Talk:Teachings of Falun Gong

Samuel Luo and his Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Samuel Luo and Tomananda are banned from editing this article indefinitely.

These users have been banned by the Arbitration committee from editing this article, discussing or proposing changes on this talk page. Posted by Srikeit 06:43, 9 May 2007 (UTC) for the Arbitration committee. See Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Falun Gong.

Merger proposal

The two articles seem to cover very similar precepts under different names. If the copyvio content is deleted in both these articles, the merger can take place without any burden on article size. Ohconfucius 02:27, 13 August 2007 (UTC) letS —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.77.155.232 (talk) 20:20, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Overhaul

Hi, I just learned how to edit on Wikipedia. This page is currently a mess, I am working on a new version which I am going to replace soon. thanks. – — … ° ≈ ≠ ≤ ≥ ± − × ÷ ← → · § Randy1412Randy1412 (talk) 04:51, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

I think this is excellent, well done. I have made some small changes, and put some Chinese terms in. It needs a WP:Lead section, and I think some minor rearranging, but is definitely a very big improvement. --Asdfg12345 22:54, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

ref problem

The <ref name=kar /> is broken, could somebody please fix it? Thank You. --89.35.149.202 (talk) 07:46, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

It's totally weird that that ref is broken. I have looked at it carefully and tried to fix it, it's a complete anomaly.--Asdfg12345 12:17, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

OK, now it's fixed. A reference above it was not closed, and this impacted the next reference definition. --HappyInGeneral (talk) 12:28, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Tags

I've tagged this article for a few reasons:

1. It is almost devoid of wikilinks which would provide contextual help and help build the web.
2. It appears to be written from an advocative, rather then descriptive, tone.
3. The introduction is opaque to those who are unfamilar with the subject.

When these issues are addressed, the article should be untagged. Chris Cunningham (talk) 13:50, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

yeah someone just rewrote it. It would help to identify the parts which are advocative rather than descriptive. Specific instances are needed--please help.--Asdfg12345 15:55, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

I think point 1 and partially point 3 is solved. See here: [1]. --HappyInGeneral (talk) 16:24, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

We could still do with more work on point 1, I feel. I don't believe that the intro is clear enough yet. Chris Cunningham (talk) 17:20, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

some notes

apart from hearing what Chris has to say, which will be useful, some things I can think of:

• a proper, normal introduction according to WP:Lead, and explaining in more secular terms what Falun Gong is.
• making some sections into subsections, since this would categorise the ideas better
• thorough copyedit of language, style, tone
• general attempt to give more background/introduction to some of the concepts

um there are some other issues, and this is a tricky topic. A new editor seems to have written the whole thing anew. It's definitely an improvement, in any case. It may be easy both to allow an article like this to enter the realm of advocation, yet equally easy to mistakenly accuse it of such, simply due to the content itself, even if it were presented in a very neutral way. I think what's here now is a solid basis which can be trimmed up and polished. There are definite improvements. I want to do this sometime soon; we'll see how it looks in a week or so.--Asdfg12345 16:32, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

PS: I just see another editor has put in links etc., this is good. --Asdfg12345 16:32, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Yep, it's rapidly getting better. let's see how things work out. Chris Cunningham (talk) 17:20, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

discussion of lede

Dilip, please see WP:LEDE. I think the version you are proposing is unreasonably large. The lede should provide the essential information for the article, not trying to fit everything in. The lede needn't elaborate on the key points. I think another one or two sentences could be put in about xinxing cultivation and the emphasis on morality, but the version you want seems far too long. (You also introduced a grammatical error into the first sentence.)--Asdfg12345 10:29, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Dubious claim about karma

The claim in the article that Buddhist karma is strictly about reward and punishment is incorrect. The Falun Gong claim that all karma is negative, that all karma is the source of suffering, is precisely the same view as in Buddhism. It is a bit confusing, though, as to how this same section conflates this teaching with the Christian doctrine, "you reap what you sow," which is the primitive notion of reward and punishment. So, it's a bit confusing how the article contradicts itself -- that is, David Ownby's own observations are self-contradictory. What exactly is meant by "readily traceable" to the Christian teaching? Did karma originate in Christianity? It doesn't make much sense. ☯  Zenwhat (talk) 00:12, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

isn't there like 'good karma' and 'bad karma' in Buddhism? I think this is what it means. There's no 'good karma' and 'bad karma' in Falun Gong, just karma and virtue, and karma manifests only as negative returns for doing bad things. I think Ownby is just making a pithy observation in comparing Falun Gong to christianity. I think 'readily-traceable' just means that the connection is obvious, or like, they are quite similar. How do you reckon to make it so anyone who reads it does not get confused?--Asdfg12345 02:39, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

What the article says is that the terminology used is different. In Buddhism the term "karma" means both the consequences of both good and bad actions - when you do a good deed you get good karma and bad deed brings bad karma. Good karma leads to god rewards and bad karma leads to suffering. In Falun Dafa the term Karma or Ye Li refers to Bad Karma and the term Virtue or De refers to Good Karma. Just my understanding. Dilip rajeev (talk) 19:31, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Actually Karma is just cause and effect in standard Buddhist practice. As such it is value-neutral.Simonm223 (talk) 13:13, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Does anybody believe that the New York Times isn't a valid source?

I found a quote of Li Hongzhi on the New York Times. It was removed. I would like to know why. I mean, come on, the Epoch Times is referenced as a source in FLG articles. The New York Times is one of about the three most respected newspapers in the world! I would like to know a single valid reason why quotes from Li Hongzhi, quotes of things he said to his australian followers no less, printed by the New York Times are not seen as valid for an article on the teachings of the FLG. Please don't give me an essay on forebearance and acceptance and all that. My two questions are simple: 1) Do things Li Hongzhi says to his congregants on the topic of metaphysics count as Teachings of the Falun Gong? 2) Does the New York Times count as a valid source? If the answers to these questions are yes and no or if I get no on-topic answer I am putting the quote back in.Simonm223 (talk) 13:18, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

No, the NYT is a valid source. As I wrote to Dilip on the FG talk page: Dilip, The New York Times does reach Wikipedia's reference standards. That Ownby and Schechter do, too, is not a reason to not allow the NYT as a valid source. The quotation may therefore be included in context. PerEdman (talk) 09:35, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks PerEdman. If you still need it the date of reference is April 30, 2000. I'm putting it in the section on karma and rebirth as it refers to teachings Mr. Li has provided on post-life fate and its relationship to FLG practice. If there is a different part of the teaching section that you feel it would fit better in I am open to moving it. But this information should be included somewhere. Simonm223 (talk) 13:08, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Please let me clarify. The material I listed is sourced from the new york times quoting Li Hongzhi it is NOT a fringe perspective nor does it need to be academically sourced. It is what Li Hongzhi said. So please stop reverting it. That is a clear violation of WP:NPOV.Simonm223 (talk) 14:27, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

If NYT "quotes" Li Hongzhi, and quotes him wrong, I'm not sure the best way of handling that. If the journalist doesn't include the thing in quotes, then it's just the journalists words. Maybe that could be qualified as "according to blah journalist," and some other notes for context. If the journalist says something that does not appear in the teachings, that could be pointed out. I don't see any grounds for excluding NYT as a source here, but there are other sources as well, so a variety of views can be presented. I think that's okay. --Asdfg12345 21:05, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

I find Dilip's remarks quite persuasive, actually. He has identified some important policy points which make qualifications about when opinion articles are useful and relevant and when they are not. This is quite important. In the end I would suggest some general language that Li's views on this and other topics have been criticised by some journalists, but that Falun Gong claims his remarks have been misunderstood (per faluninfo.net, for example). I think that is a fair compromise between noting that such fringe interpretations exist, without giving undue weight. The real research from scholars like Ownby, Porter, Zhao, etc., carries far more weight and is much more useful than throwaway opinions from journalists--I think it's just about balance and context, and making sure we are presenting something useful and accurate to the reader.--Asdfg12345 21:25, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Discussion on this from Talk:Falun Gong

I've seen quotes from Li Hongzhi where he has said that children of mixed 'race' are "unclean" and where he has stated that the after-life is racially segregated. I have also heard second hand accounts stating that he has further said that the racially segregated after-life is ranked with better post-death fates for certain ethnicities. I edit from work and most sites about ARGs are blocked so I can't effectively search for the quote. Could somebody lend a hand?Simonm223 (talk) 15:05, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Nowhere is any term with any connotation as "unclean" or anything even remotely carrying such connotation used. I am sure you would seen this claim made in some CCP related website - they can't find anything wrong with Falun Gong - so they resort to ridiculous misrepresentations, like these, to bolster their propaganda campaign.

Buddhists traditions and Daoist traditions ( and many Indian traditions as well ) have a world-view in which a hierarchy of dimensions are present - systems or ordering in a plane, never arising coincidentally, but as a natural, physical consequence of a deeper, higher dimensional ordering. All that is said, in passing, is that the ordering of this plane of the cosmos has to do with how more microcosmic, higher dimensional planes are ordered - and racial ordering here, as well, exists not by mere chance. Many inter-racial people practice cultivation - So Very Many. What is mentioned in the teachings is that mixing of races, on this scale, is a fairly recent phenomenon. It is also said that mixed race people can practice cultivation all the same, and it is said, very clearly, that it is neither their fault nor their parents' - but just has got to do with chaotic cosmic phenomenon beyond their control. Interracial marriages are, in fact, not uncommon among practitioners .

Dilip rajeev (talk) 21:50, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Falun Gong is not racist. Spit out the bait you accidentally swallowed. I've been practicing for eight years, and I've noticed that mixed-race marriages among practitioners (esp. Caucasians <-> Chinese) seem to be more common than in population at large. I have never heard a practitioner utter a racist slur. Moreover, I've seen hundreds of practitioners of mixed-race origin.

For more information, take a look at the following accurate description of Falun Gong's "stance" in these controversial issues [2]:

Knowing the democratic West to be a tolerant, pluralistic, and diverse place, Chinese authorities have sought to brand Falun Gong as contrary to these basic values. In a word, they’ve sought to cast it as “intolerant.” Several journalists have taken the bait.

The characterization is patently misleading, and rests solely upon an outsider’s uninformed interpretation of doctrine. It’s found to be at odds with lived practice.

Consider the first of the two major issues Chinese authorities cite: an alleged intolerance of homosexuality. (We can’t help but note the irony of China’s communist rulers having until recently banned homosexuality, labeling it a mental disorder.)

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.

Falun Gong’s teachings do suggest that certain behaviors, including homosexuality, generate more karma than others or are not conducive to certain aspirations in the practice. But this it is left at the level of teaching, and not a creed or regulation. How one understands a given teaching, and to what extent he or she applies it, is always a personal matter.

A second, related point that must be emphasized is that Falun Gong’s teachings on this and other matters do not equate to a “position statement” or “stance” on some social issue. They are intended solely for the individual aspirant, and to be applied to his or her own life; they are not meant to be applied to others, much less non-practitioners. Falun Gong does not have any position on what other people should or shouldn’t do with their lives. It simply offers its teachings on personal change to whomever is interested in its path to spiritual growth.

What holds true for homosexuality holds true for interracial marriage, if not more so. Falun Gong’s teachings have little to say about the matter. What several journalists have picked up on, prompted by Chinese state media intimations, is the presence of one passage in one book where Falun Gong’s founder mentions the issue in passing.

Regrettably the said journalists didn’t temper their own, outsider’s reading of that passage with investigation or evidence. They failed to check with any living, actual persons who do Falun Gong, preferring, seemingly, to not let a sensational reading of the passage be spoiled by evidence to the contrary.

Had they looked into the matter, they would have found their assumptions to be just that, assumptions. Many who practice Falun Gong have married individuals of a different race after taking up the practice. Of the 14 individuals who make up the Information Center’s staff, fully 4 fall into this category. If Falun Gong teaches racial segregation, it’s doing a poor job of it.

If the practice does not breed racial intolerance in the life of the individual, one might readily imagine how much less so it translates into a general “stance” on interracial marriage in society.

The two most frequently cited forms of “intolerance” end up suggesting, upon closer examination, just the opposite. Indeed, if anything, it would seem that something in Falun Gong is instead conducive to greater tolerance.

✔ Olaf Stephanos ✍ 18:17, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Essays on Falun Gong practice aside the truth is that I have read quotes from Li Hongzhi on the issue of racial segregation, as I said previously, I just can't find them right now. Please next time you don't have the information I requested it would be sufficient for you to say that you don't believe you have ever read such material. Furthermore please refrain from making personal attacks when you speak to me. It is unwelcome and inappropriate. Thank you very much. Simonm223 (talk) 19:26, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Found the quote. It was in the new york times in 2000 and was a quote of a statement made by Li Hongzhi in an interview in 1999. I have added the appropriate quote to the "Teachings of Falun Gong" page and will add balancing comments in order to maintain neutrality. As this is a direct quote taken from a source that IIRC does meet Wikipedia's reference standards I ask that it not be removed. I will endeavor to make sure the presentation is neutral.Simonm223 (talk) 11:37, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Simonm223, we're going to need a date reference ... wait, I just realized this is talk about different wikipage. Going to that Talk page now. PerEdman (talk) 09:37, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Academic analysis - Ownby, Schechter, etc. never mention anything to such an effect - and these works carry extensive analysis of the Teachings. They don't find anything suggestive of any form of racism or segregation. For a tabloid or a newspaper, such mis-characterization does not count for much. But for an encyclopaedic article, which ought to be of high enough quality to serve as an academic source, such far-fetched claims, unless supported by mainstream academia, in my opinion, are to be avoided. What is said in the teachings has to be understood in the context of over 2000 pages of teachings. If the teachings present, like many Indian and Chinese Traditions, a world-view of a Cosmic Ordering in which is present a hierarchy of material dimensions, and organization in this material dimension arising as a natural consequence of how the system is organized in higher, more microcosmic dimensions, and the teachings, in passing, mention something about racial ordering ( something that occupies just a para or so in over 2000 pages of the teachings ) in this plane arising as a natural consequence of a higher ordering - it has to be presented in the appropriate context - and not be exaggerated and presented in a distorted, out of context and misleading manner. A journalist might do this - sensationalism is part of his job, and he is no position to analyze things in a scholarly manner or to make an academic statement on the issue. But a true Scholar won't - as is evidenced by that prominent scholarly studies of the teachings do not make any such claims.

Dilip rajeev (talk) 20:46, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

In australia in 1999 Li Hongzhi told followers of his religion that children of interracial ancestry could only get into heaven through his graces. He said that there were separate heavens segregated by colour. How is this not racism?Simonm223 (talk) 15:38, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Dilip, The New York Times does reach wikipedia's reference standards. That Ownby and Schechter do, too, is not a reason to not allow the NYT as a valid source. The quotation may therefore be included in context. PerEdman (talk) 09:35, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia, being an encyclopedia, "is not an indescriminate collection of information". What is presented in the NYT article is but a particular journalist's characterization - who is by no means an expert on the topic. For outrageous claims like these - like that it is said mixed-race people are all "spawn" of this period ( which is a ridiculously misleading representation) - which completely conflicts with what academics say about Falun Gong; and is not supported by scholarly sources and also , by no means, the original source - we must exercise great caution, lest we end up misleading the reader. Highest quality scholarship available on the topic all tell us Falun Gong is a peaceful form of self-belief - what does a particular journalist's sensationalist comments count for, in the face of all that academic analysis?

"Isolated studies are usually considered tentative and may change in the light of further academic research. The reliability of a single study depends on the field. Studies relating to complex and abstruse fields, such as medicine, are less definitive. Avoid undue weight when using single studies in such fields. Meta-analyses, textbooks, and scholarly review articles are preferred to provide proper context, where available." - WP:RS .. This article obviously is not a study.. The claim made by the journalist is not even a study, is quite far-fetched and the tone of writing is very misleading as well. Remember, a journalist is no position to pass scholarly comments on the topic. We cannot include every journalist's interpretation and comments in an encyclopaedic article. Further the article, written in 2000 could easily have been influenced by CCP propaganda, which had then infiltrated many western news agencies, according to analysts like Schechter.

"Opinion pieces are only reliable for statements as to the opinion of their authors, not for statements of fact, and should be attributed in-text."..."For information about academic topics, such as physics or ancient history, scholarly sources are preferred over news stories. Newspapers tend to misrepresent results, leaving out crucial details and reporting discoveries out of context. For example, news reports often fail to adequately report methodology, errors, risks, and costs associated with a new scientific result or medical treatment."..."An individual extremist or fringe source[this is not a fringe source but the claim made is obviously a fringe theory] may be entirely excluded if there is no independent evidence that it is prominent enough for mention. Fringe and extremist sources must not be used to obscure or describe the mainstream view, nor used to indicate a fringe theory's level of acceptance." - WP:RS

Considering these wiki-policies, and the completely non-academic tone of the content being added, I am of the firm opinion that such sensationalist material ought not be added in without context. For the reasons I adumbrate here, I am keeping it out of the article for now.

Dilip rajeev (talk) 13:57, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Dilip the article in question was not a "journalist's characterization". It was a direct quote of statements made by Li Hongzhi.Simonm223 (talk) 14:18, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

See.. the article ended up misleading you as well. It is not a direct quote. Nor is it even a paraphrase. Using terminology, never found in the teachings like "spawn of" - if anything, it is a very biased and intentional/sensationalist mis-characterization. You may verify this for yourself. The lectures are available online. Dilip rajeev (talk) 14:31, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

(Unindent) No, Dilip rajeev, just no. You say "It's a characterization", Simonm223 points out that it is not. So you say "Oh, that's just the article misleading you!". I believe Simonm223 has an actual quote, and I do not believe you have more than one other source that says anything different. PerEdman (talk) 00:23, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Just because Mr. Li didn't write it down in Zhuan Falun doesn't mean it isn't part of what he taught when he said those things to his followers in australia in 1999. PS: If conversation must continue on this subject can we please do so in Talk:Teachings of Falun Gong?Simonm223 (talk) 14:44, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

The 1999 Lecture in Australia is available on FalunDafa.org as well. You may go through the lecture and verify for yourself.

Dilip rajeev (talk) 15:21, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

I think that the New York Times is a more reliable source than the religious group's website.Simonm223 (talk) 21:51, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

That is a very funny remark, Simon. The Falun Dafa website has all the stuff that Li has published. If it's not there, it hasn't been published. The New York Times doesn't have that stuff, obviously, and they obviously don't have some special access to Li, where they know other things he has said that have not been published. I'd like to see this responded to (i.e., that the spawn remark isn't in the teachings--there's direct proof of that, what do you say?), and secondly, the long argument that Dilip has raised, quoting policies and explaining why the remark doesn't qualify as appropriate. When discussing these things, we need to respond to what the other is saying. Please respond to the points Dilip has raised. My suggestion is a compromise, noting that journalists have raised criticisms, and that Falun Gong claims either willful or guileless misunderstanding.--Asdfg12345 22:17, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

(Unindent) What is funny/horrifying, Asdfg, is your claim that the Falun Dafa website has "all the stuff that Li has published", when Simonm223's source is not a published document, it is a quote from an interview. If what you claim was true, then we could just throw out all sources that are not present on the Falun Dafa webpage, but for obvious reasons, this being a wikipedia article, we cannot possibly do that. We must use all sources at our disposal, using wikipedia guidelines to discriminate between them.

What we cannot possibly do, is use the Falun Dafa webpage to make that discrimination, because this is Wikipedia, rather than Clearwisdom.net. PerEdman (talk) 00:23, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Are you saying that things Li Hongzhi says to his followers in a religious context only count as teachings if they are then published by his publishing firm? That makes little sense.Simonm223 (talk) 12:13, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

It is not the source I have a problem with - but the non-contextual manner in which the material is currently presented. WP:RS itself tells us: "Newspapers tend to misrepresent results, leaving out crucial details and reporting discoveries out of context." We need to present things in an academically sound manner. Also, the article nowhere claims it is a direct quote. Kindly address the WP:RS concerns I raise above. It is not the source in itself - but the source being a newspaper article, and what it claims not being supported by academia that concerns me. We need to form a consensus here on talk before adding the material in. And, if we must add it in let us do so in an encyclopaedic manner, providing appropriate context. Till then, I request you exercise restrain and to please not keep re-adding the content while discussion is underway.

Dilip rajeev (talk) 14:43, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Dilip rajeev, Please read MORE of the text in WP:RS, for example the part about allowing even for opinion pieces. Or even the start of the paragraph you chose to quote so selectively:

For information about academic topics, such as physics or ancient history, scholarly sources are preferred over news stories. Newspapers tend to misrepresent results, leaving out crucial details and reporting discoveries out of context. For example, news reports often fail to adequately report methodology, errors, risks, and costs associated with a new scientific result or medical treatment. -WP:RS

There will never be a complete context inside the wikipedia article itself - that is why we have references; so we do not have to reproduce everything on wikipedia. A wiki page cannot tell people what to believe, but it can show them the sources so that people can make up their own minds.

Nor can you read WP: guidelines as you read a holy writ. Just because WP:RS makes the reservation that newspapers can misrepresent results or report discoveries (this about scientific discoveries, nb) does not mean that you can just quote that part, out of context, as an argument against the quotation presented by Simonm223.

If you believe context is missing, add context but do it in the wikipedia spirit, and please don't just remove the claim. PerEdman (talk) 00:16, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

It is about academic topics ( not scientific topics) and this is clearly an academic topic.' There are several issues pointed out above - and they all need to be sufficiently addressed. For an academic topic, a newspaper report is one of the last sources one would look into - especially when its view conflicts with that of mainstream scholarship. Dilip rajeev (talk) 01:28, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

For reporting Li Hongzhi's words the New York Times constitutes a reliable source. Please stop with the straw-dog arguments and inappropirate reverts.Simonm223 (talk) 17:19, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

It would have made more sense, in terms of adding it to the article, if the remark opined one way or another on the topic of those teachings. It's actually just a snatch of poor journalism. The basic thing seems to be that these teachings are not a notable part of the corpus of Falun Gong teachings--is there any evidence to the contrary? Do we have a good source linking the notability of Falun Gong to these teachings? This would be useful stuff. Anyway, for now I think it's okay to simply mention it, along with Johnson's useful characterisation, which gives some context as well as drawing attention to the topic. --Asdfg12345 22:29, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

I would say it is incredibly notable that Li Hongzhi, the person from whom all FLG teachings descends, made racist metaphysical statements. How could you possibly consider this to be non-notable?!?!Simonm223 (talk) 13:05, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Racist metaphysical statements? Do you not see the contradiction in terms here? Also, it's only your own interpretation that his remarks are "racist" -- that's what you add to it, not the nature of his statements. Beside that, none of this matters because it's just our own argumentation and original research. The point is that such statements are barely related to the notability of the topic, as far as I can tell. Is Falun Gong famous because of this? No. The only reason they would be mentioned here at all, I guess, is that journalists have mentioned them. Notability claims stem from what reliable sources say, not from what we say. These things have been mentioned a few times, but they're just one small part of a whole corpus of teachings of thousands of pages. I don't think it's a deal to mention them. Mention them, it's fine. They're mentioned now and even contextualised. I don't see a problem.--Asdfg12345 18:22, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

If you don't remove the quote again there won't be a problem over that specific issue. All I ever wanted was for you to stop removing the quote.Simonm223 (talk) 18:28, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Rewriting the quote and including unproven and unverified and uncited statements such as that the author was a FLG critic is NOT a move. If you read the article it's actually more critical of the PRC than of the FLG. Please don't try things like that. If you want to move without rewriting I will not revert.Simonm223 (talk) 18:48, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

He's a critic. I don't mind not saying he's a critic, but it's not a false statement. You can call it uncited and remove it, fine. I don't have a citation so I won't argue. My main problem is that it's not true that Li said the "spawn of the Dharma ending period" thing. (check search.freefind.com/find.html?id=46344703&pageid=r&mode=ALL&n=0&_charset_=UTF-8&bcd=%C3%B7&query=spawn&Search.x=0&Search.y=0&Search=+Find+ a search of the site). The next part of the quote is left intact. The last part of the quote was "have no place in heaven without Li's intervention," which also doesn't seem accurate (search.freefind.com/find.html?oq=spawn&id=46344703&pageid=r&_charset_=UTF-8&bcd=%C3%B7&scs=1&query=intervention&Find=Search&mode=ALL). You're welcome to call me on third party sources that I introduce which aren't accurate--just show how they aren't and make it good. At the moment the note sums up the journalists view without introducing any inaccuracies. What do you say? (Note: could not embed the links, some problem, just copy and paste into browser, and maybe add a http:// )--Asdfg12345 18:59, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

The 'spawn of dharma end times' comment is very relevant. Please stop trying to exclude information that people should be able to see.Simonm223 (talk) 19:00, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit conflict] I've explained myself point by point; please do me the same courtesy. Wikipedia needs some kind of instant messaging function!--Asdfg12345 19:02, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

How is it "relevant"? How do you respond to the fact that this is not at all found in the teachings? Should we have another sentence explaining this? It's the same with the intervention statement. If you want to put them in, then we will have to include the fact that such statements are not found in the teachings. You take your pick.--Asdfg12345 19:02, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Your arguments for it's falseness are baseless - derived from FLG hosted transcripts. Unless you have the NY Times printing a retraction... or unless you have evidence that Li Hongzhi successfully brought libel action against the Times. Do you?Simonm223 (talk) 19:05, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

The Times does not claim that those were things that Li directly told the paper. It just says he says them. Everything published by Li is in the falundafa.org website. If it's not there, unless a newspaper claims he told them directly, then we cannot find the source. Since the newspaper makes a reference to a statement to Australian practitioners in 1999, it's clear that their source is not from first-hand listening, but from what was published by the Falun Gong website. As I say, if we have those two precise things quoted, there needs to be a sentence that a search of the Falun Gong website returned zero results for those search terms. The other option is to paraphrase the quote. As I say, please choose which you would prefer. You understand what I'm saying, right?--Asdfg12345 19:09, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Would be nice to sort this out now, if possible. Since you did not like the paraphrase approach, after a period of grace I'll append the sentences with search links, assuming you prefer that resolution.--Asdfg12345 19:15, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Li said it, the Times reported it. The rest is immaterial. The quote stays.Simonm223 (talk) 19:15, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Interesting problem. Here's what Olaf wrote on the talk page:

The New York Times article is explicitly referring to the Australian lecture in 1999, therefore it is the stated original source. Apart from what is available on falundafa.org, Falun Dafa does not have any additional lectures. Every interpretation has been made on the basis of these same lectures, transcribed word-for-word from Li Hongzhi's speech. PerEdman seems confused about "the word of Li Hongzhi during an interview"; this is not what the New York Times article is talking about. If there is an obvious discrepancy between the lectures and any derivative sources, which one do you think is correct? And if we choose to include such text from a derivative source, how should we articulate this discrepancy in the Wikipedia article? ✔ Olaf Stephanos ✍ 07:38, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

What complicates the matter, further to the two points above (that the "spawn" comment and the "intervention" comment are not found in any of Li's teachings), is that the quote attributed to Li from the Australian 1999 lecture, is not said by him in that lecture at all. Look here -- this is the only lecture given in Australia in 1999, and the quote simply isn't there. This is the source that Craig Smith claims he got his quote from, but upon inspection it is found to be mistaken, or perhaps fabricated. Li has certainly made remarks on this subject, but not as Smith portrays them. I'm not sure why you find it so hard to believe that the journalist got it wrong, or just added his own ideas in--journalists do such things. What we have is an important discrepancy between a claimed original source and the actual original source. If the quote is to include these mistaken parts, the discrepancy must be pointed out.--Asdfg12345 19:58, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Since you won't accept any paraphrasing of the quote in question--which is demonstratibly inaccurate--I've simply added the (referenced) note about those words not appearing in the teachings, and non-existence of the quote attributed to Li, and Faluninfo.net's remark on the issue.--Asdfg12345 20:17, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Unacceptable. The fact is that the absence of the quote from faluninfo.net is NOT anything resembling proof that Li didn't say what he is quoted as saying. Again I ask you for a retraction from NY Times or proof of Libel litigation between Li and NY Times over this 'quote'Simonm223 (talk) 20:23, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Point accepted. It's not proof he didn't say it. Just like NYT is not proof that he did say it. But it doesn't turn up in the database of teachings, and that we can say. Let's allow readers to make their own conclusions. --Asdfg12345 20:27, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Actually the NY Times article IS proof he said what he said. Because they quoted him. And did not retract the quote and were not sued for Libel.Simonm223 (talk) 20:30, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

No, it's proof that they published that article quoting him saying that. It's not proof that he said it. That's a fairly simple concept, right? I won't revert your recent removal of the quote; I would consider that edit warring. I've been happy to go back and forth for now, because there has always been some haggling and changes. Now you have stopped that and are simply removing sourced information. Since the three searches from Falundafa.org are of a different nature than the direct quote from Faluninfo.net, I'll restore the latter and leave the former out. If you remove the latter again, I will not put it back. Next, since you keep stopping any attempt to paraphrase any part of the quote or provide any clear attribution, I am going to put the whole thing in quotation marks, for the purposes of clarity. Finally, I'm going to start a third opinion process about the discrepancy between what Li is quoted as saying in Australia 1999 and what he doesn't say there. I'm sure similar things have come up in other wikipedia articles, and that there is some precedent (say, for in such cases to simply quote what the conflicting views are and leave it at that, rather than for editors to try to establish the truth of the various claims for themselves). Note, that I am not asking for something proving that Li didn't say something, just as the NYT is not proof that he did. My point is merely to establish what each says. Let's take it to a third opinion. --Asdfg12345 20:34, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

It's not notable what your organization's webpage doesn't say. It is notable what the NY Times does say. This is simple.Simonm223 (talk) 20:37, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

It really doesn't take much thought to see that this is a misleading statement in this context. A list of things that falundafa.org (it's not "my organization" thx) doesn't say would not be notable. It is notable, however, that a quote attributed to Li from a particular lecture does not actually appear in that lecture. This is a case of a secondary source wrongly attributing a primary source. All I am seeking is that this discrepancy be pointed out. It's obvious that the "spawn" and "intervention" remarks are the journalist's own phrasings, too--but since he attributes them to Li, it is also relevant that there is no other record of Li saying them. All I'm seeking is to have this information included; that is the most objective way to deal with this issue. Let's get some third opinions; I'll be interested for precedents on this, because as I say, I'm sure it's happened on wikipedia more than once.--Asdfg12345 20:46, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

I will only be satisfied if the third party is not a FLG appologist. Until then I will aggressively defend the article AND the quote therein.Simonm223 (talk) 20:52, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Verifiability#Self-published_and_questionable_sources_as_sources_on_themselves. In an article about Falun Gong's teachings, the only website where Falun Gong practitioners go to read Li Hongzhi's lectures is a highly notable primary source. We're not talking about removing the New York Times quote. But as there is discrepancy between the sources, we are entitled report it. This is fully consistent with the policies.

Also, Wikipedia:Verifiability#Reliable_sources says: "The appropriateness of any source always depends on the context. Where there is disagreement between sources, their views should be clearly attributed in the text." ✔ Olaf Stephanos ✍ 21:00, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

No need for aggression, we're all working on the same thing here. I created a section for commentary here. I hope you don't define as "FLG appologist" anyone who would say it is reasonable to provide the note about this discrepancy... By the way, as I've made clear, I am not seeking to break your quote, merely to note that the quotation attributed to Li is inconsistent with what Li is recorded as saying. --Asdfg12345 21:14, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

just one more thing, tbh it seems like such a silly point of dispute. It's like someone writes in a newspaper that such and such book says some quote; and in the end the book doesn't say that quote, and it turns out the journalist just made it up. So just quote the journalist if they managed to get their piece into NYT, and then simply note that the quote doesn't appear in the book. I don't see the issue, in the end. Let's see what others think.--Asdfg12345 21:17, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Based on this I'm restoring the deletes references.--Asdfg12345 18:15, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

That was highly irrelevant.Simonm223 (talk) 19:28, 8 July 2009 (UTC)