Talk:Li Hongzhi

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Li Hongzhi article.
Article policies
Archives: 1
This is a controversial topic that may be under dispute. Please read this page and discuss substantial changes here before making them.
Make sure to supply full citations when adding information and consider tagging or removing uncited/unciteable information.
Discussions on this page may escalate into heated debate. Please try to keep a cool head when commenting here. See also: Wikipedia:Etiquette.
Archive
Archives

Archive 1

Contents

[edit] Conformance to standards laid out in WP:LIVING

Omid this is not a discussion forum, just edit the article with reference to policy. This kind of stuff was half the problem with Tomananda and Samuel, so we don't need it from the other side. Any kind of defence or attack rhetoric isn't welcome or useful. I would recommend a policy-based approach to editing, and it is the approach that is going to get you the furthest. I have removed much non-biographical material which had zero relevance to the subject's notability. Anyone interested in why may see this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biographies_of_living_persons#Using_the_subject_as_a_self-published_source. The material removed is clearly not biographical. Strictly speaking the teachings of Falun Dafa are irrelevant to an article about Li Hongzhi, and this kind of hand-selected range of quotes and themes is even less appropriate. For anyone seeking to challenge what I am saying, I would suggest they carefully read and understand WP:LIVING. There are numerous sections in this page which can easily prove the point. The one above cited is a good example. The constant reference to "biographical material" and "third party" sources are more. Another might be:

Presumption in favor of privacy:

The rule of thumb when writing biographical material about living persons is "do no harm." Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid, and as such it is not our job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives. BLPs must be written conservatively, with regard for the subject's privacy.

When writing about a person notable only for one or two events, including every detail can lead to problems, even when the material is well-sourced. In the best case, it can lead to an unencyclopedic article. In the worst case, it can be a serious violation of our policies on neutrality. When in doubt, biographies should be pared back to a version that is completely sourced, neutral, and on-topic.

Another might be WP:NPF: Wikipedia also contains biographies of people who, while notable enough for an entry, are not generally well known. In such cases, editors should exercise restraint and include only material relevant to their notability. Material from third-party primary sources should not be used unless it has first been published by a reliable secondary source. Primary source material published by the subject must be used with caution. (See Using the subject as a source).

Basically the section as it was existing has no place on wikipedia, and even less so a place in an article about a living person. There are plenty of private websites dedicated to this style of information presentation, so anyone interested in this is invited to start their own. It's clear from WP:LIVING that wikipedia is not the place for it.--Asdfg12345 11:42, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Thank you Asdfg, that was what I needed to understand. You are right, what is the use of just discussing things like that. /Omido 13:07, 24 June 2007 (UTC)


The biography appeared appeared as an appendix to Zhuan Falun published by some publishers in China, till 1996 when Mr Li Hongzhi asked for the biography, written by a journalist, to be removed from the book. Pulling out stuff from a biography that, as far as we know, has not been completely acknowledged by the person himself and presenting those things completely out of context is a blatant violation of the policies laid out in WP:LIVING. Jimbo Wales states in WP:LIVING: "We are not tabloid journalism, we are an encyclopedia." Yet tabloid journalism is what parts of the article sound like. CCP propaganda is presented, at times, without any mention of the persecution and the attempts on part of the CCP to slander Falun Gong, which has been strongly criticized by governments and human rights organizations throughout the world. This, in my opinion, is a violation of WP:NPOV.

I also wish to point out the Wikipedia policy cited by User:Adfg12345 in his previous post.

Dilip rajeev 05:59, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Li Hongzhi's response to third party material

Just want to store some quotes here to discuss and maybe implement. I understand from WP:LIVING that primary source material is to be avoided, and there are strictish parameters for its usage, particularly if it is controversial/misleading etc.. Anyway, for addressing third-party things there might be some latitude. It might be a good idea to have a brief response from Li Hongzhi to the stuff about the birthday. That paragraph should move from the intro btw according to WP:Lead, but anyway, I will store the stuff here for now:

Washington 2002: "...The head of the evil in China has spread lies that I claim to be Jesus or Sakyamuni. You all know those are shameless lies made up by that bum who just lies at will. I’m not Jesus, and I’m not Sakyamuni, but the Fa has created millions and millions of Jesuses and Sakyamunis who have the courage to walk the path of Truth, who have the courage to risk their lives for the sake of the Truth, and who have the courage to devote their lives to saving sentient beings." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Asdfg12345 (talk • contribs)

[edit] Used his magical powers to save the world from a comet

Is it true that Li Hongzhi claimed to have redirected a comet heading for earth into hitting Jupiter using his magical powers, or is this all Chinese government propaganda? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.239.204.81 (talk) 18:24, August 29, 2007 (UTC)

hah, what a joke. All the Dafa books are available online, so they only flaunt their stupidity by making up things that are demonstrably false. Everything the CCP has said about flg, that I've seen, is either a partial or complete lie. This case is no different.--Asdfg12345 11:34, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately for you, I have read the original Falun Gong "scriptures" (in Chinese) prior to their persecution. And my impression... A LOT of CCP propaganda were based on facts (apparently the CCP can sometimes be truthful. Sad, surprising, but true.). Sure, Falun Gong wasn't the worst of its kind (during the Qigong craze that swept Chinese mainland in the 1980s and 90s), but close. 151.201.9.156 00:57, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

This is what the communists said "焦立勋揭露说，1997年发生了彗星撞击木星事件，这本来是一个正常的天文现象，李洪志却利用这件事大作文章。他从外地回到长春后，对焦立勋等人胡诌说，人类已到末劫时期，这次彗星原本是要撞击地球的，是我李洪志施展能量和法术，改变了彗星原来的轨道，让它撞到木星上去的。以后，只有跟我修炼“法轮功”，才能在人类大毁灭中幸免。"（http://www.gmw.cn/01gmrb/1999-11/06/GB/gm%5E18232%5E2%5EGM2-0606.htm）。

This is what Li Hongzhi said: "大法之福——十年正法，乾坤再造，救度无量众生于坏灭，开创无量大穹圆融不灭之法理，之无量智慧。此乃众生之福，众大法徒之威德。为师十年传大法，仅世间定数已大动，历史定下彗星之灾已过，三次大战已免，九九年天地成住坏灭之忧已不复，法正人间在即。世间众生将回报大法与大法徒救度之恩。善哉，善哉，善善哉！李洪志 2002年5月19日"（http://www.epochtimes.com/gb/2/5/20/n191126.htm）、"如果不为你们承担历史上的一切，你们根本上是无法修炼的；如果不为宇宙众生承担一切，他们就会随着历史的过去而解体；如果不为世人承担一切，他们就没有机会今天还在世上。"(《正法时期大法弟子》http://www.zhengjian.org/zj/articles/2001/8/16/14654.html)。

This is what his followers said: "关于大法修炼者的“誓约”，以前同修的体会文章这样写道（大意）：极久远的史前的一天，师父跟众神说：将来邪恶要迫害大法，有愿意助师正法的请签“誓约”。结果只有极少数的正神签了 “誓约”，冒着天胆，跟随师父层层层层转生，来到世间助师正法，而大部分神，没有敢冒天胆签下“这开天辟地都没有过”的神圣而洪大的誓约。"、"其实整个大穹都是师父造就的，大法弟子的一切能力也都是师父赐予的，何须大法修炼者去助师正法呢？然而师父把助师正法这穹大的机缘恩赐予了我们，使得我们能够在这个过程中再现“真、善、忍”宇宙大法洪大的“真”、洪大的“善”、洪大的“忍”，从而为大法和新宇宙未来的觉者建立殊胜的威德，重返天庭。"（http://www.minghui.cc/mh/articles/2001/10/31/18790.html）151.201.9.156 20:28, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't read Chinese and since this is the English WP, would it be possible to get an accurate translation of the above responses. I am basically looking for a credible reference to the comet allegation. As all texts are freely available online, I would like to know where such claims are made or is this just a troll trying to incite a riot in the TALK pages?208.254.130.235 (talk) 00:08, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Controversial beliefs

Why is there no mention of Li's homophobic and racist views in the article? --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 09:54, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Not to mention other bizarre things Li said in the 1999 Time interview [1], like he knows people who can levitating off the ground, and aliens controlling humans.. Hzzz 01:54, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

I can understand your concearns about making sure not to discriminate people. But isn't it strange that even though i have close ties to the Falun Gong community as well as the homosexual community, i have never seen any Falun Gong Practitioner treating a homosexual with disrespect.

Bottom line: They don't discriminate against you, but you are spreading the same things against them that the Communist Party uses to persecute and kill them at this very moment. Are you sure you are acting AGAINST discrimination?

So it's fine when people whom you regard as "homophobic" get killed because of that? But if you would know them, you would know that they aren't even homophobic. You should not spread things against human beings that can result in their being de-valued as such - Even if you are doing it in the name of homosexualaty.

--Hoerth 13:51, 25 August 2007 (UTC))

Difficult to say where Li Honzhi ends and FG begins. Do these beliefs belong here, or in the FG article? Without specific context of how these views were shaped in his childhood or youth, I would be tempted to say these should not appear here, but only in the FG article or sub-page. Ohconfucius 05:02, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't know who put this section in. I've deleted it outright. It is completely irrelevant and constitutes original research. Who says the beliefs are controversial? Why are some beliefs mentioned on this page and not others? Anyway, it is a good idea to put them on the teachings page and present them in a normal way, according to due weight. --Asdfg12345 07:20, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

True that these are "traditional" beliefs in China which the vast majority still hold today, and as such are not controversial. But from a liberal western, politically correct perspective, they are. I questioned the relevance in this article, and you appear to agree. However, your grounds for deleting (from the edit summary) are that the paragraphs were original research, not entirely true: for example, the homophobe quotes can be seen on the FG website here and here. Ohconfucius 09:31, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

sorry, of course I didn't mean that they were made up or whatever. I mean their inclusion under the title "controversial beliefs" was OR. Do you know what I mean? saying they are controversial just like that is original reserach. There's no source for that.. hmm, and in either case that is a non-neutral way of framing, that's for sure. Essentially the beliefs don't really belong on this page anyway, whether they're ones that are considered controversial or uncontroversial. That's all I meant. I think we agree on this one.--Asdfg12345 14:59, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Ya.. its a like saying Jesus Christ or Gautama Buddha are whatever-phobic because the scriptures say these things are immoral..

220.226.42.55 22:48, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Li's homophobic comments, extensively published at the time but later modified (esp. in the English translations), is not relevant. 151.201.9.156 01:01, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

This is what Li said about homosexuality: "弟子：为什么说同性恋是不道德的？ 师：大家想一想，同性恋是人的行为吗？天造了男人，造了女人，目地是什么？是繁衍后代。那男人和男人，女人和女人，那一想就知道他对不对了，小事儿不对了说他是错了；大事儿不对了那就是没有人的道德规范了，不配做人了。 我告诉大家为什么今天社会会这样？这是没有正法约束人造成的。这个大法就要在最乱的环境中传，在所有宗教都度不了人了的时候，所有的神都撒手不管的这样一个状态中来传。法的力量大嘛，最好时期还不用这么大法来传，最不好的时期才能体现法的威力呢。但是也是有另外原因的。 弟子：为什么搞同性恋的人被认为是坏人？ 师：我告诉大家，我今天要不传这个法，神首先消灭的对像就是同性恋者。不是我来消灭他，是神。大家知道同性恋找了一个根据，他说在古希腊的文化中有，是。古希腊的文化中有类似的现象。大家知道古希腊的文化为什么没有了？古希腊人为什么没有了？是因为它败坏到那种成度就销毁了。 神造人的时候，给人规范了人的行为、生活方式，人超出了这个范围就不叫人。可是你们却有人的外形，那么神就不能容忍你们存在着，就要销毁掉。你们知道，世界上的战争、瘟疫和天灾人祸为什么会出现呢？就是因为人有业力，给人消业而存在的。将来再美好的历史时期也会在地球上存在着战争、瘟疫和天灾人祸，那是给人消业的一个办法。有的人犯了罪，可以通过肉身的死亡、痛苦消去他的业力，然后他再转生就没有业力了，他的生命不会真的死嘛，再从新转生。可是有人造的业太大了，那么就涉及到他的生命的本质，都将被销毁。同性恋不但自己违反神给予人的规范，还在破坏着人类社会的道德规范，特别是给儿童造成的印象会使将来的社会象魔鬼一样。就是这个问题。可是那种销毁，不是说一消灭了就没了，是层层在我们看来非常快的速度中消灭，可是他在那个时间场中却是极其漫长的，一次一次的，极其痛苦的被消灭着，是非常可怕的事情。人应该光明的活着，堂堂正正的象个人活着。不应该放纵自己的魔性，为所欲为。" (瑞士法会讲法,http://www.falundafa.org/book/chigb/swiss.htm) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.201.9.156 (talk) 20:35, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

But these weren't modified in english to make them more palatable or whatever. No Dafa practitioner would modify the Fa to make it more 'acceptable' to people, or to indulge human attachments. I'm not fanatical about this. Whether what Shifu has said is true or not is an irrelevant question--just wait and see. It is the same about the comet stuff. The CCP did distort what he said, though it was based on something probably just as seemingly preposterous to many people. There should be no beef with Falun Gong over these things. Who cares what practitioners believe. Please focus on their right to believe it, and the evil things being perpetrated against them just for that. No one is asking anyone to practice Falun Gong, or preaching or imposing anything. You can think it's silly, that's normal, but you should not think it is bad, because it is not. All this is founded on righteous faith in the truth of the cosmos and nothing more. Look at the facts of the persecution in an objective way, and look at Falun Gong in an objective way, and you will see there is nothing wrong with it, and the persecution is indeed truly wicked.--Asdfg12345 13:34, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

To a certain extent, I do agree that persecution is altogether wicked on grounds of religious freedom, but that does nothing in justifying OR incriminating Falun Gong. And the CCP's claim is not really that far from the mark. Although Li did not directly claim that his powers moved the course of the comet (not that he said in public as published by Falun Gong anyway), his "大法之福" implies a pivotal involvement not only in the prevention of a "comet disaster", but also in prevention of another (world) war (or three wars), and his claims in "正法时期大法弟子" imply a crucial involvement not just in the practice of Falun Gong, but the survival of the entire world.

I strongly believe that Li Hongzhi's claim to divinity or supernatural powers (of which there are many, not the least of which were posted above) or whatever you practitioners understand him to be, should be included in the article both introducing him, as well as Falun Gong itself. Instead, these articles skim through such claims like this -- "including his direct OR indirect claims of having 'supernatural powers'" (more like "AND", isn't it?). The claim of his participation in creation itself, for example, was published in the "semi-official" media of Falun Gong with no modification or disclaimer, therefore reflecting, to a certain degree, Falun Gong's stand on who and what Li Hongzhi is. An article devoid of this can only be interpreted as purposefully misleading those unfamiliar with Falun Gong. Just to give an example, in an article about Islam, would you leave out how Muslims perceive Mohammad, i.e. the LAST and the GREATEST prophet? 151.201.9.156 21:09, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Here is the site that posted "揭发江湖骗子李洪志书面材料", 5 years PRIOR to the CCP persecution. http://www.xys.org/xys/ebooks/others/history/contemporary/Lihongzhi.txt. Do any of you think that this may be added to the "Disputes" section? In addition, does this not also fill in some of the blanks about his earlier life? 151.201.9.156 05:36, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] merger proposal

Peng Shanshan is a non-notable, fails WP:BIO, and is only known for one event. The article should be merged with the closest related topic, which I believe to be Li Hongzhi. Ohconfucius 09:07, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

pfft, if you want just delete it. I don't think it should appear on this page.--Asdfg12345 10:59, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Nobel peace prize nomination

Qualified Nominators – The Nobel Peace Prize The right to submit proposals for the Nobel Peace Prize, based on the principle of competence and universality, shall by statute be enjoyed by:

  1. Members of national assemblies and governments of states;
  2. Members of international courts;
  3. University rectors; professors of social sciences, history, philosophy, law and theology; directors of peace research institutes and foreign policy institutes;
  4. Persons who have been awarded the Nobel Peace Prize;
  5. Board members of organizations who have been awarded the Nobel Peace Prize;
  6. Active and former members of the Norwegian Nobel Committee; (proposals by members of the Committee to be submitted no later than at the first meeting of the Committee after February 1) and
  7. Former advisers appointed by the Norwegian Nobel Institute.

FG are not exactly propaganda shy. Should we mention a nomination to the Nobel Peace Prize? and Do we know who nominated Li Hongzhi for the NPP? Clearwisdom displays a blank letter nominating Li for the prize. As most people are not aware that that any professor of social science, history, etc can validly nominate to the prize, it would not be a great stretch for FG to find a friendly law professor to nominate Li, and both could benefit from the prestige of the Nobel prize nomination. Ohconfucius 04:03, 13 August 2007 (UTC)


it says he was nominated for the nobel peace prize, but here http://nobelprize.org/nomination/peace/ it says the names of the nominees cannot be revealed until 50 years later. Well yeah, falun gong have to lie about their leader to get support. Dennis23232 (talk) 22:54, 23 December 2007 (UTC)


"Dafa disciples just wanted to do their cultivation, and weren't asking for too much. A handful of people don't understand us. We will give them time to come to know us, then. You can curse and you can attack, but we won't treat you the same way." Li Hongzhi

--Hoerth (talk) 19:58, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm unable to verify this quote. Please provide a source.--Asdfg12345 22:41, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
To quote another WP editor: "Nobel Peace Prize nominations are not notable. The only qualification for a nomination is to be alive. Tens of thousands of individuals qualify as nominators, including all national legislators and all social studies professors.... over a hundred people are nominated every year. The Nobel Prize foundation keeps nominations secret for 50 years, and nominations are unverifiable unless the nominators make them public (which they are asked not to do). In a few cases the nominations become well-known and reported widely in the contemporary press, and those are about the only ones that WP mentions." --Simon D M (talk) 13:51, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

If this is true, then Nobel price has further proved to be a joke, after Yasser Arafat, Dalai Lama, last time I checked, Rush Limbo was nominated too. Foxhunt99 (talk) 16:23, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Aliens/Time Interview

Should his views on aliens controlling humankind's views and science be included in this article? This seems to be a major event that may have caused his critics to dislike him more and his supporters to join with him.

"In 1999, its founder, Li Hongzhi, told a Time magazine reporter that aliens from other planets were responsible for corrupting mankind by teaching modern science." -The New York Times, February 6, 2008-A Glimpse of Chinese Culture That Some Find Hard to Watch. In addition, a simple search on the internet reveals numerous articles and the interview itself that may develop his views further.Google Search -Herenthere (Talk) 03:28, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

funny article. the alien stuff might be more appropriate for teachings page, i would have thought?--70.18.202.219 (talk) 04:20, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Funny how neither Falun Gong or Teachings of Falun Gong mention this. But his views on aliens are more personal, and does not seem related to the teachings directly. -Herenthere (Talk) 17:06, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
I did not go to the link, but I have never heard of aliens controlling our minds and destiny before. I have heard of this in conjunction with Scientology. Are you sure this isn't a mix up?208.254.130.235 (talk) 17:08, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Resources to Add

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/10/28/geniustable128.xml, Top 100 living geniuses, Li Honzghi is at 12.

"Each genius was then awarded scores out of ten against criteria which included: paradigm shifting; popular acclaim; intellectual power; achievement and cultural importance." --HappyInGeneral (talk) 10:47, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Awards and Recognition

The Nobel nomination aside, much of this appears to be overly self-serving to rely on self-published sources. If there are no reliable 3rd party sources, most of this section will have to go. --Simon D M (talk) 14:05, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't think this is particularly self serving. The award thing is widely known, and it's referenced to Ownby which I can later find and resource. primary sources are allowed when they aren't particularly self-serving. These things here are basically informational. They do not say "Li Hongzhi is so great and this is why!", they are saying "he got x and y award." This really doesn't warrant a deletion, does it? What have you got against this guy anyway? He just taught a nice spiritual practice, sheesh. I'm reinstating the sources as not being self-serving, but informational, and allowed given that primary sources are allowed in articles about themselves.--Asdfg12345 14:41, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

The awards are not notable unless demonstrated otherwise, nothing personal against Mr Li. Publishing lists of awards can easily be construed as self-promotion. When you have the 3rd party RS that mentions the awards they can go back. Similar lists have been removed from pages like Prem Rawat and Nirmala Srivastava for the same reason. --Simon D M (talk) 15:00, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Good point, I'll find the Ownby thing sometime. Primary sources have a role, but it would bring down the quality of the article if they were construed as self-promotion, as you opine in this case. The Ownby thing is actually on the main page, might as well grab it now.--Asdfg12345 15:07, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

I had to laugh when you added that part that said the info was drawn from wikipedia!--Asdfg12345 16:19, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

The 'Genius' survey was indeed reported in a newspaper but looks like a publicity stunt by a consulting firm. Nominations were based on email, the winner's main achievement was the synthesis of LSD, and the report is largely made up of cut & paste from Wikipedia. It doesn't take a genius to see that this is scraping the bottom of the barrel for 'awards and recognition'. We could have a big battle over this but I think we can all see that this kind of content isn't doing anything to make WP better. --Simon D M (talk) 16:23, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't know what criteria would be regarded as acceptable to come up with a list like this, nor would deign to speculate on the motivations of the apparent panel. It's not like everyone made the list. I don't know how they came up with it. I think it's fair that it appear here, and had not considered that it would cause any controversy?--Asdfg12345 16:32, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

WP is not a valid source for WP but newspaper articles are. This is a newspaper article based on a report based on WP. "Exceptional claims in Wikipedia require high-quality reliable sources; if such sources are not available, the material should not be included." --Simon D M (talk) 16:39, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

I imagine they only got the information about people from wikipedia, then did whatever grading and so forth on their own. I don't think this means the whole thing should be thrown out and we don't report it. I think it's a fairly relevant piece of information about this man, don't you?--Asdfg12345 02:33, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Whatever ratings were done appear to have been done by unnamed individuals assembled by a consultancy who didn't seem to bother looking beyond WP for info. It may be relevant, and it may have been reported in a RS, but there's no evidence that the report itself is anything more than a trashy publicity stunt. For now I'm willing to leave it there with the current qualifications. --Simon D M (talk) 11:30, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

I feel the same way about these absurd sensationalist sources such as Rick Ross, who don't know a thing about qigong, Falun Gong, or the cultural context of the teachings, but who take it upon themselves to attack them like they know what they're talking about. As far as I am concerned, this is all sensationalist rubbish. It is purely uninformed opinion and rhetoric, not backed up by scholarly work, not backed up by reality. They're fringe views in the academic community and the only reliable source I am aware of is Singer, in one of her books. But there's other journals attacking Singer and saying she went into decline in her later years, and what's in the article there is stuff from a CCP interview! And Rick Ross is not any kind of expert. I tend to agree that this "genius survey" isn't worth much, and I only put it in, and insisted on it, in an attempt to balance the opinions of the CCP and Rick Ross types. I'm concerned about the prominence of these outlandish and minority claims, that have no evidence, cited to sources that fail reliability. Let me check WP:LIVING on this. There's probably something that warrants purging it.--Asdfg12345 12:34, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Whoops, sorry, it's not very prominent. These guys just give me the creeps. I'll dig up the Edelman and Richardson pdf. --Asdfg12345 12:37, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

C'mon man, you know the way to trump poor sources is with good sources, not with other crap sources. Hassan isn't an academic, but he is a prominent figure in the anti-cult world. Re: Singer, she has good academic credentials, good doesn't mean she is right about everything. The worst thing for an academic is to be ignored and she certainly avoided that. The FG articles shouldn't be trashing Hassan and Singer either, if that's going to happen it should happen on their pages. The FG articles can, however, produce sources counter to Hassan & Singer's contentions re: FG. --Simon D M (talk) 13:31, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] reincarnated what?

Hi. You won't find anywhere in the books Li saying he is a reincarnated boddhisatva. You won't even find an explicit statement of saying he is a reincarnated deity. The first formulation is totally and demonstrably wrong. The second preserves the intention of the source without doing it the indignity of repeating a falsehood. The outcome is, in the end, identical from the perspective of wikipedia. The only correction is a technical aspect that Kohn should never have gotten wrong. There's nothing wrong with having the deity formulation, it doesn't change anything except this point, I hope you will simply allow it.--Asdfg12345 03:18, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

In "Falun Gong and the Threat of History" (p 236-237), Adam Frank also says that Li implies that he is a bodhisattva or a mahasattva. This is in: Gods, Guns, and Globalization ISBN 1588262537. In any case, it's not for us to alter what the sources are saying. If you think it's wrong, you can just contextualise it by saying that "Kohn writes" or "Frank writes". I also can't understand why you add in 'deity' when you say it can't be sourced. --Simon D M (talk) 07:37, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Saying deity instead of boddhisatva is not really changing the meaning of Kohn's text. It's still an accurate representation of what she says. A boddhisatva is a kind of deity. Li never said he was a boddhisatva. As I say, he never said he was a deity either, he has even explicitly said "I've never said I'm a god or buddha" or something like that. We can add that in if you want, but I don't think it's particularly essential. I understand if people interpret that Li implies he is a deity, god etc., but not specifically a boddhisatva, he never says that, never implies it, it's just plain wrong. Saying deity instead of boddhisatva however preserves the intended meaning of the original without including the technical error. Let me give a good example. A text I just saw on Falun Gong repeated again and again that the main book was "Zhu Falun". This is obviously mistaken. We're not going to repeat on wikipedia "Zhu Falun" just because the text does. While one is a technical error and the other obviously a spelling error, I would have thought the same principle applies. I just can't see any reason to preserve factual errors in sources when the final meaning is identical, i.e., according to Kohn Li says he is a reincarnated deity.--Asdfg12345 10:30, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

From the Buddhist perspective a bodhisattva is not a deity, and Li's statement that he has 'incarnated again to teach the Buddha Fa' (cited in Frnak) clearly implies bodhisattvahood. I know FG re-interprets a lot of Buddhist terms so it might be useful if you explained the FG concept of 'deity' and 'bodhisattva'. Incidentally, mispelling and even factual errors can be dealt with using square brackets, 'sic', context, etc. --Simon D M (talk) 12:16, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

If you have some better way to deal with the issue I raise then go for it. I thought it would be simplest to do what I did. I do not know precisely what bodhisattva connotes in Buddhism. I am understanding the term here as the name for one form of enlightened being, and understanding the term 'deity' as a general descriptor for enlightened beings.--Asdfg12345 14:49, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

If you read Bodhisattva#Bodhisattvas in Mahayana Buddhism and Deva (Buddhism) (especially Deva (Buddhism)#Confused with devas) you will see that Li's statement implies the former and not the latter. If a deva takes birth in the world he is just a human who was a deva in his previous life, so if a deva who is a bodhisattva takes a birth he is a human who is a bodhisattva (unless he becomes a buddha). I'll revert and wikilink the term. --Simon D M (talk) 18:05, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

We're talking about different things. In terms of Falun Gong, it's inaccurate to say he said he is a reincarnated boddhisatva. If you insist on it, then, you say (sic) can be placed in the quote? I question whether this is the best way of doing it. You can search all the teachings on falundafa.org, you'll never find a sentence like it. Anyway, I still think it should give a general term like "enlightened being" or "deity" instead of boddhisatva, but I can't very well edit war over it. --Asdfg12345 23:50, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
If I say that I make barrels for a living, then you can say that I have said that I'm a cooper even if I never used the word, because the definition of a cooper is somebody who makes barrels for a living. Anybody who incarnates to spread Buddha Fa is a bodhisattva by definition, anybody who claims to do so is claiming to be one. So it seems the 2 RSs cited have not made unreasonable jumps and therefore there is no reason to change their words (even if that were ever acceptable in WP). --Simon D M (talk) 08:24, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Yep, I didn't realise this is where you were coming from. This is not exactly the signification of boddhisatva in Dafa. A boddhisatva may transmit the Fa, but not all who transmit the Fa through history have been bodhisatvas. Sakyamuni was a tathagata, for example. --Asdfg12345 05:32, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

It's the same in Buddhism, not all who transmit the dharma are bodhisattvas, but those who incarnate to do so are. Sakyamuni started as a bodhisattva but became a buddha/tathagata. --Simon D M (talk) 11:03, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Welcome back Dilip

Yes, the cult label may well be used to marginalise the group, but it is directly relevant fact, and well backed up by sources. It seems to me that you are removing something just because you don't like it. Please desist! Ohconfucius (talk) 03:31, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Please do not get me wrong. I think I had mentioned my reasons in the Edit summary. I was not removing something just because i "donot like" it. The "cult" label is now known to be something coined by the CCP to justify the persecution . Today, HR organizations, the academic community and all major governments recognize this to be a mere propaganda tool. Li Hongzhi is the recipient of several governmental awards and is someone Highly Respected by millions around the world. My concern is that the the content of the paragraphs is presenting things without the background of the completely false and Libelous propaganda associated with persecution of Falun Gong in china. Especially the nima sen and rickross stuff. The content there, I feel, is in violation of WP:Living and WP:Libel . Dilip rajeev (talk) 20:54, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

I think that, by insisting on inserting "shortly after the onset of the Persecution of Falun Gong", you are once again letting your very strong personal feelings creep in. I feel that "shortly after the Chinese authorities banned Falun Gong" is a precise act which took place on a calendar date which focuses the time-line, instead of the rather imprecise and gratuitous "onset of persecution". The other changes you made are also of a semantic nature: Everything opponents (including notably the Chinese Govt/CCP) says is "claimed" while everything Li or FG say is "stated" - so I would like you to be a bit more even handed here. I also note you objected to the WSJ "revealing", so please could you furnish the evidence that someone else published that fact before the WSJ? I am going to put back some of the changes in that spirit. Ohconfucius (talk) 03:17, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
I prefer "onset of persecution" because murder, killing ,arrests and torture cannot exactly be characterized as a "ban". "Onset of persecution" provides sufficient context and explains, to the reader, the motive behind CCP's actions - while the term "ban" completely fails to do so.
The term "revealed that Li obtained" boils down to mere libel considering that Li Hongzhi never lived in the house and was not aware of the house transfered to his name and that he firmly refused the gift once he became aware. Your way of putting it makes a big leap of faith and assumes that Li knowingly obtained a house - while the fact is he was not even aware of the transfer.
At the time, I was fully aware that Mr. Li does not accept gifts or donations from practitioners. Therefore, knowing that Mrs. Li doesn't understand a word of English, I found some other reason to have her sign her name to the documents, but it was I who paid the entire sum for the house. At the time, Mr. Li was out of town. When he returned, Mr. and Mrs. Li found out what had happened and firmly refused to accept the house; they were adamant that I immediately transfer the title to my name. I was very reluctant to do so and didn't contact a lawyer to start the paperwork until mid-July. By Aug. 4, the title of the house had been officially transferred to my name. It often takes local townships a few months to update their public computer records. Thus, when you checked the computer records in August, the records had not yet reflected the transfer. According to a clerk working in the township office, the public computer record was eventually updated on Oct. 22. - Letter to the Editor, WSJ http://clearwisdom.net/eng/clarification/letter_to_wsjournal.html
Note that even the public computer record was updated with the transfer before the WSJ article ( Nov, 1999) was published. Now, insisting that it be put as "revealed that Li obtained the house" is nothing but a blatant violation of WP:Libel and WP:Living.
Using "claimed" for CCP's statements is an absolute necessity because The Amnesty International, HRW, Kilgour Matas Reports, UN Reports all point out the sheer amount of slander, libel and lies involved in CCP propaganda.
Apologizing for not making the reasons for my changes clear on the talk pages.
Dilip rajeev (talk) 07:30, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Sima Nan

I am baffled (well, I'm not, actually) by Rajeev's insistence on removing a well-sourced and relevant text relating to the opinion from the above critic. I'm actually more baffled how this violates WP:BLP. The quotation is taken from a "pro-freedom" source which has been banned by authoritarian regimes, and is the statement of opinion of an apparently well-known Chinese cult critic who likens Falun Gong master to Mao Zedong. It seems to me like a perfectly acceptable use of citation and is in no way libellous or slanderous. The deleter states "Such views have come under strong crticism from the academic and human rights community". This is a translation of "there are others who disagree with this view". It is not a valid argument for deleting, as the view's pertinence, attribution and reliability are all attested to. Just because a view is not universally accepted does not mean it should not be cited. Ohconfucius (talk) 05:42, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

As I consider the justification for removal is flimsy at best, the Sima Nan stuff will be going back in shortly. Ohconfucius (talk) 07:24, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Regarding this edit [2] I just read [3] which is provided as source for it. There is a very generic remark that there are lots of charismatic leaders in China.

Mr. Sima says Chinese history is full of charismatic masters like the group's founder, Li Hongzhi. He adds that Chairman Mao, who founded China in 1949 and was the country's top leader until his death in 1976, was, himself, actually quite similar to these masters. // SIMA CHINESE ACT - IN FULL, FADE OUT // Mr. Sima says the image of Mao Zedong looking down from the Tiananmen rostrum while millions of people fervently shout the Chairman's praises reminds him of a Qigong exercise.

Isn't this remark then an WP:Undue for a conclusion like: "linked to Li's exercises to Chairman Mao Zedong's cult of personality."? I mean either get into details on this or strike it as being a very generic perception, because this can be also used to compare Mao's name chanting to any other mass qigong movement. Now really what's the point for that? --HappyInGeneral (talk) 22:48, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
A further point I just noticed. How is it not slanderous? Mao was a mass murderer, a very evil man. Making a comparison like that is deeply slanderous in the worst way. How would you like to be compared to Mao or Hitler or someone like that?--Asdfg12345 01:45, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Why don't you say Mao was just a peasant while you are at it? All the above may be true, but that assertion on your part in the context of this article and citation would be pure original research. Nothing in the citation or the source which says that or even hints at it. In fact, China still publicly maintains that Mao is a national hero, and his prominent image remaining at Tiananmen Square so many years after his demise would be testament to that. I would thus argue that, coming from a Mainland Chinese, the comparison would be praise. Ohconfucius (talk) 04:21, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
I would hardly argue that Mao pursuing a failed agricultural policy resulting in unintentional deaths an act of "mass murder", and find comparisons with Hitler even more insulting.--PCPP (talk) 09:58, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Haha, good one! If you insist on having it, we would defer to the precise quote, and include like Sima Nan says "Chinese history is full of charismatic masters like ... Li Hongzhi." -- not the nonsense comparison that is not even in the cited material, know what I'm saying. --Asdfg12345 04:40, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Isn't this edit [4] more about Mao then Li Hongzhi? And the edit is not only irrelevant, but as I see it, it's trying cheaply, to make a subtle connection between the 2, while from a morality stand point they are complete opposite. --HappyInGeneral (talk) 21:46, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
The comparation itself is not obvious, plus how is this a relevant point of view? --HappyInGeneral (talk) 22:14, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Confucius, he does not actually link Li to Mao. Read the quote again: "Mr. Sima says Chinese history is full of charismatic masters like the group's founder, Li Hongzhi. He adds that Chairman Mao, who founded China in 1949 and was the country's top leader until his death in 1976, was, himself, actually quite similar to these masters." -- the only relevant part to us is the first sentence. The rest gets dropped.--Asdfg12345 02:06, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

You just dislike juxtaposing Li Hongzhi with Mao Zedong, but I cannot let you get away with that change. I disagree that it's irrelevant - Sima does compare Mao with "these masters" in terms of their charisma - its important. Ohconfucius (talk)

He does not explicitly link Li Hongzhi with Mao so stop adding it in, it's original research.--Asdfg12345 03:28, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

We can quote what Sima Nan says, but we cannot add in our own thoughts. I think you are playing point scoring games. If you insist on doing this, then you have to put the full quote in, above. --Asdfg12345 03:31, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

You know I don't play games. Please, in what way did I fail to put in the full quote?? Also, who says that Sima is a "controversial figure"? This is clearly tendentious editing on your part. Even VOA describes him as a journalist, and that is where I got the description from. Ohconfucius (talk) 03:44, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

You have my unqualified apology.--Asdfg12345 03:48, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I have no problems with it now. Ohconfucius (talk) 04:45, 20 May 2008 (UTC)


[edit] POV ? ... how to measure what can stay? I hope not by revert counts.

Hello Ohconfucius, regarding this revert [5] I would like to ask you how do you count equitably what is too much praise and what is too much criticism? For example it's funny to say that I'm POV from your POV ... because yes you do have one too, in which case neither of us can say who's is correct or who's can stay or go, correct? This is why I would like a way to measure it or arbitrate it, and not just keep reverting on it, which you know is bad. --HappyInGeneral (talk) 17:06, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

  • Although there may be exceptions, in most other biographies, there would be a description of the time and details of the award, full stop. I believe that I have allowed some latitude in including the part of the quote you so much like. Perhaps I should have deleted it outright as both a superfluous eulogy and a potential copyright violation. However, I won't revert again. Li Hongzhi needs all the praise he can get ;-). Ohconfucius (talk) 01:54, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

I think it's reasonable to at least explain why he got the award (the spiritual void thing); who he beat may be superfluous. Gratuitous insults are also always superfluous. --Asdfg12345 12:34, 24 May 2008 (UTC)