Talk:Falun Gong/Introduction

Proposal for the 1st paragraph

Falun Gong, (Traditional Chinese: 法輪功; Simplified Chinese: 法轮功; pinyin: Fǎlún Gōng; literally "Practice of the Wheel of Law") also known as Falun Dafa, (Traditional Chinese: 法輪大法; Simplified Chinese: 法轮大法; pinyin: Fǎlún dàfǎ; lit. "Great Law of the Wheel of Law") is a system of "mind and body cultivation" introduced by Li Hongzhi (whose surname is Li) to the public in 1992. Falun Gong, also known as Falun Dafa, refers to five sets of meditation exercises, and spiritual teachings based on Truthfulness-Compassion-Forbearance. Mr. Li says that what he calls the cosmic characteristic of the universe, the principles of Truthfulness-Benevolence-Forbearance, is the criteria for judging all sentient beings. He claims that the Falun Dafa cultivation system is one of the means to provide salvation for mankind.

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

Colipon's Compromise

Falun Gong, (Traditional Chinese: 法輪功; Simplified Chinese: 法轮功; pinyin: Fǎlún Gōng; literally "Practice of the Wheel of Law", or otherwise the "Practice of the Wheel of Dharma") also known as Falun Dafa, (Traditional Chinese: 法輪大法; Simplified Chinese: 法轮大法; pinyin: Fǎlún dàfǎ; lit. "Great Law of the Wheel of Dharma") is a controversial system of "mind and body cultivation" introduced by Li Hongzhi (whose surname is Li) to the public in 1992. Over the years it has gathered characteristics that makes it difficult for it to be classified as a spiritual movement, a religion, or a cult. The system itsself refers to five sets of meditation exercises, and spiritual teachings based on Li's principles of "Truthfulness, Compassion, and Forbearance", which he has stipulated as the criteria for judging all sentient beings. He claims that the Falun Dafa cultivation system is one of the means to provide salvation for mankind.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Proposal for the 2nd Paragraph

Proposal from the critics editors

Li claims to provide salvation for mankind[5] and his Dafa (great law) is judging all beings in a process called Fa-rectification.[6] In the Fa-rectification process, all beings will be judged based on their moral quality and the attitude they have towards the Fa-rectification. Li states: “Once the saved ones have attained the Fa and left, the dregs of humanity and the degenerate world that are left behind will be weeded out.” [7] In more recent speeches, Li has stressed that “the old forces are to be weeded out during Fa-rectification, the vile party (the CCP) and the evil specters will likewise be weeded out for sure and all who have a hand in what they do.” [8]

Proposal from Falun Dafa editors

Li Hongzhi has stated that by teaching Falun Dafa he is offering universal salvation to all sentient beings. Li Hongzhi has also stated that he initiated a process called Fa-rectification, which refers to the salvation, renewal, rectification and completion of the disintegrating old cosmos. In this process, all beings' attitudes toward Fa-rectification determines their position in the new cosmos, whether that is salvation or destruction; their attitudes toward the teaching of Truthfulness-Compassion-Forbearance is said to decide their future. The Fa-rectification process is said to be nearing completion. Of this, Li Hongzhi himself says: "Why did Fa-rectification have to be done? To save the beings in the cosmos - save all the beings in the cosmos, normalize bad beings and turn them into good ones, have sinful beings be rid of their sins, and have those warped beings reconstructed into good ones again. Dafa brings humankind these wonderful things, and it brings the beings in the cosmos these wonderful things. But during this persecution many beings have indeed lost their chances to be saved and have been denied salvation."

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

...Which are "thought" to be truthfulness benevolence forbearance? who said that? could you give me a sourced material that says that Falun Gong says that the core principle of their teachings is not Truthfulness Benevolence Forbearance? This way you could make such statement and attribute it to a source. I understand you may be unsure of wether those are the principles, but the pro-Falun Gong editors are all really aware of those being the principles and i believe our view should also be included. I dont see what is wrong with "Mr. Li says that what he calls the cosmic characteristic of the universe, the principles of Truthfulness-Benevolence-Forbearance are the criteria for judging all sentient beings." In this sentence we are reporting a fact, and thats how it should be.

Also, i could not find anywhere in page 27 of Zhuan Falun that Mr. Li says "Only Falun Gong practitioners can detect the characteristic of the universe" I believe you cannot say such a bold statement if you do not have a source that says those exact words. You are adding a footnote, that means you actually have the same set of sentences written on that source you are giving, right? I could not find those words. Also, on link number 6, please explain to me where are the words "The Dafa is judging all sentient beings in a process called Fa rectification" or did you came to that conclusion after reading it? I read the material of that link and it only mentions the word "Fa Rectification" in the title, besides, its written in a poetic form, i find it hard to understand how it could define Fa rectification. Fa rectification is not easy to define so i still think it should be left for later on.--Andres18 00:14, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Proposal For the 3rd Paragraph

The PRC government banned the Falun Gong for what it claimed to be illegal and seditious activities, calling the Falun Gong an evil cult which is responsible for causing deaths and morally corrupting its practitioners, thereby threatening the overall social stability of the country (footnote). Falun Gong claims that these accusations are lies and that the persecution is due to the CCP's official atheist nature, its intolerance of other beliefs, as well as then-President Jiang Zemin's personal jealousy over the growing success of the practice and a sense that he could not control the people's hearts and minds.(footnote)

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

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

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

The government of the People's Republic of China banned Falun Gong in April 1999 for what it claimed to be illegal and seditious activities, calling the Falun Gong an "evil cult" which is responsible for causing deaths and morally corrupting its practitioners, thereby threatening the overall social stability of the country (footnote). Since the ban the Chinese government has been subject to international criticism on issues related to human rights. Falun Gong claims that these accusations are lies and that the persecution is due to the CCP's official atheist nature, its intolerance of other beliefs, as well as then-President Jiang Zemin's personal jealousy over the growing success of the practice and a sense that he was losing control of the hearts and minds of the general populace.(footnote)

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

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

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

Number of practitioners

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

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

What to do after the intro

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

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

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