Talk:Li Hongzhi/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Removal of NPOV tag

I have removed the NPOV tag from this article as I believe the current version more or less reflects a neutral account of Li's life and his role in Falun Gong. I also straightened up the lead section to reflect the article's content. The lead section is not sourced, but I felt it was unnecessary to clutter the section with sources when this is done extensively in the article itself and in the main Falun Gong article. The article still needs a lot of work. For example, Li's role within Falun Gong still needs to be explained, but otherwise this article has been cleaned up of its former whitewashed POV state. Colipon+(Talk) 12:42, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Half an hour

This may be a minor point, but quoting the original source: "Today, the gong powers attained by Li Hongzhi have reached an extremely high level, some of which can hardly be imagined by ordinary people. One evening in July, 1990, he and several apprentices were practicing gong in the courtyard of a government organization in Beijing. Soon, the sky became overcast. Lightning flashed and thunder rolled, seemingly just overhead, and the apprentices were becoming somewhat nervous. According to the rules of most types of fa, such weather was inappropriate for practicing gong. However, they saw their master sitting with his legs crossed on a large stone, steady as a mountain and showing not the least sign of vacillation or any intention of withdrawing. So they continued to practice gong. Strangely enough, although the clouds were very heavy and very low, and thunder shook the skies, no rain fell. When the practicing came to an end, the master calmly told his apprentices: "It will not start to rain before half an hour is up. You may leave now with your hearts at ease." One of the apprentices lived in the western part of the city, and it took him about half an hour to get home by bus. Just as he stepped through the door of his house, the rain came pouring down, as if a hole had been pierced in the sky. There are many such miraculous stories told about Li, but they will not be recounted in this article, as ordinary people may find it hard to accept them.", does not match up with what is currently in the article "In Zhuan Falun, Li further writes that while practising with disciples in 1990, he was able to push away stormy weather and hold off rain for "exactly half an hour"." For now I'll delete/rephrase it, hope it's ok. --HappyInGeneral (talk) 20:18, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

That is not the original source. The original source is the 1994 copy of Zhuan Falun, which is used in turn by secondary source Benjamin Penny, who is cited. Colipon+(Talk) 20:43, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

I see sorry, do you have a quote for that? Still perhaps we can agree that the rain thing has little relevance here. --HappyInGeneral (talk) 20:54, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

The quote was helpfully offered by yourself above, I don't know why you are still asking for a quote. It is relevant because it is a primary example given in Zhuan Falun to demonstrate Li's miraculous powers. It is irrelevant to go into detail, but it is relevant to at least mention. Colipon+(Talk) 20:57, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

OK, actually in the quote there is no "_exactly_ half an hour" does not sound genuine and it is not per the quote, so I'll remove just that to be precise and add an additional citation to this source. Sounds good? --HappyInGeneral (talk) 21:22, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Sure. Take out the "exactly" if you so wish. Colipon+(Talk) 21:29, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Last Paragraph and Spiritual Biography

The last paragraph:

Li Hongzhi and Falun Gong have received a wide range of awards and proclamations from Australia, Canada, Japan, Russia, and the United States.[20][21] These include certificates of recognition from several governmental bodies in the United States - including Honorary Citizenship awarded by The State of Georgia and city of Atlanta. A number of cities in North America have proclaimed "Master Li Hongzhi Days".[22] In 14 March 2001, The Freedom House honored Li Hongzhi and Falun Gong with an International Religious Freedom Award for the advancement of religious and spiritual freedom at a ceremony in the United States Senate.[23] In the same year, Li was ranked the most powerful communicator in Asia by Asiaweek magazine "for his power to inspire, to mobilize people and to spook Beijing."[24]

can hardly be considered to be neutral. Similarly, almost all items in the bibliography and external links are sympathetic to Li and his movement.

Also, having a separate Spiritual biography portion places undue weight on the POV of Li's supporters. This section is also written in an uncritical way, without qualifying language that would call attention to the controversial nature of Li's biography. Ymwang42 (talk) 03:29, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

These are verifiable facts, what do you mean that they are not neutral? --HappyInGeneral (talk) 08:59, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Very droll. Everyone knows it's crap exaggeration which was common with all the qigong masters' hagiographies in China during the 80s and 90s. The only thing verifiable is that the 'biography' exists. Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 10:27, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

I was not talking about the biography. I was talking about the sourced statements between, see references between [20] and [24]. --HappyInGeneral (talk) 11:14, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't really mind keeping the "awards" section there. But please, if you have a suggestion on making things better, please just be bold and edit the article, or suggest something on the talk page with regards to what changes you see are necessary. We don't want another user that comes on here and says "this article is bad" and then leaving. Colipon+(Talk) 21:05, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

I have shortened the awards section to a much more appropriate length, while keeping the references. I have deleted mention of awards won by Falun Gong, as this has no direct relation to the biography. (In fact, inclusion of the Falun Gong awards gives a deceptive appearance of governmental support of the person Li Hongzhi.) I still think that the bibliography and external links section is excessive. I hope others will include some less positive views in these sections.Ymwang42 (talk) 09:23, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Good. Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 09:27, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Agreed that the awards do show CCP support for Li. He was invited overseas by the Chinese ambassador to France--that indicates support to me. So do the awards. Why should they be deleted for this? It's just stating a fact about whatever happened, it's published by a reliable source, so what's the problem? --Asdfg12345 12:32, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

update: I put those two awards back. As far as I understand, the stated reason for removing them is because they make the subject look good? I didn't think this was actually a reason for deleting information--because it's favourable to the subject. I'd understand if the page were overrun by such information, but it's one section, and it's unclear why that information shouldn't be available to readers. If there are some editing changes that could be made to trim it, that would always be good. --Asdfg12345 12:39, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Removal of content by asdfg

This was entirely removed

“ "Chinese authorities asserted that acquaintances Li Jingchao and Liu Yuqing helped to develop the system, and other earlier followers helped write texts and touch up photographs; it was not tested exhaustively beforehand, but was completed only one month before its official launch.". ”

I sense another "re-balancing" of POVs to make the article more favourable towards Falun Gong is in the works.

Colipon+(Talk) 23:52, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

As far as I understand, we are supposed to use reliable sources in these articles. Also, I understand that scholars characterise the CCP's works on Falun Gong, and Li Hongzhi, as propaganda. I understand that qiren qishi was one of the central attack pieces the CCP brought out at that time. I can see how there could be a case for presenting some information about this in the article--i.e., that he was the subject of a smear campaign by the CCP after the persecution--including in there some select things the CCP said at that time, but including detailed claims like this from an unreliable, propaganda source seems out of line with wikipedia content policies, as far as I understand. Please let me know if you disagree, or how you see this in the scheme of things. Ownby says something small. Can find more if you need me to substantiate the claims I've made in this paragraph--though I think they're not very controversial.--Asdfg12345 12:30, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Vandalism

Simon, could you please point out what "clear vandalism" did you fix here? Thanks --HappyInGeneral (talk) 00:43, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

• AFAICT, there is nothing wrong with the version which you tried to "fix". "His role within Falun Gong has been discussed by academics, skeptics, and journalists" is pretty much meaningless statement of fact. My reaction would be 'So what?'. Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 04:14, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

• Actually there are several points that where improved. But that is not the point here, the point here, is what was so wrong to label those edits as clear WP:VANDALISM? Maybe Simon did not know the policy, but I'm sure you do. So please don't avoid the question on hand. --HappyInGeneral (talk) 13:37, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

• I grant that the addition of the references are improvements. Amongst other changes, a cite of Penny was removed. I fail to see how most of the other changes are "improvements", in that they import a significant partisan bias. Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 13:43, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

• Let me repeat the question, in case you missed it: "That is not the point here, the point here, is what was so wrong that justified Simon to label those edits as clear WP:VANDALISM? Maybe Simon did not know the policy, but I'm sure you do. So please don't avoid the question on hand." --HappyInGeneral (talk) 13:48, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

• Perhaps you could point out to me wher I labelled anything 'Vandalism'? Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 13:50, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

• Well you did answer in this section, which makes it look like you are trying to give support/excuse the revert with the vandalism sign on it made by Simon here. This impression is easily created because you never once said that you don't agree with his labeling. --HappyInGeneral (talk) 13:57, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

I have already been very clear about why ASDFG's recent edits constitute vandalism and feel no need to repeat myself ad-nauseum just because you don't accept it. Your edit was reverted as vandalism because you reverted to ASDFG's vandalizing edit. Simonm223 (talk) 15:13, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Actually, if you looked at what I changed, I thought I mostly removed bias from the writing. There were flashy adjectives and nouns when plain ones would have done. It would be really helpful if people could be specific in making objections. I'm tiring of the personal attacks.--Asdfg12345 12:17, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Oh wow.. so I see it was reverted? I'm not sure what I should do in this situation. <--- I wrote that before I edited. Okay, so I kept the reffs fixed up. And I kept the Penny sentence. The change I made was to delete the CCP source, and to add in the much needed context about when the CCP's claims were made. And I have changed the wording so it does not seem like "While Li says... the CCP shows that..." -- as it was set up. I don't see a reason here to set it up like that. Also, one disappointing thing I might note is that in the rush to put in any kind of negative material available, what's been lost is some thoughtful information that would actually help the reader understand the cultural and historical context these things are happening within. Penny says a lot of interesting things about the biography of spiritual masters in Chinese history, relating it to the Falun Gong story. It would be interesting to have some parts of that analysis in here. I think this kind of thoughtful commentary on what is going on, rather than leaping in and trying to smear the subject, is much better. We should have a section called "Biography" and include the claims and counter-claims, and analysis, surrounding it. It should include the birthdate controversy and the supernatural ability stuff. Does anyone disagree with that? The other changes I made were mostly at the language level. If they're disputed, let's talk. The point is to make the writing neutral.--Asdfg12345 12:30, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Li's Whereabouts

Is this article being updated? It seems odd there's nothing beyond 2002. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.155.165.25 (talk) 10:12, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Li Hongzhi's response to third party material

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

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

Violations of WP:LIVING

The sensationalist language used, how the article, at every corner, airs CCP Propaganda, waters down the positive sources, etc. amount to gross violations of WP:LIVING.

For instance, Britannica states: "He studied under masters from the Buddhist and Taoist faiths. With the surge in China in the late 1980s of Qiqong-related activities—from which many Falun Gong exercises descended—Li decided to synthesize his techniques in order to establish a synergy between the mind and nature. He compiled many of his lectures into a book entitled Zhuan Falun, which served as the main text for his methodology. In it, he called for spiritual enlightenment through meditation and the striving toward a high moral standard of living. ". The intro airs post-persecution CCP propaganda( pre-persecution CCP sources say a different story), without context, then weakly counters with a biography the subject himself had requested removed stating attention should be on the Teachings, and on cultivating Xinxing, not on the Master. Distortions run throughout the article. Sources stating Li Hongzhi had been nominated four years in a row, by 6 different countries, for the Nobel Peace Prize has been repeatedly blanked and replaced with other much less relevant content. "He Zuoxiu"'s baseless attacks are aired in the article, while what Ian Johnson, Schechter, etc said on teh topic has been repeatedly blanked. The repetead blanking of positive content and promotion of a negative POV, is not only just in violation of WP:LIVING but is almost 50-cent-ish. Dilip rajeev (talk) 07:01, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Problematic editing

I've left another remark on Mrund's page, urging him not to edit in this way. Dilip has raised some concerns above; why not address them? Since this is an article on a living person, I think when Dilip reverts your blanking, and if you revert again, there may be scope for sanctions on that sort of behaviour, since this is both an article under probation, and a biography of a living person. See the Falun Gong arbitration case for guidelines about these pages. I think Mrund has made a mistake with that edit and should undo it himself. I'm not talking about the merit or otherwise of all parts of Dilip's edit, I'm talking about about blanking sourced, relevant material with no explanation while failing to engage in discussion. --Asdfg12345 13:28, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

• Oh, how very droll that Dilip's back, and that you referred to Mrund's editing as "problematic", as if throwing around these labels, plus your veiled threat will get him sanctioned. You are certainly wise enough not to want to stand behind the merits of Dilip's edit. As to his "concerns" - and I am talking generally - it seems that any use of a Chines government source is "propaganda" and cannot be relied upon, quite irrespective of whether it is used to demonstrate the government's own position or assertions. Pffff! Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 02:02, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

No, I have not suggested that. I have made clear that I believe the CCP's view should be used to demonstrate its own position or assertions. That is legitimate and fair. But when it is used as a source of facts about Falun Gong, as you have repeatedly used CCP sources--even the most virulently anti-Falun Gong propaganda, run by an agency which gets in on the brainwashing classes--it is no longer legitimate. I do not suggest the CCP's position not be stated. I suggest one 1) if secondary sources can first be used, that is best. In most cases there is no problem with using secondary sources. 2) if CCP sources are to be used, if necessary, the context and how they are structured needs to be quite clear. That's it. And it should not be overdone. In this case secondary sources should be sufficient to relay the CCP's claims against Li. However, whether they belong on this page or not I am not sure. The claims were made in the context of the persecution and anti-Falun Gong propaganda campaign. Probably it would make sense to mention that Li was targeted in that fashion, and elaborate on the details of the propaganda in the appropriate section dealing with that, presumably on the persecution page or main page. Primary sources and extremist sources are not useful for making claims about third parties; the existence of such views should be noted, however. I don't think we differ.--Asdfg12345 03:38, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

On a lighter note, what are you still doing here anyway!? Couldn't help it, could you?! --Asdfg12345 03:39, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

this kind of thing is a bit sad. Just seems like a bitter crusade now in spite of policy. "If that POV pusher Dilip wants to add some nice stuff, I'll show him!" I do think a claim like that needs a better source than an opinion column. I thought there were high standards for inclusion in BLPs, but this is bizarre. --Asdfg12345 22:28, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Violation of WP:BLP

I removed the Christopher Hitchens reference; such nonsense attributed to Sima Nan has never been found in any source that is directly quoting Li, and this is a biography of a living person. ✔ Olaf Stephanos ✍ 23:46, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

There are many other sources that corroborate this. I agree that Christopher Hitchens is not the best source. The story went something like this (Source: Yan Xiwu) - Sima Nan was against all forms of 'fake qigong'. Li Hongzhi boasted that Sima had spoken against all forms of qigong except for Falun Gong, because he'd planted a Falun that spins in the wrong direction. Li boasted that this proved that Falun Gong was the only 'true' form of qigong, even to qigong's critics. Days later, Sima went on BTV's Beijing Express program to criticize Li Hongzhi - saying that he never intended to 'spare' him of criticism. Falun Gong practitioners then went to the TV station to protest the 'slander' against Li Hongzhi, and in a compromise, BTV fired the host of the show. Sima Nan was enraged by the host's firing, and said that Falun Gong practitioners shouldn't be targeting the innocent, but should come to him directly instead. In his response to Falun Gong, he reiterated that his true enemy wasn't qigong (or Falun Gong), but those who claim supernatural powers and harm the public.

Li's quote on Sima Nan is given as follows by Mr. Yan (I don't know if this is just a paraphrase or an actual quotation):

“ 司马南谁都敢反，就是不敢反我。你们知道为什么吗？是因为我在他的肚子上遥距安了一个法轮，我让这个法轮时刻都在逆转。- Translation: Sima Nan is opposing everyone, but he does not dare to oppose me. Do you know why? Because I implanted a Falun in his abdomen from afar, and this Falun is constantly revolving in the wrong direction. ”

The portion that Olaf deleted, thus, should be rephrased, and better sources be located. But outright removal of it is unwarranted. Colipon+(Talk) 01:11, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Please, could you cite the original source in Chinese, for confirmation of the quote? We should also attribute the quote to the original Chinese source, with Crichten being only the guy who has reported the same thing in English. I tried rewording it but I didn't know how. --Enric Naval (talk) 08:22, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

This quote is so poorly fabricated (by Sima or someone else) that it's preposterous. What wrong direction? In Zhuan Falun, Li Hongzhi says, "While rotating clockwise, it can automatically absorb energy from the universe. Additionally, it can itself transform energy to supply the energy required for transforming every part of your body. Also, it emits energy while rotating counter-clockwise, releasing undesirable elements that will disperse around your body. When it emits energy, the energy can be released to quite a distance, and then it will bring in new energy again." [1] And, in China Falun Gong, "They will also rotate in reverse at the appropriate time. The mechanisms rotate in both directions; there is no need for you to work for those things." [2]

Actually, we have discussed this before, and the same logical contradiction was brought up back then. Sima Nan can say just about anything, because nobody in China is demanding verifiability for his comments about Falun Gong. ✔ Olaf Stephanos ✍ 10:56, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Hummm, I think I found the source: "Sima: In 1995, Li Hongzhi once bragged in a Falun Gong conference, "There is a Sima Nan in Beijing who scolded many people except for me. Why doesn't he dare scold me? Because I installed a wheel of law in him and the wheel is reverse. He will be blind in this year and lose his legs in a car accident next year. Once he wanted to make trouble in my conference, I added an idea onto him and he bent over like a dog immediately." Li Hongzhi's braggart was later reported to me in a letter and I was warned to be cautious because it was said that Li Hongzhi was powerful." Interview with facts.org, January 2008 [3]. --Enric Naval (talk) 12:54, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Let me get this straight: Sima claims that he received an anonymous letter from somebody who says Li Hongzhi said in a certain occasion something that, in a closer view, directly contradicts what is said in Zhuan Falun and Falun Gong about the wheel turning in both directions? And it is published on the Chinese government's anti-FLG website? And you think it belongs to a biography of a living person? ✔ Olaf Stephanos ✍ 13:08, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

wp:blp says, among other things: "Be very firm about the use of high quality references. Contentious material about living persons 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." I'm going to remove the offending text right away. It seems obvious that it contradicts that policy. Homunculus (duihua) 14:00, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

1. not an RS. 2. still violates BLP which is extremely strict. Ohconfucius just decided to put that stuff in out of spite for Dilip's return. And Mrund deleted a bunch of other material that actually had a good source and wasn't libellous. I hope Olaf restores that soon too. --Asdfg12345 06:20, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Let's be absolutely clear here. The source originally attributed was Christopher Hitchens and the Nation newspaper. The latter is, without question, a RS. The source does not say that Li said these things about Sima Nan, what the source says, and what Wikipedia reflects, is a statement from Christopher Hitchens. Now the reader just has to decide whether or not to believe Hitchens - something that Wikipedia does not take a position on owing to its policy of NPOV. If there are many other sources that also say the same thing, Wikipedia can present it as such, without making a judgment on whether or not Li Hongzhi really said it. The BLP policy was introduced because libel was going up on people's pages and the people had a legal right to contain false information about them. However, when Wikipedia presents that Christopher Hitchens said it, and attribute it to The Nation newspaper, it is clear that the liability for slander, if there is such a thing, lies first on The Nation and then on Christopher Hitchens. The debate that we should be having here, then, is not whether or not this violates the BLP policy, but rather whether or not Li Hongzhi's remark about Sima Nan is given undue weight, or some other similar encyclopedic concern. Colipon+(Talk) 14:34, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't really understand this logic. Good scholarship is about following the audit trail. It seems clear that those claims come from facts.org.cn (apparently titled as such without a hint of irony), and in that sense may have been totally made up. It's natural that people like Christopher Hitchens will bear a grudge against Chinese spiritual masters who make claims to be saving the world - I don't blame him - but I would never rely on such dubious claims in any professional research.

Olaf Stephanos further problematizes the issue with quotes from the 'horse's mouth' that contradict the source, too. And wp:blp tells us how this encyclopedia is not a tabloid. It just seems to me to be an inaccurate cheap shot from a bad source, rather than a thoughtful discussion. Ben Penny's article is referenced here; what a much better document to refer to. Homunculus (duihua) 14:56, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

I absolutely agree with you, Homunculus. Following the audit trail of that quote leads us to more and more obscure sources that seem to rely on hearsay only. I'm happy to see that new, reasonable editors are now interested in this topic area. The articles are in need of some major scrutiny. It would be good to compare some diffs from the last summer to the current versions. You will see that a lot of high-quality information from academic sources has been replaced with dubious anti-FLG propaganda. I will continue to challenge all of that, and this time rational discussion will be unavoidable. ✔ Olaf Stephanos ✍ 15:29, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Just a note. Facts.cn did in fact, seize on these comments unfairly. They do not present the comments neutrally because facts.cn is obviously an anti-Falun Gong website with lots of propaganda, probably produced by the Chinese gov't, so we should be careful of what it says. The only reason I seem adamant about this suggestion is because I have heard these remarks long before the Chinese gov't's propaganda war against Falun Gong even began. I know that it is not a fabrication - I just need to find the right sources for it. It's just that Chinese language sources that discuss this issue often get called "communist propaganda" by the group of Falun Gong editors here so I sometimes wonder if it's worth the effort. Colipon+(Talk) 21:30, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Sima Nan has been against qigong even during the so-called 'qigong boom', and Falun Gong had other opponents, including qigong masters who had been stripped of their fat revenues in the advent of a free-of-charge practice system. We know this from research. An anonymous letter maligning Li Hongzhi that just "happens" to find its way into official publications should arouse anyone's suspicions, especially since it wantonly contradicts Falun Gong theory about the wheel revolving in both directions and being only installed into genuine practitioners' abdomen. We don't write biographies based on agenda-driven hearsay. ✔ Olaf Stephanos ✍ 22:35, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Using Li Hongzhi qiren qishi as a source

The reference [12] was sourced to an anti-Falun leaflet published by the Research Office of the Ministry of Public Security. We shouldn't use propagandistic primary sources in a biography of a living person. The CCP's point of view can be explained through the use of academic secondary sources. Also, even though the previous reference is to Penny, I took a look at the original writing and saw that Penny attributed this information to exactly the same source: Li Hongzhi qiren qishi. I didn't remove it, though - we can certainly use Penny to route the claims of the CCP. However, James Tong describes the CCP source and these allegations in detail, so I inserted some words from him. On a side note, I don't think this article should be turned into a battlefield of discourses; we should probably keep it concise. But I will wait for wider input and hold back for now. ✔ Olaf Stephanos ✍ 23:25, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

The source is actually used by Benjamin Penny to describe the Chinese government's views on Li (as you noted yourself). I sourced the primary source for it to have a more direct means of tracing. If you are genuinely concerned about the use of Li Hongzhi qiren qishi as a source, we can easily modify that source to Benjamin Penny. Colipon+(Talk) 23:30, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

I wouldn't say there is any problem in using B. Penny as a source on the PRC's viewpoint. I have taken a look at Olaf's recent edits, as well as yours. It seems he left Penny intact and simply added some commentary about the original source used by Penny. You reverted everything. Just my opinion: this dispute doesn't belong to Li's biography. We are better off moving it somewhere else. In this case, the PRC source seems to tell more about the PRC than about Li. —Zujine|talk 01:30, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

I might weigh in on this... Colipon is right in the sense that qiren qishi is a clear representation of the views of the CCP. But at the same time, I think the level of qualification needed to properly contextualise these claims - that it was a report compiled by the research branch of the PSB in accordance with the post-7-20 political requirements of Jiang and the Politburo - makes them more relevant in a discussion of the CCP's propaganda campaign than as a useful commentary on Li himself.

Apropos, someone over at Ching Hai made a good point: "The way it looks to me, if no quality sources are available in a BLP, the article should be stubbed. We must not put in a bunch of weaselisms, gossip, innuendo, guilt by association and all the other stand-bys of poor journalism and say, "Gee, that's all we could find.""

I tend to agree. These are a similar set of sources which told us of how Li was alleged to have visited brothels, and compared him to Hitler. We're not going to have that in the Wikipedia page but it's all a matter of degree, and there's as much evidence for the tamer claims as there is for the openly humorous ones. They were fabricated for political purposes. In that sense, Zujine is right that these sources tell us more about the CCP's media imperatives than about the subject of the attacks. I'm shifting all the information over to the History page, where I think it belongs. The Sound and the Fury (talk) 02:01, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

This is probably the most sensible solution. I think I remember reading something about how the Falungong came out with their own qiren qishi counter-propaganda, against Jiang. I doubt that would get any airtime on the Jiang Zemin page. Noting it as an example the Falungong's use of media to get their message across would make sense, but I imagine Wikipedia would look dimly upon anyone trying to include it on the Jiang page. Homunculus (duihua) 10:41, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

There is an entire paragraph of Falun Gong's criticisms against Jiang in his article (I recall inserting some of the material myself). Indeed, that piece was named Jiang Zemin qiren qishi, and is taken as a direct "reply" of Falun Gong against Jiang (The CCP and Falun Gong sometimes operate in very similar ways in their media wars - Falun Gong also calls the CCP "a cult" in their "nine commentaries of the Communist Party") Should we take that out of the Jiang article as well, then, per BLP? Colipon+(Talk) 14:33, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Agree with Colipon. The Epoch Times is not a good source for the Jiang Zemin article. I removed the paragraph and suggest that we go looking for a good secondary source that describes the tension between Falun Gong and Jiang. —Zujine|talk 15:50, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Recent edits by Olaf

Here we see that Olaf has made three changes to the article. The third one was minor, so I won't be dealing with that. In the second change, Olaf outright removed Chinese gov't-compiled source Li Hongzhi qiren qishi. While I agree that Chinese government sources are not reliable when it comes to discussing Falun Gong per se, they should be used as a reliable source to discuss their own views on Falun Gong. The passage that Olaf removed clearly stated that the views were that of the Chinese authorities, and thus leaves the reader to judge whether or not that is believable as per NPOV. The Noah Porter reference that Olaf tried to insert is in itself questionable - and even if it wasn't, it's misplaced. This is becoming eerily similar to Olaf's actions before his six-month topic ban - the CPC's propaganda tactics should be discussed where it belongs; it should not be brought out every time there is anything to be said that remotely paints Li Hongzhi in a negative light. This is, after all, an encyclopedia, not a battleground for both sides to have a 'right-of-reply' to the other.

As for the first edit, I am a little hesitant about the wording. I think it dilutes the reality of Li's position of power in Falun Gong. But I will not delve into that now, because I think there is a degree of justification for modifying that part of the intro. Olaf's treatment of it is still not neutral, but it will suffice until someone comes up with something better. Colipon+(Talk) 23:27, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

I am not against academic representations of Falun Gong, no matter what their point of view is. I was topic banned for being sarcastic, and it doesn't take away from my professional, methodical treatment of sources. This is not an article about the Chinese government's views on Falun Gong, but a biography of a living person. Primary source material that might be valid elsewhere isn't automatically acceptable here. Some outside editors have already expressed their concerns about the state of these articles, and I believe my changes may be justified in their eyes as well. As you see, I am not edit warring or reverting, merely inserting well-sourced material and contesting dubious references. I said in my previous comment that the text should be kept concise. Through adding some transparency to the sources that have been appropriated, I encourage other editors to make informed choices about developing the article further. I am by no means endorsing this version. ✔ Olaf Stephanos ✍ 23:39, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Olaf, when I was doing research on this topic, I occasionally glanced at what was going on with these articles. You write well and know your sources, but you did create unnecessary tension by acting like the rooster in a henhouse. If you can tone down your acrid language, which you may have already done to some degree, I think your contributions will be very much valued by the community. It will be less straining for you too, believe me. —Zujine|talk 01:56, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

My only input here is that 'holds definitional power' is obviously more neutral than 'wields near-absolute influence.' The verb wields is hyperbolic, and 'near-absolute influence' is not the reserved assessment one would expect from a creativity-stifling professional encyclopedia. Noah Porter's thesis is a good source. If Li's position within the Falun Gong cosmology could be better explained that would also be good. The Sound and the Fury (talk) 02:08, 25 March 2010 (UTC)