Userboxes

Xe This user wears ignoble gases, with consensus. File:DoorknobGold.Stock.xchng.jpg This user flies on doorknobs, mostly! AYBABTU This user supports the independence of all your base! This user swears by Canada, and blames himself. R00T This user is made of admins, and blames herself? tru This user shaves truthiness. This user barely tolerates sutures, for the most part. This user is afraid of keyholes? This user deletes tentacles. This user fidgets with probing. 0mni This user fidgets with omnipotence! This user emphatically supports potatoes! This user slaps clusters of Mongolians. This user caters for clowns? This user nibbles on potatoes! This user likes peaches, sometimes? This user enjoys consuming articles, as long as other people agree. gen This user uses the Wiki Userbox Generator.

Sorry to have bothered you while your on your break. I have created a discussion regarding the disputed edits to Li Hongzhi. You can find the discussion here →Talk:Li_Hongzhi#Disputed_Edits. Since you have been involved in the article, your input is requested... but I understand if you have better things to do. :) ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 13:17, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's fine but I can't spend a long time on that right now. The articles are all in flux at the moment anyway so I don't feel it is pressing to do that. I don't have that much access to internet and I have to pay to use it, so I won't use it very much but just thought I would check now and then.--Asdfg12345 19:08, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This case is now closed and the results have been published at the link above.

• 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.
• Mcconn (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is placed on standard revert parole for one year. He is limited to one revert per page per week, excepting obvious vandalism. Further, he is required to discuss any content reversions on the page's talk page.
• Samuel Luo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is banned indefinitely from editing Falun Gong-related articles or their talk pages.
• Tomananda (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is banned indefinitely from editing Falun Gong-related articles or their talk pages.
• Violations of paroles and probations imposed on parties of this case shall be enforced by blocks for an appropriate period. Blocks and bans are to be logged at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Falun Gong#Log of blocks and bans.

For the Arbitration Committee --Srikeit 06:28, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jsw663#Wiki_Rules_applied_inconsistently.3F__Seeking_clarification

I wanted not to engage you in this, but just to tell you that Falun Dafa has on the whole only taught me to be a simpler and better person, and allowed me to appreciate my life in a deeper sense. I understand myself in a different way and have a mucher clearer mind now. This is something I could not at all have expected, and I feel extremely grateful and content. It is simple to me. I remember reading what one practitioner said in China before the persecution, which is that Falun Dafa just teaches people to be good, and that being a practitioner is essentially the matter of preparing for, or coming to terms with, one's own inevitable death. In this sense, if it has not harmed anyone and since the people who do it say that it is great and helps them a lot in this way, I think that a reasonable person should conclude that personally they have nothing against it. I only write this now to express this, with the expectation that you have nothing against Falun Dafa.--Asdfg12345 23:55, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I consider most religions lacking in intellectual coherence. I celebrate whatever benefit it gives its practitioners. Fred Bauder 01:04, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If that is what you're doing, believing in yourself and believe what you're doing is good, then please go do that and show it through your actions. Because thus far you and your fellow practitioners have done very little to convince me, and a large number of other objective observers, that you are true to your word.

And because this subject has been discussed innumerable times with the same general circular logic, please never talk to me again. It is not necessary to reply to this message. I quite frankly think any more discussion between us is as much a waste of your time as it is mine. Inform your fellow Dafa practitioners of the same thing. Colipon+(T) 05:12, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading Image:Communists-against-FLG-1.gif. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 23:28, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: although I completely disagree with the following sentences: "In the face of the deep injustice of the persecution of Falun Gong and the subsequent smear campaign, the cruel torture and beatings of innocent people including women, and the systematic, profit-driven live organ harvesting, a call to integrity is truly fitting. I think to recognise this is the most important thing," for reasons that I have previously noted - that I contest FG allegations to the utmost - I do thank you for a generally positive farewell message. Your positive turnaround to becoming a polite and mature editor is appreciated and good for Wiki (and Falun Gong, as supposed to more radical users like Omido and Dilip_rajeev), although Wiki certainly needs a few rule-abiding anti-FGers to provide a more balanced picture for FG-related entires currently!

It seems as if I share many of the same viewpoints as Fred Bauder about Falun Gong (incl during the Arb case) so it would be better if we left on positive terms, but more importantly, recognition that we agree to disagree on our viewpoints of what is going on. The statement made on the FG discussion page was hopefully more of a reconciliation one that could be agreed by both sides, so please don't exploit it :) Nice to have been informed what FG was all about though; it was an educational experience for sure, and I certainly do not hesitate to sincerely thank you and the other FG people for that. Jsw663 16:26, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading Image:Compassion Edition6.pdf. Wikipedia gets thousands of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 16:07, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for uploading Image:Dafa-winterpractice.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the image. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI 12:28, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• You put up a number of images asserting that FG/Clearwisdom/ClearHarmony.. etc allow use subject to attribution. I have lookes at the sites and the waivers do not appear to be in very prominent or "logical" places. Do you have the rrelevant page(s) which says so, whether generally or specifically on one image. Ohconfucius 07:01, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I sent them an email about it ages ago and they replied and said something along the lines of "anyone is free to use to use the photos on our website (except the ones from third party reports) as long as they note they came from Clearwisdom". I'd copy you the precise text, but I just did a quick search now but couldn't find the email. My inbox was purged a few months ago. I'll send them another one now.--Asdfg12345 12:02, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I take your point about what I wrote to the lead section; I was thinking out loud about the opener. Each article starts off with "'Namespace refers to the something of somewhere by someone", and I was trying to replicate that in the lead, instead of having a C&P section from the main article.

If anything, we need to create a lead which could be pasted to the main FG article as introduction to the persecution section, and not the other way round. Ohconfucius 09:42, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

yeah that's right. I think a general run down of the relevant third-party literature is what is there already, but there is no explanation from the CCP side of things, (weren't there some paragraphs about "hoodwinking" the public etc.?,), or from falun gong (jiang zemin's jealousy, political opportunism, ccp's need to control people). so those things might be useful. plus some quick rundown of analysis from some academics of the motivations of the persecution. got to give this a break now. did not expect to spend time on wiki right now; did not budget for it. some images got deleted!! those media war ones. got to find them and put them on later. bye for now. pease don't delete porter, he is fine. just an academic's thesis. it's obvious luo was up to no good anyway, right?--Asdfg12345 09:49, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You've been a busy bee. It troubles me that you last edit was the most radical, or something has gone horribly wrong, unwittingly: your last edit may have been a C&P from a much earlier version which I cannot track - the NPOV and other tags, and a lot of stuff which we cleaned up is back. Could it have been the fatigue? I've just reverted to the version prior to it and I'll start working from there. Ohconfucius 02:09, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Quite possibly. I certainly wouldn't deliberately do anything I thought you would find overly objectionable. You can be sure of that. Just let me take a look at a few things. I dearly hope you haven't undone large amounts of work/additions. I restored some information which had been deleted in some way. I didn't do any kind of blanket restoration, but scrutinised every element, and did a lot of rearranging. I would sincerely hope that you consider these changes rather than simply reverting to an older version.--Asdfg12345 03:41, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh shit. Okay, please just wait till I find out what happened. It looks like somehow things got reverted to a much older version, even deleting much of my own work. That definitely wasn't intentional. Thanks for understanding...--Asdfg12345 03:44, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm relieved. I suspect you had an old version in edit mode from which you were doing copying, and that you inadvertently pressed the "save page" key before closing the browser. Ohconfucius 09:00, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Who knows the broken down mind of an idiot suffering severe fatigue?--Asdfg12345 04:55, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree with your edits. I have been trying to take things out of "quotes" and you appear to be putting them back. Most of them are strictly unnecessary: For example, I inserted 'Li Hongzhi claims it was entirely spontaneous' and you changed 'claimed' back to 'said', you also put back "came… No one mobilized them, no one told them." Please could you explain to me what benefit do you think that phrase brings, when the 'entirely spontaneous' means exactly the same thing? Ohconfucius 05:49, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have a far less strong stand on this than nearly every other point of contention so far. Please, let me take those parts out. I thought it was better with those final lines "No one mobilized them, no one told them." I just find it more illustrative of the idea I see that is trying to be expressed... "No one mobilized them."... Language has many connotations, and this use of language seems to well express the viewpoint that Falun Gong claims, that there is no kind of "mobilization," or organisation, nothing behind the scenes, everything is ad-hoc. I just saw more significance in this trailing remark than perhaps others might. Let me remove that now. Just to explain. I think there were some important things that were restored. I understand the use of "quotes" not in an ironic or pejorative sense, but that they are making clear that those parts are quoted, or the ideas being directly expressed in the material. It may not be necessary to employ them as much as I have been. I guess it is again quite subtle. The difference, to me, is that when you say "Edward said the food had an "awful" taste," that "awful" is meant to be the word of Edward. That is not part of your precis, or paraphrasing, summarising of the situation with Edward and the food. You could say "Edward found the taste of the food displeasing" and you'd summarise probably the situation well enough, but I guess I just find it more meaningful to directly point out which parts came from the source. It also means it is not like wikipedia itself is saying that thing is such and such, but making clear that it is the source said that. Again it is subtle. In many cases I'd just be happy with your view on it. Some things simply can't be conveyed though, without this. I don't think you could say that Jiang was "muttering incessantly," or the regime "went nuts" without putting that in quotations. At the same time, in some cases (in this case) I think it's important that the original meaning of the source be conveyed as much as possible. So carving things up and paring them right back to their very basic message I think is sometimes good and sometimes not. I think sometimes the subtleties are very important to get across and sometimes the general theme is. Really though, if I change something back, and you change it back again, I'd just prefer to compromise with you and not fight you on it.--Asdfg12345 13:48, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tks for your time on your considered reply, and for your understanding. I grant that you have not objected to my removal of most of the block quotes, and I still feel that there is still a tendency within the various article to use quotemarks excessively, which is why I have tried to remove them. I would agree that it is not easy, which is why I am doing this rather slowly, with frequent checking back to the source, in order not to pervert the meaning. Obviously, the level of detail must be carefully considered, and I think that in the majority of cases, the reader of article would be most interested in the "feel" of the subject as a whole, and less of "exactly" what so and so said, so there is a problem when every other word (I exaggerate) of a paragraph appears in quotes. I now see the point you make with the Zhongnanhai quotes about Jiang, that they portray his state of mind, and does add something to the portrayal of paranoia which the authoritarian and control freak regime which cannot be described otherwise. Ohconfucius 05:54, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Falun Gong says it is not organised, has no registers, but the Chinese Government says it is a tightly organised cult with "its supreme organ in China is the Falun Dafa Research Society (FDRS) in Beijing. Under the FDRS, there are 39 general stations, 1,900 instruction centres, and 28,263 exercising sites, controlling a total of 2.1 million practitioners". Can I ask what you find objectionable about what Xinhua says? Don't you think this a relevant propaganda to be cited? Ohconfucius 01:49, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

yes of course, why? Did i delete this or somethng? This should go somehwere in the persecution stuff. if I have been remiss and just deleted it without putting it in another spot that's a mistake on my part. i probably deleted from one spot then forgot to put it in the other spot. i seem to remember it being in the 'background' of falun gong section on the main page, and i probably thought it didn't belong this, since it is post persecution. can put it in the 'ban and crackdown' maybe, or 'media war' might be good, whatever you reckon. I've been a bit busy of late, and hope to start contributing more soon--Asdfg12345 04:17, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I couldn't find it any more, so I think that's what happened. When I get a moment, I'll find somewhere appropriate in 'Persecution' to put it. Ohconfucius 08:26, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

By the way--I won't revert it, I don't think you'd appreciate that--but of that Li Hongzhi quote, I think you took out the part that was most relevant. The point is contextualising Falun Gong within this framework, and those first few comments "Since the time Dafa was made public, I have unveiled some inexplicable phenomena in qigong as well as things that hadn’t been explained in the qigong community." are directly related to this contextualisation. This is how Li Hongzhi presented Falun Gong, and how people understood Falun Gong. What follows is less directly relevant to this point ... "But this isn’t the reason why so many people are studying Dafa. It’s because our Fa can truly enable people to Consummate, truly save people..." etc. -- all that is less relevant in my opinion. I would strongly suggest leaving the quote in its entirety, or if you are keen to delete something from it, something from the back can be deleted. Like the last sentence, you can just delete the last sentence instead of the first one. How's that sound? --Asdfg12345 04:41, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I admit to not catching the importance of the bit I deleted, so I'll re-read it and try to rewrite it in plain English and outside of quotes. Ohconfucius 08:26, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I hope to spend a bit of time on the pages in 22 hours or so. I am thinking that particular item may be better left as a quote, with maybe the final sentence deleted to make it shorter. The quote itself gets to the point fairly succinctly, and sometimes I don't think there is always value added by paraphrasing. Of course, sometimes there definitely is. We can discuss it. I am just thinking the first two sentences in this case do the job well enough. Of course, I wouldn't object if there is nothing lost with the paraphrase. My time is tight with some assessment tasks due for my university, but I hope to start contributing again very soon. --Asdfg12345 14:19, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have no contention, my friend. Ohconfucius 01:42, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you've been too busy to notice what has been going on here: I have made quite a few changes to the article, and have removed one of the transcripts. I think what we have is enough. please could you review it when you have some time. Ohconfucius 02:12, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, please note that I did not read the article, but just looked at the headings and scanned it very, very quickly. I think I might be repeating some of my thoughts on the other page.

Introduction: I don't think should get into the specifics of the claims re Sujiatun, and the denial of them. I think it should mention quickly what the allegations are broadly and the responses. Maybe like a few sentences on sujiatun, then abit on the k/m report. mention the general allegations, then mention them with respect to sujiatun with ccp response, then k/m and govt response. then finally round off with how third parties have taken up the claims.

generally: I think it should go chronologically through the movements in the topic. Should be a section for transplant law in China, about what the laws have been/were, how they changed, what the ccp says is the source of their organs, just generally the organ transplant situation in China. They say they get them from prisoners, so this needs to be mentioned, and also about the changes in law that have taken place. They've changed it several times, one even quite recently.

next I think it should have a section for Sujiatun, and have the for & against on this point, I think it's important to give this its own section, and not confuse the sujiatun allegation with the wider claims.... but actually I have to read it and think about how it should be laid out, or how I think it might be best, and we can share ideas about it. Right now, personally I think it is a bit of a dog's breakfast. I may not have read it properly yet, though. It just seems undisciplined, scrappy, and a bit vague. Not to mention that K&M are the strongest voices in this now, travelling around giving speeches, Kilgour calling to boycott the olympics, and the fact that the CCP has not responsded to the substance of their claims at all. I think there should be more detailed discussion of the K&M report, and a subsection there for CCP response. To be honest I had thought to deal with this last, because it is the most acute. Further, I know there are a series of speeches given by Kilgour and Matas in Australia recently, the transcripts of which should be available on the internet sometime in the near future, and I was kind of holding out for them. They distil many of the important points they considered, and talk about how the ccp responded, along with other general comments. They talked about the CCP's involvement in Darfur, too. I think it's fine to take out the transcripts from the main article and have them featured on the side in boxes. I don't think they should be given undue importance/word count. Just excerpts from the most egregious maybe, a couple of those in one long box down the side, might be a good idea. Then the article can go through the report, and mention the some of the evidence quickly, and elaborate on some other parts of it, and exclude a bunch of it that is peripheral. Those are my thoughts, just for now.--Asdfg12345 12:20, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What is the significance/importance of this phrase: "In a paper entitled "Falun Gong Is a Cult," the Chinese government claimed that Falun Gong supporters surrounded the offices of the newspaper in protest.[18]"? - Is the protest by FG disputed, for instance? I removed the name of the article as not relevant whether chronologically or contextually. Note that I have moved mention of the 'FG is a cult' article to the 'cult label' section. Ohconfucius 13:15, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alright. I thought the title was relevant. The nature of the gathering is disputed; "surrounded" is questionable. I imagine they would have just milled around out the front or something, not actually surrounded the place like they were preparing for some kind of siege. It's quite minor. Mentioning the ridiculous title allows for a contextualisation of the language used in it, ie "surrounded." Let's not spend more time on this. Whatever you decide.--Asdfg12345 14:00, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Could you point out where it was "clarified". Just by looking at the article, one can see the original posting date and that it had been modified (last mod 22 mar), but there is no explicit mention of clarification. BTW Is there anywhere where we can see the original message? Ohconfucius 02:08, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I might misunderstand. I thought the time article, or some other newspaper, said that after that message was published "beyond the limits of forbearance," then some New York practitioner published some message explaining 'what this means is x yz'. correct me if i am wrong. you can find that, just search that title + "Li Hongzhi"--Asdfg12345 04:29, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FYI: proposed this bunch of obsolete working drafts for deletion. Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Talk:Falun Gong/Working Anti-FG Ohconfucius 04:01, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

yeah of course delete them. the history and epistemology pages ought to be deleted too.--Asdfg12345 04:29, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• history is OK as a redirect, Theoretical and epistemological studies on Falun Gong has been prodded. Ohconfucius 06:33, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You may be aware of this piece of research. Perhaps you will understand my continued questioning of Porter (and similar works) as a reliable source ;-) Ohconfucius 07:34, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I've seen this once. Obviously it's an elaborate farce. I don't think it has too much to do with Porter though--do you?--Asdfg12345 13:55, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously ;-) It just proves that anyone can publish a "thesis" and get it presented in front of a wide audience, but that it takes a lot more for it to be just a marginal view, and that is endorsement by the wider community. Ohconfucius 15:27, 5 October 2007 (UTC) I see you've been putting back quite a lot of the stuff I removed. I still think much of it is clutter, eg the torture examples, which are already well covered. Also, Munro gets a prominent billing, and although gets challenged also gets a right of reply. I think that looks too much like obvious bias. I suggest we worked that rebuttal into a more fluidly opposed text without the for and against. Ohconfucius 15:27, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't want repetition, but the specifics are essential to mention. I don't think those guys actually responded to him though. I mean, he's obviously got them nailed. If there was anything more to make it appear unbiased, we should do it. A problem though, is that they are wrong, and portraying it neutrally will just end up showing that. I think thesis/antithesis is often a meaningful way of presenting information. Essentially they (munro/lee&kleinman) are portraying conflicting accounts of the situation, and Munro clearly makes his position more convincingly. He also replies to Stone, who's obviously exercising wilful ignorance, or is benefiting materially by maintaining the jellyfish position. A combination of both, I'd say. Maybe more of Stone could be put in... I'd welcome how you think it could be improved. I think Munro's response to their articles should still be quite clear, though.--Asdfg12345 13:41, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• They being quite naïve and are taking WP:AGF too far. I think they must be wearing tunnel vision glasses. I've been contemplating moving some more of the psych abuse stuff to the psychiatry article, but there is a lot of stuff specific to FG. I could copy it over and make it more general, but that may not be "proper". Even just copying it over as it is, without the rich context of abuse and non-compliance, would not do justice. let me know what you think. Ohconfucius 01:16, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just found this article: Potentially a better home for much of the psych abuse stuff is Ankang (asylum). Ohconfucius 01:46, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

All of the psych abuse stuff on the persecution page is Falun Gong specific. I am sure these writers have done work on the system in general. Munro's colombia article is huge and only one section is on Falun Gong. If someone had such an inclination, they could include much of this info on the Ankang page. 75kb for the article is not too long, and I don't think that is expected to grow too much from here. I don't think the psych abuse from the persecution page should be moved to ankang page.

There are three munro articles, one from 2000, two from 2002. The one from 2000 is the big one (some of which is on that link) and has a section on Falun Gong. One from 2002 is "Political Psychiatry in Post-Mao China and its Origins in the Cultural Revolution," the other is "On the Psychiatric Abuse of Falun Gong and Other Dissenters in China: A Reply to Stone, Hickling, Kleinman, and Lee" http://www.cecc.gov/pages/hearings/020702/munro.pdf --you should be able to search and find both these pdfs online.

As for below, aren't those two "deemed unworthy of mention", I don't know, i just did this search: http://www.google.com.au/search?q=Robin+munro+deemed+mention+worthy&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=com.ubuntu:en-US:official&client=firefox-a

I hope you don't move everything to the Ankang page. It's all specific Falun Gong stuff right now, not much at all on the general Ankang situation--and the article doesn't seem too long, and this section not long enough, to warrant another daughter article--does it?--Asdfg12345 02:27, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure you're right, but just wanted to check that what is attributed to the Govt is in fact just so. An old version was not even ambiguous. In fact made little sense. (see comparison) Ohconfucius 14:27, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry dude you will have to specify what you mean--I can't tell what you want to draw my attention to. It's possible that I've made a mistake. If you mean about the Munro thing, where he goes "was not deemed worthy of mention" ? I just took that much of Munro's text out of quotation marks a short time ago, about him comparing the time period and the apparent claims about Falun Gong admissions to mental hospitals. He says that this coincidence was "not deemed worthy of mention." But I don't know if this is what you are referring to. Please let me know. This journal article is available from the net, I am pretty sure. --Asdfg12345 15:06, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You nearly got it. You will see from the two versions below that it is/could be the same statement appearing in two quite different contexts. I just wanted to check which was correct.

1. "Munro points out that at in these reports, the coincidence "between the reportedly very sizeable increase in Falun Gong admissions to mental hospitals," and "the fact that it was during this same period of that the government began preparing its nationwide public crackdown", was not"deemed worthy of mention."<ref name="Munro2002"> p 114"
2. "government began preparing its nationwide public crackdown. He remarks that this was "deemed unworthy of mention" by Chinese authorities.<ref name="Munro2002"> p 114"

Ohconfucius 01:13, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Need some help with the dates: Munro is referenced throughout as 2002, but the article by that title I found was in 2000. Is there another article by the same name published in 2002? If not, the Munro refs should all be changed. Ohconfucius 01:38, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Question: "I Do Not Agree with Youth Practicing Qigong," was published on On April 19, in the Youth Scientific and Technological Review, a publication of Tianjin Normal University, or was it published on April 11, 1999 in Tianjin College of Education’s Youth Reader magazine, per the article? Ohconfucius 04:08, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thought that was rather amusing comment, but I see you removed it! Ohconfucius 14:45, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh i guess it just escaped me. I'll put it back. I guess it is kind of funny.--Asdfg12345 14:49, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll warrant that at the beginning it was not a decision directly to persecute them. Jiang thought it would be over very quickly. It became a persecution at least by October, though. But their intentions at the beginning were simply to permanently crush it into the ground so it would not exist any more. I think this is a most idiotic notion when it comes to concepts of cultivation practice and the meaning of cultivation. I had seen Sisci's article before. I still can't help being slightly reviled at the kind of thinking expressed in it. I would hope it is born of ignorance, but experience has shown that this may not be the case... it's good to have this kind of perspective in the article though, in terms of the wiki. --Asdfg12345 14:59, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. I cringed when I read Sisci describe He Zuoxiu as a mild mannered and soft spoken professor that I couldn't wait to put that into the article with a touch of irony. Ohconfucius 15:50, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

		The Barnstar of Good Humor
		I hereby award you with this barnstar as an appreciation of your indefatigable good humour. Thanks for your encouragement to stay cool, to persevere in the face of hostility, seize the challenge of the Falun Gong series of articles. Above all, thank you for teaching me that it's not just the end result which matters, but that the journey is equally if not more important. Ohconfucius 08:11, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

re the chunk of stuff you wrote on education using WOIPFG sources, I am slightly concerned that this quite large paragraph, though interesting and relevant, has information which has not been picked up by another source. My concern is that WOIPFG is probably the most virulently propagandistic arm of FG, and the use of this primary source may also be in violation of WP:UNDUE. It would be great if you could cite another news source that you may know about. Ohconfucius 04:36, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

yeah this is a problem I recognise as well. I'll have a poke around, also at that source itself, since some of those claims could be traceable back to communist party media, for example about schools etc.. (though this is the only piece of info with sole falun gong source, and primary sources are allowed to comment in articles about themselves). On the other hand, I just added a rather amusing and perhaps similarly relevant paragraph from ren min ri bao, perhaps to act as a counter-balance. i'll have a look soon--Asdfg12345 04:53, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

bingo: http://www.hrw.org/reports/2002/china/China0102-02.htm#P331_49488--Asdfg12345 04:58, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Howdy, would you be able to possibly help contribute to the 2008 Olympics article? I don't really know much about Wiki. I think it would be good to talk about the Human Rights Torch Relay http://www.humanrightstorch.org/

and also HR 610

http://rohrabacher.house.gov/News/DocumentSingle.aspx?DocumentID=72958

thanksSequiturnon 03:07, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

After the FG editing experience, I can't help feeling how pathetic the CCP really is, with their diatribe against the Dalai Lama - The HK press is full of it. For me, criticising Falun Gong is one thing, but laying into his holiness in this fashion transparently reveals their complete paranoïa. Ohconfucius 01:33, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I know. They're absolutely crazy. They are just a pack of gangsters doing whatever they can to stay in power--but I would say the end is inevitable, and foreseeable.--Asdfg12345 02:18, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Dalai Lama is not the holy man his supporters portray him as. Unlike Pope John Paul II, what has he done to world peace, other than mounting anti-Chinese attacks? His supporters love to cry about how Tibet was "invaded" by China, when in fact the Chinese abolished Tibet's centuries old serfdom and introduced various modernizations, such as increased literacy and health levels. The Chinese government is not perfect and committed numerous atrocities, but to portray it as an evil dictatorship with no positive contributions whatsoever, as FLG and Epoch Times does, is ridiculous and counter-productive. --PCPP 07:26, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Dalai Lama is a conservative, and CCP are "modernisers" ;-). Doesn't make what the DL says about Chinese occupation and about HR abuses invalid. He is still a hugely credible figure whether we as individuals agree with his views or not. Ohconfucius 02:16, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

They are just a pack of gangsters doing crooked, corrupt, and wicked things at a whim. I don't know why you would defend them. If you spoke out against them they would throw you in jail! --Asdfg12345 11:01, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, let me say, they might have ended up achieving good things, like you say--those must be good outcomes, right? But overall, what are they doing? They are doing insanely wicked and truly evil, cruel acts to many, many innocent people. That is the first thing I want addressed. There is no use defending them if they do a few good things. What's it worth when they are torturing innocent meditators to death with electricty, burning them with cigarettes, locking up human rights lawyers, harvesting organs from falun gong? Those things are indefensible, and even if they do good deeds in other places, these things simply must be stopped and redressed before they can be regarded in a normal way. As long as they are doing these evil acts they will be evil. The Party is obviously crumbling now anyway, no matter what happens. There's no saving it. Surely you must realise this? In every way, this rotten thing can't sustain itself forever. It's simply a matter of time. Really the wrong set of people to be throwing in your lot with. --Asdfg12345 11:17, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mate, have you ever set foot in China? The last thing we need is foreigners acting as if they're "enlightened" and know everything about China. China is stepping towards liberalization, and political rights has improved much under Hu Jintao, which is far different from the pessimist portrayal by the Epoch Times. And stop acting as if China is the only country with human rights violations; so-called democratic nations such the US, UK etc are continuingly detaining terror suspects without trial and torturing them in secret prisons; why isn't your master speaking out against them? Of course it's ok to commit "evil" as long as it's not against Falun Gong is it?--PCPP (talk) 04:49, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"a charge yet to be disproven" : we definitely need a [recent] source (including anything K&M may have said) which specifically state that, otherwise, I tend to agree with PCPP it should go. Ohconfucius 02:16, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

and oh, have you found sources other than WOIPFG for the education stuff? There was some stuff in the 'Self-immo' article, I don't have access to the source - could it be used? Ohconfucius 02:22, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• sorry, found it. Ohconfucius 09:50, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, please see those public speeches on the Free China human rights website, they say that the CCP has not responded to the charge at all, basically. This is from Matas directly. He said at one of these speeches that Falun Gong is the biggest human rights abuse in China, too. I'm busy right now but I'll examine everything later. just popped in to make sure nothing egregious was afoot. I would want anything removed that was not sourced, either. The education stuff is traceable back to HRW report, and that report even back to the hongkong newspaper, what is it, south china morning herald? Additionally, there are some CNN things on that, and it seems two sources on the immo page, sunderland and oneway include propaganda to the kiddies. I would seek to corroborate/enhance the WOIPFG referenced information in this fashion, rather than get rid of it--Asdfg12345 09:08, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Would you care to lend me a hand with this article? ;-) Ohconfucius 09:11, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading Image:Communists-against-FLG-1.gif. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 22:09, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but I think you have gone overboard with such claims, giving it undue weight. You've added a large chunk of Matas and Kilgour's allegations, which has not yet been proven by a third party, to the PRC article, and I find it quite slanderous to associate the entire country of China with such pessimist claims. Ctrl+F Abu Ghraib on the United States article, and it isn't even mentioned.--PCPP 07:26, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's an extremely notable piece of information. Thanks. --Asdfg12345 08:10, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And their report has been validated by two others; go read it! http://organharvestinvestigation.net/, it's the CCP that needs to respond to this, and this evidence is going to stick until they provide counter-evidence. They havn't, and they can't. As for your comparison, go read the article about the Nazi regime, I think you'll find mention of the word "holocaust" once or twice.--Asdfg12345 08:15, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ever heard of the burden of proof? Why should the CCP has to prove anything with two individual attention grabbers? Matas/Kilgour made the claims, therefore they have to prove it, not the CCP. Dr Thomas Lum criticised their research methods, which largely consists of unverified "telephone calls", and Harry Wu, someone who actually set foot in China, also questions their allegations. Allegations should not be listed until proven. And I find it offensive that dare to compare to my country to Nazi Germany.--PCPP (talk) 04:40, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Asdfg12345, a page you created, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Asdfg12345 and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of User:Asdfg12345 during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. nat ^{Alo! Salut! Sunt eu, un haiduc?!?!} 04:22, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I emailed the clearwisdom editors some time ago about this and got this response: "In general, anyone is welcome to use or reprint an article or a photo originally published on Clearwisdom (this does not apply to third-party articles or media reports republished on Clearwisdom) as long as the original content is not altered and source of the article or photo is properly credited." I will figure out how to get this to OTRS soon. For now, don't delete --Asdfg12345 10:22, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

An image that you uploaded or altered, Image:Wang bin torture big.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images because its copyright status is disputed. If the image's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the image description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. nat ^{Alo! Salut! Sunt eu, un haiduc?!?!} 02:00, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like you have a number of images listed as possibly under non-free image. I think they are free cause there is no real copyright on the page. It may be best to use a similar fairuse structure as this one. Benjwong 04:30, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

When copyright information is not available, assume all rights reserved and non-free. That said, the images are not free, unless stated so on the website, under CC, GDFL, or PD licences. nat ^{Alo! Salut! Sunt eu, un haiduc?!?!} 05:11, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I emailed the clearwisdom editors some time ago about this and got this response:

"In general, anyone is welcome to use or reprint an article or a photo originally published on Clearwisdom (this does not apply to third-party articles or media reports republished on Clearwisdom) as long as the original content is not altered and source of the article or photo is properly credited."

They'd probably all fall under fair use anyway, all of those of the persecution, resistance, and practice in China. There's no conceivable lost 'profit'; I could be wrong and can look at it further, but I understand that fair use would cover all them. We could go that path.--Asdfg12345 13:16, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If classified under fair-use, all non-free images will be removed from userpage per policy. --nat ^{Alo! Salut! Sunt eu, un haiduc?!?!} 21:32, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I commented at the MfD. Yes, I think it would help if you could tone it down a bit. Perhaps move the central section to a subpage [[User:Asdfg12345/Falun Gong. The bit underneath is mostly fine, IMO, but the shocking images are a bit strong for a user page. Nothing wrong with telling us how outraged you are, and why, in my view it's a valid use of userspace as it helps us understand you as an editor. But it is a bit too polemical, and the subject is controversial. Hope this helps, Guy (Help!) 21:21, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading Image:Communists-against-FLG-1.gif. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 05:56, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, in the same way that you define a True Scotsman and then use the definition to uphold the argument concerned there.

Perhaps we have different views as to how a person should be defined by such characteristics. My view is that a practitioner who hacks into satellite TV, or who casts aspersions on the Chinese government for political or monetary reasons rather than spiritial, or who prances around outside the Chinese embassy just to increase the chances of getting a foreign residency visa, is nevertheless a practitioner if they identify themselves as one and a reasonable observer would identify them as one.

No, it's not wrong to say "a pracitioner should not do such a thing". What is wrong to say is "no practitioner would do such a thing, because anyone who does such a thing is not a practitioner" - exactly the True Scotsman fallacy - and that was the inference I drew when I objected on the talk page.

PS, please don't take offence if I delete your last message from my talk page. You are still welcome to post there - I just don't like having "Falun Gong" on my talk page. Thanks, --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 10:04, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, no problem to delete that. I won't post there again unless invited.

Umm, I don't object to much of what you are saying. I might have meant should; though there is slightly more to it--I hope you will bear my explanation. The most basic thing I have gained from Falun Dafa, what I have learnt from it, and how it is shaped my experience, is simply this 'should' question. Basically to me this system is based on the belief that the universe, or the nature of existence, is essentially or inherently good, and that the purpose of human life is to more fully realise this eternal and unchangeable truth. In Falun Dafa that is explained as 'Zhen-Shan-Ren' 真善忍. I found these ideas in Plato, Spinoza and Pythagoras, along with many others, just differently expressed in Zhuan Falun. So pretty much what it comes down to, from my perspective, is that really understanding this in one's heart simply precludes any differently motivated behaviour. I wonder if you know what I'm trying to get at. This is sort of how one understands oneself as practicing Falun Dafa, it is pretty much exactly just this belief in the goodness of the universe, and a general attempt to align oneself with these principles. You couldn't say that this alone makes you perfect and then you can't, are simply unable to, go and do crap stuff. Certainly, mistakes are absolutely inevitable and even an essential part of the process. Just talking generally though, this is how I understand it. In terms of a definition then, as far as I am concerned, if there someone practiced Falun Dafa with ulterior motives to what I have said, this person would be no practitioner, even if they did the things other practitioners do. It's just a completely internalised thing. Anyone can do the exercises and read the book, but the determining factor is by definition one's heart; this is just what the practice is about. I don't find a juxtaposition in the two views, though I do think you may be got closer to the mark when you qualify with should, because otherwise there is the danger of oversimplification.

I would urge you to understand the satellite hacking in the context of the crazy, brutal, and wholly unjust persecution. Falun Gong was wildly popular in China for years. It was a massive shock for millions of people for it to be persecuted like this. At the start, as I understand it, they really thought the CCP misunderstood what Falun Gong was, and they went to Tiananmen, and the appeals offices because they actually thought someone, somewhere had make a mistake. It was to try to explain that Falun Dafa teaches good things, just some meditation exercises, etc.. I can sympathise with them later hacking into the TV network to broadcast information about the persecution to the Chinese people. The persecution of Falun Gong in China is a persecution of the entire population. It's shocking, unprecedented, massive, and truly terrible. Have you read Wang Zhaojun's open letters? Heard about them? If you read Chinese they will be featured somewhere on http://www.epochtimes.com/, whatever you think of the publication. If you just look into that you may find a new perspective opening up on this situation. He's a highly respected, highly ranked individual, and he has got a lot of support after that letter. I guess you would understand the momentous significance of his sending that letter (it was followed by another one from Anhui!), and the fact that they have not touched him since then. Obviously it means there is already a split in the Party. I don't think it's good-in-itself to hack into TV stations. If they did it for any other reason, and under any other circumstances, it would be totally unacceptable. In the context of the overwrought media campaigns by the CCP, using every possible method to defame Falun Gong, all media, every media, schools, sporting organisations, public speeches, stop-work meetings, just fabricating any kind of ridiculous, false, and hateful lie against Falun Gong, I can really sympathise with this kind of response. It's basically just to stand up and say that Falun Gong is peaceful and being persecuted for no good reason. The Tiananmen Square self-immolation is a prime example. That was clearly a hoax by the CCP, consequently used to stir up hatred toward practitioners. How could they do nothing in the face of that? They have absolutely no voice within China, they are constantly vilified, made sub-human, have hatred incited toward them, all for no reason, just for their practice and a set of peaceful beliefs; and, partly due to the nature of CCP rule, but particularly due to Jiang Zemin's and a few others' jealously, personal resentment, self-declared ideological battle, and political opportunism, they are now persecuted. It's just a political thing for the CCP, a way of entrenching its rule, influence, power, and another political campaign like the many others in its history. In the face of this, what they have done is a mild response. There is not a single case of practitioners responding violently toward the persecution--doesn't this say something? They try to 'clarify the truth' to the police officers who are smashing their heads in, to tell them not to do that, that they have got it wrong. If the worst they have done is hack into the CCP TV stations to broadcast images of the persecution, about how Falun Dafa is practiced around the world, and their own perspective on the situation--in the context of their brutalisation, and brutal deprivation of any alternative avenue--I say good on them! The consequences are horrific anyway. It's told that Liu Chengjun in Changchun, after a hacking incident, the police just shot him in the leg when they found him, and he died some months later in prison, after having suffered untold tortures. You can read my userpage for one testimony of torture in China at the hands of police.

I won't say much about out the front of Chinese embassy. There are practitioners in my city who do that; I visit them and also talk to the Chinese tourists with them, hold placards, and practice talking Chinese to them, tell them about Falun Dafa etc. when I have time. I think this is a peaceful thing to do, as well. At least in my city many of them are middle-aged or elderly women, their english is often not very advanced, and they are refugees. They have lost everything because of the persecution. Now they are in a foreign country, and they have a common theme of being Dafa practitioners and being there cause they are Dafa practitioners. They have family back in China, but they can't go back now because they'll be persecuted. So they have lost all their possessions, connections in society, friends, family, basically everything. It's not like they can now go out and make something of their lives, dust off their hands and forget it. Nor, in my experience, are they there as some way to get a tourist card so they can go get a high-powered job and jump on the gravy train. Like they would just want to lead a comfortable life with lots of money, being able to buy nice possessions, a big house, or something? What's motivating all these people is really not narrow, selfish, vested interests, it's really not. For these people, it's not really a fun situation to be in. I'm sure you wouldn't appreciate it. They are responding peacefully to all this, and telling the other Chinese what is really going on. Don't be cynical about all this; as a bit of a joke, WP:AGF, why don't you? I am sorry to write so much. I do hope you have found this engaging. I believe that if you please look into the Wang Zhaojun situation you will be surprised and find it very intriguing.--Asdfg12345 15:16, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I can see you hold strong - and sincere - beliefs in the philosophy and practice of the Falun Gong. I don't dispute that there are genuine believers and that there is persecution - because the Communist government fears any other source of faith and leadership in China, especially a source located outside of China and therefore out of their control.

Nevertheless, the movement, regardless of the motives of its "true" believers, is clearly and obviously exploited by other interests. The Chinese version of the Epoch Times is not a newspaper - it is a mouthpiece for anyone who wishes to attack the Chinese government. New Tang Ren TV (or whatever it is called in English) is a cynical attempt to disguise propaganda as information and entertainment. I know the expat Chinese community well enough to know that many adherents are there just to claim a residency visa.

What really shits me about Falun Gong's activities outside China, is that it pretends a false connection to traditional Chinese values and culture - with those stage shows and publicity conducted in traditional Chinese costume - when in fact it is almost diametrically opposed to traditional Chinese culture. Reading Zhuan fa lun, I could not believe that anyone would believe this crazy mish mash of fantasies, bits and pieces of other religions, and moreover, a complete perversion of Buddhist doctrine. While not a Buddhist per se, I do feel a close affinity to Buddhist philosophy, and the perversion of Buddhist philosophy by Li Hongzhi is disgusting - the pretence of latter day Falun Gong groups to traditional Chinese culture and Buddhist values is a travesty.

That said, I have no problems with people believing in what they choose to believe, and even advocating it. However, religion should stay clearly out of politics, and for Falun Gong to advocate the overthrow of the Chinese government is wrong. Don't get me wrong - I'm not a supporter of the Chinese government. I would happily support any democratising movement, and I oppose the government for its lack of democracy, rule of law, and liberty, three essential components of a functioning government and a free people. However, to oppose the government because of religious motivations is wrong. From your user page, I can see you are Australian too - you may have heard about the uproar when Archbishop George Pell attempted to influence the NSW Parliament. No responsible government would stand idly by when a religious sect attempts to hijack the political process. Falun Gong's siege of Zhongnanhai stepped over the line - and it's continued political outcries are antithetic to freedom and democracy.

I recognise, of course, that some members have a legitimate grievance against the Chinese government's heavy handed crackdown. However, that one is treated wrongly or unfairly does not justify the use of false pretences, especially when the other side cannot effectively answer these aspersions -- this is the principle which we call natural justice, or, more mundanely, procedural fairness. When Falun Gong trots out its ridiculous claims about "live organ harvesting" - and no, don't even try to tell me live organ harvesting is real. It is so out of the realms of all rationality, that only extremely bigoted or extremely ignorant people would believe it; - when it trots out claims like this, knowing that the Chinese government cannot effectively answer the charges, and knowing that, even if the Chinese government were to publically release all of its official documents to counter the claim, the damage on public perception is done - is simply abhorrant to my values of common law justice.

But all of that is irrelevant here. You - and other editors - hold sincere and strong beliefs. However, our beliefs - however strongly held - should not be allowed to destroy neutrality in the approach to articles. When an editor counters another's rational argument by saying "oh no, I'm certain that all believers of [insert religion] would do no such thing!" - that is letting one's beliefs irrationally influence editing. That is what I objected to. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 23:47, 14 November 2007 (UTC)善有善报悪有悪报[reply]

I didn't read through what I was writing - and now that I read it, I realise I was probably being quite offensive. If I could excuse myself, I didn't mean to impugn your - or anyone else's - beliefs. Nor am I triviliasing persecution.

What I object to, in a general sense, is the intrusion of religion into politics, and what I objected to specifically, was the intrusion of religion into rational editing. I apologise for any offence I may have caused. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 07:39, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not offended by anything you've said. I appreciate your response. I actually understand all the points you've raised, understand how these could be concerns. I would suggest that in terms of getting things in perspective, the two most important features of this whole thing are that (1) Falun Gong is basically innocent, and (2) the persecution is completely wrong. If you agree to those then the rest would become footnotes. I need to ask you if you have read the Kilgour/Matas organ harvesting report. Falun Gong came up with the original claim about Sujiatun, but this report is an entirely different issue. I don't think we should continue discussion on the organ harvesting thing until you can say you have carefully read the report, and can specify which pieces of evidence you don't agree with, and why, specifically, the claims cannot be true. These two are highly respected individuals and they are taking this extremely seriously. I think in terms of the seriousness of this evidence, to do it justice, you have got to look into it very sincerely and carefully, and clearly state what is wrong with the report.

Just quickly then on the two other key things you bring up. The downfall of the CCP: that rotten thing is going to collapse any minute now anyway. Even Greenspan has predicted this. Their bad debts are over 1 trillion USD, corruption is endemic and inherent, social unrest is widespread and massive, environmental damage is severe and mounting, etc., etc.. The party has only more strategies to put off the inevitable. Anyway, that's the first thing. The reason Falun Gong would get involved in this I will try to explain like this. I will also give my personal view, since I am a practitioner, and I have meet a large number of practitioners, and having spoken to so many, can say that their thinking is in line with mine on this issue. For five years Falun Gong was peacefully appealing the persecution without saying one bad word against the Party, and they actually had some belief that they might reverse the decision, rescind the persecution. Obviously this was naive to think at that time. Now they are urging Chinese people to quit the Party. This is the fundamental, and only change. A few robust editorials have come out (9ping, jieti dang wenhua) explaining this to people. I don't think there's much wrong with this. No one is advocating for any particular, new leadership in China. The fundamental point is to put an end to the persecution. All practitioners wanted was some space in the park, and to be left alone. Falun Gong is the most apolitical thing. Now it has become hotly politicised because of all this bullshit. My concerns in approaching Falun Gong were purely metaphysical, and an intellectual engagement with these ideas. My concerns are not focused on political parties, political systems, ideologies, etc., and the events and debates that are going on. You can say these are 'worldly' matters. The point of tuidang is just to stop the persecution as soon as possible, and getting rid of the Party is the quickest way. If they stopped persecuting I wouldn't have more to say against them. Obviously, they cannot stop, and they are heading for destruction. So what I am saying here is that I don't actually give a shit about the CCP. I only want the persecution to stop. So if the only way to stop the persecution is to get rid of the CCP, then get rid of the bloody thing. I don't care, personally. It's only a means to an end. I can't read much Chinese, and I certainly can't read the Chinese epoch times. I know the english one quite well, though--maybe you should take a look at that. In my opinion it's quite timid in its coverage of the CCP and these issues. A pretty mainstream paper, actually, in terms of content. For a while I thought it was a load of crap and a waste of time for exactly that reason. I don't know about the Chinese version. I could accept that you're not exaggerating too much--at least, I wouldn't be surprised. The only point to that is to show how nasty the regime in China is. Maybe they're doing a crap job of that, and it's having the opposite effect for people like you, who only think less of the paper? But maybe there are lots of people who, through reading the paper, come to realise that the CCP is basically just a mafia, and that the persecution of Falun Gong is horrific, and that Falun Gong is in the end quite innocent. It isn't rocket science. I'd just say if you don't like it then take it with a grain of salt. Falun Gong's a good thing. It's a shame all this has happened. You'd be better off being pissed off at the communists though, not Falun Gong. They're just responding as best they can with the direct goal to end the perscution, nothing much else.

I don't know what you mean when you say Falun Gong has nothing to do with traditional Chinese culture, and mangles Buddhism and Taoism, etc.. How many millions of lay Buddhists migrated to Falun Gong in China before the persecution? In Taiwan there are people who used to be professional Buddhists but switched to Falun Gong. As I understand it, Falun Gong texts are definitely drawing on important elements of the tradition of Chinese Buddhism (something I don't know much about), but I just wonder what you could mean when you say mangling the ideas or whatever. You can say ascribing different meaning to words, or offering different interpretations of key ideas, whatever you like. Just formulate it neutrally, and don't attach any emotional material to it. The only judgement in this regard is whether Dafa is the true Fa (ie, are the explanations true, or are they made-up?). That's merely a matter of belief. So you can think it isn't. Then someone else can think it is. That's just a personal matter; no one will say you are wrong. By the way, it's terribly ironic that you bring Buddhism up and also the issue of politics. Do you know how the monks in burma are getting along these days? Are you opposed to that, too? I even heard on the news the other day some buddhist monks in a south east asian country kidnapped someone! And I hear the temples in China are just tourist destinations nowadays. Are they cultivating the Fa that Buddha Sakyamuni left to mankind? Can they? And what about the Chinese Buddhist Association—do I need to say more about that? Falun Dafa is a very serious practice, and the people doing it and who understand it are the most sincere, engaging and interesting bunch of people I've met. The purpose is a metaphysical project, 返本歸真, and people practicing Dafa actually believe that. It may not be appropriate now to talk at length about Dafa itself and what it teaches, and I don't think that matters much. There's certainly no attempt on the part of Dafa practitioners or Li Hongzhi to pretend it is something it isn't. It isn't trying to be Buddhism. It isn't trying to trick people into thinking it is. If you've read the book then that should be clear; it's stated clearly a few times. Or you can listen to the lectures, whatever you like. The issue you raised is obviously disputed, and some people don't think that way—there's no need to form an ill opinion on this basis. The basic elements are really similar, though, will explain next:

About the Spectacular: I havn't actually seen it yet. I look forward to seeing it this year. I understand it is very spiritual, and contains implicit and explicit references to Falun Dafa. It is also marketed as a 'Chinese new year spectacular', either that or 'Divine performing Arts'. It is spoken about as 'authentic Chinese culture', and 'traditional Chinese culture'. I also don't have a problem with any of this. In my understanding, when talking about 'ancient chinese culture' in this regard, it is pretty much referring to the teachings of Buddhism and Taoism, and their influence—the general ideas and philosophy emanating from these traditions. I would say that the teachings of Falun Dafa are echoes of all this. There is a belief in the truth of the universe; that the purpose of human life is to cultivate the Tao, cultivate Buddhahood; that the universe is founded on righteous principles; that higher beings exist; that through spiritual discipline the goal of human existence can be realised, and the 'individual' will be liberated from the realm of matter; that enlightened beings descend the earth to offer salvation to humankind, teach human the Fa, how to cultivate; that good will be rewarded with good and evil rewarded with evil, 善有善报悪有悪报; time and space, death, everything are not as they appear and that this world we are confronted with is essentially illusory, and that the purpose of our lives is to realise a truth beyond this—that this is to be done through a spiritual discipline. What's wrong with this? These are the basic tenants, right? Isn't this just what the show depicts? I havn't seen it but I'm guessing so. Aren't these kind of ideas what Buddhism and Taoism teaches? Maybe not expressed in this way, but you get the gist. This is just what Falun Dafa teaches too. I don't see the big deal. Obviously you would not believe that the true Fa is here, or you would cultivate it yourself, but why think ill of Dafa, since no one has done anything wrong, and all these people are doing is motivated by a good heart. *sigh* My post is too long already. I hope you haven't already dug yourself a mental trench over all this. It can be difficult to revaluate one's thinking at times. I'd urge you to give it a go on this one. Or just be more of a robot, or a law guy, and scrap your emotions about this, and assess it like some kind of tort claim. Just look at the evidence available in a cold way. Falun Gong is just an innocent practice suffering an evil persecution, it's not that hard to take a side on this one.--Asdfg12345 14:39, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your reply. I will just make one point for now: I've read both the English and the Chinese Epoch Times, and they are very very different newspapers. The English Epoch Times is basically a proper newspaper with usual journalistic standards but a detectable bias against the Chinese government - which is quite normal: the Sydney Morning Herald's China correspondent writes in pretty much the same way (and she openly gets paid by the Taiwanese government - but I digress).

The Chinese Epoch Times is very different. I don't know if you've ever seen the Communist Party of Australia's newspaper back when they were around - but it reads like that. It makes no pretence to neutrality at all, and is an instrument of attack first and foremost, and a newspaper only secondarily. Its lack of neutrality goes so far, that it doesn't refer to the mainland Chinese government as the "Chinese government" - it calls them "Zhonggong" - "Chinese communists"; By contrast, the Taiwanese government is not called "the Taiwanese government" - it's always the "Republic of China government". This kind of rhetoric used to be common in the overseas Chinese press 20 years ago, but has almost entirely disappeared now. I mean, opposing the Chinese government is one thing, but indiscriminantly supporting anyone who opposes who you oppose is pretty immature.

Actually, the Chines Epoch Times is losing influence quite badly in the Chinese community. It's being replaced (at least here in Sydney) by the new "Secret China" or "See China" (? not sure of the English name), which is more along the lines of the English Epoch Times: a newspaper first and foremost, critic of the Chinese government secondarily.

I'm going to look into the organ harvesting report. On a related issue, though, there is an insightful analysis of the Burmese democracy movement in the current issue of The Diplomat (that column doesn't seem to be available online, unfortunately). Many of the points it makes about the Burmese movement are equally valid, I think, for the Falun Gong, at least as far as "persecution hyperbole" is concerned. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 22:21, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah I was in Argentina a while ago and the Chinese paper there was quite strong on Falun Gong content. I wouldn't even care if it were just a big Falun Gong flyer. I think Falun Gong is good, and the persecution is dead evil. If people want to stand up for that I wish them luck. (I'd actually thought the Chinese paper here in Aust. was not like that, that they wanted to become more of a proper newspaper--I'll look into it.) The only reason I brought up the Burmese was just to put things in perspective re Buddhism these days. Falun Gong isn't asking for democracy. The fundamental thing has only been a space to practice in the park, and to be left alone. That's how everyone feels about this. Now the CCP want to go and do psycho and evil things to thousands (I'm only thinking you just aren't familiar with the methods of torture, their prevalence, the forced labour camps, etc., and the completely disgusting nature, and total injustice of it all), and these people are standing up and telling them to stop it, telling other Chinese to quit the wretched thing. Fine by me.--Asdfg12345 23:04, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm happy to hear my anal GA reviews are appreciated! And I appreciate the offer to swap reviews, and it just so happens I do have two articles up for GA nomination: Trent Reznor and Ian Svenonius. If you have a free moment I'd definitely appreciate if you took a look at either, though don't feel like it is expected. In related news, I just left a note on the immolation article saying that I'll have to pass/fail the review for good tomorrow, so now's the time for any last minute changes. Good luck. Drewcifer (talk) 03:04, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

why don't we simplify and remove the petition altogether? The more I think about it, the less the Schecter stuff about petitions make sense here. Although I never felt anything untoward when reading his articles, his quotes when used here seem totally totally biased. He offers no proof of his own, but most often speculates for his own account, and occasionally distorts evidence -you will remember me pointing out before -and I contested - how he turned Liu Chun-ling from a possibly depressed person into someone "with mental problems". Fortunately, Schechter's bias is rendered sufficiently transparent that a reader should be able to see it for what it is. This is always how I felt about the quotes, but it is why I never objected to their use originally. Also, I checked the source and note there may be a problem of incorrect reference - could you perhaps shed some light on where in the referenced citations does he write about "petition", "credibility" and "thwart attacks on China's human rights record"? Ohconfucius (talk) 06:16, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

eh? you might need to grab a copy of the book "Falun Gong's Challenge to China" -- I have it on my bookshelf here. Umm, i don't have very strong objections to moving the petition stuff elsewhere, but please consider. The background of this incident needs to be established. The fact that there were enourmous petition drives all over the country, that the media was savaging Falun Gong on a daily basis, that they produced numerous posters defaming Falun Gong, and the whole state apparatus viciously turning against the group, this is the context for the so-called immolation, which, incidentally, really helped them kick the persecution into gear. What I have just said there is a small summary, and it all appears in secondary sources. Some of this stuff was already moved lower into the article, whereas it is quite a legitimate and even necessary way to provide correct context for the reader. Anyway, let me know what you think. It's going to fail GA anyway if we keep chopping and changing it. It was stable until that guy deleted the stuff. I'm happy to keep it how it was--or fail GA this time, do some work, and resubmit later. However it goes. Let me know what you think.

oh, and by the way, in terms of relevance, what on earth is the point of that quote about Li Hongzhi telling practitioners to use supernatural abilities?! I understand that Time purports to have uncovered a very unique interpretation of the 'beyond the limits of forbearance' scripture, one which no one doing Falun Gong shares, and I think it's okay to report their speculations about how this might be interpreted, and for them to further speculate that maybe some practitioners thought it meant they should go burn themselves. That can be reported. But I don't see the need for the other stuff. I'm quite hesitant about this field, though. While I think it's quite out of place, I don't want to delete it, because I feel like I need to not challenge some things and let them go, otherwise you might think I am trying to cover things up or hide some stuff. Anyway, so I didn't remove that, but reading the article again, it's a bit of a nonsequitor.--Asdfg12345 07:50, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have just gone over the article with what I think are some minor changes. I won't make andy wholescale deletions or additions for now, fail or not. Just please let me know what phrase(s) you are referring to as irrelevant or out of place? Ohconfucius (talk) 08:52, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This, while amusing, strikes me as irrelevant: "the same article also stated that Falun Gong founder Li Hongzhi had urged followers to immobilize the police and other "evil scoundrels" with supernatural powers.[1]"

It also seems like the first three paragraphs of the Victims section could well be in the 'reporting and analysis', since there is no more connection in that commentary than the other. The Time speculations re the nature of Li's message is also repeated; this may be better combined, along with the alleged clarification by Falun Gong. --Asdfg12345 08:58, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I also tend to agree about the Victims paragraphs. However, I decided against such a move for now, as moving it without merger and rationalisation would result in incoherences. Ohconfucius (talk) 09:32, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Also, how do you feel now about the IED quote? I still have misgivings about giving so much space to a direct quote which is not covered by any secondary sources. Furthermore, only one sentence out of the entire paragraph is directly related to the incident, whilst the rest is just an emotional diatribe against the Chinese govt which does not support its claim to its discovery, so it could potentially be shortened to "International Educational Development had discovered that a self-immolation cited by the Chinese Government as proof that the Falun Gong was an "evil cult" in fact had been staged" without weakening the context or the facts about the case. Ohconfucius (talk) 10:04, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah i know. I feel similarly; though I wouldn't discount the realness of what they are saying about the persecution. Perhaps this could be condensed into one preceding sentence, like "IED condemned the persecution of Falun Gong, and said ..." Or whatever. Thanks for bringing that up, the quote is not quite right the way it is there now. I too noticed this and felt slightly uneasy about it, now that I haven't seen the page in a while, and have gained a bit of critical distance.--Asdfg12345 13:41, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is for just the reasons you stated I didn't want to work on the FG and live organ harvesting article. I personally think the article is totally biased and can never be anything more than an attack page against the Chinese Communist Party. What is more, it is a crap article, warranting deletion on both those counts. I know, I did work on it, because I cannot stand seeing a crap article and want to make it better - incidentally, that's how I started editing FG articles in the first place - but regret having wasted the time on the harvesting article. Ohconfucius (talk) 08:33, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah it's a page about the CCP harvesting the organs of Falun Gong practitioners. You don't go to a page about the Holocaust and expect some evenhanded look at the pros and cons of the Nazi regime. There are other pages for that. This is a very dark subject. It has to be put on its own page, otherwise the persecution article would be too long. I actually want to improve the organ harvesting page a lot, because I don't think much of it either at the moment. If you are aware of some good evidence on the other side of the fence, please bring it forward. There has been a lot of media and whatnot on the subject, so I'll try to include some of that, and also flesh out the important elements of the k/m report, and the exchange of letters between them and the CCP. As far as I know it does look very grim for the CCP and its apologists though. They haven't responded to the damn report, and it would be the easiest thing in the world to disprove if it weren't true. Then there's the wilful denial and ignorance that such an incredibly barbaric act could be happening. Then I would just say go read jiu ping and find out what this Party is all about.--Asdfg12345 08:48, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• In my view, it doesn't stand a cat in hell's chance with that title. You would stand a much better chance of creating an encyclopaedic article if you moved it to "Bloody Harvest" and concentrated the article on the report, the discussion generated. Ohconfucius (talk) 03:44, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But there is the Sujiatun stuff which also ties into it, and what kicked off the whole thing. That incident has a life of its own, too. It would seem inappropriate to have an article for each thing? Can you think of a better title? I am thinking now, this seems the most appropriate to express the question. Even if it was an article showing how fake the evidence was and how untrue live organ harvseting of Falun Gong practitioners was, it would probably be called the same thing right? Anyway, I like to hear opinions and things of course.--Asdfg12345 11:01, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I find the 'cat's chance in hell' a novel metaphor... I'd only heard of a snowflake's chance, but this works too, heh.--Asdfg12345 11:03, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think it could still work. You managed to do such a good job with providing the background for the 'Persecution'and 'self-immo' articles. Then, it could be expanded into sections about the public reaction to the report, as well as the 33 different pieces of the circumstantial, possibly with counter-arguments from Harry Wu, CRS, the "China's crematorium" source, for example. Ohconfucius (talk) 13:25, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can't see why you're so insistent on inserting the term. As I said previously, they are/were parliamentarians who attracted widespread attention to claims of organ harvesting and are thus high-profile. I believe that to say they are "high-profile" where you want to see it is somewhat elevating the status of the claims. You are mixing cause and effect. Ohconfucius (talk) 10:08, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

what? I haven't put it back since you deleted it..? If you are dead set on not having it there it's fine. I think at least in Canada they were known, before they published the report. Matas has won awards and is one of Canada's best lawyers. Kilgour was a minister and what have you. I got "high-profile" from the Embassy article, referenced. That's a Canadian publication. I am assuming they were high-profile people. I wasn't trying to make the claims somehow artificially elevated. There's also the fact that the background of who says things is important. In particular, if it were two convicted criminals who had published the report, I am sure this would be deemed worthy of mention. It's a sourced, notable statement, and as far as I can tell it's true. The fact that it was these two individuals, and their backgrounds, is quite noteworthy. I think it should be there. That's all I can say though. If you want to remove it I'm not about to keep shoving it back in.--Asdfg12345 13:00, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good work. I may have some time to work on it later this week. Ohconfucius (talk) 06:45, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ah yeah, that's not my real email :) The OTRS email address you're looking for is permissions@wikimedia.org. Thanks. Shell ^babelfish 12:16, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How so? I think these are quite minor edits in response to criticism posted. Do let me know if I've gone OTT. Ohconfucius (talk) 14:55, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

hehe, just a swipe, I had misread the note on talk page cautioning substantial changes--I see yours weren't. I'm going to number the edits I want to make to the page and submit them to the committee for approval.--Asdfg12345 18:57, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, thanks for that link. I read it recently via another website Wwith more pictures - I'll send you the link if I find it again), but it's interesting to see that Epoch Times has also picked up on it. I've been thinking about whether this is a wider phenomenon that also happens in other countries. For example, many churches in Europe have become primarily (in terms of time dedicated) tourist attractions, although they still retain their religious functions - e.g. at Westminster Abbey it is free to enter for worship while tourists have to pay, and Sundays are reserved for worship. Would a similar model work in China, in the face of commercial interest outweighing the religious? Or would a "free worship" policy at Shaolin merely prompt every tourist to profess to be a "worshipper"? I guess the Chinese belief system is ambiguous - I classify myself as "worshipping" when I attend temples, even though often my interest is as much in the architecture and landscape. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 21:52, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

An image that you uploaded or altered, Image:FalunDafa_Burn_tanyongjie.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images because its copyright status is disputed. If the image's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the image description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Nv8200p talk 03:23, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. If you can't type the tilde character, you should click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --SineBot (talk) 04:28, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The image you linked me to (Image:FalunMorning Practice1996.jpg) was only deleted on wikipedia, because it was moved to Wikipedia Commons where images are kept. The wikipedia page was deleted, but the picture still appears there because its transcluding the commons part there for you to see... sort of... if you look at the top left you will see that the image box is redlinked because the wikipedia page is deleted. If you click on the link "description page is shown there" you will go to that image at wikipedia commons.

Placing the image in articles is done exactly the same way. Forgive me if you knew all about commons already, I wasn't sure. Does that help? SGGH ^speak! 12:26, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]