This is a page on the teachings of Falun Dafa. Opinions, theoretical studies, Epistemological and Ontological analysis must go into the corressponding page.

WIKIPEDIA IS NOT A FALUN GONG DISCUSSION FORUM! Please, add new messages pertaining to editing the FLG article in the appropriate place

Samuel, you know that we are talking about creating a stand alone article on the Controversies. Introducing as much as you have here without any discussion is inappropriate. CovenantD 02:40, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The block quote the practice section was introduced as it summarizes the purpose of the exercises and the role practice(the exercises) plays in the cultivation system of Falun Gong. Thats central to Falun Gong teaching. Dilip rajeev 04:20, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why was this article moved from Falun Gong teachings to this new title? I can't find any discussion of this move or whether there was a consensus regarding the move. Ande B 01:02, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion about splitting the main Falun Gong article has been going on for quite a while (it was over 100k). This is actually one of the less contentious moves. CovenantD 02:09, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I saw that the main article was rather long, though quite interesting. I wasn't looking for an argument, just curious. I get rather confused at times about naming conventions & article moves. I look for consistencies and just don't seem to find them when I expect them! Ande B 02:30, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I still don't see any relation between splitting the main article and renaming the daughter article. What is difference betwen "Teachings of Falun Gong" and "Falun Gong teachings"? How about we rename other articles also if there is a convention? Or people can just do it without reason? Quite puzzled. Fnhddzs 05:44, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Me neither. You'd think someone could point to a WP policy on this. Ande B 05:56, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh sorry. I misunderstood the question. I have no idea why that name change happened. CovenantD 06:09, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Fnhddzs 05:52, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed - I should have reverted earlier. CovenantD 06:34, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

the first paragraph says nothing about the teachings, a waste of my time. --Yueyuen 01:40, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm gonna go out on a limb here and support Samuel and Tomananda's ideas for the opening paragraphs. Those by Dilip are more appropriate for the Origin section of the main article. Let's not duplicate information in multiple places. CovenantD 23:15, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That should not be construed as support for their version, just the thrust of their version. I'm not expressing an opinion on the wording as it currently stands... yet :-) CovenantD 23:17, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with covenant that the other para is redundant if you look at content in other sections.. what is important is the the introduction must atleast tell the reader what Falun Gong is according to the teachings of Falun Gong... the quote perhaps would better fit into the Buddha Fa section... and actually Falun Dafa refers to the system of cultivation not the teachings.. Dilip rajeev 05:40, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Practitioners encourage studying the books or listening to the lectures, first-hand, to gain a good understanding of the principles and the cultivation system." .. That is a central aspect.. if you look at www.falundafa.org you will see that the website says... "All of the content in this site – excepting the founder's writings – represents the ideas and opinions of Falun Dafa practitioners, and should not be taken as representative of Falun Dafa itself.We merely hope to introduce this wonderful practice to you, and we hope you will take some time to explore it for yourself!"... Dilip rajeev 05:58, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Remember, you only get to have that in one place on the Falun Gong pages, so choose carefully!  :-) CovenantD 06:35, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm inclined to give the practitioners a bit of leeway on content here, just like the critics get leeway on the Controversies page. Let's give Dilip a bit of time to figure out where he thinks the paragraph might fit in better. CovenantD 06:39, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If the two people involved in the revert war don't start talking about it I'm going to ask that the page be locked. CovenantD 16:04, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The two articles seem to cover the same basic areas under different names. I don't see why they are separated. CovenantD 05:30, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've stricken my comments since they are that of an editor and not a mediator. See below. CovenantD 15:54, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Let's start with the assumption that the Theoretical article should be folded into this one unless a compelling reason not to it presented. Please present your opinion, Merge or Don't merge, based only on Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Especically relevant to this are Wikipedia:Content forking, Wikipedia:Article size and Wikipedia:No original research. We'll allow three days for comment. CovenantD 15:48, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The content of this section should be merged into the teachings section. The word "epistemology" means the study of how we know. In Falun Gong, there is no theory of "how we know" beyond Li's sustained assertions that he holds the only truth, or has discovered things by traveling back in time (like the time he visited Jesus' paradise and found there were no asian people there. --Tomananda 23:17, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This article covers the teachings the primary sources are the main reference. The Epistemological studies see ( Epistemology ) discusses the viewpoints on the teachings, comparison with other systems, etc. The material going under the two titles being quite different. 202.83.33.58 07:33, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]