Talk:Li Hongzhi

Issues resolved

A user added a few tags to the top of the page expressing concern about the article's neutrality and reliance on primary sources. I did another reading of Li's biographies in Penny and Ownby, and pulled on some information available on other Falungong pages to improve this one. I think I have thoroughly scrubbed the page of primary sources, so that should not longer be a concern. The page is not as complete as it could be (eg., nothing is said of Li's response to the Chinese government's suppression. He gave several media interviews around that time that are hardly described at all), but on balance it seems to reflect the tone and weight accorded to different aspects of Li's life in major scholarly works.—Zujine|talk 07:17, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

I just want to make it clear to the editing public the content changes here at Li Hongzhi. Very important phrases such as David Ownby's "both versions should be treated with a healthy dose of skepticisim" was removed, with black paint smeared all over the Chinese government version of the story, which we learn is just propaganda aimed at destroying Falun Gong. Moreover, we notice the removal of sourced material from Ownby, "According to Zhuan Falun, Falun Gong's system was developed between 1984 and 1989 after years of synthesis from general Qigong principles and advice from Masters of numerous religious and spiritual schools. It claims to have "assembled all the mystical powers, which are the essence of the whole cosmos." Interestingly, we learn that Li has been nominated twice for the Nobel Peace Prize, yet no mention that such a nomination was essentially a fruitless lobbying campaign by Falun Gong practitioners, which is discussed in the CNN piece that it is sourced to.

Evidently, having been through this so many times, I do not want to make any personal remarks, or get into another edit war. As such, I will not be reverting any changes myself to avoid any sort of confrontation in this regard. But I believe the changes have seriously damaged the NPOV of the article, and needs to be scrutinized by uninvolved parties. Colipon+(Talk) 17:51, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

See talk. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 22:13, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

I see further explanation is needed.

• Colipon, the phrase attributed to Ownby "both versions should be treated with a healthy dose of skepticism" is not Ownby's words. It is a paraphrase of his statement that different versions of the biographies should be taken "with several grains of salt." There is nothing especially important about this statement, and it does not explain to the reader why the biographies should be regarded with caution. In my edits, I drew on Penny to explain that both biographies serve some specific spiritual or political purpose; in the case of Falungong accounts, it is to bolster the orthodoxy of the teachings. The Chinese government's accounts seek to undermine Li's claims to extraordinary insights, and to undermine the credibility of the practice. As Penny state, it is propaganda, and because it relies on unnamed witnesses, it can only be regarded as textual fabrication (his words, not mine). Laying out the agendas of both parties, as I did is and as Penny does, is far more nuanced and instructive to the reader, as it provides guidance on what kind of skepticism they should exercise.
• If you read Penny and Ownby and measure the weight and importance that they ascribe to the official vs. Chinese government biographies, I think you will find that I did likewise.
• As to the statement "According to Zhuan Falun...." whose removal you objected to, that statement was attributed to Ownby's article Falun Gong in the New World. It was improperly attributed. Nothing approaching that content is found either in the secondary source, or in the primary source (Zhuan Falun). That is why I deleted it. However, the same essential history is told in a properly attributed way through my edits.
• Regarding the Nobel Peace Prize nomination, the article previously only mentioned that he was not nominated by the city of San Francisco. The lack of nomination is not more notable than the fact that he was nominated by other parties. The CNN article, moreover, does not assert that this was a "fruitless campaign." It was evidently fruitful in that it did result in nominations.

I am going to restore my edits to the page, as I have seen no substantial reason that they should not be included. My edits involved adding relevant history to the page, providing more clear and nuanced discussions of his competing biographies, and replacing numerous primary sources with high quality secondary sources. I think it was an improvement by any measure.—Zujine|talk 23:26, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

There was a community discussion about including Nobel prize nominations in biographies a few years ago. (here). An important conclusion from that discussion is that "Over a hundred people are nominated annually, the pool of potential nominators is vast, and there are no eligibility requirements (other than being alive)". Also keep in mind that we don't know whether Li was nominated or not in 2000, since the Nobel Prize committee doesn't release the names for 50 years. The 2001 attempt failed to get him a nomination, much less a prize, but I've kept that because that failed nomination was indicative of the controversy about Falun Gong's antigay teachings.

I also reworked some other changes, which had nothing to do with "scrubbing the pages of primary sources" and everything to do with aligning the page to the Falun Gong phraseology and worldview. These included repetitive use of emotive words such as "persecution", attributing the Chinese government's actions to the "Chinese Communist Party", and extensively quoting Li Hongzhi instead of secondary sources. There was also the strange mention of the awards heaped on Li by the governments of Houston, San Jose, and other Americans municipalities, for "unselfish public service for the benefit and welfare of mankind" when not a high percentage of Americans are Falun Gong members. As it turns out, they were praising Falun Gong's sit-ins and other political protests against the Chinese government, so I added that bit to the article. The "birthdate controversy" was completely bowdlerized, removing (the secondary source-recorded) mention of Li's prior attempts to change his birthdate, Zhuan Falun's listing of his earlier birthdate, and pre-"persecution" accusations that he was aligning himself with Sakyamuni. All non-primary source material from that controversy was restored.

The bifurcation of Li's "early life" into "Spiritual" and "Chinese government" sections is unhelpful. Falun Gong does not publish "mundane" biographies of Li, but that doesn't mean Wikipedia can't. Specific instances where somebody believes the Chinese government falsified its records, like the oxytocin birth — oops! that's sourced to a primary source that you added — can be discussed, but otherwise, it's enough to note the competing narratives and to attribute statements appropriately. Otherwise, I just restored some attributions to Falun Gong sources. Shrigley (talk) 00:42, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Zujine’s decision to clearly delineate between the approved, spiritual biographies and the Chinese government biographies, and will explain why. This is a biography of a living person who has two distinct life stories, as told by two different sources. The accounts are, in many places, irreconcilable. We can include details from each, with due weight, but need to properly ascribe the source of all such claims. As Bejnamin Penny writes, it is all but impossible to find sources of information on Li’s early life that are not associated with either Falun Gong or with the government (the latter having produced biographies only after July 1999 in the context of state suppression). The Falun Gong biographies are entirely spiritual in nature, and contain few details on Li’s career and education. The state biographies are concerned entirely with these things. Both narratives of Li’s life were created with specific agendas in mind, and must be described in the context of those agendas.

Shrigley has removed that differentiation and context. He also restored the statement that David Ownby says Li was born Li Lai in 1952. If you refer to the footnote that Ownby provides, however, you will notice that these details—as with all others that Ownby gives to describe Li’s career and ordinary life—are credited to Chinese government sources, and are not the result of Ownby’s own research. As Ownby writes in the footnote, “These are obviously state propaganda, produced in the context of the campaign against Falun Gong.”

Some of Ownby’s other footnotes provide for some amusement. For instance, Chinese government biographies included anonymous interviews with Li’s elementary school teachers, who are purported to recall him being a very unexceptional student. Ownby gives a good tongue-in-cheek assessment of those claims only in the notes:

“Li was born in 1951 or 1952 and would have begun elementary school in 1957 or 1958. If his third-grade teacher, to take a hypothetical example, had been forty years old in i960, she would have been seventy-nine in 1999, when the campaign against Falun Gong began. One cannot but marvel at the "supernormal powers" of the elementary school teacher who recalls the mediocre writing skills of an unexceptional student forty years earlier.”

I am not suggesting that the Chinese government’s account has no merit at all. Indeed, I think the reason Ownby drew from these bios in spite of their political agendas was that they provide details that are otherwise unavailable, since the Falun Gong biographies do not include many details of Li’s “ordinary life.” But readers should be aware of the source of all claims about Li Hongzhi, and of the possible conflicts of interests of those making those claims. I think a scrupulous interpretation of WP:BLP would lead us to the same conclusion.

Benjamin Penny, probably the most authoritative biographer of Li’s, adds similar caveats, stating that “information about Falun Gong published in the People’s Republic is necessarily part of a negative publicity campaign,” and so should be “treated with caution.” This includes information on his alternate date of birth, alternate name, places or employment, and so forth.

Both of the two main third party biographers of Li Hongzhi (Penny and Ownby) note that accounts from the PRC published in or after the 1999 were propaganda produced in the context of state suppression. We should do the same, though we should take care that our tone should be no less academic.Homunculus (duihua) 04:54, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Another quick note: the oxytocin details (that it was not synthesized until 1953, and thus could not have been used in Li's birth) are also cited in Ownby, page 257. No need for a primary source there.Homunculus (duihua) 05:34, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Homunculus – Oxytocin was discovered in 1909. As early as 1911, physicians started using pituitary extract to stimulate childbirth contractions. The hormone is found unchanged in all mammalian species. That oxytocin was not synthesised until the mid-50s is not relevant and does not preclude that the naturally obtained extract was used earlier. Wokepedian (talk) 02:11, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

Yes, if sources are cherry picked like that, it is very easy to find 'evidence' of the 'orthodox' Falun Gong narrative in a third-party scholar's works, append Ownby and Penny's names, and make it seem like it is all 'neutral'. Homunculus is entirely correct in saying that 'the two narratives serve two different goals'. Yet the weighting of the language shifts entirely against the government's biography after Zujine's edit, with emotive language and all the peroxide. Like I said, I don't think it's hard for third-parties to spot the sheer ridiculousness of the POV balance shift in favour of Falun Gong after Zujine's edits, which is precisely why I didn't even bother reverting the changes. And voila!, User AgadaUrbanit, who I have never seen on any China-related articles, let alone Falun Gong, spotted it only several hours after the edits. Let this speak for itself. Colipon+(Talk) 05:44, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Colipon, you earlier protested the deletion of a quotation that was misattributed. Do you have any other specific objections? As I have stated elsewhere, I am only concerned with content and policy, and not in partaking of ideological battles.Homunculus (duihua) 06:01, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

I've repeatedly ask Wiki administration to send down some non-involved editors to clean up Falun Gong. Until then, these articles will always be a mess, since disputes like this are endless. I've also repeatedly invited the supposedly 'pro-Falun Gong' editors to endorse this plan, because I think it is the only way to resolve the disputes. But sadly, the response to this has been dismal. Colipon+(Talk) 06:10, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

I have always favoured the proposal for unaligned editors to be involved, which is precisely why I've invested so much in reading all the sources I can on Falungong and working to improve these pages. For the record, I am agnostic on Falungong (and in general, though I do believe in the right to human dignity and freedom from torture), but I am knowledgeable on the academic discourses, and have tried to improve these articles accordingly. As you may recall, there are no more Falungong editors around to consent to your plan. In any event, this is not the place to discuss abstract ideas about how to handle these articles.—Zujine|talk 14:57, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Again, none of my remarks were personal, so there is no need to 'clarify' whether or not you are a Falun Gong editor. I have also read both Penny and Ownby and do not find that we are giving these sources a balanced presentation on here, particularly after your earlier set of edits. Ownby was initially very sympathetic to FLG, but in his more recent book Falun Gong and the future of China he distances himself from this. I read these books several years ago so I cannot recall the contents exactly, but the gist of it was that he was very careful not to endorse 'either side of the dispute' - which is the approach that Wikipedia should take as well. Thus I raised this as a content concern. I get frustrated because like before, edit wars are occurring again, and much the same pattern of discussions are occurring again. Colipon+(Talk) 15:21, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Birth date controversy

The section dealing with Li's date of birth did not actually describe the nature of the debate (for instance, it did not even explain that May 13 is the birth date of Sakyamuni, or state what the Chinese government thinks the implications are). Zujine tried to fix this, and Shrigley reverted him for reasons unknown. I have again tried to fix it such that it actually tells us something useful.

The old version seemed focused on the question of whether or not Li changed his date of birth in the government records. But that is not source of the controversy; Li agrees that he changed the records. The actual debate centers on the question of whether his purpose was to simply correct the record, or whether he was trying to bolster his spiritual authority and misrepresent himself by aligning his date of birth to that of Sakyamuni. The Chinese government argues the latter, and Li argues the former. This being the case, in my edit I stated clearly that Li did change the government records, and provided his explanation of why he did this. I left in the background about the Changchun faction, even though I frankly don't see how it helps clarify the issue. I also added a note to explain how the Chinese government has attempted to make use of the birth date change, as that was previously lacking.

Two final notes: Chinese government sources have actually given two dates of birth for Li: July 7 and July 27. David Ownby notes this discrepancy, and I have also now noted it. Also, the old version relied on primary sources, namely Chinese government websites. Primary sources should be used with extreme caution in BLP, and this is all the more so when those primary sources are described as propaganda by the reliable sources. I have removed it in accordance with WP:BLP.Homunculus (duihua) 17:33, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

By "primary source" are you referring to the People's Daily Opinion piece. I can understand why an opinion piece might be less than ideal in a BLP despite it being published in a mainstream source but your statement seems to indicate that you believe that government controlled Chinese media should be avoided in this article. That seems like the kind of position that you should verify through the BLP noticeboard. Sean.hoyland - talk 17:52, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Sean, the reliable academic sources describe all accounts of Li Hongzhi's life from the PRC post-1999 as propaganda. David Ownby writes that all such details, even the mundane ones, are "obviously state propaganda, produced in the context of the campaign against Falun Gong." Benjamin Penny writes that "one of the targets of the government’s propaganda was the biography of Li Hongzhi, its founder and leader," and elsewhere states "information about Falun Gong published in the People’s Republic is necessarily part of a negative publicity campaign,” and so should be “treated with caution.” The People's Daily is included within that category, and is decidedly not a neutral, mainstream source on Falun Gong. It is a primary source, and a highly partisan one at that. Falun Gong accounts are also primary sources. The article should rely on quality secondary sources. I am happy to take this to the BLP noticeboard if you believe that's necessary.Homunculus (duihua) 18:05, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm uncomfortable with the blanket exclusion. I see your argument as being analogous to someone arguing that we can't use US State Dept press releases in a BLP about a suspected terrorist. It excludes an important, albeit highly partisan, part of the picture. All governments have enemies that they talk about. These kind of concerns are usually handled on a case by case basis in BLPs. I doubt that this will be a problem in practice though as there are plenty of sources. Sean.hoyland - talk 18:31, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Where possible, Chinese government sources should be corroborated with another RS. There is a lot of propaganda emanating from the state, obviously, as many academics have noted. The issue I take here is that, in the very least, state media presentations of materials pre-persecution is more or less acceptable, and not everything the Chinese gov't publishes on this matter is automatically sinister or part of a well-organized conspiracy, especially prior to 1999 (one 'pet issue' in this regard is the alleged link between Luo Gan and He Zuoxiu, which remains in the main article for no good reason). Much of the propaganda following 1999 is essentially embellished versions of pre-1999 investigative reporting. Like the article notes, many of Li's 'rival groups' did the first 'exposes' of Li and Falun Gong in general. The point is, Li's detractors were numerous and far-reaching prior to the state's propaganda campaign. This inevitably exposes another issue with the content - which is that a 'dichotomy'-style presentation of Li's biography is highly misleading. Penny discusses this in great detail, I do not have the passages in front of me, nor the time to flip through the pages again. Colipon+(Talk) 21:23, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

I see a user has partially reverted, and thus made the section incomprehensible again. It now reads "According to Li, his date of birth had been misprinted as one of the pervasive bureaucratic errors of the Cultural Revolution, and he was merely correcting it. He called it a "smear" from people trying to destroy him." He called what a smear? The meaning has been completely lost, yet again. Also, can someone explain the objection to just quoting Li Hongzhi? That quote has been used in full in multiple reliable sources, it's not excessively long, and it's the clearest articulation of Li's own position on this. Paraphrasing the quotations means we risk obscuring or misrepresenting the meaning, and that seems to be what happened here.Homunculus (duihua) 18:15, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

A pronoun missing an antecedent is not "complete loss of meaning". The relevant part of Li's remarks are still quoted: he thinks that the Sakyamuni accusation is a "smear", which is what this Wikipedia article thinks too, judging by the myriad of qualifications on Chinese government sources (compared to the liberal and preferential use of Falun Gong sources). Some of these qualifications may be inappropriate, since the Changchun report comes from 1992, long before the "persecution". Li's entire quote is just a rant against alleged bureaucratic errors during the Cultural Revolution in general. His opinions about that period shouldn't be quoted because he has no academic qualifications to talk about history that doesn't affect him. Shrigley (talk) 20:22, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Shrigley said the information I provided "sourced to blogs and other improper primary sources, was removed after substantial discussion. Please don't re-add them without addressing the points". But I do not see any discussion regarding this here. I believe the quote from Mr. Li's answer in Fajie (based on Fa speech recording in 1994) that he is not Buddha Shakyamuni should be deemed as very relevant. Marvin 2009 (talk) 18:43, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

A similar statement, made to Time magazine, is already in that section. This is just a matter of using secondary sources rather than primary sources. I hope that seems reasonable to you.Homunculus (duihua) 19:40, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

I remember that the 2nd Time interview was in August 1999. It happened after CCP launched the crackdown in July 22nd 1999. However the book Fajie I mentioned was published in 1997 and the transcript the book based on was recorded in 1994. The significance is totally different. Marvin 2009 (talk) 20:54, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Citizenship / Nationality

An editor is changing the 'nationality' field from Chinese to United States. Li lives in the United States, but nationality is not defined by place of residence alone, but also by national identity. I suggest keeping nationality as "Chinese," but listing place of residency as United States. On the citizenship question, the same editor is writing that Li became a citizen in the 1990s. This claim is sourced (incorrectly) to Time magazine, as well as to Reuters (which gives a one line "Li, a US citizen, ..."), and encyclopedia Britannica, which curiously states that Li became a U.S. citizen in 1997 and settled in the U.S. in 1998. I reverted this previously because, according to the preponderance of sources (and better sources), it's not the case. Palmer, among others, states that Li settled permanently in the United States in 1998 under an investor immigration status, which granted him permanent residency, but not citizenship. David Ownby states that Li "moved to the United States in 1996 but did not received his green card until 1998" (a green card, in case it's not clear, is for permanent residency, not citizenship). The Time magazine article that was incorrectly used to attribute the claim that Li is a citizen instead states "Li decided to apply for immigration to the U.S." in 1997.[1] As anyone who has ever attempted to navigate the labyrinthine maze of USCIS knows, one does not decide to apply for immigration to the U.S. and mysteriously gain citizenship the same year. Many other sources also state that Li is a permanent resident, not a citizen, and Li himself said this in 1999.[2] If there are no sound objections, I am going to change back to state that Li's nationality is Chinese, and that he became a permanent resident in 1998. Homunculus (duihua) 12:55, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

The most reliable sources on this subject (ie. David Palmer, David Ownby, etc) do not say that Li is a citizen. They say that Li moved to the United States in 1996, and gained permanent residency in 1998. The preponderance of reliable sources on this subject say the same thing. Needless to say, if Li gained citizenship in 1996 as the Encyclopedia Britannica claims, he would not have sought permanent residency in 1998. The Encyclopedia Britannica evidently made a mistake. It happens; even normally reliable sources are fallible.
To the question of "nationality," we evidently have different definitions of the term. You think nationality refers to citizenship. I think citizenship refers to citizenship. Nationality can be defined by national or ethnic origin, national identity, residence, or citizenship. In all respects except current place of residence, Li is probably best described as a Chinese national. Homunculus (duihua) 17:55, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Sigh. I am quickly realizing that you are neither familiar with the scholarly literature on Falun Gong, nor with immigration processes. So I will explain one more time.

• Nothing I have said is original research
• My assessment that Palmer and Ownby are superior sources is not my POV. It derives from the fact that they are established experts in this field. They have both written books on Qigong and Falun Gong in prestigious academic presses. By contrast, Encyclopedia Britannica, while a good source, is written by on-staff generalists. If there is a factual disagreement between these reliable sources, we should defer to what the highest quality RS say. In this case, the better sources and the majority of sources say Li obtained permanent residency in 1998.
• You say that Palmer and Ownby are "not valid" sources. Care to explain? The books (not links — you may actually have to go to a library) are David Palmer, Qigong Fever: Body, Science, and Utopia in China (Columbia Univerity Press, 2007), and David Ownby, Falun Gong and the Future of China, (Oxford University Press, 2008). I already quoted the relevant passages above. But again, these sources (and many others) say that Li moved to the U.S. in 1996 and gained permanent residency in 1998. Specifically, he obtained an investor visa in 1998, giving him permanent residency. They do not say that Li ever sought or gained citizenship.
• If you want more sources that disprove the citizenship claim, look at the TIME magazine article you cited. It says Li decided to apply for U.S. immigrant status in 1997. He would not have done that if he was already a citizen of the United States.
• If you know anything at all about U.S. immigration (I suspect you don't), you would understand that one does not go about obtaining permanent residency in a country where one is already a citizen. Therefore, the claim that Li obtained citizenship in 1996 is simply an error, and is inconsistent with the vast majority of reliable sources.
• If a person gains citizenship in the United States, they are no longer referred to as a permanent resident. These are not generic terms; they refer to one's legal status in the United States. The majority of reliable sources (and Li himself) describe Li as a U.S. permanent resident. If he were a citizen, they would not continue to refer to him as a permanent resident. This is not my opinion. It is a fact.
• You say that "Chinese is the name of nation". Not in any maps I own. In any event, I have little cause for optimism when it comes to convincing you that nationality does not necessarily refer to the name of state in which one resides. So how about we get rid of the 'nationality' field, and instead have 'ethnicity' and 'country of residence' ? Homunculus (duihua) 23:29, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

I re-read your comments, and realized ever more clearly that the problem is that you don't understand U.S. immigration. You seem to believe that there is no conflict between the claims that Li gained citizenship and then obtained permanent residency, because you seem to think that "permanent residency" describes a state of living permanently in a place. I suggest you read Permanent residence (United States). You will discover, as I stated above, that permanent residency refers to a person's legal immigration status. It is a path to citizenship; a person is typically eligible to apply for U.S. citizenship after three to five years of being a permanent resident. Once one obtains citizenship, one is no longer classified as a permanent resident. The most reliable sources writing from the late 1990s onward describe Li as a permanent resident, which implicitly means he is did not gain U.S. citizenship in the 1990s. I hope that's clear. I fixed the article again, and just removed the nationality field altogether as an interim solution while this is in dispute. There's no value in having incorrect or even questionable information remain in a BLP. Homunculus (duihua) 05:28, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

FWIW, Homunculus is right. "Permanent resident" and "citizen" are mutually exclusive terms under U.S. law. The misunderstanding might have spread here where some (possibly badly translated) text calls him a "permanent citizen" — that term neither exists nor does it make sense. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 05:44, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Look, you don't need to underline every damn shitty thing you throw at us, no matter how stupid you think we are. This is pretty much equivalent to yelling. Stop you campaign and stop edit-warring over this; leave the page as it is. Is that now clear enough? Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 10:12, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

I neither have "power" nor am I an "authority." You simply need to quit this junk and we're cool. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 21:47, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Well, without the context, now we both just look mad. Thanks for stepping in.Homunculus (duihua) 17:17, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

If Li has a Permanent_residence_(United_States) then he can't be a US citizen. And I don't see any source saying that he lost his Chinese nationality. If he earned US citizenship, then he would have double nationality (US and Chinese). I don't see any source making such claims.

Also, Britannica is a tertiary source, and we shouldn't be basing our articles on what it says. It only makes us repeat its inaccuracies. --Enric Naval (talk) 11:25, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Propose to add Li Hongzhi's status as wanted in China

I would like to add this following fact: http://www.china-embassy.org/eng/zt/ppflg/t36563.htm Li is wanted by the Chinese government is a relevant fact, and announcement to the effect from the Chinese embassy is a reliable source for this fact. Bobby fletcher (talk) 21:02, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

This information is already in the article, but it is sourced to the BBC, not the Chinese government. Also, calling someone a 'wanted fellon' [sic] when they have never been convicted of a crime (let alone a felony) is a violation of Wikipedia's policy on biographies of living persons. This applies even if you do so on a talk page. —Zujine|talk 23:30, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Please cite the relevant wikipedia policy, thanks. Anyways, I'm agreeable to what fellow editors would agree to. As I searched the article for the word "wanted", I do not see the fact he is wanted in China anywhere.

Bobby fletcher (talk) 08:10, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Chinese government as RS?

Regarding use of Chinese government websites to assert that Li is wanted in China, it's common knowledge that the Chinese government is engaged in a propaganda campaign against Li and Falun Gong. There are loads of articles and books and news article that document this, and we wouldn't count the Chinese government as a reliable source in this context. Yet a couple editors (one of them now banned) have felt compelled to add Chinese government sources to support the statement that the Chinese government issued a warrant for Li's arrest. I don't get why. There is already a BBC article that talks about this from a pretty balanced angle. Why is it necessary to supplement this with links to propaganda articles which, in addition to supporting the cited claim as primary sources, also contain a good deal of inflammatory and derogatory statements about a living person? This seems to contradict the spirit of the Biography of Living Persons policy. The external links guideline discusses this:

In biographies of living people, material available solely in questionable sources or sources of dubious value should be handled with caution, and, if derogatory, should not be used at all, either as sources or via external links. External links in biographies of living persons must be of high quality and are judged by a higher standard than for other articles. Do not link to websites that are not fully compliant with this guideline or that contradict the spirit of WP:BLP.

Am I missing something? TheBlueCanoe 15:03, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Yes, you are missing the simple fact that the Chinese government is a reliable source for the position of the Chinese government on issues of relevance to the Chinese government. Your arguments for removal are spurious. Sean.hoyland - talk 15:26, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Sean. BlueCanoe's rationale is just gaming the system. STSC (talk) 17:01, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

->Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Use_of_primary_sources_making_inflammatory_claims Sean.hoyland - talk 20:36, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Porter

Hi. I just restored the deleted Porter references. I understand the reason they were deleted - because it was described as a Master's thesis, and one which was presumed to have no major scholarly impact or import. Both those contentions are not the case.

Here are the reasons why I have restored it. 1) It's cited in several scholarly works; 2) Porter has authored several academic journal articles based on the research conducted for his masters thesis; 3) Ownby, one of the foremost authorities on the practice, cites the thesis as being superior in quality to much of the other scholarship that's out there (specifically Maria Chang's book, which was published in the Yale University Press). He writes "Noah Porter's excellent "Falun Gong in the United States: An Ethnographic Study" is, by contrast, rich in information on Falun Gong, based on fieldwork carried out in Tampa, Florida, and Washington DC, and energetic research in all available sources. Although not a sinologist by training of even a professional academic (at least when he carried out his research), Porter's methodology resembles my own, and our findings accord on many points."

Thus the fact that Ownby highlights his work in his literature review like this does imply that it has significant scholarly influence. 4) As I have re-added the citation, it is not even the Master's thesis that is being cited, but a book. Either point here - that we're now citing a book, or that it was a Master's thesis with significant scholarly impact - would be sufficient to overcome the objections raised. I present both. TheSoundAndTheFury (talk) 03:41, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

I saw that book before I removed the source. It's published by Dissertation.com so I don't think it changes the status of the source with respect to WP:SCHOLARSHIP. It's still a masters thesis. No comment on the evidence of significant impact other than it's probably the kind of borderline case that would benefit from going to WP:RSN. It's not really being used for anything that strikes me as controversial at the moment, at least in this article, I haven't looked elsewhere, so perhaps it's fit for purpose here. Taking it RSN would probably be advantageous if it is going to be used more extensively. Sean.hoyland - talk 03:58, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Zhongnanhai appeal

I normally refrain from getting involved with Falun Gong articles as they are usually hotly debated, and I'm not an experienced editor. But I have practised Falun Gong since 2002 and have read a fair bit about the "Zhongnanhai appeal", and in my understanding this part of the article is incorrect in several ways:

"As news spread of Falun Gong's anti-government protests which mobilized tens of thousands to surround the Chinese government headquarters..."

I believe this is incorrect as the event wasn't an anti-government protest, it was an appeal to the Premier to ask for formal recognition and for the increasing harassment to stop, which was resolved positively by the Premier in the afternoon. Yes a lot of people turned up, but it was still a peaceful appeal, there was no slogan chanting or shouting, in my understanding everyone was on best-behaviour.

I think this is important as "anti-goverment" was one of the falsehoods spread by the leader of the Communist Party, Jiang Zemin to frame Falun Gong and justify the crackdown to the government and Chinese people... ie, "Falun Gong attacked the government, so the government has to crackdown".

Falun Gong asks its practitioners to follow the local laws, be good people and not disturb the unity of society. But when people are being treated unfairly, it's their basic right to appeal to the government and clarify the facts. And this, I believe, is exactly what happened in this event, with successful resolution. This is not "anti-government".

Also, saying "Falun Gong...mobilized tens of thousands to surround the Chinese government headquarters" is an over-simplification and gives two wrong impressions, 1) that people were ordered by someone to go there, and 2) that they were intent on surrounding the government compound. Neither was true.

The practitioners were not "mobilized" by anyone, and they had no intention of "surrounding the Chinese government headquarters"... that was another spin by Jiang Zemin. Yes a lot of people ended up going, but they had just organised to go amongst themselves, they weren't asked to go by Falun Gong's teacher, and there are no "leaders" in Falun Gong. When a lot of people turned up, they were directed by police to line up along the footpath next to the wall of the central government compound, which they did.

Two days later Jiang framed it as "Falun Gong surrounded the main government compound". If they did, it was because they were told to by police.

Does this matter enough to change the sentence? I think so, because of the historical context... Jiang Zemin used exactly these falsehoods to frame Falun Gong and put the persecution into motion. Repeating them as truths, even in passing, on wikipedia doesn't seem right.

One wiki article does seems to cover what happened fairly accurately: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falun_Gong#Tianjin_and_Zhongnanhai_protests

I wasn't sure if I should just edit the sentence, as someone would probably just revert it, without some discussion first.

Regards, Enigmatum (talk) 19:08, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Valid points. I say go ahead and edit it yourself according to WP:BOLD. Just take a neutral tone and add a couple references from third-party sources to verify it. As you stated, there is some decent coverage on the Falun Gong article, so you can probably find reference material there. —Zujine|talk 21:07, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Recently I noticed the same issue as User:Enigmatum talked about last October, so I edited it using a reliable source - Chan, Cheris Shun-ching (2004). "The Falun Gong in China: A Sociological Perspective". The China Quarterly, 179 , pp 665–683. But User:Jsjsjs1111 reverted my edit without any reason. Today I undid his move. Marvin 2009 (talk) 11:50, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Li is wanted

To user:Marvin 2009, please do not persistently remove the significant information regarding the wanted circular on Li issued by the Chinese government. STSC (talk) 06:45, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

Jiang Zemin's demand was rejected by INTERPOL and USA government in July 1999. As I explained in the edit abstract, your July 1999 source cannot represent 'still wanted' today, plus it is a CCP source, which is unreliable on this topic. According to China scholars Daniel Wright and Joseph Fewsmith (Reference: Fewsmith, Joseph and Daniel B. Wright. "The promise of the Revolution: stories of fulfilment and struggle in China", 2003, Rowman and Littlefield. p. 156), China Central Television's evening news contained little but anti-Falun Gong rhetoric and the government operation was "a study in all-out demonization". In addition, Jiang Zemin was wanted by oversea court because of the crackdown of FG and is currently sued in Chinese court and oversea courts. If you do not stick to your double standard, you can add such info as well.Marvin 2009 (talk) 12:27, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

It's a fact that the Chinese has issued a wanted circular on Li whether it was rejected or not. This is significant information and should be included in Li's biography. By all means, you may put whatever true information on Jiang Zemin. STSC (talk) 12:48, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

“Still wanted”, this is your interpretation. There is no any reliable source supporting such a claim. Please follow WP:NOR. Marvin 2009 (talk) 14:46, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

As far as the Chinese government is concerned, the wanted circular is still valid, it has not been cancelled. Do you have the source saying Li is no longer wanted? STSC (talk) 16:42, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

WP:OR says "This includes any analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to reach or imply a conclusion not stated by the sources." The unreliable CCP source (from year 1999) you provided does not say 'still wanted' or has such a meaning. So-called 'still wanted' is only your derivation, which defied the WP:OR statement above. Marvin 2009 (talk) 21:02, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

If you don't like the "still", just omit it. How about "Li is wanted"? Is that OK? Do you like? STSC (talk) 03:58, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

let's just stick to the plain facts and say that on such-and-such date the chinese government issued a wanted statement. that's it. on the matter of whether li is still wanted we can remain agnostic. problem solved.Happy monsoon day 04:04, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Agree. Plus the preface is not necessarily a good place for this, since the current version already included the related detailed info in the paragraph starting with "On 29 July 1999,... Marvin 2009 (talk) 05:34, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

pov tag

This article consists of only positive views. Please stop from removing the tag till solved.--Jsjsjs1111 (talk) 03:27, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

When you added the template and said in the abstract "stated by other users in the talk page. please do not remove templates until problem are solved.", I checked the talk page and found there was nobody recently discussed about this on this talk page. So i canceled the template you added in. Now your rationale for the template has changed to "only positive views" not because of "stated by other users in the talk page" any more? Marvin 2009 (talk) 12:07, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

You need to offer specific, actionable examples of how this article falls short of NPOV (i.e. how it fails to fairly represent the balance of perspectives of high-quality, reliable secondary sources). If you cannot offer a satisfactory explanation of the neutrality problem, then other editors can certainly remove the notice. See [[Template:POV]. In the mean time, don't edit war. This is far too banal a thing to get sanctioned over.TheBlueCanoe 05:30, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

@TheBlueCanoe: I met User:Jsjsjs1111 at a Shenzhen Starbucks and he told me this was a point of contention. I read some talk page archives and articles and find it curious this page currently doesn't mention Li Hongzhi's beliefs in aliens. (this was brought up before here: Talk:Falun_Gong/Archive_40#The_founder_of_Falun_Gong_believe_that_aliens_invaded_earth)

• Dowell, William (1999-05-10). "Interview with Li Hongzhi". Time. {{cite web}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)
• "The aliens have introduced modern machinery like computers and airplanes. They started by teaching mankind about modern science, so people believe more and more science, and spiritually, they are controlled. Everyone thinks that scientists invent on their own when in fact their inspiration is manipulated by the aliens. In terms of culture and spirit, they already control man. Mankind cannot live without science."

Of course secondary source coverage of the alien belief is needed too. And so far I found this:

• Penny, Benjamin. The Religion of Falun Gong. University of Chicago Press, March 1, 2012. ISBN 0226655024, 9780226655024. p. 131.

• "In 1999, he gave one of his only interviews to a non-Falun Gong publication. In it, published in the web version of Time Asia on May 10, 1999 [...] Li spoke freely about how aliens from other planets and other dimensions have infiltrated society through science and technology, as part of their plan to take over the human race."

• Chang, Maria Hsia. Falun Gong: The End of Days. Yale University Press, October 1, 2008. ISBN 0300133170, 9780300133172. p. 71.

• "In an interview in 1999 with Time magazine, Li expounded further on the space aliens who have visited earth. Sounding like an episode of The X-Files, Li maintained that extraterrestrials first came to earth circa[...]"

Other books have discussed this issue. In your view, how much coverage is needed before a paragraph on Li Hongzhi's beliefs is warranted?

WhisperToMe (talk) 07:34, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

Li's views comprise the teachings of Falun Gong. It's a set of beliefs spelled out in thousands of pages worth of books and lectures. So the question would become which beliefs ought to be highlighted in his biography, and how to ensure that this is done in a manner that is proportional and representative of his teachings (as has been noted elsewhere, there are whole academic books dedicated to describing Falun Gong's history and beliefs, in which mention of aliens occupies only a couple paragraphs, if not just one or two sentences—it's evidently not central to the doctrine of Falun Gong). Editors who advocate highlighting Li's comments on aliens have never convincingly explained why they think this needs to be given prominence, other than that they find it comical or weird. This is not a compelling argument, especially when viewed with reference to NPOV policies. Anyway, bear in mind that there is an article about the teachings of Falun Gong, and that that is probably the more appropriate place engage in this discussion.TheBlueCanoe 17:01, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for the info! I am aware the Falun Gong template links to the beliefs of the organization, but I wonder if clarifying that "if you want to see the person's teachings/beliefs, see this article" might be something useful. The article on Jesus discusses his teachings in Jesus#Life_and_teachings_in_the_New_Testament, an as for Joseph Smith, Joseph_Smith#Views_and_teachings which links to a main article on his teachings.

The second thing is that I'd like to account for the number of pages dealing with aliens in both Penny and Chang. I did that for three works at Talk:Teachings of Falun Gong so editors can determine how to manage coverage. Penny used about three pages and Chang used about five. Chang also referred to that as a distinctive belief element.

Penny stated that while Li Hongzhi gets interviewed a lot, he is/was rarely interviewed by a non-Falun Gong publication. The 1999 one with the aliens was one of the non-Falun Gong publication interviews.

WhisperToMe (talk) 15:45, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Why???

Do You know Li Hong Zhi? He said That:

"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” (Teaching the Fa at the Washington, D.C. Fa Conference, July 22, 2002 Li Hongzhi)

But on the other hand He said that: I am just a very ordinary man". Time Magazine. 2 August 1999. "During the Cultural Revolution, the government misprinted my birthdate. I just corrected it. During the Cultural Revolution, there were lots of misprints on identity. A man could become a woman, and a woman could become a man. It's natural that when people want to smear you, they will dig out whatever they can to destroy you. What's the big deal about having the same birthday as Sakyamuni? Many criminals were also born on that date. I have never said that I am Sakyamuni. I am just a very ordinary man." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Li_Hongzhi#cite_note-bbc-19

References

Deceased? *This is not a venue for speculation*

He appears to be deceased, his supporters are mourning in the street. But no source yet. --Anthony Ivanoff (talk) 10:15, 4 February 2018 (UTC) Anthony Ivanoff (talk) 10:15, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

Sounds convincing. TheBlueCanoe 17:02, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

This is not a platform for speculation or discovery- we report, compile, and document existing, referenced apprehension.Mavigogun (talk) 16:16, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

Discussion

hello, User 101.98.207.182,about your edits[3].First, your edit seems not be found in your source. Second, pls view [WP:Biographies of living persons], and use 3rd-party reliable sources.Thank you, and pls discuess. Wetrace (talk) 08:44, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

hello, User 101.98.207.182，about your edit[4], First, your edit seems not be found in your source. Second, pls view [WP:Biographies of living persons], and use 3rd-party reliable sources.Thank you, and pls discuess. Wetrace (talk) 13:26, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

User 2001:288:C2C7:3:D55B:8DEA:D7A1:E6A1, about your edit[5], without any source. pls view WP:Biographies of living persons, and use 3rd-party reliable sources.Besides, the Chinese Communist Party regime is the persecuting party. Thank you, and pls discuess.

According to WP:Biographies of living persons,"Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion. Users who persistently or egregiously violate this policy may be blocked from editing."Wetrace (talk) 05:46, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

Why is the page semi-protected? And the article appears to present Li as a great master in his bio and omit the specifics of his controversial teachings

I see the Shen Yun posters everywhere and that made me interested in googling what it is about. So looked it up and found plenty of mainstream articles that talk about its founder. However much of what the media writes about him, I seem to find it missing in his Wikipedia article. I know that there are no shortage of american media reports in the past year and current, that criticizes Li and his beliefs. But I have also noticed that the pages related to falun gong, are being semi-protected and also recent edits that have been reversed: were of similar criticisms of falun gong that were well sourced and were wholly and in its entirety, deleted for being repetitive? That seems rather arbitrary. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/946101072

Regardless I like to add in the following edits. Firstly the wiki page of Shen Yun, be added in the "SEE ALSO" section as they are interconnected deeply. And also adding the info that Li himself stated that David Copperfield can really levitate off the ground, and that aliens introduced science in the world so that they could use human bodies. Such shocking info is currently missing in the current Wikipedia article. There are an abundance of reputed western media channels that back such info hence I think such significant info is not misleading and no valid reason to not add that in for the sake of full transparency of Li's teachings.

Also according to NBC, Li also taught that sickness is a symptom of evil that can only be truly cured with meditation and devotion, and that aliens from undiscovered dimensions have invaded the minds and bodies of humans, bringing corruption and inventions such as computers and airplanes. I like that info to be added in. Such major "need to know" info for the public, seems to not have been able to added to the article and also cannot, due to the semi-protected ban but there is no reason why it shouldn't be added in. Instead after reading the media articles of Li then reading his Wikipedia article right now. It actually seems to be presenting him as a great master wise in supernatural arts whilst also overwhelmingly leaving out the controversial stuff he teaches that NBC has reported on. https://www.insider.com/shen-yun-show-falun-gong-2019-3 and https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/tech-news/trump-qanon-impending-judgment-day-behind-facebook-fueled-rise-epoch-n1044121 Is the edit protection measure here to prevent criticism of Li? if not, then I feel there is no reason to add in the edits I have outlined above and request them to be added in by a neutral editor who can bypass the semi protection block. Gurnardmexico66 (talk) 15:50, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

Hi there, I can only assume that in the past the page would often get vandalized, so now it’s semi-protected. Falun Gong gets attacked a lot by trolls. The nbcnews article seems to be more of an opinion piece. The points you mention from the article are an interpretation of the teaching by the article’s author but without actually examining the original source, it’s difficult to say how accurate those are. The insider article also skews towards negative feedback of the show. What has put me on guard about this article is the prominent usage of politicized terminology that’s usually common to the communist party of China narrative. The article even touches on that towards the end. Berehinia (talk) 01:33, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

Specifically which part should not be added in? You simply made a sweeping statement that is vague and stating it's a bad biased source. It's not an opinion piece to say his views are anti-science, anti-gay and racist but based on facts. The Insider is a professional media and its article directly sourced Li himself in a Times interview, where Li egotistically claims that scientists and governments don't understand aliens and only really he does, so other people should follow him more. He described them physically as looking disturbingly like a human with a bone for a nose and it was these evil aliens who gave us science like computers and planes, in order to control us humans and we should hence reject their science and tech. He also states outright that David Copperfield was not doing some magic trick. But levitated for real.

Additionally in Falun Gong's own official website, it published Li's lectures. It explicitly says the same things and a lot more, that aliens gave us tech to control us and he is the one who can save people from them. And Insider article wasn't kidding about his anti gay, anti science and racist views.

https://falundafa.org/eng/eng/lectures/19980904L.html

In the link above, he lectures that aliens wanted to shake us from the gods and why they deliberately made different races to mix with each other and that helps them overtake us. And many mexicans, south americans, south east asians are rootless people as they had mixed heritages and no longer proper people in the eyes of god. Like seriously? That is blatant bigotry and racism. He also makes vile comments about homosexuals that “repulsive homosexual behaviour” bespeaks of a filthy, deviant state of mind that lacks rationality." http://web.archive.org/web/20150729102911/http://www.falundafa.org/book/eng/zfl2.htm The wiki article shouldn't defend Li for making such public explicit lectures that degrades mixed race people, homosexuality and scaremongers about the dangers of using technology and science. Because he claims that science were made by aliens to help destroy us. Such homophobic, anti race-mixing lectures and anti-science stances should be added in to wiki page and not hidden from the public and in a new section titled western media criticisms of Li, which is absent for no good reason.

Gurnardmexico66 (talk) 10:09, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

@Gurnardmexico66: I don't think we should add those edits. I agree with @Berehinia, that both of your articles are heavily influenced by the Chinese government’s disinformation campaign.

As for the “controversial” teachings, I would say that it is only your personal interpretation or your deliberate misinterpretation, and therefore they should not be added. It would not comply with WP: NPOV for anyone to write their own interpretations here. Nevertheless, there are some secondary sources, for example, https://scholarcommons.usf.edu/etd/1451/ for us to examine the issues. This researcher at USF says “Falun Gong might teach these things are not good, but they would not try to impose their beliefs on others”. Thus, it lacks all the negative aspects suggested by your accusations.

Also, on this page here https://qr.ae/pNrzZ1, a mix-blooded Falun Gong practitioner himself explains these issues. He says: “homosexuals can and do practice Falun Gong, even though Falun Gong teaches that it's immoral. There is just no exclusion of people for any reason.” According to these sources, it will be highly misleading to add your interpretations on this page.--Thomas Meng (talk) 23:48, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

I don't see how I would "deliberately" misinterpret the lectures and would ask you to not make such rude gas-lighting attempts at me, or I will report it next time to Wikipedia relevant channels and allow outsiders to judge who is clearly being biased here. But I will try to understand you nonetheless- is there any proof that those western media articles are even influenced by Chinese government disinformation campaign? Can you please be more specific instead of making such a rude accusations of me? Or your loose interpretation that I don't know what I'm talking about. FYI, those western media papers cited many sources and included literally a TIMES interview with Li Hongzhi himself and of Li's own article from Falundafa.org. And in your own logic, western media must have also "deliberately" misinterpreted the lectures and been influenced by chinese disinformation campaign as they share the exact same opinion as me, DESPITE they had transparently cited legit sources that are clearly not from Chinese government. Unless you think Times Magazine, Li hongzhi and Falundafa.org are solidly considered to be chinese gov disinformation sources. But you know they're not.

You even wrote to me yourself that Li states that homosexuality is immoral. That's basically my point. And my sources that I cited which is literally Li's very own articles, had clearly attacked homosexuality as something that lacked rationality. That is called hate speech to say that someone lacks rationality if they are gay. If you are uncomfortable, I don't mind not calling Li as homophobic and would accept a neutral tone but his views on homosexuality should not at all be omitted. Your own suggestion by an actual member insisting that gays can practice falun gong and also be taught that they are inherently immoral, nonetheless should all be added to a section on "LI's views of homosexuality" instead of trying to sweep it all under a rug. Gurnardmexico66 (talk) 04:31, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

Also it's not just Li's views on homosexuality that should be added. I mentioned a lot of things like his views on tech, his own statement that David Copperfield levitated, etc and the only reason people want to hide all that. Is because they are protecting him. And I read your own scholarly source and noticed that it talked about Li discouraging people to take western medicine but also not banning it. That info should also be added in. Is there a legitimate reason why it shouldn't be added in? Ben Hurley is an ex member of Falun Gong and he wrote how uncomfortable it is even for members to talk about some of falun gong's beliefs like to not try to take western medicine and then witness a member dying from curable diseases, even when there were only practitioners in the room. https://medium.com/@Ben_D_Hurley/-10677166298b

It seems like even Falun Gong's members are afraid of being transparent with their beliefs and worry about being judged so try to hide it from the world. Nonetheless it was your own cited scholar and source that wrote "Practitioners are not encouraged to rely on Western medicine, but are not prohibited from using it." That is one of Li's teachings and that should be added in to the article. There is no good reason to try and hide that from the world unless you also think your very own source is being biased and influenced by Chinese gov. https://scholarcommons.usf.edu/etd/1451/ Gurnardmexico66 (talk) 04:43, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

@Gurnardmexico66:, I didn’t mean to offend you, and probably you weren't deliberate either. I won’t make such a guess next time.

However, you will find that there are very different interpretations from yours, and nowhere close to that do they seem to possess the slightest “hatred” (as you implied) toward others. According to https://faluninfo.net/misconceptions/, “Gays, lesbians, and bisexuals are welcomed by the practice just like anyone else, and not accorded any different treatment. Whether they continue to live that lifestyle, or self-identify with that term, is solely a personal choice and not something anyone in Falun Gong would force upon the individual. Central to Falun Gong is the making of one’s own decisions.” Furthermore: “ Falun Gong’s teachings on this and other matters do not equate to a ‘position statement’ or ‘stance’ on some social issue” and that it simply offers its teachings on personal change to whomever is interested in its path to spiritual growth.” This is why adding these sections could be defamatory.

Also, as previously noted on this talk page by another user: Mr. Li’s teachings were written out in thousands of pages. The topics you wanted to add can only account for far less than 0.1%. As those topics are evidently not central to the doctrine (Truth-Compassion-Tolerance) of Falun Gong, adding these will not comply with WP:DUE, and will result in misrepresentations of the main teachings. One can't see the forest for the trees.

Also, it seems that adding these topics as you suggested would most likely incite hatred toward Falun Gong. It’s worth noting that the CCP brutally persecutes Falun Gong, and it uses such untrue claims as justifications. As investigative researcher Ethan Gutmann stated, the CCP has tried “alleging Falun Gong was anti-gay to ward off sympathy (Falun Gong teachings on this point are essentially indistinguishable from traditional Christianity, Judaism, Islam, and Buddhism)”. https://www.cecc.gov/sites/chinacommission.house.gov/files/documents/roundtables/2010/CECC%20Roundtable%20Testimony%20-%20Ethan%20Gutmann%20-%206.18.10.pdf

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Thomas Meng (talk • contribs)

This isn't the place that yields to political propaganda/public relations but only for the neutral solid sources and proper research. Warts and all. There is no excuse to involve CCP into this as some kind of relevant rationalization and then use it externally to justify the hiding of certain information if they are true. If you rather hide away Li's views on homosexuality, western modern medicine as being bad for practitioners etc and then tell people that they don't understand the thousand of pages he wrote. And that is how you cheaply "silence" them from trying to add it in by making such accusations. Then I simply can't agree with you there and this conversation is clearly not progressing.

Btw it's not defamatory. Does Li teaches that Homosexuality is immoral? yes or no? Your falun gong PR article basically avoided mentioning that and just skipped around it. Just as you avoided talking about the more serious parts of Li's teachings. Encouraging people to reject western medicines by scaremongering its dangers, is a serious and consequential significant topic. It matters not if they are not the central of Li's teachings but they matter a lot to society in general to know if that religions advocates such extreme advice to its members.

It is a very unusually politically active religion where it is strongly focused on having a good public image to garner maximum public support if you account for the excessive pro-trump and anti communist advertisements from Epoch times and even the Dance performances have strong political components. That is actually how I became aware of them from their vast amounts of advertisements/political messages as with many other people. They know that certain teachings will repulse the general public and hence I expect them to be motivated to hide it in Wikipedia edits DESPITE the western media already covers it regardless.

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/the-epoch-times/

https://www.sfgate.com/entertainment/article/shen-yun-cult-falun-gong-china-ads-show-reviews-13473328.php

What is troubling is not their homophobic tendencies. All religions have that to some degree. It's that Ben Hurley, an Australian who was a member of Falun Gong for a long time. Noted the many deaths of his fellow members who tried to listen to Li's sickness Karma test and reject western medicine. Only to die painful and regret-filled deaths. You had avoided discussing that. Do you think he is lying?

https://newrepublic.com/article/155076/obscure-newspaper-fueling-far-right-europe

Additionally Dr Heather Kavan had previously studied Falun Gong and noted "Members also said that Li does not discourage people from getting medical assistance. However, this claim does not tally with Li’s writings. He teaches that illnesses are caused by karma, and that by taking medicines or getting medical help one presses the karma back into the body. The sign of a true practitioner is to refuse medicine or medical care (Li, 1998b; 1998c; 1999; 2001a; 2003b)"

Those were his own words in his own articles. It APPEARS that even members are contradicting Li's written words as like you pointed out, they are too afraid it will backfire if the world knew about their religion is discouraging of western medicines. And hence try to scrub any mention of it, to avoid scrutiny from the public.

But you seem like a falun gong practitioner yourself given your assumed "see the forest and not the trees" expertise in the topic. Why don't you first add to the article on Li's views on homosexuality and western medicine/sickness karma tests yourself? You are clearly not biased against Falun Gong or Li so go ahead and do add it in via your own words. You can literally use Li Hongzhi's own published writings as sources. I would except I cannot only due to the current block affecting everyone except certain editors. I would use the scholarly neutral source below from Massey University that professionally cite sources from Li's work. But regardless if you do or don't. I don't agree with you in hiding real valid info in this article just because you are biased to not ruin public sympathy after informing the rest of the world, of the less appealing sides of falun gong.

https://www.massey.ac.nz/massey/fms/Colleges/College%20of%20Business/Communication%20and%20Journalism/ANZCA%202008/Refereed%20Papers/Kavan_ANZCA08.pdf Gurnardmexico66 (talk) 00:51, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

So the point about discouraging taking medicine in order to not press back the karma and then the point about it being a sign of a true practitioner. Those are Dr. Heather Kavan's interpretations, right? Is he a Falun Gong practitioner by the way? Given this is a religious or whatever teaching, it's probably best to examine the original texts and surrounding context.Berehinia (talk) 03:36, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

As a matter of fact, both authors - Dr Heather Kavan and Ben Hurley were members. One was a professional journalist who was in the religion and investigated the movement without political bias of her own but purely neutral. She LITERALLY read Li's writings and has no reason to lie about what she read and saw. Additionally Ben Hurley was not just a long time member but also was so involved that he also used to work at Epoch Times. Which btw is a paper that is undeniably a source of much misinformation https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/the-epoch-times/ He was a member of many years. Nbc media interviewed him as well https://medium.com/@Ben_D_Hurley

However it's pretty obvious that you are not willing to be netural here and doing whatever it takes to prevent actual legitimate information to be added to wikipedia. As a result, I will be making a proper official complaint to the Wikipedia Arbitration Comittee and will no longer be replying to you anymore as this discussion is constantly being stonewalled and I'm not phased by biased falung gong Pr TEAM who tries to waste others' time and block them from adding valid information to an article. The fact is I have solid sources including the one that you gave to me, to back my facts. I want the right to edit the article or the Wikipedia Arbitration committee to review the evidence and sources and give their official ruling. If they say I am wrong then I will accept it. But I don't believe you are neutral and hence do not see our conversation being able to progress to anything truly productive. My select sources among many are the following: https://medium.com/@Ben_D_Hurley/-10677166298b

https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/tech-news/trump-qanon-impending-judgment-day-behind-facebook-fueled-rise-epoch-n1044121 I wish you a good day sirGurnardmexico66 (talk) 10:30, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

This thread is too convoluted to follow, so I don't even know what material is being proposed for inclusion here. And I'm skeptical any time I see someone demanding to know why "controversial" teachings aren't included here. The proposition raises some important questions: e.g. why? Are these teachings important to those who embrace the practice? If so, how? And "controversial" according to whom? Religious claims always appear strange when measured against the standards of a secular, liberal ontology. I'd like to see a more serious discussion of these questions. Otherwise we just get puerile point-making and agenda-driven editing by people who've never bothered to interrogate their own assumptions.

On Heather Klavan: I don't think she ever practiced FLG. She's a communications professor who spent some time practicing meditation in a park with FLG practitioners as part of her "field work," and did some of her own readings. But by her own account, she was incapable of even communicating meaningfully with the subjects of her research because of the language barrier. She did not even know their names. I don't know how that passes as meaningful field work, given her inability to check her interpretations against the lived experience of the actual faith community. Methodologically, I have never seen a sloppier piece of research (she misspelled virtually every pinyin term in her paper!). Little wonder that serious scholars don't cite her work. She is, however, a favourite of the Communist Party's 610 Office, even appearing for interviews on their English-language website. Forgive my skepticism.

So look, if someone has a serious proposal for something that should be included in the article, bring it forward. But it should be well balanced, and grounded in something more than a primary source medium piece and a work and sloppy scholarship.TheBlueCanoe 17:27, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

I wasn't going to reply but this will likely be my LAST reply on this thread as I do not wish to go in circles. I put in a lot of work and gave thorough explanations and sources but there is no point if they are only read by people who are biased to hide information and try to seed in doubt that Heather Kavan was never a member of falun gong. But I just wanted to highlight a FREQUENT example of how editors practically stonewall others from discussing to add valid information. First they loosely discredit your source or writer by saying they are sloppy scholars or that they are corrupted by politics, without giving any evidence to back such statements. The above user does that tactic without giving any real proof that Dr Heather Kavan is not a well read professional. The Blue Canoe himself is actually the original person that I first raised concern on when I created this thread. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/946101072 Based on his edit history, he has extensive edits in the Falun Gong talk Page where he frequently obstructs anyone trying to put in valid information like Li warning the world of aliens, discourage listening to scientists, evolution, against homosexuality, discoruages western medicine, preaches dangers of race mixing, etc His reasoning to hiding such information overly seems biased to me. AS THIS is a leader claiming there are evil space aliens who created our science or that people should reject modern medicine in order to truly beat a disease. Such information has been verified and backed by multiple sources including even LI's OWN WRITINGS and articles and so multiple neutral western mainstream media has criticized the man for it. That is facts that cannot be denied by anyone and I try to reach out to the other editors that FREQUENT here but I feel the only solution to put this issue at rest is For the Wikipedia Arbitration Committee to read this thread and decided honestly who is correct here. My arguments summarized as below:

In 2019, INSIDER among many - they write "Didn't the founder of Falun Gong say something about aliens awhile back? - Yes. Li outlined some of his more eyebrow-raising beliefs in an interview with Time magazine in 1992. He said that David Copperfield can really levitate off the ground, that qigong can cure illness, and that aliens introduce science in the world so that they could use human bodies." http://content.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,2053761,00.html https://www.insider.com/shen-yun-show-falun-gong-2019-3

Such info came from purely neutral sources and literally from Li's own interview and his own words. Additionally he had undoubtedly published articles in falun gong's official sites, that back his very same words in the later years. IE here's an article where he preaches against race-mixing and claims that mixed raced kids are physically and intellectually incomplete. https://en.falundafa.org/eng/lectures/1996L.html

To continue to hide such information and allow biased editors to do whatever it takes to prevent the world from knowing these info about Li Hongzhi, is nothing more than bias due to the political role he plays. If western mainstream media have been able to talk about it, THERE are less and less reasons to hide it. Ben Hurley who was interviewed by western media, wrote about members dying from curable diseases because they tried to listen to Li in beating the disease without using medicine. His words below:

I can say confidently that anyone who has been involved with Falun Gong for more than a short length of time will have heard of — or directly witnessed — cases like this. But it’s an extremely delicate topic, uncomfortable even when there are only practitioners in the room. Any believing Falun Gong practitioner will hide this secret from non-believers. They’re not just hiding it because they don’t want their friends and family to know what a bizarre belief they have. They genuinely fear that by revealing it they will be giving someone a bad impression of the practice and damning them to hell.

A lot of medical professionals actually know about this, but for some reason it has escaped wider public scrutiny in the Western world. Maybe the noisy arguments between the Chinese Communist Party and Falun Gong have drowned out a more nuanced discussion of the half-truths and half-lies coming from both sides. I once met a nurse who had directly witnessed a dying Falun Gong practitioner refuse medication in hospital. And a while back when I sought some counselling on a few topics including this one, it turned out my counsellor, who was Taiwanese, had lost an aunt this way. She rode her cancer out to the end without palliative care.

That was from Ben Hurley and such info is verified by other multiple sources including the one that even a biased pro falun going supporter here has given me - https://scholarcommons.usf.edu/etd/1451/ it is a biased PRO-FALUN GONG source that still reluctantly and briefly mentions the discouraging of western medicine. That people are discouraged from western medicine as Li preaches that a true practitioner can only beat a disease by not relying on any medicine, Such teachings is dangerous and immoral and should be made known public on ethical info transparency grounds. There are no valid reasons to hide it anymore especially after the recent 2019 multiple sources on western media criticizing Li. https://medium.com/@Ben_D_Hurley/-10677166298b Gurnardmexico66 (talk) 05:21, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

There are several points that have to be made clear.

1. One is not trying to hide information if there is an undue weight WP:UNDUE. Saying otherwise would look like an attack WP:PA. Please stop labeling people of hiding information.

Since the Ben Hurley story is only one individual account, while there is no evidence stating the overall percentage of such cases among the entire population of practitioners, it is still WP:undue.

Obviously you do not think the info from https://faluninfo.net/misconceptions-avoiding-medicine should be used. I agree with this, as I only gave it to you as reference to another kind of interpretation. You also say that both Kaven and Hurley were former Falun Gong practitioners. If so, their accounts and interpretations should not be used either, in order to conform with WP:COI.

Plus, the individual account from Kaven is quite different from most other western scholars’ studies, when she made her own interpretations and accused practitioners of avoiding western medicine. To name a few scientific researches without personal interpretations here:

As per Dr. Trey’ from University of Southern Australia, “Findings revealed that Falun Gong respondents are more likely to report excellent health, little or no use of medication, and less medical and health expenses than their friends and family who do not practice Falun Gong.”

As per a published peer-reviewed article from a team of U.S. medical doctors and researchers, in their evidence-based pilot study on the effects of Falun Gong on gene expression and the role of neutrophils in Falun Gong practitioners, they found the superior gene expression, improved immunity, and longer lifespan of neutrophils in Falun Gong respondents’ bodies, compared to the bodies of non-Falun Gong respondents.

2. As you talked about Time reports in 1999, I am not sure whether you’ve read them in detail. Here is one report FYI. As per Time's Hongkong interview in 1999, “Sophie Xiao, a 32-year-old investment analyst in Hong Kong, is one believer. Xiao's enfeebled mother in Beijing had gotten well through Falun Gong. When she too experienced rejuvenation, she passed along the books to several friends.” “I finished the books in four days, says a neighbor, a Mrs. Hui. My husband came home and said, 'Why do you look so good?' For me, it's the philosophy. It's like finding the answers to all the problems in my life. Mrs. Hui's once-gray hair has turned black, ...." If such healing stories are so common among practitioners, then Ben Hurley’s story loses its credibility.

Therefore, putting the “avoiding medicine” interpretation/misconception on this wiki page, while not mentioning the lack of need for medications among practitioners will only turn this Wikipedia page into a piece of anti-FG propaganda that defies WP:soap. We should not use unsubstantiated personal stories (Kaven and Ben Hurley’s story), but rather evidence-based research.

I will follow up with more points.--Thomas Meng (talk) 13:43, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

It seems like when I state that I am requesting Wikipedia Arbitration committee to review the thread. Suddenly there is an increased lot of instant responder editors showing their faces who are invested in downplaying the info I wanted to add in. DESPITE i have given them plenty of chances to discuss the sources and info before but they give inappropriate excuses or evade it. Maybe now they have no excuses but to admit that I have a solid point.

Okay Mr Thomas Meng - Lets have a mature honest discussion and feel welcome to disprove my point. I wrote just earlier that Li is against race mixing and he made claims that mixed raced people are physically and intellectually incomplete and only he can help them avoid it if they convert to his religion. the source - https://en.falundafa.org/eng/lectures/1996L.html

Don't evade the question but that is hate speech to label the non fg mixed race people as physically and intellectually incomplete. Do you feel such information must also be hidden? Don't just go repeat to me with the same rehashed response about ccp or I don't understand his lectures or say that mixed race can join so it's completely harmless. I included the source and in another source -https://falundafa.org/eng/eng/lectures/19980904L.html he very CLEARLY and explicitly attacked mixed race people like South Americans, Central Americans, Mexicans etc as "rootless" people that is deemed lesser by the gods.

You then give a "peer-reviewed study" which sound good. Except it has clearly writes "Six (6) Asian FLG practitioners and 6 Asian normal healthy controls were recruited for our study." That is an unusually small sample size. No serious study can be based on such a small sample size and who chose the individual subjects and funded such a study that makes full conclusions on only 12 people in TOTAL? It also is a pilot study and so not a conclusive replicated results using the minimum full decent sample size. AND why even mention this study as if it's a relevant point? It has absolutely nothing to do with the information I wanted to add in.

And you are clearly grasping at straws in trying to discredit Ben Hurley's story by using an illogical argument. For one you wrote this yourself:

Xiao's enfeebled mother in Beijing had gotten well through Falun Gong. When she too experienced rejuvenation, she passed along the books to several friends.” “I finished the books in four days, says a neighbor, a Mrs. Hui. My husband came home and said, 'Why do you look so good?' For me, it's the philosophy. It's like finding the answers to all the problems in my life. Mrs. Hui's once-gray hair has turned black, ...." If such healing stories are so common among practitioners, then Ben Hurley’s story loses its credibility.

How so? How exactly does Ben Hurley's story loses its credibility because of that woman's unbelievable promotional story of grey hair actually turning into black. I don't see the logic of how that can actually disproves Ben Hurley's story in any direct way since it doesn't touch in any of the issues that Ben was referring to. The issue that Ben raised was that Li teaches the higher ideal way and true practitioner doesn't take medicines and peer pressure them to believe in his wisdom, albeit he can't actually force them. But it's brainwashing regardless.

In fact Falun gong and epoch times are just brainwashing and not known for their upfront honesty when it comes to stories. That is not defamation but true and don't go bring ccp into this. My sources are independant WESTERN OR FALUN GONG WEBSITE ITSELF. Epoch times have been constantly been writing conspiracy theories that have been well documented as false. https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/the-epoch-times/ And falun gong's official ARTICLES AND WEBSITE itself is claiming that their leader Li can literally fly, levitate, walk though walls, perform telekinesis and yet at the same time, they ALSO claim he is the master of raw honesty. That in itself is the VERY loss of credibility FOR Li and his backers.

And there is more but I apologize in advance if my tone come across as not the warmest. However I have before given you sources and information and instead of discussing it. You either evade it by bringing in ccp or just outright ignore it. That's why I feel you weren't neutral. If you have nothing to hide then for ONCE, really explain to me why Wikipedia must hide information like Li claims mixed race people are lesser beings than pure race people, OR any of THE INFO in the quote below. And be specific and not evasive. IF YOU CAN explain to me why the info in the quote below are lies and not true. I will listen to it and have an open mind however the wiki arbitration board will maybe read your reply and they will decide if your reply is deemed solid. But you need to actually make a valid reason why you think the info in the quote box below, is untrue. If it's factual, it should be added into wiki article.

Li claims supernatural powers, developed through training with spiritual masters in the mountains from his youth; his book, Zhuan Falun ("Turning the Law Wheel"), posits that he can treat disease more effectively than medicine, and can telekinetically implant the falun, or law wheel, into the abdomens of his followers, where it absorbs and releases power as it spins (other beliefs attributed to Li are that he can fly, that Africa has a two billion-year-old nuclear reactor, and that aliens invaded Earth about a century ago, introducing modern technology; one type, he told Time magazine, "looks like a human, but has a nose that is made of bone").

Li said all of that about aliens and stories of nuclear plants in africa billions of years ago, etc and such info should be added TO WIKI ARTICLE as they are just the facts of how egotistic and obviously dishonest he is. For wikipedia to protect him for this long, is just embarassing. http://www.stuff.co.nz/sunday-star-times/features/295092/The-gospel-truth-Falun-Gong Gurnardmexico66 (talk) 21:38, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

@Gurnardmexico66 Wow, there's a lot going on here but looking at the very last thing you mentioned, are you on some kinda vendetta against Li Hogzhi? Trying to prove him as “egotistic and obviously dishonest”? By the way as far as I know ancient nuclear reactors in Africa are as real as it gets. https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/guest-blog/natures-nuclear-reactors-the-2-billion-year-old-natural-fission-reactors-in-gabon-western-africa/ Berehinia (talk) 00:40, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

@Berehinia Thank you for mentioning that. Li Hongzhi indeed stated that the proof of Nuclear reactors billions of years ago, proved that intelligent humans had built them back then. He used kernel of truths and promotes conspiracy theories that he egotistically claim to be the expert on. He does this a lot. IE. In his 1999 times interview, he claims that American scientists have captured actual aliens. He says that David Copperfield is proof of people being able to actually levitate. He uses the smallest kernel of truths - something hard to completely disprove and then adds to it so to turn them into conspiracies.

But you are twisting the actual info of what he said and trying to hide Li's lies. THIS is what he SPECIFICALLY wrote about 2 billion year old nuclear reactors. He claimed they were MAN-MADE and hence disprove Darwin's theory of evolution and that there were intelligent human socieities smarter than ours, that created such nuclear plants.

I quote LI HONGZHI himself -

"To give another example of a more remote age, the Gabon Republic in Africa has uranium ore. This country is relatively underdeveloped. It cannot make uranium on its own and exports the ore to developed countries. In 1972, a French manufacturer imported its uranium ore. After lab tests, the uranium ore was found to have been extracted and utilized. They found this quite unusual and sent out scientists to study it. Scientists from many other countries all went there to investigate. In the end, this uranium mine was verified as a large-scale nuclear reactor with a very rational layout. Even our modern people cannot possibly create this, so when was it built then? It was constructed 2 billion years ago and was in operation for 500 thousand years. Those are simply astronomical figures, and they cannot be explained at all with Darwin’s theory of evolution. 

There are many such examples. ..Many bold scientists abroad have already publicly recognized this as prehistoric culture and a civilization prior to this of our humankind. In other words, there existed more than one period of civilization before our civilization. Through unearthed relics, we have found products that are not of only one period of civilization. It is thus believed that after each of the many times when human civilizations were annihilated, only a small number of people survived and they lived a primitive life. Then, they gradually multiplied in number to become the new human race, beginning a new civilization."

He said all that and more. Nobody can deny that, That is a CLASSIC example of brainwashing where he tells people that ancient human societies 2 billion years ago made nuclear reactors better than us and why evolution is not a real concept. - the source for his quote above - https://falundafa.org/eng/eng/pdf/zflus.pdf Gurnardmexico66 (talk) 06:49, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

Not a man made reactor

See Natural nuclear fission reactor. Doug Weller talk 19:07, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Possible inclusion of the other side of the story

Hi fellow editors, recently someone added the NBC-Epoch Times controversy into the lead section, and it seems like some other editors were trying to remove it, but got reverted back. Nevertheless, I do see that it can be improved in terms of providing a wholistic view.

The NBC article (source of the quote in the lead section) is written mainly to criticize its competing media --The Epoch Times, and it includes an attack on The Epoch Times's founders' faith (Falun Gong) as well as on their faith's founder (Li , who this BLP is for). After this article published on NBC, both The Epoch Times and Falun Gong websites responded in public statements. And I find that their counter arguments made some reasonable points responding to the NBC article, and thus think that adding some of their claims onto this page would make the story more complete.

Here are their public statements: from Falun Gong's website and The Epoch Times website.

So I hereby ask permission to add some of their claims made as a response to the NBC article. If nobody objects, I will go ahead and do so.--Thomas Meng (talk) 18:23, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

Niether of these are reliable sources. Both are hard WP:RS fails. :bloodofox: (talk) 21:02, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

That would be a hard no... Even if we consider them about self we cant use them for narratives. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 22:40, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

Restoring uncertainty to birth date

For many years, this biography showed two birth dates in the infobox and explained them both in prose. Then in May 2018 an anonymous IP changed the article to focus solely on 1951 in the infobox and first paragraph.[6]

I propose we restore the uncertainty of birth date, as there are a great many reliable sources questioning the two dates, and there are scholarly sources that accept the 1952 date as fact. For instance, David Ownby in his 2008 book Falun Gong and the Future of China gives his chapter 4 the title of "The Life and Times of Li Hongzhi in China, 1952–1995". Ownby gives as the basic "thumbnail sketch of his pre-1992 life" the plain fact of his July 27, 1952, birth. It was only later that "divergences" began to appear with the birth date, according to Ownby. Other scholarly authors that accept 1952 as the year of birth include Jeffrey Ian Ross (University of Baltimore) in the 2015 Routledge book Religion and Violence: An Encyclopedia of Faith and Conflict from Antiquity to the Present; James R. Lewis (University of Tromsø) who wrote in his 2017 paper "'I am the only one propagating true Dharma': Li Hongzhi’s Self-Presentation as Buddha and Greater" that the Chinese non-profit anti-cult group Kaiwind tracked down the specifics of the 1994 birth date change procedure, writing a report about it in 2015, which Lewis believed was accurate; Jonathan H. X. Lee (San Francisco State University) who wrote in his 2015 book Chinese Americans: The History and Culture of a People that the modified 1951 date was "claimed" by Li Hongzhi; and Hongyan Xiao who included basic biography information in 2001's "Falun Gong and the ideological crisis of the Chinese Communist Party: Marxist atheism vs. vulgar theism".[7]

Since the 1951 birth is not accepted as truth by some respected scholars, we must restore a sense of uncertainty to this biography. Binksternet (talk) 01:16, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

Removing the NBC article

There are several problems with the NBC article:  

1. When the NBC article describes Falun Gong (FG), it avoids mentioning FG's fundamental principles, truthfulness-compassion-forbearance, but rather describes the teachings of FG by citing the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), which persecutes FG based on fabricated lies. It also describes FG by referring to a Chinese professor who openly defended the communists who had been accused of physically attacking FG practitioners in New York. But it does not mention how current FG practitioners themselves view their own belief. This clearly shows a predetermined and one-sided narrative in the NBC article when it describes FG and FG's founder.

2. This NBC article severely downplays the scale and brutality of the persecution of Falun Gong. In NBC's long article, it has only one sentence describing the persecution:"Human rights groups have reported some adherents being tortured and killed while in custody.” By saying "some adherents", the NBC article has dismissed the CCP's large-scale forced organ-harvesting crime done on FG adherents (as proved in the China Tribunal's Final Judgement).

The above two points make it clear that this NBC article has an intent of defaming FG and FG's founder (whom this BLP is for), and that the NBC article's narrative when describing FG parallels with that of the CCP's propaganda. Therefore, it is unsuitable for a WP: BLP, which has high standards on source qualities. So I'd like to delete the third paragraph in the lead section along with the last paragraph of this wiki article where it cites this NBC article again. Thank you.--Thomas Meng (talk) 01:47, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

You will do no such thing, there is consensus that NBC news is generally reliable per Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources. You will first need to contest that consensus, after you have contested and reversed that consensus *then* you can make your two points here. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 01:58, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

NBC is respected, considered a very reliable source. This attempt at removal is a bald whitewashing of the article, trying to remove the obvious and widely commented-upon connection between Falun Gong, The Epoch Times and Shen Yun. Other third party observers have published similar findings, so trying to get rid of NBC is ridiculous. Binksternet (talk) 04:30, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

On a personal note, Thomas, as an audio engineer I want to say I like your music work here on Wikipedia. But with the above request you lost a lot of goodwill, and you lost useful leverage power. What is strategic for you on Wikipedia? Is this it? Binksternet (talk) 04:33, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

@Horse Eye Jack: Thank you for giving me the link, and I totally understand your point. However, I'm not contesting the general reliability of NBC. According to WP: RSPUSE: "even very high-quality sources may occasionally make errors". So what I'm trying to do here is to point out specific problems of this single NBC article, and to consider wether it is still suitable for a WP: BLP. If you find any problems with the above two points, then please don't hesitate to discuss. If you agree with these points, then we will remove this specific NBC article.--Thomas Meng (talk) 18:08, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

Neither point is valid nor are the sub-points, none of your contentions stand up to even an iota of scrutiny. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 18:11, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

@Binksternet: Glad to know that we are interested in similar things!

I think we are talking about two different points here. In my above request, I did not try to sever the connection between FG, ET and SY, but only tried point out problems with this specific NBC article. I believe that this may be one of the occasional errors made by an otherwise reliable sourse. So let's focus on discussing the legitimacy of the above two points in my request.--Thomas Meng (talk) 18:08, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

Your complaint about NBC is trivial. You complain about how the NBC article fails to focus on some aspects. That's a decision by the writers who were interested in getting a particular story across. News stories should be tightly focused; news editors slash and cut to reduce the size of submissions. So the fact that the news piece doesn't contain some things is not only unsurprising but it is also a compliment to the writers Brandy Zadrozny and Ben Collins. Both writers are professional journalists. Brandy Zadrozny is an ex-librarian who has developed into an award-winning NBC reporter focusing on conspiracy. Ben Collins is an NBC tech writer who has been investigating The Epoch Times, viral deception, and Facebook fake accounts. These are legitimate reporters, working for a legitimate news agency, writing a perfectly good news piece.

Your request to remove NBC is unreasonable. Binksternet (talk) 18:39, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

@Binksternet: As award-winning journalists, they probably would have investigated Falun Gong from different angles. However, the NBC article spent 5+ paragraphs describing the teachings of FG from a one-sided perspective. Not a single word was included describing how third-party scholars who have an expertise on religious studies (David Ownby, for example) view FG's teachings, nor how current practitioners themselves view their faith.

On the other hand, there's a number of hoaxes and propaganda pieces that have been fabricated by the communist regime to demonize Falun Gong (the "self-immolation" hoax, so-called "1400 deaths" hoax, etc). Nevertheless, the NBC article still gives credit to the Chinese regime's narrative by citing the Chinese embassy in its description of FG. Since the Chinese government has a specific interest in discrediting Falun Gong, any piece that relies heavily on reporting the regime's perspective cannot be considered objective, especially when it's written by experienced journalists who know how to weigh different narratives.

And keep in mind that the writers composed this as a hitpiece to crticize its competing media--The Epoch Times, so it is unsurprising that their narrative is unsympathetic and defaming toward FG.--Thomas Meng (talk) 17:35, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

References

Lol, the Epoch Times isn't competition for NBC... It isnt competition for a wet paper napkin. Its a joke pseudo news organization of unquestionably low reliability. NBC is a WP:RS, The Epoch Times is WP:DEPRECATED. Nothing here has defamed FG, go home and take your bat with you. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 18:07, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

@Horse Eye Jack: Just a side note: AllSides states that "overall, The Epoch Times reporting is factual". Also, no WP:PA's.--Thomas Meng (talk) 23:03, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

AllSides analyzed the Epoch Times in August 2019, before the news site spewed QAnon nonsense about COVID-19 in May 2020.[[8][9] The coronavirus hoax stuff definitely cut into any media respect for the Epoch Times, pushing down the "factual" rating.

Wikipedia decided in December 2019 that the Epoch Times is a deprecated source. The difference between Wikipedia's assessment and the one from AllSides is probably because Wikipedia has seen so much more non-neutral pushing by Falun Gong activists who want to cite the Epoch Times. AllSides didn't look at that aspect, but Wikipedia is swamped with it.

Furthermore, the Epoch Times reporting on NBC's very damaging piece on the Falun Gong will never be neutral or factual. NBC hurt them badly; they were thrown out of Facebook and lost a bunch of money because of this exact NBC News piece we are discussing.[10] So we would never expect the Falun Gong or Epoch Times to be neutral about that; no, we would expect them to fight back hard. Which is what we're seeing here with Thomas Meng and Berehinia being so insistent. Binksternet (talk) 01:23, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

Don't want our digression to get too long, but I have to point out two things: 1. AllSides states in its report: "An independent review by an AllSides Staffer in April 2020 found that [...] overall The Epoch Times reporting is factual." 2. Do not put COI labels on anyone whose views do not conform with yours. We should focus on the logicallity of my arguments.--Thomas Meng (talk) 18:56, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

None of your observations are sufficient to remove the NBC piece. Publisher Stephen Gregory's defense of his own The Epoch Times is partisan, as he is very much involved. (I find it hilarious that he thinks The Epoch Times is a "competitor" to NBC News. The difference between them is vast.) Your Mediaite link does not question the validity of the NBC News piece, it just reports about the Stephen Gregory letter and how it was received. So NBC remains in this article. Binksternet (talk) 18:13, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

@Binksternet: I only used the Mediaite and WSJ articles to further demonstrate how NBC is not objective in its reporting and therefore can be considered a hit piece.

For example, the Mediaite article reports that The Epoch Times was asked by the NBC reporters in their interview (prior to the publication of this hit piece): "Do some Epoch Times interns, volunteers, or employees live in a shared home?" This shows the NBC reporters' will to discredit ET and FG by digging into their private lives instead of asking about issues related to journalism.

Stephen Gregory's being partisan does not equate to unreliability, as WSJ also has publication standards for opinion articles. Also, I said that they are competing media because they provide very different coverages for political figures. So my point is that they are ideologically competing, and that the NBC reporters wanted to discredit ET because of such a difference.

However, I only cited these articles as references, and those are not my main points. My main point is that NBC has relied on an oppressive Chinese regime's narrative but did not include any third-party experts' views, to which you have not given any meaningful answer. WP:BLP states that poorly sourced materials should be removed. If this NBC report relied on a frequently challenged Chinese regime propaganda narrative, then this alone can sufficiently prove the NBC article a poor source.--Thomas Meng (talk) 21:54, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

Your observation that NBC News did not investigate far enough is not our problem. It's not a problem at all. They performed a fair amount of investigation and reported on what they found. That's enough for us.

You will never get the NBC piece removed from this article. NBC News is a legitimate source for us; a very highly regarded one. They are one of the last best news agencies in the United States. Every word you use to try and remove NBC is another chip hammered out of your reputation here. Binksternet (talk) 22:10, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

@Binksternet: You've only dismissed my points by saying that "it's not a problem at all". This is not sufficient. Also, I've already addressed you NBC general reliability claim in my first reply to you and Horse eye Jack. Please pay respect to WP policies and all arguments mentioned.--Thomas Meng (talk) 23:22, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Why don't you perform the work yourself, comparing the NBC source to our Wikipedia:Reliable sources checklist? You will see that NBC in general is perfectly fine, and this specific NBC report is perfectly fine. You have no leverage for removal. Binksternet (talk) 23:27, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

The following is quite vague, additionally makes some bold accusations based on a single source. The NBC source has been recently scrutinized for its political motives. Seems to me like this isn't very appropriate to keep in the article. "Controversially, Li has been associated with a vast propaganda network that has pushed Falun Gong's philosophical beliefs, which include unfounded conspiracy theories, as well as right-wing and anti-China figures such as U.S. President Donald Trump." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Berehinia (talk • contribs) 04:32, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

NBC is a perfectly good source. You have nothing on their supposed political motives. Ridiculous request from above repeated again here. Ridiculous to suggest NBC should be removed. What I'm seeing is a double helping of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. But with NBC's respected place as a reliable news source, you have no traction. Binksternet (talk) 05:34, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

• Yes, NBC is a great source, and the story is described in detail in this section [11] based on the NBC and another publication which also qualify as RS. The only disputable issues are the following: (a) do we need such long direct quotation of the sources in this section? (I would say no, brief summary would be enough), and (b) how exactly this section should be summarized in the lead? (I would say it should be phrased differently and be shorter simply because the corresponding section is short). My very best wishes (talk) 22:41, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

So, I quickly fixed this for the sake of BLP neutrality. Welcome to fix this further if anyone wants. My very best wishes (talk) 03:23, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

"Unfounded conspiracy theories" on the summary is not neutral

We should instead provide specific examples of such "conspiracy theories", since fact that they are founded, and if Li Hongzhi had direct editorial action on them or not is also up for debate.

There's also a question of emphasis. E.g. should the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christianity page say that Christianity or any other religion is an unfounded conspiracy theory without evidence? As much as I'd like to, I don't think we should. Disclaimer: my Wife does Falun Gong.

This page should also likely be protected, it is an obvious target for vandalism.

Cirosantilli2 (talk) 09:09, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

email address

I want to contract u. 37.111.248.84 (talk) 17:24, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

Unrelated text passage under "Falun Gong"

There is a text passage under "Falun Gong" which starts with "Regarding these concepts, he said[...]". Apparently this passage seems to be out of context. I can't see how it follows on the preceeding passage(s). It also quotes a "Lewis" which is not mentioned in any text passage of the heading. Shoesoft93 (talk) 16:36, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

You're right, someone deleted the preceding sentence a while ago. I restored the missing text from the article history. MrOllie (talk) 16:54, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

possibly add a section on Li Hongzhi's opposition to homosexuality

if i may quote the sister article of Teachings of Falun Gong

Li Hongzhi's conservative moral teachings have caused some concern in the West, including his views on homosexuality, democracy and science. The founder taught that homosexuality makes one "unworthy of being human", creates bad karma, and is comparable to organized crime. He also taught that "disgusting homosexuality shows the dirty abnormal psychology of the gay who has lost his ability of reasoning", and that homosexuality is a "filthy, deviant state of mind." Li additionally stated in a 1998 speech in Switzerland that, "gods' first target of annihilation would be homosexuals." In light of Li's teachings on homosexuality as immoral, a nomination of Li for the Nobel Peace Prize by San Francisco legislators was withdrawn in 2001. Although gay, lesbian, and bisexual people may practice Falun Gong, founder Li stated that they must "give up the bad conduct" of all same-sex sexual activity.

since most of these are direct quotes, i think it would be notewhile to add such content on any sections related to his beliefs/controversies 98.59.80.64 (talk) 04:56, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

As shown above in the "Why is the page semi-protected?" section,this section was already discussed and deemed too heavily emphasized. Also, please state your sources for your "direct quotes" above. 92.200.207.67 (talk) 03:40, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

Braslow piece in Los Angeles Magazine

In March 2020, Los Angeles Magazine published a piece by Samuel Braslow which exposed Shen Yun practices and their ties to The Epoch Times. In May 2020, The Epoch Times filed a defamation suit against the magazine. In September 2020, the magazine published a retraction.

We already talked about this, which people can see at Talk:Falun Gong/Archive 45#References to article retracted by Los Angeles Magazine should be deleted. The result of the discussion was to keep the Braslow article. The concern voiced was that the Braslow article "cannot be considered a reliable source" because it was retracted by the magazine. The counter argument was that the reason for retraction was financial rather than factual; the magazine did not want to pay for a court battle. Braslow's archived article is still considered to be an accurate report about Shen Yun and The Epoch Times, despite the aggressive lawsuit and meek response. Binksternet (talk) 17:19, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

I fully agree with Jackupdike's points. There's no evidence that LA Mag retracted due to financial reasons rather than factual errors. On the contrary, there is evidence that LA Mag retracted because of misinformation, such as the article saying that Li founded ET, but the New York Times says John Tang did, and that the feature image of the LA Mag article is a Shen Yun dancer in MAGA hat cartoon, but in fact Shen Yun is not pro-Trump at all, hence their praise from many Democrat politicians and celebrities like Carolyn Maloney [12] and Donna Karen [13].Thomas Meng (talk) 20:57, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

The Talk:Falun Gong/Archive 45#References to article retracted by Los Angeles Magazine should be deleted argument about "Do not delete a citation merely because the URL is not working." (WP:DEADREF) has nothing to do with what we are talking here. I agree with Thomas. Nivent2007 (talk) 21:12, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

I agree with Binksternet, we shouldn't reward legal threats. Also, Thomas Meng, you've been here long enough to know that stuff like this isn't a good idea per WP:CANVASS. MrOllie (talk) 20:20, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

Do any Wikipedia policies or guidelines say if a retracted article can be a RS? Llll5032 (talk) 21:45, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

I couldn’t find a specific answer to that question when I looked the last time this came up, but the Reliable sources/Perennial sources page says: “Context matters tremendously when determining the reliability of sources, and their appropriate use on Wikipedia … even very high-quality sources may occasionally make errors, or retract pieces they have published in their entirety.” The clear implication is that retracted articles should not be used even if they came from an otherwise reliable source. JackUpdike (talk) 23:43, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

It’s unclear to me how this thread started, since I don’t see any reference to the retracted LA Magazine piece in this article. Is someone proposing to add it now? I asked previously what basis there is for the claim that LA Magazine retracted the piece based on financial considerations, and to my knowledge no one has provided any support for that claim. It seems self-evident to me that a retracted article does not qualify as reliable. And as I explained in the previous thread referenced above (in Archive 45), that particular retracted article included several objectively false assertions. I don’t understand how any fair-minded editor can defend continued citation to the article. JackUpdike (talk) JackUpdike (talk) 23:42, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

@JackUpdike: LA Mag's piece is removed from this article, but this discussion is a centralized discussion conerning LA Mag's inclusion in other relevant articles as well, such as Shen Yun and Falun Gong.