User talk:Alunsalt/sandbox

discussion

"Falun Gong has been the subject of much media interest following the ban on two organisations advocating its practice[6] which has lead to condemnations of its suppression by the Chinese government.[7] Additionally there have been accusations that Falun Gong is a cult which manipulates the media."

This seriously fails to capture the seriousness and extent of the persecution. Also, the view that "Falun Gong is a cult" is a fringe view, and should not be made to look as though it is not. Putting it in the introduction gives that impression. The section devoted to exploring the wider controversies might include some of these views, as it does already, but this cult thing is shot to pieces by mainstream academics.--Asdfg12345 22:06, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The homosexuality thing seems overblown; if you quantified how much of the teachings talk about homosexuality as a proportion of the total, I think that should be roughly reflected in this article. There are something like 1000 A4 pages of lectures, and homosexuality is mentioned only two or three times.

I think ter Haar's opinion might be okay in the introduction, but does not need to start with "However." Generally I would suggest keeping the characterisation of Falun Gong simple, and as a self-characterisation to begin with, with the wider views to be explored in the article(s). Could be more to be said on this point. --Asdfg12345 22:10, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree: the view that FG is a cult is very widespread both in China and in the West. It's frequently mentioned (though not always endorsed) in major newspapers.

About 10% of all adults are gay. It is hardly uninteresting that every single mention of homosexuality in Li's works is negative.

Martin Rundkvist (talk) 22:52, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Martin, when you say "the view that FG is a cult is very widespread both in China and in the West.", it really means nothing to us here. We've been through this many times now. It's about what high-quality sources you can bring to bear on these things. It is a minority view in the academic community. The cultic theory is debunked. It's not scientific. It's not supported by mainstream academics and serious researchers on Falun Gong. I don't even know what you mean when you say "FG is a cult", and I'm betting you don't either. What exactly do you mean by cult? Let's have this conversation here. Firstly, please tell me what you understand the word "cult" to signify, then tell me how Falun Gong meets this definition.

I'm also finding the response to the homosexuality things quite inadequate. This is an encyclopedic article about Falun Gong, not about homoesexuality. I don't think it's interesting that Li says negative things about homosexuality, "interesting" is not really our basis for constructing these pages. Within the teachings of Falun Gong, the issue of homosexuality should be dealt with in that context. In a section dealing with representations of Falun Gong in media or among fringe groups—firstly this should follow WP:DUE—we can deal with the competing views.

Have you read all the core policy pages?--Asdfg12345 02:50, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Asdfg, when you say "It is a minority view in the academic community." it really means nothing to us here. Where are the facts backing up your assertion?

Have to vote with Martin. Your behavior in waring with other editors have demonstrated appearant bad faith. I will try to understand your view, but if we go to arbritration there are 5 editors who will vote against you, at a minimum - because you have blanked/started edit war with us.

Bobby fletcher (talk) 08:42, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind the definition of the word "cult". The word is commonly used about FG. If you want to play that game, Asdfg, then let's get rid of the word "persecution" too.

Asdfg, if you don't think "interesting" should be a basis of Wikipedia articles, then I really think you are the wrong person to contribute to an encyclopedia.

Martin Rundkvist (talk) 09:55, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't get personal, Martin. I just wanted your views on the issue. Persecution is actually very clear. It's when the communist party arrests practitioners for their beliefs and tortures them to death. But you have bandied the cult label around extensively in talking about Falun Gong, so now I am asking you to explain precisely what you mean. Are you refusing to do so? Can you tell me why? --Asdfg12345 13:46, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

When using the word on its own, I usually take it to mean "fringe religious group". Martin Rundkvist (talk) 13:59, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I appreciate that. I am tempted now to ask precisely what you mean by "fringe," but I don't want to make this the Spanish Inquisition. It may be that "fringe" also lacks any real substance, and you could safely replace every instance of "cult" when referring to Falun Gong to "religious group." Or, if you were feeling generous, to "spiritual practice." This would mean you would not be conveying undefined negativity to Falun Gong. Just an idea, but maybe this is something like the word "nigger"—it's only a nasty label and doesn't communicate much.--Asdfg12345 15:02, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Falun Gong's controlversial nature from notable source

(There were some argument on the use of the word "controversial". Well, below is statement from notable source.)

Here's what Quebec Superior Court justice Jeannine Rousseau wrote in her ruling in 2005:

Source: http://www.jugements.qc.ca (search for the judgement, also archived by McGill Univ.: http://www.math.mcgill.ca/triples/infocult/jugementFalungong122005.doc)

"[40] It is a controversial movement, which does not accept criticism."

Incidentally, justice Rousseau also made further statement regarding the nature of FLG's teaching:

"[39] Amongst the characteristics of Master Li's teachings are the rejection of science as being misleading and dangerous, the promise of supernatural powers, amongst which a rotating wheel in the stomach of practitioners to purify them, constant health, rejuvenation, and the ability to see into other spatial dimensions."

I hope these facts will make it into the article and not get blanked by Destructive Editing Bobby fletcher (talk) 00:12, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Notable quotations from Falun Gong's teaching

Master Li's lecture in Sydney:

http://www.falundafa.org/book/eng/xnjf1.htm

"I have also found no oriental people in Jesus' paradise."

"I have also found no white people in a Buddha's paradise in the past."

"organized crime, homosexuality, and promiscuous sex, etc., none are the standards of being human."

Bobby fletcher (talk) 00:33, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Notability of James Randi Foundation

There were some disagreement over notability. I did a Google search to verify James Randi Foundation is a notable organization:

http://news.google.com/archivesearch?q=James+Randi+Foundation

Above search yielded over 2000 past news articles.

http://www.google.com/search?q=James+Randi+Foundation

Over 600,000 references were found.

Bobby fletcher (talk) 00:49, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The issue was whether Randi counts as an expert qualified to comment on Falun Gong, in the introduction, stating a minority view, in a self-published source. Not whether his website is notable.--Asdfg12345 02:52, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Shameful POV again, Asdfg. You have no problem citing Kilgour's own website, a self-published source stating a minority view. Kilgour had no opinion on FLG until FLG funded him (Appendix K of Kilgour report, CIPFG promised to compensate Kilgour in terms of "reimbursement")

You currently have edit wars with at a minimum 3 editors right now. I can no longer assume good faith on your part. Bobby fletcher (talk) 08:37, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Asdfg, what qualifies you to be arbertor of what "counts"? Randi Foundation's notability qualifies it, and it's authority on controversial religion/movement qualifies it. And before you say anything, FLG being controversial has been proven with notable statement above. Bobby fletcher (talk) 18:28, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Master Li's own words on his/Falun Gong's supernormal ability

(source: Zhuan Fa Lun. There was a request to discuss/add this aspect of Falun Gong's teaching.)

self-inducing thermo-nuclear reaction inside Li's own body

Lecture 2, section "Transcending the Five Elements and the Three Realms", paragraph 3:

http://falundafa.org/book/eng/lecture2.html

"I have also been tested, and the detected radiation of the generated gamma rays and thermal neutrons was eighty to one hundred seventy times more than normal matter."

Li created a planet (Falun Gong Paradise) somewhere in Milky Way

Lecture 3, section "The Buddha School Qigong and Buddhism", paragraph 9:

http://falundafa.org/book/eng/lecture3.html

"Sakyamuni, Buddha Amitabha, and the Great Sun Tathagata each have their own paradises for saving people. In our Milky Way, there are over one hundred such paradises. Our Falun Dafa also has a Falun Paradise."

Li's ability to cure illnesses

Lecture 3, section "What Has Teacher Given to Practitioners?", paragraph 1:

http://falundafa.org/book/eng/lecture3.html

"Your illnesses will be cured directly by me. Those who practice at exercise sites will have my fashen to cure their illnesses."

Li's Fa Wheel descending from the sky to save disciples from danger

Lecture 3, section "What Has Teacher Given to Practitioners?", paragraph 15-17:

http://falundafa.org/book/eng/lecture3.html

"There are so many of these cases that they cannot be numbered. Yet no danger has occurred. Not everyone will encounter these kinds of things, but some individuals will run into them. Whether you come across them or not, I can assure you that you will not be in any danger—I can guarantee this."

Bobby fletcher (talk) 08:20, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rewrite

Overall, I believe there may be little point in writing the lead until the main sections are sorted out by consensus. The lead ought to summarise the main points in the article. Notwithstanding, I believe the lead section should be simplified thus:
deletion of the second paragraph discussion about whether it is considered a religion - I understand the reluctance to labelling, but I do not fully understand why the issue has been made into such a big thing in the whole scheme of things. There should not be a big discussion here in the lead section.
the third paragraph should mention that the Government cracked down heavily on the practice after imposing a ban of the FG in July 1999 as "a heretical cult" following the mass rally at Zhongnanhai in April. The use of the term "large-scale violent persecution of the practice", even if sourced, is extremely biased. I have no idea what exactly Johnson wrote, or whether the citation is exact or verbatim (I have my doubts based on past experience of FG editors misrepresenting sources) but there would have to be universal acceptance that this is happening for its use to be justified here in the lead. I am not saying there should be no discussion about the allegations of persecution. There can be a hint of it in the lead, but the view that there is "persecution" should not be given undue weight. The insistence on including these accusations has caused the lead section to become extremely bloated as it became the battleground for the executive summary (indeed, you noted there was a tendency to fight over last words).
There are alternatives to headers such as "persecution", and "propaganda (whether Government or FG)" which are generally considered too controversial, and should be avoided. I have found FG editors often point pushing on this matters, as well as the one below.
care should be taken over the interchanging use of "the Government" and "the Chinese Communist Party" - FG devotees have been known to fight replacement of the former with the latter, who are blamed for persecuting them. Indeed, many of them feel it is a personal vendetta started by Jiang Zemin. Although a valid source may be cited to support the chosen word, fights over which sources to cite in getting the point across have erupted.

Ohconfucius (talk) 03:49, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]