This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Leave the tags and templates

The first template is because this article falls far short of wiki policies in many ways, and the people looking at it need to know that, and that it is in the process of review. The other templates express that it is in review, but does not note that there are concerns of the factual accuracy and neutrality of the article. The first pov tag is because that sentence to introduce the teachings that way is certainly from one angle and quite incomplete, uncontextualised and therefore not neutral. The other two tags, original research and failed verification should be obvious by clicking on the link. The link doesn-t even mention the Fa-rectification is judging all sentient beings, and you won-t find that sentence anywhere in the books, so it is original research plus does not appear in the cited source. I propose that these tags and template should not be removed without clear explanation as to why they are innappropriate.--Asdfg12345 21:31, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Asdfg: You are mis-representing the disputed edit. It does not say that the Fa-rectrification is judging all beings, but rather that Li's Dafa is judging all beings, which in fact is exactly what Li says himself. The source for that quote is the second citation in the sentence which, by the way, keeps disappearing after a FG editor makes other changes. Here's the complete sentence:

Li claims to provide salvation for mankind [1] and his Dafa (great law) is judging all beings [2] in a process called Fa-rectification.[3]

The only part of this sentence which does not directly appear in Li's writings is the last part: "in a process called Fa-rectification". But it is clear from the context of Li's writings that the judgment of his Dafa (great law) is part of the Fa-rectificiation process. Yes, there is more that can be said about Fa-rectification, but certainly it involves the judgment of beings in the cosmos. What also needs to be said is that as a result of Li's Fa-rectifiction and the judgment of his Dafa, some beings will be "saved" and others will be "weeded out." He has stated this many many times and you know it. If you can come up with revised wording that conveys these thoughts, I think that would be a useful gesture on your part. --Tomananda 20:26, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

What we'd like to see is a version that makes clear the following points: 1) Those who will be weeded out are people who support the persecution in their hearts and fail to identify with the cause of stopping it. 2) Dafa provides salvation to all beings, regardless of the bad deeds they committed in history. The only line of demarcation for "weeding out" is point number one. 3) In regard to those who can stay, the better attitude they have towards Dafa and Dafa disciples, the better they position themselves in the future. As long as these aspects are made as clear as possible, I don't think we have a problem.

To put it more clearly, right now during the Fa-rectification, no matter how great are the sins sentient beings have committed or how grave are the mistakes they made in the past, the only thing that is looked at is the attitude that they have toward Dafa and Dafa disciples during the Fa-rectification period. There is just this one line of demarcation. Actually, this line is not a line at all; it's just about whether you want to enter the future. Amidst lies that have deceived the world, and amidst the wicked culture created by the evil CCP, how many people can still recognize that point? How many people can tell right from wrong? How many people can see clearly the wickedness of the evil CCP? It is very hard to do, and that's why Dafa disciples clarify the facts, expose the evil, and help people to see the wicked CCP for what it is. Only by doing these things can the world's people be saved. This is precisely what Dafa disciples are to do. Fa Teaching at the 2007 New York Fa Conference

---Olaf Stephanos 21:15, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

OK Olaf, if I say that the CCP is evil and wicked, but so too is Li Hongzhi for his manipulation and exploitation of Falun Gong practitioners, will I be saved by Li's Dafa? I react to Li's extreme rhetoric of absolute evil (the CCP and all their sypathizers) and absolute good (his disciples), the same way I react to George W. Bush's simplistic rhetoric concerning the Axis of Evil. In neither case is the political leader (Bush) or the so-called spiritual leader (Li Hongzhi) helping to improve the situation through better understanding. Sorry, but I do not agree that the answer to all of your problems is to seek the absolute down-fall of the Chinese Communist Party. I consider that to be a naive and desructive over-response to what you call "the persecution." I also am deeply bothered by the fact that Falun Gong practitioners feel free to fabricate stories about organ harvesting. This is not to say I do not condemn any and all persecution, but rather that the noble principles which Li espouses of "truthfullness, forebearance and benevolence" should not be so casually abandoned in the service of Li's goal of destroying the CCP. --Tomananda 21:55, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't know about your salvation, and it's none of our concern as Wikipedia editors. You may be compromising it. With reference to the Chinese Communist Party, I don't think it's any better than the Nazi Party of Germany. Of course, the Nazis did a lot of "good" things as well; they built autobahns and put the German economy on its feet after the great depression. Germany in the 1930s was not a bad place for the petite bourgeoisie. However, you see a lot of "simplistic rhetoric" when people talk about the Nazis. There is a reason for that, as they were truly evil because of what they did to Europe and its people. The Chinese Communist Party has killed about 80 million people during its 60 years of rule. For the most part, it has destroyed the traditional Chinese culture, corrupted people's mindset and wrecked the environment. Its official state religion of atheism, dialectical materialism, proto-fascism and militant nationalism has poisoned the minds of countless people. It kills my fellow practitioners - good, kind and intelligent citizens of China - for supporting a dissident metaphysical paradigm. As long as it systematically prevents third-party organisations from entering China's hospitals and labour camps to investigate the alleged organ harvesting, there are good reasons to believe it has something to cover up. From my point of view, it is a wicked and evil Party, just like the governments of Adolf Hitler, Josef Stalin, Augusto Pinochet, Idi Amin, Pol Pot and various other dictators have been wicked and evil. There is a standard of morality by which to judge.

You're saying that Falun Gong practitioners work for the destruction of the CCP. Well, as long as we use legal and nonviolent means for exposing its rule of terror, I don't see any problem in what we're doing. Our peaceful demonstrations and spreading the Nine Commentaries are done openly and uprightly. If that's "working for the destruction of the CCP", then you're working for the destruction of the Republican party as the chairman of San Francisco for Democracy, right? At least it should be made clear that we don't want to obtain political power; we just want to see China without a Communist dictatorship. Our stance should be represented fairly and dispassionately in this article. You've been unable to achieve that.

By the way, I don't mean to make "snide and unnecessary" comments, but "truthfulness" is written with one l and "forbearance" has no e after the first r. ---Olaf Stephanos 23:33, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

You amaze me, Olaf. You seem to be acknowledging in this post that the goal of Falun Gong practitioners is the destruction of the CCP, yet when I have made that same point in previous discusions, it's always been rejected out of hand. Oh no, we're just here to expose the persecution! FG editors say. But to what end? To reform the CCP or to eliminate it? You know, there's a big difference between those two goals and given the importance of China as a major national player, I would think you would want to achieve clarity on this point in these Wikipedia articles. As to the relative "evilness" of the Nazi regime and the current Beijing government, I find your comparison rather telling. I don't claim to be an expert about how the CCP works, but I do know that the central government in Beijing has publicly announced a campaign against local government corruption, with special emphasis on dealing with corrupt police officials at the local level...you know, those very same police officials whom the FG accuses of torturing practitioners. The problem with Li's absolutist way of thinking is that it closes the door on these types of reform efforts As long as Li continues to call for the destruction of the CCP...and encourages a campaign to diminish it's numbers through his media outlets such as the Epoch Times...the CCP is only going to be put in a more defensive position. My position has never been to prevent anti-CCP edits in Wikipedia, but rather to insist that both sides of the debate be given equal time.

You say "we just want to see China without Communist dictatorship," but at the same time you agressively prevent any edits which try to report this goal in order to preserve a false image of the Falung Gong. If you believe that is a justifiable goal, why can't you post some edits to reveal that part of Li's teachings? Or at least let editors like me have a go at it?

You say the Falun Gong has only engaged in "legal and nonviolent means for exposing its rule of terror" in China, yet there are numerous indicents of illegal activities...such as the jamming of China's TV broadcasts from Taiwan...that fly in the face of that statement. Yes, I'll grant that the "nonviolent" adjective in your sentence is propably appropriate, but not the "legal."

As for my interests, this discussion is somewhat beside the point. Most of my editing has steered clear of the China-versus-the-Falun-Gong debate because, frankly, I am not an expert on those matters. But I do know something about comparative religion and how cults differ from legitimate religions in the way they deceive the public about their higher teachings and practices. I also know about and have even met Americans who consider themselves victims of Li Hongzhi's manipulative and deceptive practices. Families here in the US have broken up because of Li's teachings, and some people have jeopardized their health. On top of that, I find Li's teachings on homosexuality and race to be particularly harmful. So all and all, there really is another side to the Falun Gong that deserves to be told.

As to my outside activities, I resent that you have mis-represented my goals as "Chair" of a local activist group in San Francisco. More could be said about that point, but it should be considered totally irrelevant to my role as a Wikipedia editor. Surely all the Arbitrators will agree with my position about that.

Finally, as to the oft-made point that Falun Gong practitioners are not themselves seeking political power, it's not what is at issue here. Whether one considers the destruction of the government of China a "political" goal or a "spiritual" goal or a "metaphysical" goal shouldn't prevent an honest reporting in Wikipedia that this is, in fact, the goal of the Falun Gong. Master Li Hongzhi has told his disciples that in order to achieve salvation they must work to achieve this goal. He has given explicit instructions to his disciples who run his media outlets about how they should approach their work. All of this information is notable, well-sourced and relevant to an understanding of the Falun Gong and therefore belongs in Wikipedia. --Tomananda 00:29, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

It's a matter of definition. What we're against are your obscure, simplistic, insidious formulations. There are plenty of people around the world working for the "destruction" of different political entities. Normally people understand it as some kind of warfare that involves more or less covert means and even aims for an eventual coup d'état. Ultra-leftist guerillas in many Asian and South American countries belong to this category. How did you intend to assure that our casual readers draw a clear and distinctive line between peaceful, nonviolent Falun Gong practitioners and these groups? You must understand our right to avert such confusion. We are not the ones destroying the CCP; we're operating within a legal and morally respectable framework and encouraging people to make a decision for their future. Oftentimes the words of late Jerry Garcia come to my mind: "Though I could not caution all, I still might warn a few: Don't lend your hand to raise no flag atop no ship of fools". [4]

It seems preposterous that you, as a partisan for democracy, actually claim to believe a Communist dictatorship when it launches yet another nationalist campaign to "weed out corruption". I don't want to make any "snide and unnecessary comments" about your naïveté in this matter, but you shouldn't expect too many people to share such starry-eyed beliefs. Violent and genocidal policies in the campaign against Falun Gong practitioners have been top-down all the time. Jiang Zemin issued an order to "defame their reputations, bankrupt them financially, and destroy them physically". Jamming the television signal of CCP's propaganda mouthpiece easily falls within the boundaries of civil disobedience. I quote Peter Suber's essay from Philosophy of Law: An Encyclopedia:

Thoreau, who performed civil disobedience in a democracy, argued that sometimes the constitution is the problem, not the solution. Moreover, legal channels can take too long, he argued, for he was born to live, not to lobby. His individualism gave him another answer: individuals are sovereign, especially in a democracy, and the government only holds its power by delegation from free individuals. Any individual may, then, elect to stand apart from the domain of law. Martin Luther King, Jr., who also performed civil disobedience in a democracy, asks us to look more closely at the legal channels of change. If they are open in theory, but closed or unfairly obstructed in practice, then the system is not democratic in the way needed to make civil disobedience unnecessary. Other activists have pointed out that if judicial review is one of the features of American democracy which is supposed to make civil disobedience unnecessary, then it ironically subverts this goal; for to obtain standing to bring an unjust statute to court for review, often a plaintiff must be arrested for violating it. Finally, the Nuremberg principles require disobedience to national laws or orders which violate international law, an overriding duty even in (perhaps especially in) a democracy. [...] [J]ustice delayed, King proclaimed, is justice denied. After a point, he argued, patience in fighting an injustice perpetuates the injustice, and this point had long since been passed in the 340 year struggle against segregation in America. In the tradition which justifies civil disobedience by appeal to higher law, legal niceties count for relatively little. If God trumps Caesar to justify disobedience to unjust law, then God can trump Caesar to permit this disobedience sooner rather than later. In this tradition, A.J. Muste argued that to use legal channels to fight unjust laws is to participate in an evil machine, and to disguise dissent as conformity; this in turn corrupts the activist and discourages others by leading them to underestimate the numbers of their congeners. [5]

If you feel that Falun Gong practitioners, as a group suffering from rampant state terrorism, and whose voice has been muffled on all venues in Mainland China, don't have a right to jam CCTV's television signal to expose their persecution, I find it rather dismaying that you actually claim to stand for democratic values.

I also know something about comparative religion. Quite a lot, for that matter. I'm specializing in questions like marginality, otherness and relationships between minorities and majorities. I have highest overall grades in my major and both of my minors, which is rather irrelevant in Wikipedia, of course. I also know how cults differ from legitimate religions. There are extremely few professionals in comparative religion who would term Falun Gong as a cult. Because of the prevailing secular materialist paradigm, most academicians would define it as a religion or a quasi-religion. Of course, I don't view it as a religion, because I have good reasons to believe it's objectively true. If you have met so many Americans "who consider themselves victims of Li Hongzhi's manipulative and deceptive practices", why don't you show me at least a couple of former practitioners who have turned against Falun Gong out of their free will? As far as I've seen, even those who find it too difficult to follow usually admit that it's very good. No matter what you believe, Falun Gong is an impressive practice method. I have taught it to countless people, and the general impression is always the same: people who have a long history of qigong or taijiquan practice usually say right after doing the exercises that Falun Gong is more powerful than anything they've tried before. Concrete, empirical proof is more convincing than mainstream opinions about what is possible and what is not. That's exactly why it spread so rapidly in China.

Nevertheless, I am not here to promote Falun Gong as such. I have plenty of academic knowledge about this subject, and my principal intent is to report what has been written about Falun Gong in various scientific journals and major newspapers. I'm relieved to see that our party's voice of reason has been heard and acknowledged by the ArbCom. You and Samuel will be almost unanimously banished, and this set of articles will be placed on probation. It is a significant milestone. I hope we can finally start writing a real tertiary source instead of having to ward off ideological struggle and harassment. ✔ Olaf Stephanos ✍ 18:26, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Tomananda, many people are saying that the CCP will be eliminated by the Heaven or Gods because it has done to many bad things. The CCP has persecuted Falun Dafa and the chinese people in general. When we, Dafa practitioners use peaceful means to expose and end the persecution, it cannot be considered wrong. Falun Dafa practitioners have been tortured and murdered for the last 8 years. Teacher Li have been slandered and the CCP have used propaganda to turn the chinese people against Falun Gong and to badmouth Master Li. How can you call us political when we clarify the facts about the persecution of Falun Gong practitioners? This is a human rights issue, it is not that we Falun Gong practitioners are seeking political power. The ultimate goal of cultivators of Falun Dafa, as I personally understand it, is to reach beyond the mortal world, ascending and becoming a Buddha through cultivation practice. Not to rule the country or have money or power. I have to say that you are using the same arguments over and over again to justify your notions and to force people to think like you. From now on, I will not have these useless arguments for you and I wont give you an audience. I will just create a good article here on wikipedia and reject the lies and propaganda that you are spreading. Omido

I agree that it doesn't do much good to engage in arguments against Tomananda or Samuel Luo, since they'll be leaving us in a short while. The most important thing, however, is to read the Wikipedia policies and guidelines thoroughly and adhere to them in every instance. That is the only way to create a quality article that represents Falun Gong as truthfully and dispassionately as possible. ✔ Olaf Stephanos ✍ 18:26, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

I hope that your commitment to truthfulness and dispassion is not what you can get away with by interpreting and twisting Wiki rules out of context, and also a recognition that respect must be paid to those who are 3rd parties on these pages, and not insult anyone who questions any aspect of Falun Gong by labeling them as commies with only an agenda to lie. If you can make this commitment to genuine balance and fairness that would be a new leaf turned over by you, Olaf, much like Asdfg has done so far, and I shall be more than happy to just step back and let you do all the content editing if that is so. After all, like I've said numerous times before, I'm no expert on this topic, but the actions of a year ago by pro-FGers blanking the entire criticism section (or limiting it to one or two sentences) is clearly not acceptable. Jsw663 14:38, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Samuel in violation of 3RR again

He reverted 6 times on May 3rd. Will an admin please take some action? Thanks Mcconn 09:09, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

We can see how nothing matters to Samuel at this point. He's like a wounded, cornered, snarling beast, waiting for his ultimate kickban by the ArbCom. ✔ Olaf Stephanos ✍ 14:21, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Wow, you are calling Samuel a beast, and you guys suppose to be the ones promoting Compassion? Samuel reverted 6 times because some Falun Gong practitioners have been deleting well sourced material. --Mr.He 03:43, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

We promote Compassion, but Samuel is a highly tendentious editor that directly hurts these pages and their readers, and he blindly believes that his ends justify his means. He has shown utter disrespect towards his fellow editors, and the ArbCom has almost unanimously decided to sweep him out. He has been officially declared incompetent for editing any Falun Gong related articles. He's breaking the rules while being fully aware of doing so. I'm sorry, but I don't get the impression that he has too much normal dignity left. If I hadn't initiated this purge, these delinquents would be still spinning their cobwebs without any restraint. What makes this affair even more ridiculous is that several editors, including Mr.He, have been repeatedly defending Samuel's actions and helping him vandalize these pages over a long period of time, making them accomplices in his buffooneries. Now that the ArbCom has indicated us what was right and what was wrong, have you thought about presenting an apology?

Mr.He, if you want to contribute to these pages, you'd better engage in some real discussions instead of posting these two-line yaps that have become your trademark. You haven't even replied to my previous message. Samuel is deleting tags that are insisted upon by several people. No matter what you think about them, you are violating the policies by removing them. In addition, the inclusion of Samuel's website has been forbidden by Wikipedia administrators. I've worked in a kindergarten for one year, and I agree with McConn: not infrequently this stuff feels like teaching 6-year old kids, with the exception that you are at least teenagers and should know better. ✔ Olaf Stephanos ✍ 11:14, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Let me go through the disputed text passages one by one: 1) You have not indicated any secondary source making the distinction between Falun Gong and Falun Dafa (see WP:Verifiability). 2) Same goes for "mostly western" human rights groups, which are obviously weasel words. 3) Using words like "leader" to describe Li Hongzhi does not conform to WP:NPOV. See Wikipedia:NPOV tutorial#Insinuation and Wikipedia:NPOV tutorial#Bias in attribution: Mind your nuances. 4) "The" Falun Gong is pushing a tendentious POV. You have even added this word to a direct quote from Zhuan Falun! What are you up to, a deliberate fraud?! 5) When Maria Hsia Chang is quoted, there are all the more reasons to add the words "According to Maria Hsia Chang". See Wikipedia:NPOV tutorial#Attribution and citation. Unless you provide comprehensive reasons for overriding these policies, stop your reverts now. ✔ Olaf Stephanos ✍ 12:23, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Please people, it is time to drop all references to teaching kids or teenagers in Wiki discussion. The same can be said in reverse too, after all, depending on your POV. It is borderline personal attack, and is about time that both the accuser and accusee stop wrangling about non-Wiki-issues. Moreover, Olaf, please stop calling others beasts, even if they have been banned from Wikipedia. It doesn't reflect well on you, and can be used against you in a future case. Jsw663 13:45, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

You are one of the editors who have defended the tendentious editing of Samuel Luo and Tomananda right from the beginning. Maybe you could elaborate a bit on your personal bias and tell us what made you so blind to its egregiousness. An apology would probably clear the air to some extent. By the way, I did not call anybody a beast; I compared Samuel to a wounded, cornered, snarling beast, because I thought it was rather felicitous. ✔ Olaf Stephanos ✍ 15:42, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

I just read this guideline which clearly backs up our position: Wikipedia:Words_to_avoid#Terms_that_are_technically_accurate_but_carry_an_implied_viewpoint. I suggest that you read the whole page. The only difference is that usually our disputed terms are not even technically correct. All Falun Gong articles shall be reformed accordingly. ✔ Olaf Stephanos ✍ 16:15, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

I have always wanted balance in the article and recognize that there is an overwhelming number of Falun Gong practitioners on this board compared to 3rd parties and critics. Balance is impossible when the pro-FG side is just like the anti-FG side, hard-selling their POV and "facts" on a Wiki entry, as if Wikipedia is merely a propaganda tool to be used by both sides rather than respecting Wikipedia for what it is, an informative piece. This should be done out of respect for Wikipedia. After all, I have no personal agenda to be on either side's camp, but recognize the odds some critics are facing on a board where people still let their "commies can only tell lies" stereotype affect their judgment when editing. Now, just because you came away relatively unscathed due to some evidence of control in your debates before this case, please remember that this ArbCom case may not be the final 'judgment' and your conduct as well as provocative remarks are subject to constant examination.

In the spirit of balance and fairness apologies should be made by all sides to all the other sides (the sides = every involved editor, basically). This is what I call neutrality - not denying anyone their right to express their POV on discussion boards (within reasonable limits), and not rejoicing when you have succeeded in getting anyone banned. Level-headedness is the sign of maturity, and as a postgraduate student yourself, surely you should recognize this (and especially as a Bach-lover, since his music is inherently structured and calm whilst showing flair and ability as well as complexity, e.g. the Art of the Fugue - but this is getting off-topic so I'll stop this discussion right here). Jsw663 14:30, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Olaf, you are coming across as an conceited, strident harpy. Aside from your arrogance you are also deceptive. You said “the inclusion of Samuel's website has been forbidden by Wikipedia administrators,” but all you have is a statement from Binguyen that reminds Samuel not to add his own website. Samuel has been interviewed by a number of American media including S.F. Chronicle and KPFA. He represents a point of view on the Falun Gong and his website is informative. According to External links Samuel can not add his own website but others can. The fact that Samuel is no longer here makes the inclusion of this site more legitimate.

Samuel is no more tendentious than any pro-Falun-Gong editors like you. Take a look at the evidence Samuel provided for the arbcom case.[6] Falun-Gong-practitioner-editors were concealing their group’s real teachings by removing them from “Teachings of Falun Gong” page. On “Li Hongzhi” page they also repeatedly removed “Divinity of Li Honzghi” and “Interview of Li Hongzhi” sections. Material in these sections is sourced to Falun Gong’s own website and major American media; there is no legitimate reason for their removal.

Falun-Gong-practitioner-editors are also mean-spirited and nasty. Take a look at the personal attacks they have left on Samuel’s talk page. [7] Vicious personal attacks like this have also been directed at other editors including neutral ones. It is you guys who are like wounded, cornered, snarling beasts !

Samuel is not banned because “He has been officially declared incompetent for editing any Falun Gong related articles.” He is banned because the arbcom found him “promote a viewpoint consistent with his outside activism.” As Jsw663 pointed out Arbcom did not apply their judgment consistently, while banning Samuel, even Tomananda, they did not ban Falun-Gong-practitioner-editors who also promote a viewpoint consistent with their outside activism. [8] I do not consider arbcom’s decision fair. --Mr.He 19:20, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Edit dispute in introduction

Mcconn, in order for people to accept your edits you have to explain 1) why Falun Gong (law wheel exercise) and Falun Dafa (law wheel great law) mean the same thing. 2) why the POV and Failed Verification tags when the sources are valid and back the statements.

I notice that Asdfg12345 took out “the” from Li’s quote in “Beliefs and teachings” section. He is manipulating Li’s words. Samuel might be leaving, his departure makes his site more legitimate. This statement is false "Samuel's website has been forbidden by Wikipedia administrators." To my knowledge no admin has ever said such thing. --Mr.He 16:48, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Mr. He, are you familiar with the basic policies of Wikipedia? I requested you to provide a secondary source that makes this exact distinction between Falun Gong and Falun Dafa. The burden of proof lies on you. The POV and Failed Verification tags will stay there until we create a new introduction, one that is formulated according to the policies. Meanwhile, I urge you to read this: Wikipedia:Words_to_avoid#Article_structures_that_can_imply_a_point_of_view. If you want to discuss a new introduction that complies with these requirements, you are welcome to do so, provided that you stop this two-line POV pushing and actually start writing real messages. I'd also like to know which quote in "Beliefs and teachings" section are you referring to. You can ask about Samuel's website from BInguyen, a member of the ArbCom. He has been removing it several times, see [9], for instance. Such self-published sources are not acceptable.

Let me also remind you of the ArbCom decision: "Falun Gong and all closely related articles are placed on article probation. It is expected that the articles will be improved to conform with Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, and that information contained in them will be supported by verifiable information from reliable sources. The articles may be reviewed on the motion of any arbitrator, or upon acceptance by the Arbitration Committee of a motion made by any user. Users whose editing is disruptive may be banned or their editing restricted as the result of a review." As the articles are placed on probation, they will be closely monitored. If your edits fail to comply with the official policies and meet these requirements, you will join Samuel and Tomananda rather swiftly. Consider yourself warned. ✔ Olaf Stephanos ✍ 18:31, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Mr.he that no justification for recent changes were given. there is a Faln gogn organization and Samuel's website is informative. --Yueyuen 19:55, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

What? I have written plenty of justifications for the recent changes! I'm waiting for policy references and point-to-point rebuttal of my arguments. Then we can discuss. In addition, answer the following questions:

1. Why are there things in your revert such as a direct quote that has been intentionally altered? (Quote from Zhuan Falun)
2. What do you have to say against the removal of Samuel's website by the ArbCom member BIngyuen. How does the website conform to Wikipedia:Verifiability#Self-published sources (online and paper)?
3. Which secondary source refers to a "Falun Gong organization", and why don't you clearly attribute this concept to that source?
4. The name of the article is "Falun Gong". Why should the name be changed to "the Falun Gong" in the contents of the article? Do you honestly feel that the latter term is not only justified but "neutral" (as defined by Wikipedia)? Why?

Thank you for your cooperation and a complete reply. ✔ Olaf Stephanos ✍ 20:02, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Olaf, it is you and Mcconn who want to make these changes, the burden of prove is on you guys. So far you have not provided sound argument to prove why calling Falun Gong teachings “religious” is wrong. And why referring the group as “the Falun Gong” is not appropriate. I demand that you make your case here before making those changes.--Mr.He 03:25, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Because calling Falun Gong teachings "religious" or using the term "the Falun Gong" implies a point of view. That is enough to forbid their use in a neutral description.

Firstly, Andrew P. Kipnis has stated: "Thus, to the Western layperson, qigong of all sorts may seem to be religious because it deals with spiritual matters. Because Li Hongzhi makes use of many concepts from Buddhism and Taoism in his writings, this may make Falun Gong seem even more like a religion to the outsider; Falun Gong grew initially into a space termed scientific [in China], but was insulated from the spaces formally acknowledged as institutionalized science in Western countries." ([10], pp. 38-39)
Secondly, even if you think that term is technically correct and perfectly justified, that's not enough. When there is no consensus, that's not a sufficient criterion for accepting it as a neutral definition in Wikipedia. Wikipedia:Words_to_avoid#Terms_that_are_technically_accurate_but_carry_an_implied_viewpoint explicitly states: "It's often a good idea to avoid terms that appear POV or may be perceived so by some notable group, even if technically they aren't, if a more obviously neutral wording can be found by careful thought. Often an easy way to do this is to describe rather than label, or neutrally cite an actual credible person or body that has used that term ("X says Y"). This applies even if the term is technically accurate, or very credibly sourced, because accurate and sourced terms can in certain contexts still imply a viewpoint. Terms such as these almost inevitably function as a description from the point of view of "outside the belief" of those to whom it is applied. It does not always imply neutrality."
Now we have an instance that is not backed up by any cited sources, is challenged by at least one other source (Kipnis above), and where a neutral wording (spiritual) is readily available.
You don't seem to have internalized how Wikipedia works. 'Neutral' description doesn't mean 'what is perceived as indisputably objective by one party' but 'what is the lowest common denominator between all important parties'. Indeed, Wikipedia does not aim for "objectivity" as you seem to understand it: "This is probably the most common objection to the neutrality policy. It also reflects the most common misunderstanding of the policy. The misunderstanding is that the policy would have said something about the possibility of objectivity. It simply does not. In particular, the policy does not say that there even is such a thing as objectivity in a philosophical sense, a "view from nowhere" (in Thomas Nagel's phrase)—such that articles written from that point of view are consequently objectively true. That is not the policy and it is not our aim!" [11] If there are any credible sources that call Falun Gong teachings religious and make this distinction between Falun Gong and Falun Dafa, you may cite them directly. Currently, there is no source cited at all. This distinction is not attributed to anybody after a long period of time, which basically means that it can be directly removed by any editor. Mr.He and Yueyuen, when your actions will be evaluated by the ArbCom, they will definitely note this.
The same points apply to "the Falun Gong". It implies a point of view, and our party has been against the use of that term. First of all, there is a logical inconsistency, as the name of the article is "Falun Gong", not "the Falun Gong". Secondly, you have stated yourself that you want to use that term because "The Falun Gong is an organization". If that is the reason you want to use it, and we don't agree with you, Wikipedia explicitly forbids the use of "terms that are technically accurate but carry an implied viewpoint". Meaning, even if that term was technically accurate (even though we wholeheartedly disagree), it would still not be acceptable. The principles of Wikipedia:Words_to_avoid#Words_that_can_imply_facts_which_may_be_unsupported and Wikipedia:Words_to_avoid#Words_with_controversial_or_multiple_meanings apply here as well.
You are saying that "mostly Western" human rights organizations disagree with the persecution. Who says that? If you don't attribute that claim, it is a weasel word.
There are major problems with the lead sections and all of the articles. All claims must be eventually attributed or they are removed. And that's not enough: there are plenty of other policies controlling NPOV, no original research, balance, relative space given to minority and majority views, and so on. If you don't recognize what Samuel and Tomananda did wrong, you are bound to repeat their mistakes and end up getting banned. Your unwillingness to discuss the essence of controversial edits in length, as well as outright violations of cited policies, don't look too good on the record. Do you really want us to accumulate material that can be used against you in another ArbCom review? Their criteria don't change. Please keep in mind that if your edits bear a resemblance to those of Samuel - regardless of whether you think they're justified - you'll get burned as well. Do you want your party to eventually become extinct just because you didn't take policies seriously? I'm still waiting for a point-to-point rebuttal of my arguments. It's not enough to say "I disagree with you, you have not provided any sound arguments"; by doing that, you're completely ignoring what I have written and basically stating "I don't know how to argue rationally against you, but I just don't care".
We will start reforming this article by replacing any unsourced definitions with citations from scientific publications, tagging all statements that require attribution, and inserting material from peer-reviewed journals and major newspapers while unambiguously stating who says what. I replaced the definition of Falun Gong in the lead section. If you disagree with it, you may provide an alternative quote from a scientific publication, and then we can combine their essential elements. That's the way to reach an eventual balance. This is fully consistent with the requests of the ArbCom: "It is expected that the articles will be improved to conform with Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, and that information contained in them will be supported by verifiable information from reliable sources." If you have something to add, do it, and do it well. Any suppression of legitimate, attributed, well-sourced and verifiable viewpoints, or attempts to impose a POV without explicitly attributing it to someone, or excuses such as "you can't make any real changes without discussing them first" are not acceptable. The policies are out there, and they are our only standard by which to continue this work. ✔ Olaf Stephanos ✍ 10:34, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Olaf, your recent edit in the intro is ridiculous. You replaced Li’s direct quotes with information from a secondary source. Noah Porter is no expert on the Falun Gong and his paper is just “a thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Arts.” This paper is self published and no one has ever interviewed Mr. Porter nor quoted his work. Do you see how absurd it is to place his writings in the intro to introduce the Falun Gong?

I went to Falun Gong’s clearwisdom.net and found that the group itself understands why it would be placed in the category of religion. Under "Is Falun Gong a religion?" section in the FAQ it says: “it is not considered necessary to be religious in order to achieve the goal of raising one's spiritual level, but one does need a cultivation practice. Here in the West, since we don't really have the concept of cultivation, anything spiritual or that has to do with transcending the human world has traditionally fallen under the concept of religion. Falun Gong is no exception.” In other words, the group itself is OK with being called a religion. --Mr.He 18:48, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

In your version, there are no direct quotes from Li, only vague references to sources such as Lecture at the First Conference in North America. I agree that a quote from Noah Porter is not the best possible source for the lead section, but at least it's a step forward. It neatly outlines the different viewpoints that have been expressed by various commentators, whereas your version fails to do that altogether. The lead section is supposed to establish context and be a concise overview of the article instead of going into any details of the subject matter. "The purpose of an encyclopedia is to codify human knowledge in a way that is most accessible to the most people, and this demands clear descriptions of what the subject matter is about. So we aren't just dropped into the middle of the subject from the first word — we are eased into it." [12] Using freely combined primary sources in a short introduction is highly dubious. "Secondary sources draw on primary sources to make generalizations or original interpretive, analytical, synthetic, or explanatory claims. A journalist's analysis or commentary of a traffic accident based on eye-witness reports is a secondary source. An International Herald Tribune analysis and commentary on a United Nations Security Council resolution is a secondary source. An historian's interpretation of the decline of the Roman Empire, or analysis of the historical Jesus, constitute secondary sources. Wikipedia articles should rely on reliable, verifiable, published secondary sources. This means that we present verifiable accounts of views and arguments of reliable scholars, and not interpretations of primary source material by Wikipedians." [13]
In addition, there are Wikipedia guidelines against introducing new and potentially puzzling content without first providing a sufficient context. In Wikipedia, there is a "principle of least astonishment": "The average reader should not be shocked, surpised, or overwhelmingly confused by your article. As the writer, you should not use exaggeratory language in descriptions or arguments. Instead, gently offer information by by anticipating the reader's resistence to new ideas. Try to bridge each sentence with the sentence before it by using an idea or word that appears in both sentences. Use consistent vocabulary in parts that are technical and difficult. To decide which parts of the sentence are going to be difficult for the reader, try to anticipate the reader's resistance to the ideas. You should plan your page structure and links so that everything appears reasonable and makes sense. If a link takes readers to somewhere other than where they thought it would, it should at least take them someplace that makes sense. Similarly make sure that concepts that are being used to base further discussion on have already been defined, or linked to a proper article. Explain causes before consequences and make sure your logical sequence is clear and sound, especially to the layman." [14] There is absolutely no way for an average reader to understand what exactly is meant by "Fa-rectification" and "Dafa is judging all beings" in the third sentence of the entire article, and I have an impression that this is exactly what you want - to confuse them by highlighting what you perceive as sensational. Note that I am absolutely not against writing a full exposition of Fa-rectification and all related matters into an appropriate chapter. Everything must be explained. What we want is a professional introduction that conforms to guidelines and policies, as well as a logical article structure. That's why the whole lead section must be rewritten based on good secondary sources.
I've requested at least three times that you provide a secondary source in which the exact distinction between Falun Gong and Falun Dafa is made. All disputed claims in Wikipedia must be clearly attributed: who says what. Do you still have problems getting that? I've never said that I don't understand why some people would place Falun Gong in the category of religion, but we're talking about finding a well-sourced description that's as accurate as possible.
Samuel's website doesn't conform to Wikipedia's requirements for external links. See Wikipedia:External_links#Links_normally_to_be_avoided: "Links mainly intended to promote a website" and "Links to blogs and personal web pages, except those written by a recognized authority" ("recognized authority" basically means academic credentials and articles in peer-reviewed journals; a couple of partisan interviews doesn't make Samuel a "recognized authority").
I still haven't seen you quote any policies to support your version. I have written maybe twenty to thirty times more than you have during this discussion. What exactly is your idea of an article that conforms to the Wikipedia standards, and why do you systematically fail to comment on the policies and guidelines I have cited? ✔ Olaf Stephanos ✍ 21:21, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
You don't seem to understand what it means that Tomananda and Samuel tried to use Wikipedia for "ideological struggle and advocacy". You may wonder, "How come? Didn't all of their Li quotes come from the lectures?" Well, Wikipedia is not a collection of primary source citations that have been glued together with weasel words and intentionally placed to create a desired impression. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, a tertiary source consisting of references to recognized research and other reputable sources. There are essential policies and guidelines, such as the ones I've quoted, and many others, that both Samuel and Tomananda completely ignored. That's why they were almost unanimously banned, and that's what awaits you (and some other editors) if you don't learn to cooperate, discuss properly and change your editing patterns. I don't care if you're against or in favour of Falun Gong; I'd like to work with people who sincerely care for the rules of the game. ✔ Olaf Stephanos ✍ 22:42, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Li’s words were paraphrased, I can use his direct quotes if that is what you prefer.

I agree that the lead section should establish context and be a concise overview of the article, and I believe Li’s quotes are doing that just fine.

No one is trying to interpret what Li and the Falun Gong says, they are being directly quoted. Secondary source can be used to describe the Falun Gong but that does not mean we should ignore what Li and the Falun Gong says about themselves.

The term “religious” is neutral. There are articles calling the Falun Gong a “cult” [15] I don’t see anyone trying to put that in the intro. As I pointed out above the Falun Gong itself does not mind being called a religion.

The distinction between Falun Gong and Falun Dafa lies in these terms. “Gong” means exercise while “Dafa” means great law. I and others have made this point repeatedly. Li has two books Falun Gong and Zhuan Falun. The first one talks about the exercise and the latter talks about his great law. This again shows the distinction between the two.

Samuel’s website meets Wiki standards. 1) As the most visible critic of the Falun Gong he is a “recognized authority” in the subject, the many interviews and presentations he had support that. 2) under [What should be linked http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:External_links#What_should_be_linked] it says: “Sites that contain neutral and accurate material that cannot be integrated into the Wikipedia article due to copyright issues, amount of detail or other reasons.” 3) under Links to be considered it says: “Sites which fail to meet criteria for reliable sources yet still contain information about the subject of the article from knowledgeable sources.” 4) Samuel might have academic credentials. His writing is academic.

Olaf, if you ever wonder about why people do not talk to you, all you have to do is read your writings from a third person perspective then you might be able to detect that arrogance and threatening tone. --Mr.He 00:26, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

You didn't answer my crucial points. You always dodge the most important arguments. Why do you still wonder that my comments seem "arrogant and threatening"? I am frustrated by your inability to have a point-to-point discussion and provide answers to everything that you're expected to.

Li and Falun Gong say a lot of things about themselves. That's why we need to proceed logically. If there's a concept that cannot be understood based on what is written earlier in the article, it has to be moved elsewhere. That's how Wikipedia articles are supposed to be constructed. Again, you didn't even comment on my citation that explicitly stated this guideline. Answer my question: is any casual reader able to understand what is meant by "Fa-rectification" or "judging all beings" in the context of Falun Dafa by reading the introduction?
The problem with "religious", according to several third-party commentators and myself, is that Falun Gong practitioners don't consider Falun Gong a religion. Many practitioners might approve the use of that term by people who don't know better, but it still doesn't make it exact. What makes you think that this "outsider" point of view is the most neutral? Wikipedia forbids the use of such "outsider" terms when others are available, even if they were technically correct. You didn't have anything to say about that. In addition, if this exact description is not properly sourced and attributed, it will be removed. The same applies to all unsourced, unattributed and controversial statements. Stop playing blind and deaf. "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. "Verifiable" in this context means that any reader should be able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source. Editors should provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is challenged or is likely to be challenged, or it may be removed."
Preventing editors from realizing the explicit desire of the ArbCom -- "It is expected that the articles will be improved to conform with Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, and that information contained in them will be supported by verifiable information from reliable sources" -- is extremely disruptive. We're supposed to completely reform these articles. If you want to participate, do learn to edit according to the policies.
The first book (Falun Gong) is basically just a short summary of Dafa that was published before Zhuan Falun. The essential content is the same. There is no real Falun Gong practice without Dafa cultivation, and the names of the exercises are in the vein of Fo Zhan Qianshou Fa, Falun Zhuang Fa, and so on. Li has stated several times that the movements themselves are Fa. The two concepts cannot be separated artificially.
Samuel is a massage therapist from San Francisco. He has no academic credentials whatsoever, not even a lower degree. Just because somebody is a "visible critic" doesn't mean that he's a "recognized authority". Mr.He, I've spent so many years at the university that I'm absolutely sure about the meaning of this concept. A recognized authority in this kind of field is a noted researcher or professor whose work has been published in peer-reviewed journals. "Recognized" means exactly this. It's not a matter of opinion, and you can't get over that. ✔ Olaf Stephanos ✍ 01:43, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Samuel's site is appropriate according to Wiki policies. 1) under [What should be linked http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:External_links#What_should_be_linked] it says: “Sites that contain neutral and accurate material that cannot be integrated into the Wikipedia article due to copyright issues, amount of detail or other reasons.” Samuel’s site can be considered neutral and it is definitely accurate since he backs up his writing with citations. 2) under “Links to be considered” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:External_links#What_should_be_linked] it says: “Sites which fail to meet criteria for reliable sources yet still contain information about the subject of the article from knowledgeable sources.” Samuel’s site provides abundant information about the Falun Gong which makes it qualified. You have ignored these policies even though I just pointed them out to you.

Samuel’s writing shows that he is well educated. He might be a massage therapist (I don’t have that info), but that doesn’t mean he has no degree. One of my friends has a phd in computer science but he is selling ice cream in a mall now. Samuel's credential is not a problem here. --Mr.He 02:17, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

The only people who consider his site "neutral" are anti-FLG editors. I think it's horribly biased. He has been banned for Wikipedia for ideological struggle "consistent with his outside activism", and you're still trumpeting his neutrality! You're unbelievable, Mr.He. Your motives seem exactly the same. I'm not playing this game with you. Let ArbCom evaluate your behaviour and its consistency with the policies. ✔ Olaf Stephanos ✍ 02:27, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

You are a Falun Gong practitioners. Samuel is banned for ideological struggle "consistent with his outside activism" but practitioners like you are not. This is why I do not consider the arbcom decision fair. I consider Samuel’s site neutral because he uses citations to back up his assertions. It is easy to see why you don’t consider his site neutral, as a matter of a fact no critical material of the Falun Gong is neutral in your opinion. You are trying to force your pov into this article; your recent changes in the intro make that clear. --Mr.He 05:55, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

You guys are fighting for the intro again,, I hope you guys realize how silly this is.

Olaf, you inserted the following statement "FalunInfo.Net, a website maintained by Falun Gong practitioners, has stated that "after crackdown in July 1999 [...] the Chinese regime began spreading a much lower number -- 1 or 2 million -- in an apparent attempt to downplay Falun Gong's presence in Chinese society." There is enough text in the intro about the numbers are you sure this is needed? --Kent888 06:09, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Olaf, I also found your "clarification of information" regarding samuel interesting so I added more to it. You are smart as you have always reminded people on that but you do come across as arrogant, that would make you any friends. I used to be here with this user name kent8888. I only registered this new one because I forgot the password for kent8888. Now you know who I am. --Kent888 06:21, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

I reverted major changes which was done without discussion and consensus. --Shimanan 21:44, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Making it simpler

If you are a commie and wanna persecute some religious minority, you need an excuse. If there is no excuse, simply take some things out of context and twist some things around. So now people have predjudges against something they don't even know and keep a blind eye on your persecution.

And in order to keep it this way, make the subject seem terribbly complicated and messy, and engage in endless pointless debates so as to efficiantly prevent people from looking at the matter themselves, and have them rely on your information instead. --Hoerth 13:46, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

I really think it is good how Olaf is exposing the irrational behaviour of Samuel and Tomananda. This has been going on for so many months. Finally it is coming to an end. I look forward working with rational and clearheaded editors that are able to respect, understand and cooperate with other people. Instead of editors like Samuel and Tomananda that are forcing their own understanding on people. Omido 10:43, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps Hoerth and Omido would also like to come under ArbCom examination for their conduct? Jsw663 14:33, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Right, so anyone with a difference of opinion (or rather, objective ones that stray from the predictable Falun Gong non-sense) is automatically presumed to be a "commie who wants to persecute some religious minority." And this coming from supposedly proponents of "freedom of speech," its quite a contradiction. Alas the majority of these Falun Gong imbiciles are composed of Western sinophobic diatribes, it comes as no surprise.

Just a heads up, as a frequent Chinese reader of Wikipedia, I must say, its always the incoherent logic (aka. bullsh*t) spilling out of these sinophobes that always gets to me. I find it quite hilarious that most of these pro-Falun Gong commentators are actually a bunch of pseudo-intellectual whiteboys who've been masturbating to too much of "Master Li's" videos.

Eh well, that's just my 2 cents on the subject. This comment will probably end up being removed by the pro-Falun Gong users, after all, I'm just a "commie who wants to persecute some religious minority," right? Hah, whatever. NuclearBunnies 19:01, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

So an unknown editor (Hoerth) who has made exactly two edits to Falun Gong related articles during the last year suddenly becomes a representative of all "pro-Falun Gong commentators"? And people who oppose the Communist Party tyranny because their peers are being violently persecuted are "Western sinophobic diatribes"? What twaddle, I say, twaddle and baloney, mr. NuclearBunnies. You'd better go wash your mouth out. ✔ Olaf Stephanos ✍ 19:44, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't immediately realize that this is your second message on Wikipedia. If I had to choose, I'd probably pick the first one [16]; it has some quaint lameness that reminds me of the olden days of UseNet trollery. And how strikingly it resembles the vandalism that was recently posted on several talk pages... I guess we got our man. ✔ Olaf Stephanos ✍ 20:04, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

When i said "commies" i didn't mean the the self proclaimed "Falun Gong critiques" on here. Strange that you thought i was. But here is something i DO wanna say to them: "Aren't you concerned that spreading hatred against Falun Gong might make people indifferent towards the persecution and death camps for Falun Gong people in China, and that you might thereby actually be supporting the genocide of a religious minority? Or do you deny that the persecution is happening?" --Hoerth 08:56, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Olaf, please respect WP:Civility. If you are so big on Wikipedia rules, your action has to back up your claims. Statements like 'You'd better go wash your mouth out' has clearly crossed that line. If an anti-FGer were mocking a pro-FGer for expressing views that were proportionally far down the other extreme, the pro-FG camp has shown time and time again that they will throw the Wiki Policies book at them and complain of the injustice and personal attack unjustifiably launched at them. At least practice what you preach!

Also, Hoerth and Omido haven't answered - how about coming under the ArbCom microscope to examine their past edits and conduct? Surely it couldn't hurt... or do they also fear ArbCom penalties in much the same way as has been handed out to the other side? We seem to have seen the ugly side of several pro-FGers, namely gloating at the other side being banned, and viewing that they are entitled to unleash insult after insult at the other side. How about following Olaf's advice and growing up? Wikipedia tries to maintain a civil atmosphere, after all. Jsw663 12:52, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

What? You have nothing to say to NuclearBunnies when he spits out a puerile insult like "pro-Falun Gong commentators are actually a bunch of pseudo-intellectual whiteboys who've been masturbating to too much of "Master Li's" videos", and then you start excoriating me for telling him to go wash his mouth out for saying such things?! Jsw663, I have always said that you're very much biased, but that is a little bit thick. ✔ Olaf Stephanos ✍ 12:59, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Olaf, there's a difference. I thought you wanted to become a respected, neutral editor committed to Wikipedia policies. NuclearBunnies has made no such commitment. You don't have to make sure your own action stoops to that level before 'fairness' is reached; however, you should only boast about something you intend to carry out. You claimed above that FG entries will adhere to Wiki policies including neutrality (at least for your edits). Holding you to your word isn't exactly an 'unfair' action, wouldn't you agree?

Naturally you'd always say I was biased because I rarely criticize the actions of anti-FGers publicly on Wikipedia. Have you not considered that, a) pro-FGers do that anyway so there is no need for me to 'back it up' (compared to now, where there is no solid anti-FG camp), and that b) I may actually admonish them by other means? If you were a supporter of checks and balances, then you should support my actions here. Jsw663 13:07, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, there is a difference. There's certainly a difference in how you view vandals like NuclearBunnies, depending on how you can exploit them for your own purposes. If these insults had been targeted at anti-FLG editors, you would've immediately applied the principle of "collective guilt" upon our party. After all, it would've been yet another example of "the ugly side of several pro-FGers". If you look carefully at the reference I provided [17], it resembles exactly those messages that you attributed to "pro-FLG vandals/apologists" who don't "have the guts to take responsibility for [their] own comments". [18] You even provided this "evidence" to the ArbCom. [19] In several instances, you have desperately attempted to link such abject stupidity to our party in order to denigrate us. Indeed, "how does vandalizing user pages help [our] cause?" The only efforts to make these incidents "help" somebody are made by you, Yueyuen, Tomananda and Samuel Luo. If you do things like this, how can you expect to become a "respected, neutral editor committed to Wikipedia policies" yourself? ✔ Olaf Stephanos ✍ 13:23, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Interesting to see how you view me, I must say, even though time and time again I have repeated that what I say here doesn't necessarily or always reflect my personal beliefs. I also note that WP:Civility goes out the window once you think you can get the two main editors in the opposition banned indefinitely from FG. This isn't consistent with all that Compassion and Forbearance your... belief group... preaches. Admonishing one side more than the other here doesn't necessarily indicate or conclusively prove bias towards one side. Oh, and the point about 'taking responsibility for one's own comments', refers to the users who do not even register a name on Wikipedia, and tries to hide behind IP addresses. I find that a great shame. Responsibility does not necessarily mean own opinion; it does mean responsible comments. Your recent 'Crusader' attitude on here can be of a cause of concern, as you view your 'NPOV' as the only correct one. How about just outrightly stating that you ARE a Falun Gong practitioner OR a pro-Human Rights campaigner, but nevertheless you will try to keep out your personal feelings, rather than saying (and implying) that your version of what's going on is the only correct one? That would imply you only accept one version of views, and that all challenges to your views must be wrong as the challenges only come from 'anti-FGers'. Can't you see your own bias here?

I also notice how unhappy you are that ArbCom did not 'admonish' me like Wooyi wanted, even though you lump me in with other editors who have been banned. Perhaps you want to recalibrate your standard of 'neutrality'? Like I said before, as long as your edits are balanced and fair, I won't even bother editing the main entries' text (although I will talk on the talk pages). However, you cannot expect the ArbCom to watch this page forever, nor can you expect that everyone will convert to your beliefs. And like I said before, as long as you complain about the Chinese government's (in this case, the opposite side to your beliefs) repression and a lack of check and balances to their POV, if you cannot practice what you preach with your own beliefs, then can you see how little water your own view holds? Please see my function here not to destroy your edits or your groups' beliefs; after all I do support placing UN, Amnesty, HRW reports etc. on the page. Like I also said to HiG before, I respect you for your own beliefs, but don't seek to impose it on others! Therefore, Wikipedia entries have to read like balanced ones and not propaganda leaflets for either pro- or anti-FG sides. Thus my last sentence in my previous comment - if you truly supported balanced and fair as well as NPOV, you'd be supportive of what I'm doing here, rather than trying to attack me for being biased, because in the end it only reflects the degree of your own departure from 'balanced and fair'. Jsw663 17:16, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Oh gee, what's this here, another little dyslexic pro-FLG whiteboy. That's some amazing deductive reasoning skills you got there, sherlock. My first edit was simply just for kicks, y'know? Then again, maybe it has never occurred to your little FLG brain that most Chinese don't really give a shit about your cult. If I indeed were a troll, then I feel pretty damn good about luring you into my bait. Ha, only a third-rate noob like yourself would fall for such a childish trap.

By the way, it doesn't take an anti-FLG or a "commie" to figure out the usual Falun Gong bullshit. Just a quick Google Search of your favorite Master Li porn sites would do the trick just fine. Tool. NuclearBunnies 17:59, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Dear NuclearBunnies, you do not expect anyone to take your contributions to the Falun Gong issue seriously after these childish statements, right? Emanuil Tolev 12:54, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Question

Nobody seems to have answered my question so i ask it again:

"Aren't you concerned that spreading hatred against Falun Gong might make people indifferent towards the persecution and death camps for Falun Gong people in China, and that you might thereby actually be supporting the genocide of a religious minority? Or do you deny that the persecution is happening?"

Of course i will also answer yours: I no longer dare touch wikipedia articles. A couple of years ago under a different nick i put in dozens of additions like relevent statements from amnesty international and other references. They always got deleted and i got banned for almost a year saying i was biased because i practice Falun Gong and was trying to use wikipedia to stop the persecution. --Hoerth 17:50, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Hoerth, different people have different views as to what is going on not only to FG practitioners in China, but also what FG actually represents. The pro-FG camp insists that there is persecution and that FG only represents peaceful exercises; the anti-FG camp insists that this is all rubbish and that FG is just another anti-China organization arranged to play on people's anti-China sympathies. I try to stay somewhere in the middle - not enough information to conclude what is going on really, so both cases need to be stated. Let the readers make the informed judgment. This is why I so strongly oppose passing off assertions and allegations as facts, because this persecution hasn't been proven beyond doubt. Naturally pro-FGers dispute this, but then anti-FGers also dispute me giving any credibility to FG claims. Jsw663 17:28, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, there are people who say that the Holocaust hasn't been proven beyond doubt. You could always dispute the scope of human rights violations in the persecution of Falun Gong, but saying that "this persecution hasn't been proven beyond doubt" (if you're referring to the existence of the persecution as such) sounds really extremist and dangerous. By the way, I'm taking a 5-day Wikibreak, so I'll be back to you later. Meanwhile, you could write some explanation about the accusations you made against our party for vandalizing your user pages instead of trying to steer the conversation elsewhere. I say this once again, and I'll keep on saying it after I come back: I don't care what your personal beliefs are, and I respect you as long as you are committed to upholding the policies. There are some rather simple, unambiguous things that can never be compromised. The disputes we've had revolve around these questions.

1) Unattributed and controversial text can be immediately removed by anyone.
2) All citations must conform exactly to the cited source.
3) The responsibility for justifying inclusion of any content rests firmly with the editor seeking to include it.
4) Sources must be verifiable and reliable, not "objective" or "true", because there are no concepts of objectivity or truth in Wikipedia.

Honestly, what I want to see is balanced, neutral, academic-quality text. I want these articles to become featured. That will never happen if we have unattributed allegations, original research, POV pushing or anything in that vein. I welcome all editors who are committed to these ideas, but I don't want anybody to ruin this project by adding substandard material.

As I recently wrote on User:Kent888's talk page, I admit that I may sometimes come across as arrogant. I've been editing these pages for two years now, and I'm really disappointed about the last year or so. When I see similar mistakes repeated over and over again, I get frustrated and stressed out, even though it's often counterproductive. I'm looking forward to cooperating with all those who want to play a fair and transparent game, no matter what viewpoint they uphold. ✔ Olaf Stephanos ✍ 17:54, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

We have already had the debate on the differences between the Holocaust and China's treatment of Falun Gong practitioners. These are clearly not the same because the Holocaust was clamping down on people on the basis of their race. Clamping people down for their beliefs can work both ways, e.g. US government against Marxist 'guerillas', Muslim 'jihadists' just like the Chinese government against Falun Gong 'practitioners', where the two ways = the two interpretations of the same situation, depending on whose side you are on. Now, I don't think you'd compare the US government's clampdown on extremist Muslims with the Holocaust, so why would you do so for the Chinese government? This just indicates personal bias.

Regarding your four points. The first one is controversial in itself. It resides on what counts as pure 'vandalism' and what is legitimate content. This is a dispute that ArbCom refused to resolve, so I don't think we can resolve it either. What is needed is a 'detente' of sorts - a compromise between the pro- and anti-FG sides on content that is relatively balanced. On the second point, yes, but what if the websites change content in the future? Does that mean you can constantly change content? The main sticky point between the pro- and anti-FG camps on this point is quoting 'out of context' - after all, what constitutes 'out of context', and in which situations? Third, agreed, but that does not justify any one side deleting it until it is 'approved' by the other, because that almost never happens. Fourth, the question is on the issue of 'reliability'. We may have Wiki guidelines on this, but reliability of sources has been constantly questioned in the past, and will obviously not change in the (near) future.

I also share your frustration with the lack of progress made on the FG-related pages. However, you have to understand that Wiki is a pluralistic community, so on a topic as controversial as FG, this is to be expected. Whether this article will be featured is doubtful; is there any comparable encyclopedic text on FG for reference? But like I said before, if you want balanced and fair, then you have to stop viewing your actions and views as the only correct ones and the only one that adheres to Wiki policies. So, for a start, you can stop publicly insisting as a fact that the Chinese government actions re FG as comparable to the Holocaust, UNLESS you also oppose US government actions re jihadists and Marxist guerillas. But this would indicate personal, anti-government bias that needs to be addressed. Jsw663 17:40, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Cry me a river, boy. NuclearBunnies 18:01, 8 May 2007 (UTC) What is that supposed to mean? You're statments don't really say anything.

NuclearBunnies, if you don't have anything to contribute to the article, why say anything at all? Are you not wasting your time? Please be calm and respect other people. Also, please stop saying bad things about Falun Gong and Master Li because this kind of behaviour is totally unnecessary. The truth is already being revealed and people are understanding the truth about Falun Gong and the persecution of Falun Gong practitioners in China. You are just wasting your time. Falun Dafa is righteous, Falun Dafa is Good. Thank you. /85.229.29.242 09:52, 14 May 2007 (UTC)