 | The Arbitration Committee has placed this article on probation. Editors making disruptive edits may be banned by an administrator from this and related articles, or other reasonably related pages. Administrators: when banning a user from an article, look up this article on the list of active general sanctions, select the relevant Arbitration case, and list the user under the Log of Bans at the page bottom; additionally, make use of {{User article ban arb}}. |  | This topic contains controversial issues, some of which have reached a consensus for approach and neutrality, and some of which may be disputed. Before making any potentially controversial changes to the article, please carefully check the discussion-page dialogue (including archives) to see if the issue has been raised before, and ensure that your edit meets all of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Please also ensure you use an accurate and concise edit summary. | | This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects: |  | This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it. | |  B | This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale. | | Low | This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. | | |  | This article is within the scope of WikiProject China, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of China related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks. | | | B | This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale. | | Top | This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. | | Comments: | | edit · history · watch · purge Archive Per assessment, article probation from Arbcom, and this discussion, I will fail this article. Bring up the quality (and try to solve whatever issues got this put on probation from Arbcom if that is possible) if you want to get this passed in the future. Funpika 19:32, 5 June 2007 (UTC) | | | | |
[edit] In relation to qigong and its roots in Chinese culture In 1992, Li Hongzhi introduced Falun Gong and along with teachings that touched upon a wide range of topics, from detailed exposition on qigong related phenomenon and cultivation practice to science and morality. In the next few years, Falun Gong quickly grew in popularity across China to become the most popular qigong practice in Chinese History.[1] Falun Gong was welcomed into the state-controlled Scientific Qigong Research Association, which sponsored and helped to organize many of his activities between 1992 and 1994, including 54 large-scale lectures. In 1992 and 1993 he won government awards at the Beijing Oriental Health Expos, including the "Qigong Master most acclaimed by the Masses" and "The Award for Advancing Boundary Science."[2] According to academics, Falun Gong originally surfaced in the institutional field of alternative Chinese science, not religion. The debate between what can be called "naturalist" and "supernaturalist" schools of qigong theory has produced a considerable amount of literature. Xu Jian stated in The Journal of Asian Studies 58 (4 November 1999): "Situated both in scientific researches on qigong and in the prevailing nationalistic revival of traditional beliefs and values, this discursive struggle has articulated itself as an intellectual debate and enlisted on both sides a host of well-known writers and scientists — so much so that a veritable corpus of literature on qigong resulted. In it, two conflicting discourses became identifiable. Taking “discourse” in its contemporary sense as referring to forms of representation that generate specific cultural and historical fields of meaning, we can describe one such discourse as rational and scientific and the other as psychosomatic and metaphysical. Each strives to establish its own order of power and knowledge, its own “truth” about the “reality” of qigong, although they differ drastically in their explanation of many of its phenomena. The controversy centers on the question of whether and how qigong can induce “supranormal abilities” (teyi gongneng). The psychosomatic discourse emphasizes the inexplicable power of qigong and relishes its super-normal mechanisms or which causative factors which go beyond wht canbe explained by presentday scietific models, whereas the rational discourse strives to demystify many of its phenomena and to situate it strictly in the knowledge present day modern science." The Chinese government has generally tried to encourage qigong as a science and discourage religious or supernatural elements. However, the category of science in China tends to include things that are generally not considered scientific in the West, including qigong and traditional Chinese medicine. David Aikman has written in American Spectator (March 2000): "Americans may believe that qigong belongs in a general category of socially neutral, New Age-style concepts that are merely subjective, not necessarily harmful, and incapable of scientific proof. But China's scientific community doesn't share this view. Experiments under controlled conditions established by the Chinese Academy of Sciences in the late 1970s and early 1980s concluded that qi, when emitted by a qigong expert, actually constitutes measurable infrared electromagnetic waves and causes chemical changes in static water through mental concentration. Qi, according to much of China's scientific establishment, for all intents existed."[3] Li Hongzhi states in Falun Buddha Fa Lectures in Europe: "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. 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, and allow you to truly ascend to high levels in the process of cultivation. Whether it’s your realm of mind or the physical quality of your body, the Fa truly enables you to reach the standards of different levels. It absolutely can assume this role." Andrew P. Kipnis is quoted as stating: "...to the Western layperson, qigong of all sorts may seem to be religious because it deals with spiritual matters. Because Li Hongzhi makes use of many concepts from Buddhism and Taoism in his writings, this may make Falun Gong seem even more like a religion to the outsider; bur Falun Gong grew initially into a space termed scientific [in China], but was mostly insulated from the spaces formally acknowledged as institutionalized science in Western countries"[4] The term 'qigong' was coined in the early 1950s as an alternative label to past spiritual disciplines rooted Buddhism or Taoism, that promoted the belief in the supernatural, immortality and pursuit of spiritual transcendence. The new term was constructed to avoid danger of association with ancient spiritual practices which were labeled "superstitious" and persecuted during the Maoist era.[1] In Communist China, where spirituality and religion are looked-down upon, the concept was "tolerated" because it carried with it no overt religious or spiritual elements; and millions flocked to it during China's spiritual vacuum of the 1980s and 1990s. Scholars argue that the immense popularity of qigong in China could, in part, lie in the fact that the public saw in it a way to improve and maintain health. According to Ownby, this rapidly became a social phenomenon of considerable importance.[1] [edit] Membership and finances Sociologist Susan Palmer writes that, "...Falun Gong does not behave like other new religions. For one thing, its organization - if one can even call it that - is quite nebulous. There are no church buildings, rented spaces, no priests or administrators. At first I assumed this was defensive [...] now, I'm beginning to think that what you see is exactly what you get - Master Li's teachings on the Net on the one hand and a global network of practitioners on the other. Traveling through North America, all I dug up was a handful of volunteer contact persons. The local membership (they vehemently reject that word) is whoever happens to show up at the park on a particular Saturday morning to do qigong." [edit] Finances In his thesis, Noah Porter takes up the issue of Falun Gong and finance in Mainland China. He quotes and responds to some of the allegations of the Chinese Communist Party that Li benefited financially from teaching the practice. Porter writes that when teaching seminars, there was an admission of 40 yuan per new practitioner and 20 yuan for repeat practitioners--with the repeat practitioners making up for 50-75% of the admissions. He goes on to say with respect to the CCP's claims: "...but the Chinese government figures for the profits of the seminars counted all attendees as paying the 40-yuan fee charged to newcomers. Also, the Chinese Qigong Research Society received 40% of admission receipts from July 1993 to September 1994. Falun Gong's first four training seminars took in a total of 20,000 yuan, which is only 10% of the 200,000 figure cited by the Chinese government. Finally, from that 20,000 yuan, they had several operating expenses..."[5] Ian Johnson points out that during the greatest period of Falun Gong book sales in China, Li Hongzhi never received any royalties because all publications were bootleg.[6] James Tong writes about the competing claims by Falun Gong and the Chinese government in 'The China Quarterly' journal, 2003. He writes that the government has attempted to portray Falun Gong as being financially savvy with a centralized administration system and a variety of mechanisms for deriving profit from the practice. He also looks over Falun Gong's claims of having no hierarchy, administration, membership or financial accounts, and that seminar admission was charged at a minimal rate.[7] Tong writes that it was in the government's interest, in the post-crackdown context, to portray Falun Gong as being highly organised: "The more organized the Falun Gong could be shown to be, then the more justified the regime's repression in the name of social order was."[8] He writes that the government's charges that Falun Gong made excessive profits, charged exorbitant fees, and that Li Hongzhi led a lavish lifestyle "...lack both internal and external substantiating evidence" and points out that that despite the arrests and scrutiny, the authorities "had disclosed no financial accounts that established the official charge and credibly countered Falun Gong rebuttals."[9] Li Hongzhi stipulates in his books Falun Gong and Zhuan Falun that practitioners should only voluntarily help others learn the exercises and that this could never be done for fame and money, and also stipulates that practitioners must not accept any fee, donation or gift in return for their voluntarily teaching the practice. According to Falun Gong, Li's insistence that the practice be offered free of charge caused a rift with the China Qigong Research Society, the state administrative body under which Falun Dafa was initially introduced. Li subsequently withdrew from the organization. Falun Gong website often state on their pages that "All Falun Gong Activities Are Free of Charge and Run by Volunteers"[10] In an interview in Sydney on May 2, 1999, mentioning his financial status, Li said : "In mainland China I published so many books, but added together, they haven't exceeded twenty thousand Renminbi (equivalent to US $ 2,469). This is what the publishing company gave me. When publishing books in other countries of the world, you know there is a rule, which pays 5 or 6% royalties to the author, so each time I can only get a little bit, a few hundred, or a few thousand dollars." [11]
- ^ a b c "Falungong as a Cultural Revitalization Movement: An Historian Looks at Contemporary China." Professor David Ownby, Department of History, University of Montreal, , accessed 31/12/07
- ^ The Past, Present and Future of Falun Gong, A lecture by Harold White Fellow, Benjamin Penny, at the National Library of Australia, Canberra, 2001, [1], accessed 31/12/07
- ^ American Spectator, March 2000, Vol. 33, Issue 2
- ^ Porter 2003, pp. 38-39. Available online: [2]
- ^ Porter 2003, p 197
- ^ Johnson, Ian. Wild Grass: three stories of change in modern China. Pantheon books. 2004. pp 23-229
- ^ James Tong, "An Organizational Analysis of the Falun Gong: Structure, Communications, Financing", The China Quarterly, 2002, 636-660: p 636
- ^ Tong 2002, p 638
- ^ Tong 2002, p 657
- ^ Learning the Practice, [3], accessed 21 July 2007
- ^ Li Hongzhi, Lecture in Sydney, 1999, [4], accessed 21 July 2007
[edit] Teachings I would like to draw our attention again to this section under "Teachings": | “ | Falun Gong also borrows from Buddhist and Taoist teachings. Theories about the cultivation of elixir (dan), "placement of the mysterious pass" (xuanguan shewei), among others, are also found in ancient Chinese texts such as The Book of Elixir (Dan Jing), Daoist Canon (Tao Zang) and Guide to Nature and Longevity (Xingming Guizhi). Falun Gong's teachings tap into a wide array of phenomena and cultural heritage that has been debated for ages. However, the definitions of many of the terms used differ somewhat from Buddhist and Daoist traditions. Francesco Sisci says that Falun Gong "re-elaborated old, well-known Taoist and Buddhist routines, used the old vocabulary that people found familiar, and revamped them in a simple, persuasive way." | ” | I do not think this paragraph is conducive to making an average Wiki reader in understanding the things Falun Gong teaches. My view is that over the past two years, due to constant POV-pushing, this section has been watered down to reflect on making Falun Gong teachings positively and, where possible, use esoteric language to confuse readers. The rest, including all the controversial teachings, were banished to the "Teachings and beliefs of Falun Gong" article, one which we rarely pay attention to. I invite editors for some collaborative effort in improving this area. Colipon+(Talk) 21:27, 5 October 2009 (UTC) - Oh, yeah. Personally, considering that most of Falun Gong's teachings derive in large part from qigong, that should probably be mentioned up front, and the third paragraph more or less removed, or placed later in the article. In any event, qigong should not be treated as if it were some sort of secondary matter. Personally, I think the whole section needs major work. I didn't bring Ownby with me today, but let me check what he says, and maybe a few journal and other articles, and get back with it then. John Carter (talk) 21:39, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
- Yes, Ownby is a useful resource. As mentioned above, there are other resources that we can use as well, and we should not limit ourselves to Ownby alone. The most useful reference to this section should be Zhuan Falun. Colipon+(Talk) 21:58, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
- I only mentioned him because I have him. I'm fairly sure some of the journal articles would be useful as well. Having said that, this does raise a question. Do you all think that the Li books deserve their own articles or not. Certainly, Zhuan Falun is the primary text, and most primary texts of religious groups do have their own articles. I think this book has probably, in the various sources, been covered significantly enough to pass notability requirements. Should it be spun out? John Carter (talk) 22:12, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
- Hooray! yet another article to do battle over... ;-)
Yet seriously, it will be somewhat duplicated in the 'Teachings' article. Li's writing is always so esoteric that we need to focus on the review, analysis and interpretation of the work by scholars and the mainstream press. Ohconfucius (talk) 22:54, 5 October 2009 (UTC) - Zhuan Falun, for all practical purposes, is the holy creed of Falun Dafa. Therefore I think it definitely is notable enough to have its own article. Colipon+(Talk) 19:19, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
[edit] Question OhConfucius, regarding this edit, did you copy and paste the content removed to another article? I do believe that this information is quite relevant because it describes the reasons behind Falun Gong's popularity. I think it does still belong here, perhaps needs cutting down, and the bulk of it should be moved to the "History" article. Colipon+(Talk) 13:03, 17 October 2009 (UTC) No, I just plain removed it, as the section seemed unbalanced. I think that got copied to History. I'm tryng to build it from the ground up, preferring to remove too much than to leave too much at this stage. The whole article's structure should change radically since the creation of History. The paragraphs were just opinions. I would like to see it expressed as a general view (if we have sources), or otherwise cite some more views, to give it comprehensive coverage. Lowe was ambiguous, and I thought it could go as a cleanup. We can always put it back at a later stage. Ohconfucius ¡digame! 13:35, 17 October 2009 (UTC) [edit] Woot for Ohconfucius This article has been in desperate need of references by Sima Nan for a long time. Kudos for finding them. Simonm223 (talk) 15:46, 23 October 2009 (UTC) - Thanks. Seems like Sima is a maverick and not the 'rentathug' which Falun Gong has been making him out to be. Ohconfucius ¡digame! 14:49, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
[edit] List of Falun Gong practitioners 'List of Falun Gong practitioners' was merged into this article. Now that the list has been removed, it would make sense to delete the redirect too, or not? Ohconfucius ¡digame! 03:29, 11 November 2009 (UTC) - Well, since said section was deleted, there's really no need for a redirect any longer since the content is gone. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 05:35, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
- The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
[edit] Problems with Ohconfucius recent edits After Ohconfucius recent edits the article makes the following statements: "Regional offices diverged in their organizational structures. Each office generally maintained a "propaganda department", logistics department, and "doctrine" committee, or variations of those functions thereof, according to reports in state media." Great... you have a source for that too? I mean after all you just kinda labeled Falun Gong a big hairy propaganda-organisation but then your sourcing it with an article which doesn't itself state those things but basically only states that the Communist Party ministry of propaganda states it (big surprise). "Falun Gong was highly centralised, and it maintained "absolute centralisation of thought, healing and money." Power flowed directly to or from the Master 'whose authority was strictly moral and ideological'" "While it relied on traditional network (in a Qigong sense) for dissemination exercise techniques - a nationwide network of local and regional practising stations, the Falun Dafa Research Society (FDRS) was its national umbrella organisation." "Articles critical of Falun Gong were also published in major Chinese newspapers. In response, founder Li Hongzhi called on disciples to "defend the Fa" by lobbying media outlets and government officials to censor content critical of Falun Gong." "Donations and the sale of all materials were centralised through the FDRS, and funds flowed directly to Li Hongzhi." Those statements are all simply sourced with "Palmer (2007), pg249" So i looked up Palmers book page 249 http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=RXeuibmD2dsC&pg=PA249&lpg=PA250&vq=%22Changchun%22&client=firefox-a (hope the link works, if not use the one in the article). And i even read the previous and the next page, but simply could not find any such statements. Maybe Ohconfucius would like to give an actual source or would care to explain where exactly the present sources actually make such statements? --Hoerth (talk) 12:18, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
-
- Your sarcasm is not appreciated. Please show some good faith. It's not one I recognise as my insrtion. I may have moved it, that's all. Ohconfucius ¡digame! 15:31, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
- That phrase was my contribution, not OhConfucius'. I cite "James Tong: An Organizational Analysis of the Falun Gong: Structure, Communications, Financing* The China Quarterly, No. 171 (Sep., 2002), pp. 636-660", who in turn cited People's Daily's "Li Hongzhi qiren qishi" for that particular statement, which is the citation used by me. There is even a disclaimer that this report is by state media so it should not be taken as impartial. In addition, I even insert phrases like "Chinese media claimed" to ensure that full NPOV treatment. Please assume good faith. Colipon+(Talk) 18:14, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
"Falun Gong was highly centralised, and it maintained "absolute centralisation of thought, healing and money." Power flowed directly to or from the Master 'whose authority was strictly moral and ideological'" "While it relied on traditional network (in a Qigong sense) for dissemination exercise techniques - a nationwide network of local and regional practising stations, the Falun Dafa Research Society (FDRS) was its national umbrella organisation." "Donations and the sale of all materials were centralised through the FDRS, and funds flowed directly to Li Hongzhi." - Apologies, I'll have those sorted in due course. They are from real sources, I may have got some pages wrong. Or some sentences may have been moved away from their original cite. Ohconfucius ¡digame! 15:31, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
-
- As you can see i have restored my comment and have posted your response as a response (instead of your editing my comment). I don't understand why you crossed those things out anyway - since they are still in the article and haven't been changed. All you did was mentioning another page of the palmer book and giving another source not accessible. I am getting the impression that you must have wasted a lot of time (i guess it must be many days at least) reading through countless unimportant and little known documents only to eventually find some sentence in which an author quotes from or agrees with the things that the Communist Party propaganda ministry claims about Falun Gong, and then you use it as opportunity to write in all those claims, basically putting them off as fact and then NOT sourcing it with the Communist Party affiliated media (which is the actual and most prominent source of the rumor) but instead sourcing it with some western guy who isn't the actual source at all but simply repeated what the Communist Party said or quoting from it.
- And that is precisely the problem i have with you. We all know that the Communist Party is a totalitarian dictatorship allowing no free expression, controlling everything with almost all money flowing directly to the top and that in order to justify all those terrible things they control all the Chinese and many foreign media and spreading a lot of propaganda and then using minorities like Falun Gong as scapegoats and projecting all those methods that they themselves use onto their victims.
- They have spread so much propaganda about Falun Gong that it is almost impossible not to have heard it - therefore i am not against mentioning what the Communist Party claims about Falun Gong since it's very likely that people have heard it anyway. But your trying to disguise all the well known propaganda spread by the communist controlled media against Falun Gong as something western scholars spread, when in fact they merely repeated it.
- The Communist Party is a much more well known source for all the things your trying to pass off as facts in the article... i could immediately, on the spot give you hundreds of communist party sources for all your claims - while you obviously have to go through a lot of effort finding a westerner repeating it. If you would give the actual and more prominent source - i would have no issue with you. --Hoerth (talk) 11:49, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
-
-
- Sorry. This response is just unreasonable. Further comments like these can be considered violations of the articles' probation and actions will be taken accordingly. Firstly, you are accusing editors of bad faith editing, which essentially constitutes a personal attack. Secondly, it's great you have these informed views about the Communist Party, but Wikipedia is not a place to advocate for a cause. Here we only stand for writing from a neutral point of view. Colipon+(Talk) 12:28, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
- Hoerth would you like to list the primary sources for the rumors? It would help this issue a lot. Thank you! --HappyInGeneral (talk) 12:47, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
- simply go to any chinese video or media site and enter 法轮功 (Falun Gong) if you don't get an error (censorship) you usually get at least a couple of hundred if not thousands of results - all slandering Falun Gong and all saying the exact same things you guys are trying to push... this is well known... impossible you could have missed it and weird that you should even ask... all 3 of you should know this only too well... --Hoerth (talk) 13:36, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
- What rumours? All the above are direct cites, as my amended references indicate full well. Please refer to WP:V and WP:RS - the primary sources are only of limited relevance. This encyclopaedia is built principally from secondary sources, and that's how it should stay. The sources are perfectly accessible - just go to Google books: that's how I found the stuff - otherwise go to a library. My efforts show there's actually plenty of academic material out there, not just Ownby. There's a lot more work to do on this article I have no time to waste on bad faith complaints from yet another FLGSPA. Ohconfucius ¡digame! 13:20, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
- Oh, Hoerth, please don't start the whole POV-pushing thing again. If you feel strongly about Falun Gong in any way, then you are the wrong person to edit this article. Martin Rundkvist (talk) 20:09, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
- Actually other than inserting a picture i haven't edited the article since october 2007. Yet i might choose to do so... if i where to do so, pls tell me why would i be "the wrong person"? And why am i not allowed to point out why i feel that Ohconfucius recent edits of the article are POV? --Hoerth (talk) 20:58, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
- WP:COI..........umm.....you're straying from the topic. Your disruption on the talk page is counterproductive toward's our goal of improving these articles... Plus, if you really have something you feel that needs to be done about Ohconfucius, please follow the appropriate procedures, instead of bashing him on the talk page...also,FLG sources are are not any more valid than PRC's...--Edward130603 (talk) 22:00, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
- Hoerth, "WP:COI" refers to Wikipedia's rules about conflicts of interest. If I am a militant Islamist or a survivor of 9/11, then I am simply not allowed to edit the article about 9/11. Wikipedia's contributors are expected to have a dispassionate attitude. Martin Rundkvist (talk) 07:48, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- Let me get this straight... your telling me that say a Jew wouldn't be allowed to say anything regarding an article about Judaism much less edit it, right? --Hoerth (talk) 09:21, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- Most Jews these days don't have a very passionate relationship to Judaism, so IMHO it wouldn't be a problem in most cases. What we don't want is for someone who LOVES and ADORES Elvis to write about the quality of his final few records. Or for someone with a vested interest in the conflict between FLG and the CCP, like yourself, to write about that issue. Martin Rundkvist (talk) 12:28, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- And that's exactly why i was pointing out that Ohconfucius is such a person as basically all of his edits have clearly been from the POINT OF VIEW of the Chinese Communist Party and he tries to pass this POV off as NPOV --Hoerth (talk) 13:32, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
[edit] Braking coments Please don't brake other comments. You can always quote if you want to refer to some section. --HappyInGeneral (talk) 06:34, 18 November 2009 (UTC) [edit] Politicized I do not agree with "At the time of the Zhongnanhai Incident, Falun Gong had evolved to become a *politicized* and highly mobilized form of social dissent.* How is it politicized? It didn't have a political agenda, nor did it intend to change the Chinese governements policy, nor did it claim to have any political aspirations. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.164.172.113 (talk) 08:42, 7 December 2009 (UTC) |
