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)

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

Deceased?

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)