact) opinion? I perfectly well know and recognize criticism on Falun Gong, but yay "Encyclopedic content must be verifiable.". Nothing against including a quote from a renonowned religious, or cult expert or scientist, I'd just like to point out that it must be a 'something' from 'someone', like all things on Wikipedia. Emanuil Tolev 10:49, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, people? What's your opinion? I'd try to find such facts (person and quote or another form of statement of opinion). And if there are none, as I suspect (because of the used weasel words and unaccurate expression - what are the "classic characteristics of an authoritarian cult leader"? If the quoted person didn't specify, well, at least who is he, "some cult experts"?) - I'd suggest the deletion of this sentence. I can conduct no research as of now and I'm pointing this out, because another Wikipedian who is currently free may want to do it. I'll try to get to something myself later. Emanuil Tolev 18:43, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say in these cases, in future, without breaking any rules, it is fine to be a bit bolder and first tag the sentence in question, put a note on the talk page, then if no one responds in 24 hours just delete it. Of course, you could also just try deleting the sentence outright and then leaving a note informing other users of your action and explanation for doing so. Maybe the second is okay too; that is acceptable. It is just I guess maybe a bit friendlier to tag it and leave a note. On second thought, it would be better to act at a high standard and proactively be more congenial about these things. It's the responsibility of the person who wants the material there to justify it, however I think this sentence could be altered and attributed to Margaret Singer or someone else. You aren't responsible for doing so, though, but the person first put that content there. Anyway, just my thought.--Asdfg12345 19:33, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Probably another holdover, see my comment just above. --Fire Star 火星 07:08, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Renaming and merging the articles

I propose the following changes:

✔ Olaf Stephanos ✍ 15:24, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is okay by me, but on the second I still advocate "Third party views on Falun Gong" for the reasons set out on that talk page. If there is something I have missed and that name is actually more appropriate then it's fine by me.--Asdfg12345 19:49, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The first one, no, "suppression" is a more "passive voice" term, although "crackdown" in the article itself is an acceptable descriptor, IMO. The next two, yes, although Asdfg's suggestion for "Third party views on Falun Gong" works for me, too. --Fire Star 火星 07:02, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I wonder why some editors are so strongly against the term "persecution". I wish to raise this issue elsewhere in wikipedia where I can get a proper answer to this. I dont understand what is so "impassive" about the term persecution and how the term "suppression" can describe what is happening in China. In my opinion the term "persecution" describes, far better than the term "suppression", what , according to The Amnesty International, The UN, The US Congress, EU, HRW, Kilgour-Mata Reports, etc. , is happening in China.
Dilip rajeev 17:33, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'll tell you why I don't like the term for our purposes, as I've explained before. "Suppression" describes the actual effects on FLG of what is happening, FLG's adherents are having their activities, their practise and proselytising, suppressed. They aren't allowed to do those things publicly by Chinese law. "Persecution" is subjective, it indicates an injustice, implying that the FLG adherents are being victimised unfairly. That may or may not be the case, but it isn't up to us to publish that. We only report what is objectively happening. We can say that this or that source terms it persecution, but an objective, neutral report cannot call it persecution. We say what others have said, and let people make up their minds. Personally, I'm sure the CCP has hunted down FLG people mercilessly, but we are an encyclopaedia, not The Epoch Times. We say what we can establish has happened or is happening, not what we want other people to think. Let our readers make up their own minds. --Fire Star 火星 20:47, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]


The accepted definition of persecution, as found in the Oxford Dictionary (1993) is:
"1 The act persecuting someone or subjecting someone to hostility or ill treatment; the fact of being persecuted; an instance esp. a particular course or period, of this b Harassment, persistent annoyance 2 The action of pursuing with intent to catch, injure or kill; pursuit of a subject etc."
The definition, "The act persecuting someone or subjecting someone to hostility or ill treatment", as far as I can see, does not carry with it any inherent bias or any connotation of so called "unfair victimization", "injustice" etc. And I think we need to be clear on the fact that there is more than just a suppression of "proselytizing" happening in China.
Dilip rajeev 06:36, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]


I feel the term persecution is far more appropriate for the title than the word "suppression" for the simple reason that it is not just a suppression that is happening in China. Furthur, the term "suppression" is hardly, if ever, used to describe the HR crisis in China in material from reputed sources. I would also like to know what other editors think on the matter. Thanks :). Fire Star, I don't see any inherent bias or anything "un-encyclopedic" in the accepted definition of "persecution".
Dilip rajeev 15:35, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed subtitles from the third party views section. Please help improve the existing summary. Dilip rajeev 17:46, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why remove the subtitles? Whatever final presentation that is adopted, it should be uniform. I think having the introductory paragraph of each daughter article with a link to the daughter article would be perhaps the most appropriate. Maybe a 300-500 word summary of the daughter article. But without having agreed or decided on anything I myself am reluctant to make big changes. The last thing we want is edit wars. It would be better to discuss changes like this before making them, and coming to some overall approach to this page.--Asdfg12345 19:37, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You removed more than subtitles, Dilip, you removed 5 entire paragraphs from the article. Changes of that magnitude need to be discussed ahead of time, this article is on Arbcom probation and is being monitored. --Fire Star 火星 20:58, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with both Asdfg12345 and Fire Star. Dilip, sometimes you act a bit rashly. However, I understand why you removed the subtitles; they're evidently a means for the anti-FLG party to advertise and sell their stuff on the main page. Either we should include all subtitles of all daughter articles and a short summary of their respective content, or none at all. I'd prefer the latter.
By the way, I'm okay with "Third party views on Falun Gong", since nobody's found a better name as yet. ✔ Olaf Stephanos ✍ 22:49, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I also agree with "Third party views on Falun Gong". /Omido

I half gave up with the persecution/suppression argument in the end simply because it would have resulted in edit wars. I do not actually think there is any inherent bias or anything in the use of the word "persecution." Looking at the definition of "genocide" would also not present any problems. I already cited that. According to the wikipedia definition, the page should rightly be called "The Genocide of Falun Gong" -- so I don't really understand. The same sources that would suggest it is a suppression would suggest its a genocide. So I dont know where the line is drawn really, or how we could come to properly work this out. For me the accuracy and completeness of the content is more important than the title, so I focused more on that. I still have not heard a single rational and structured reason for not using the word "genocide" or "persecution", except for some vague comments about what it connotes. But as I say I don't feel it is worth a revert war about, and I'd rather focus on the content. Of course, I just said I don't see any logical reason why the page not be called "The Genocide of Falun Gong". Please see WP:Genocide:

Genocide is the mass killing of a group of people as defined by Article 2 of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (CPPCG) as "any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such: killing members of the group; causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life, calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part; imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group; and forcibly transferring children of the group to another group."

Anyway, there are always arguments about this, and whichever title is adopted automatically serves some interest.--Asdfg12345 00:30, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]


I also want to point out that Splitting the History section into "growth" and "suppression" is inaccurate. The practice is steadily growing in popularity despite the persecution taking place in China. Dilip rajeev 15:43, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Suppression -> Persecution

The following articles are found from Wikipedia, among others: Persecution of Jews, Persecution of Christians, Persecution of Muslims, Persecution_of_Bahá'ís, Persecution of Hindus, Persecution of Atheists, Persecution of Zoroastrians, Persecution of Rastafari, Persecution of Jehovah's Witnesses, Persecution of Germanic Pagans, Persecution of Buddhists, and Persecution of Wiccans. Unless somebody provides a good reason why we should stray from this naming policy, I will rename the article in a couple of days. ✔ Olaf Stephanos ✍ 10:18, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

All of the articles are truly strong arguments FOR the renaming. I must add that I fully agree with the renaming. The whole name issue seems quite strange to me - how do we name the situation in China "suppression", when we're talking about killing, jailing without trial for years (up to 3 or 4 I think) for a single sentence containing the practice's name in the public or private sphere, beatings in custody and tortures and who knows what else... I don't put an emotional load in it, but for me, the name "suppression" just (encyclopedically) does not fit the content (imagine you never heard about the persecution. Now type "Suppression of Falun Gong" in the search box. Have a look at the content table. Well?). Emanuil Tolev 06:25, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]


I fully agree with changing the title. Please see my posts in the previous subsection.
Dilip rajeev 14:30, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, it should be named persecution. Omido 09:24, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The word "persecution" assumes a situation in China which is highly disputed. A great deal of effort has been made by Falun Gong practitioners to paint the government in China as demonic and worthy of destruction by the gods. In order to be saved, Li Honzhi says that practitioners must "expose the persecution" and spread anti-CCP propaganda every chance they get. If all the practitioners stories were true, maybe there would be a case for using the word "persecution" here. But it's clear that practitioners have fabricated stories of abuse on many occassions. One big example: the discredited anonomous reports about organ harvesting at Sujian. In prior discussion I noticed that several editors objected to the use of the word "persecution" for this page, but I guess they have all been banned and all that's left are Falun Gong practitioners...is that right? Anyway, that's my impression. So if I have any say, I would vote against the word "persecution" since it assumes a fact that has not been established. --CaptainKarma 08:06, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Samuel Luo. I'm sorry, but after receiving an indefinite ban, you aren't supposed to participate in discussions, either. ✔ Olaf Stephanos ✍ 09:16, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What's that? Anyone who criticizes the Falun Gong is Samuel Luo? --CaptainKarma 09:18, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, any new user who starts editing these articles in a similar pattern or uses similar rhetoric right from the beginning is "Samuel Luo" (or maybe Tomananda, even though he did seem intelligent enough to not sink into that level). That will hold true at least until Samuel has verifiably stopped using sockpuppets. See Wikipedia sockpuppets of Samuel Luo and Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Samuel Luo. Sorry, but Samuel Luo pretty much poisoned the well for any new editors who try to represent his viewpoints. ✔ Olaf Stephanos ✍ 09:23, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So only Falun Gong practitioners are allowed to edit on this board is that right? What a crock! --CaptainKarma 09:34, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not saying that. But Samuel Luo and Tomananda will never be welcome. ✔ Olaf Stephanos ✍ 09:39, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
But yes, yes indeed! You are Tomananda! The way you misspell "Sujiatun" (see: [8]) and how you write three dots without a space on either side as a substitute for a punctuation mark ("Falun Gong practitioners...is that right?") lays you bare. Honestly, I didn't believe you would resort to sockpuppetry, but I guess I was just too starry-eyed. The 63-year old chairman of San Francisco for Democracy is evading bans and trolling on Wikipedia. This is getting surreal. Go play golf or something. ✔ Olaf Stephanos ✍ 10:26, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, and you are Li Hongzhi in disguise here to save the cosmos no doubt. What's surreal here is your willingness to divert attention from controversies about Falun Gong by engaging in personal attacks. If I were a 63 year old man, does that mean I would play golf? Or is that another one of your fantasies? My question remains: is there anyone on this board who is not a Falun Gong practitioner? --CaptainKarma 17:45, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it seems that the Wikipedia anti-FLG revolution ate its own children. Seriously, I don't know what you're still trying to achieve, Tomananda and Samuel. We'll bust every sockpuppet you create, either by Checkuser or by your editing patterns. The Wikipedia community is behind us. In fact, you said you would leave Wikipedia for good, but now it seems you just can't keep your paws off. Old habits die hard, right? ✔ Olaf Stephanos ✍ 18:52, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not a sockpuppet, but if you want to try to "bust" me go ahead. Is the Wikipedia community behind your attempts to delete the controversial or critical material about the Falun Gong in this article? Do Wikipedians in general support the ageist, racist and homophobic beliefs of the Falun Gong? Or is it just that there's a sense that all this should not be reported because of the situation in China. As you proceed to dlete all criticism from this article, it would be interesting to hear from some non-practitioner editors about their views. --CaptainKarma 20:12, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The intent of the Wikipedia community is to reform these articles to make them comply with the official policies. That means WP:NOR, WP:NPOV, WP:Verifiability, among others. You never cared for them in the first place. Tomananda, everything you do here is illegitimate, discussions included, so I'm not wasting my time on this. You are not welcome, even if you access the Internet from another IP address. Bye. ✔ Olaf Stephanos ✍ 20:21, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And, once again, Checkuser exposed the deceitfulness of our Dynamic Duo: Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/CaptainKarma. ✔ Olaf Stephanos ✍ 06:14, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

0.7 held

I put this article on hold for Wikipedia:Release Version as it is a B-class article that is mid-importance. If this was high importance it would have passed. Getting this up to GA status or higher will make it worthy of inclusion in 0.7. Funpika 00:18, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion can be found here on this matter. Funpika 00:25, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Since I was leaning on fail myself when I placed it on held nominations and 3 other people want it failed, I will now fail this nomination. Funpika 19:21, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Falun Gong farm

Hey guys. I thought I'd check back recently to see if any progress has been made on neutralizing the article. All I see now is a Falun Gong pamphlet. Some of the stuff on here is now more biased than the Epoch Times.

Brilliant job. You may as well put Master Li is divine, and Falun Gong is the only true Fa on the article.Colipon+(T) 01:14, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Could you specify what you mean? Exactly what stuff is "more biased than the Epoch Times"? At least I haven't made any additions that are not verifiable and attributable to third-party sources. On the other hand, a lot of original research and unattributed claims has been removed. Maybe you don't entirely understand the rules of the game. If you want to balance the article, you'd better look for good sources. ✔ Olaf Stephanos ✍ 07:17, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. But any sources that seems to tarnish Falun Gong's reputation is obviously wrong. Therefore, no such sources exist. You are always right. Master Li is always right. Colipon+(T) 08:46, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please assume good faith, Colipon. There are no concepts of "objectivity", "truth" or "falsehood" in Wikipedia, and they're not the criteria by which to judge the inclusion of sources. Of course, personally I do believe that pro-FLG sources are usually more objective and true, and I've seen some incredibly biased rubbish in many anti-FLG articles that come from Wiki-qualified sources. However, these articles are owned by the Wikipedia community, not by me (or any other editor, for that matter). The policies apply equally to all content. You either learn to play the game or you don't. Samuel and Tomananda didn't, whereupon they were kicked out. ✔ Olaf Stephanos ✍ 09:12, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, perhaps objectivity is a valuable concept... --Fire Star 火星 16:32, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'll wait. This Falun Gong charade will not last forever. U.S. cult study groups have already published numerous articles on Falun Gong's destructive effects that are independent of any communist connections. This stuff doesn't even need to be on Wikipedia to be a powerful voice. It is simply that being one person (or one of few people) on Wikipedia who has actually seen the damaging effects from Falun Gong while I lived in Mainland China, people would not believe anything I say because they automatically assume it is Communist propaganda. The assumption here is that everything FLG is good and everything CCP is bad.
Sure. Time will tell. Long Live Master Li.
Olaf, this is also a reminder for you to never reply to my comments again. It is not only me but any unbiased third party who will regard your comments as ridiculous. Whatever you say from now I will simply agree to unquestionably, and then add on a "Master Li is always right, time will tell". Colipon+(T) 02:13, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"Colipon, you've got a banana in your ear!" "What?" "I said, YOU'VE GOT A BANANA IN YOUR EAR!" "What? I can't hear you; I've got a banana in my ear!" ✔ Olaf Stephanos ✍ 09:42, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Master Li is always right. Time will tell. Colipon+(T) 22:51, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Subtitles in The History and Timeline subsection

Splitting the time line section into growth and then "persecution" is factually inaccurate for the reason that the system of cultivation practice has been steadily growing in popularity in countries outside China. Therefore am removing the "growth" subtitle ( the subtitle alone. not the content following). The second subtitle has been changed to "Persecution of Falun Gong in China". Dilip rajeev 19:32, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unattributed statement

The following statement doesn't have a source. "Analysts note the highly politicized nature of the group distinguishes it from most religious groups." Before reinserting this statement to the article, please provide a source. Thank You. --HappyInGeneral 08:24, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

At first I thought that sentence should be deleted - as religious groups are often political. But I concede that they are much more political than most, perhaps someone could find a source? Or we could simply amend it "It is alleged that some argue that analysts note the highly politicized nature of the group distinguishes it from most religious groups."Aleksi Peltola 17:58, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever the case, saying anything like that needs a source.--Asdfg12345 21:46, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Request/Proposal: Renaming the page to Falun Dafa

I think this page should be named Falun Dafa. I agree that Falun Dafa is also known as Falun Gong, so it's quite normal to have Falun Gong redirect here. However, since Falun Dafa is the current name, see http://FalunDafa.org, I think it would be most appropriate to rename this page to Falun Dafa.

Please let me know what you think about this, any objections? --HappyInGeneral 13:39, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

PS: as a side note Zhuan Falun also redirects here, but it should not, Zhuan Falun is a book, essential to the practice yes, but it is not the practice name. --HappyInGeneral 13:39, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

yeah I agree. Put it through on the rename requests page.--Asdfg12345 03:15, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, where is that? --HappyInGeneral 22:11, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requested_moves--Asdfg12345 00:12, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Falun_Gong&oldid=140636116"