Talk:Li Hongzhi/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search



Anybody read Li's interview with time on May 1999? "TIME: In your book [Zhuan Falun] you talk about people levitating off the ground but you say that they should not show other people. Why is that? Li: It is the same principle that Western gods in paradise should not be seen by ordinary mortals because they cannot understand its meaning.

TIME: Have you seen human beings levitate off the ground? Li: I have known too many.

TIME: Can you describe any that you have known? Li: David Copperfield. He can levitate and he did it during performances. "

"TIME: Why does chaos reign now? Li: Of course there is not just one reason. The biggest cause of society's change today is that people no longer believe in orthodox religion. They go to church, but they no longer believe in God. They feel free to do anything. The second reason is that since the beginning of this century, aliens have begun to invade the human mind and its ideology and culture.

TIME: Where do they come from? Li: The aliens come from other planets. The names that I use for these planets are different . Some are from dimensions that human beings have not yet discovered. The key is how they have corrupted mankind. Everyone knows that from the beginning until now, there has never been a development of culture like today. Although it has been several thousand years, it has never been like now.

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.

The ultimate purpose is to replace humans. If cloning human beings succeeds, the aliens can officially replace humans. Why does a corpse lie dead, even though it is the same as a living body? The difference is the soul, which is the life of the body. If people reproduce a human person, the gods in heaven will not give its body a human soul. The aliens will take that opportunity to replace the human soul and by doing so they will enter earth and become earthlings.

When such people grow up, they will help replace humans with aliens. They will produce more and more clones. There will no longer be humans reproduced by humans. They will act like humans, but they will introduce legislation to stop human reproduction.

TIME: Are you a human being? Li: You can think of me as a human being.

TIME: Are you from earth? Li: I don't wish to talk about myself at a higher level. People wouldn't understand it.

TIME: What are the aliens after? Li: The aliens use many methods to keep people from freeing themselves from manipulation. They make earthlings have wars and conflicts, and develop weapons using science, which makes mankind more dependent on advanced science and technology. In this way, the aliens will be able to introduce their stuff and make the preparations for replacing human beings. The military industry leads other industries such as computers and electronics.

TIME: But what is the alien purpose? Li: The human body is the most perfect in the universe. It is the most perfect form. The aliens want the human body.

TIME: What do aliens look like? Li: Some look similar to human beings. U.S. technology has already detected some aliens. The difference between aliens can be quite enormous.

TIME: Can you describe it? Li: You don't want to have that kind of thought in your mind.

TIME: Describe them anyway. Li: One type looks like a human, but has a nose that is made of bone. Others look like ghosts. At first they thought that I was trying to help them. Now they now that I am sweeping them away.,


It has a strong pro-Falun Gong and anti-Chinese bias. I don't have the knowledge to work on it. Superm401 | Talk July 3, 2005 21:50 (UTC)

You are correct. I've reverted to an earlier NPOV version. Fire Star 3 July 2005 22:00 (UTC)

"authorities state that he was actually born on July 7, 1952, and that he lied about his birthdate so that it would be the same as Buddhism's founder Sakyamuni." This sentence might be leading people into believing this to be true. In reality Li Hongzhi said himself that he changed his birthdate only because it was messed up durring the cultural revolution and quote: "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."

(from the TIME interview that's now linked in the entry, and hopefully stays linked because it's kind of important to clarify messed up issues like this one)

And also it sounds like the april 25. event would have lead to the persecution. But the VERY reason for that gathering was that a couple of dozen Falun Gong practitioners where arrested when they where complaining about that article written by a relative of Luo Gan (the now head of the 610 office) and run in a party controlled magazine. Also the Falun Gong books (which originally where published by the government itself) where suddenly banned. So all that happened BEFORE april 25. So wouldn't that mean that the party prepared to persecute them even before any of those gatherings happened?

And there is another reason for why the sentence "As a result of such action, (mass gatherings) Falun Gong was outlawed in China, and many practitioners were sent to jail" is wrong.

In China if one wants to send somebody to jail he has to be given a trial. Even if its only a show trial it's still kind of difficult to twist the facts around in such manner as to make it appear justified why a man gets sentenced to like 18 years imprisonment only because he has been sitting on tiananmen square and crossing his legs to do that meditation exercise or something.

So with so many Falun Gong people being detained the vast, vast majority have not at all been sentenced to jail but to "re-education-through-labor camps." That penalty system can hold way more people and is constantly being expanded. It's way more convienient to send a Falun Gong guy there because the "re-education System" allows somebody to be detained in a forced labor camp for up to 3 years WITHOUT having to give him any trial or anything. And even when those three years are over, they can just put him in a brain washing class (they are really called that) for a couple of weeks and then put him back in the labor camp for another 3 years, and they still won't have to give him a trial, and don't even have to tell him why he was sent there.

(what I just mentioned is all backed up by human rights organisations, and i can provide you with the relevant texts, or you can just contact Amnesty International or any other organisation like that)

So I really think it should be changed from jail to labor camps because that's the way those commies do it.

So I wanna emphasize what I said in the discussion page of the entry on Falun Gong: Stating half of what Falun Gong and half of what the communist Propaganda says as fact really isn't the way NPOV works!

I mean really... are you guys really sure you know what you are talking about? After all this ISN'T China. Just because you heared something on TV or somewhere doesn't necasseraly qualify you to write an encyclopedia entry about it, and that's particularly true if you got like the entire Ministry of Propaganda of the biggest Nation in the world cranking out all its resources to confuse precissly that issue!

But of course you would say "what I watched there on TV or read in that magazine was something researched by a westerner, so it should allready be way more reliable than what is on chinese TV."

Right, but the Chinese Government also knows that if only they say it, westerners won't buy it, and besides those western reporters too might have thought that NPOV requires half of his article to state what the Chinese Government says as fact. (-:

"Li Hongzhi currently resides at a mansion..." According to what I know he just lives in a flat with his family in Chinatown. Also in the entry about Falun Gong it says he lives in Brooklyn. Where exept in all those Anti-Falun Gong articles that where published in party controlled chinese newspapers does it say that he lives at a mansion?

"He owns a number of publishers, including Universe Publishing, printing mainly books on Falun Gong."

Strange... as far as i know the owner of The Universe Publishing Company is a women. It's true though that they publish Falun Gong books, (among many other publishers who do, but that doesn't mean that they are owned by the authors whose books they are publishing) Where exactly do you have that information from?

"Recently, during an exclusive interview by the pro-Falun Gong newspaper The Epoch Times[1], Li referred to the persecution of Falun Gong in China as the 'final battle between good and evil', and predicted that the Chinese Communist government will 'fall within six months'. When asked about the stability of China if this ever occurred, Li replied that 'God will prevent any chaos from occurring'."

I searched the through the entire website of the Epoch Times, and NTDTV in severall different languages. I DID find an exclusive interview with Li Hongzhi ( but it doesn't contain anything of what you said.

Same question, what are your sources?

I think you should read the following interview with Li Hongzhi

Here is a quote: "One newspaper said I was very rich. If I wanted to have money, you know there are 100 million practitioners. If everyone gave me one dollar, I would be a multi-millionaire. However, I have never asked for one cent of their money."

I know... you don't belive it because it contradicts those things that the party says about Li Hongzhi, and you would say that he only said this because he wants people to believe that. But than again why should he say it this way in on place and say the exact opposite in another?

Besides... even if he would be rich... so what? Didn't the party claim that he made millions by selling Zhuan Falun? That's not true. But even if it would be, what would be wrong with that? Really whats point? It's the Leader of the Communist Party who started the persecution of Falun Gong, and it's because of him that they came up with all those accusations. But actually it's communism that claims that it would make all people equal. But how come it's no secret that it is the communist leaders themselves who have even more private money than many of the elected politicians in a capitalistic society?

Have you noticed that basicly every single thing that the Chinese Communist Party has accused Li Hongzhi of, is instead something that they started doing themselves a long time ago?

Now they are basicly blaming Li Hongzhi for all of that. History is constantly re-written, and so "the party stays always right".

Manuel- 24.July 2005

Several points:
1. Not everyone who questions Li or Falungong is automatically a "commie."
2. Many of us (myself, for one) are indeed qualified to write and edit articles on qigong (which is what Falungong is claimed to be), and to evaluate the efficacy and provenance of different styles and their claims.
3. Li has a questionable history of, shall we say, "unconventional" claims about himself amd Falungong and secrecy concerning the origins of those claims.
Now, indvivdual aspects of the article can be questioned, and perhaps be qualified, but the article itself isn't going to become a shrine to Li. The guy isn't an open book, and the secrecy that he has surrounded himself with, and the public speculation about it, is a notable aspect of his biography. Fire Star 14:40, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

Sorry Fire Star, but you seem to be avoiding all the specific issues here. I have prooven to you (see interview in TIME) that Li Hongzhi stated himself that he is not Buddha Sakyamuni.

I have also looked up the website of the "Universe Publishing Co." I am now sure that it is NOT owned by Li Hongzhi. If necessarry I will contact the real owner, and ask him to confirm that no parts of the company are owned by Li Hongzhi.

Also if necessary I could could collect evidence for you or a 3. party that the CCP already planed the persecution of Falun Gong before the gathering on Tiananmen Square on April 25. 1999.

Also, I could proofe that it has been backed up by the UN Human Rights Commission that hundreds of thouands of practitioners where send to forced labor camps (not jails,)millions persecuted, and thousands killed. Futhermore all major Human Rights Organisations in the West have found Falun Gong to be completely paecfull. I could also provide some quotes regarding that.

All I did was removing the statements in the article that in my view I can proove to be "commie Propaganda" (that doesn't meen you have to be a commie *lol* just that the statements you put in there are :-)

All I did was removing statements that i can proofe to be wrong. In what way was I making a "shrine to Li Hongzhi" ????!

If you are unwilling to have anything in that entry that does not confirm to your allready formed view about Li Hongzhi, than it would be obvious to me that it is necessary to find an administrator who is able to do so. After all I do not think that a place to spread those things is what Wikipedia was ment to be. You might not be a "commie" but that doesn't change the fact that what you put in there IS Communist Propaganda.

Oh and Li Hongzhi is Honorary Citizen of many U.S. Cities and many Cities in the U.S. also have a so called "Li Hongzhi Day", and he was also nominated for the Nobel Peace Price multiple times. In what way does he have a "questionable history"? please be more specific.

You said that you where quallified to write an encyclopedia entry on such an issue, yet I asked you severall times for you sources, yet you did not answer me. Well so please tell me if the Party controlled media is not your only source, what is?

Manuel PS: I am not signed in because for some reason I can only sign in with my name on the German Wikipedia. But I DO put my name under everything, so if there is an article without it, it is not mine.

Li is my source. I'm not avoiding anything, we simply disagree. To say I am avoiding issues here is an unworthy tactic. To say that I am a mouthpiece for Chinese Communist propaganda is also an unworthy tactic. I am unwilling to have any article turned into a worshipful screed. You are going to have to deal with me on terms of editorial content, and not with facile political name calling. Please see our civility policy, which isn't optional.
Despite what you claim, I am not working for the Communists, I am working just with what Li himself has said publicly. I have a personal opinion of Li, certainly. Do I say what it is in the articles? No. A good Wikipedia editor simply reports the available facts and lets the readers decide for themselves.
As far as I am concerned, the following issues in what you say are outstanding:
1. Li's "secrecy" inheres in his not naming the provenance of any teachers he may have had in the Time Asia interview, for starters.
2. I never said he said he was Shakyamuni Buddha. In the 2003 speech by Li linked to the article he implies that he is beyond the level of a Buddha. That is a notable public statement. what else is notable is that he is accused by the Chinese of changing his birthdate in order to associate himself in the public imagination with Shakyamuni.
3. I have removed the statement about Universal Publishing, as I could find no source for the statement.
So there you have it. I'd be happy to discuss this with any other editors that you care to bring in, admin or not. Regards, Fire Star 22:12, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

Hi Fire, You said: "Do I say what it is in the articles? (my personal opinion) No. A good Wikipedia editor simply reports the available facts and lets the readers decide for themselves."

If that is so, why don't you put the sppech of Li Hongzhi that I dug up ( next to the speech that you dug up?

I would like to remind you of what i wrote to you:

""Recently, during an exclusive interview by the pro-Falun Gong newspaper The Epoch Times[1], Li referred to the persecution of Falun Gong in China as the 'final battle between good and evil', and predicted that the Chinese Communist government will 'fall within six months'. When asked about the stability of China if this ever occurred, Li replied that 'God will prevent any chaos from occurring'."

I searched through the entire website of the Epoch Times, and NTDTV in severall different languages. I DID find an exclusive interview with Li Hongzhi ( but it doesn't contain anything of what you said.

Same question, what are your sources?"

It's been severall weeks now, but you have neither given a response regarding that, nor have you removed it from the entry.

Yet you say:

"I'm not avoiding anything, we simply disagree. To say I am avoiding issues here is an unworthy tactic"

Well what do call that then? Ignoring? isn't that the same?

Oh ofcourse you also said: "Li is my source."

Well than why don't you put the link to the Epoch Times Article in which he said that directly into the entry?

As I said I was unable to find it anywhere, i would be very happy if you could provide me with a link to that article which you obvously must have read on the epochtimes website yourself..

Sincerely Manuel

Transferred from Manuel's latest anonymous IP talk page[edit]

Greetings Manuel.

I responded to two of your objections by taking out the mansion and the publishing company. I could just as easily accuse you of "ignoring" that, but that would be small of me. If you look at the edit history, most of the things you are complaining about were put in by other editors. The birthday thing, for example. Someone else put that in. However, The BBC reports that the Chinese govt. claims that Li lied about his birthdate to imitate Shakyamuni. Do we say Li lied? No. We say the Chinese govt. says Li lied. That is notable enough to stay in the article, even though I didn't contribute it. To object to an objective report of something another, notable, party said about the subject bespeaks a certain partisanship on your part. We don't want any article turned into a love-fest. Please read up on relevant Wikipedia policy. So, things without provenance can be taken out, things with provenance can't be taken out, as simple as that. You've shown a history of wanting to take out anything that you perceive as reflecting negatively on Li. That is reason (for me at least) to somewhat discount what you are saying to me right there, because (also since it is the only article you seem to ever work on) you seem to have an agenda outside of the encyclopaedia.

So, for what I put in, these are my sources:

I hope this helps, Fire Star 17:11, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

The Epoch Times link no longer goes to the citation article (which it formerly did), and since I can't find the quote, I will remove the last paragraph as unsupported until a reliable citation can be found. Fire Star 17:26, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

No... I don't at all want to "turn the entry in a love-fest for Li Hongzhi".

If i would i have mentioned that Li Hongzhi was nominated for nobel-peace-price in 2001 and 2002 each time by severall hundred independant professors. Not to mention the awards he recieved from the New York State counsel, the Governor of Houston, and the all those "Li Hongzhi" days that have been proclaimed by the governors of other U.S. cities.

There are actually a couple of hundreds such awards for him. see: (there are scans, of each award on the site, so even though this is a website run by Falun Gong practitioners, those awards are not... what is interesting is that there are also some from the Chinese Government... prior to 1999 of course)

Even though i'd say those things ARE of provenance i did not put in any of that, and i am not going to either. It's just that i DO know something about this subject, and i WAS making an effort to remove the things that I know for sure to be lies made up after the persecution. That is my only motive.


Well, that's fair enough. We don't have to remove the "lies" though, if we report them neutrally, saying things like "the Chinese government claims" or "Li Hongzhi claims" we will be doing alright. Like I said before, when the contributors didn't provide, and I couldn't find, any provenance whatever for some of the statements about Li that used to be in the article - zip - out they went. Just as most people I know take Li's public pronouncements with a grain of salt, anyone with access to a relatively free press should realise by now that the Chinese communists aren't the most reliable source either. As long as we couch the respective parties' actual claims with neutral conditioning language and the proper editorial caveats about their actual provability we will be OK. Regards, Fire Star 20:07, 31 August 2005 (UTC)


Two years ago, San Francisco Mayor Willie Brown signed a proclamation decreeing July 23, 1999, Li Hongzhi Day, but a ceremony was canceled abruptly. P.J. Johnston, Brown's press secretary, would not say why Brown changed course. Both he and a Chinese consular official said there was no pressure.

Falun Gong has also garnered high-visibility support for a loftier cause: getting Li nominated for a Nobel Peace Prize. In January, four Bay Area members of Congress, Democratic Reps. Tom Lantos, Anna Eshoo, Zoe Lofgren and Pete Stark, joined 41 other lawmakers in signing a letter that praised Li for promoting the highest humanitarian values.

Mr. Li believes that by consistently pursuing truth, showing compassion, and practicing tolerance, an oppressed people will embrace a morally and practically sound method to purify their own minds and to resolve conflicts in any kind of society, said the letter, which was circulated by Rep. Sherrod Brown, D-Ohio.

When the Mercury News asked the Bay Area legislators whether they knew about Li's views on homosexuals and race before they signed the letter, three said no.

Obviously I wouldn't recommend to the Nobel Institute someone who's anti-gay, because that's a human right, Eshoo said.

She subsequently rescinded her nomination, writing to the Nobel Institute that while practitioners deserve freedom of speech, belief and assembly, Mr. Li has made statements that are offensive to me and are counter to many of my core beliefs.

Li, whom followers refer to by the Chinese honorific master, formerly lived in Queens, New York. His current location is not known. He owns Universe Publishing, a private New Jersey company that sells his books, videos and practice tapes.

Li says he will personally install falun (a wheel of law) in his followers' abdomens. He also says practicing Falun Gong unleashes supernatural powers, reverses the effects of aging and prevents illness -- although not if you strive for such results. Mental patients and the mentally retarded cannot practice, he says.

Followers do not pay dues and are linked by the Internet, where new Li statements appear every few weeks, along with news updates and a running tally of persecuted victims in China.

If you good people can provide more citations for the above statements, they should definitely go in the article with the appropriate neutral language. Fire Star 17:29, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

Hi Fire,

do you still have the enire article? Can you link it?

Is it the article you just linked?

Have you noticed that there are no quotes in it? If this was not a personal Interview then I am wondering what her sources where espacially since that entire article contains basicly all the chinese "anti-Falun Gong" Propaganda... but states it as fact.

Have you noticed that all those articles on Rick Ross's site are based on sources from the Chinese state-controlled media? There are a lot of things in there that we actually BOTH know to be wrong. When it comes to sources from western media, it only selects the ones in line with the chinese site.

For example, a while ago Rick Ross had a link to the a website about the Falun Gong exercises. (so that it appears as though he is also showing people what Falun Gong says) Then that website started to also carry things about the perscution, and had statements in there that contradict what the Chinese Government says about Falun Gong (things that he stated as facts on his website) He then immediatly removed this site, and replaced it with a site about the exercises again.

If you don't belive me, go the friends of Falun Gong website, copy some of the statements by U.S. officials regarding the persecution, paste them in an e-mail to him, and ask him why he hasn't mentioned any of that? I'll bet you any amount that it won't take long until he takes you for a Falun Gong practitioner, and starts cursing you in his replies (cause that's what he did when I wrote him, and pretty badly too )-:

As to anonymous guy:

If both the U.S. official and the chinese official say that there was no pressure, than why don't they also state what it WAS that caused him to "suddenly cancel" it?


It's because they don't want to get involved in politics, you're just another blind China hater.

Greetings Manuel. The article I linked has quotes and sources for the quotes. Of course it is somewhat partisan, since it is a cult watchdog group. You should see the controversy over at our Rick Ross article, it makes this one seem mild! Regards, Fire Star 03:06, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

Greetings, Politicians that don't want to get involved in politics? By the way, I am not blind, nor do I hate Communists, and certainly I do not hate China. But China and the Communist party are NOT the same thing. You see how on the top of the talk page Fire Star agreed that the article was anti-chinese... ?

The article originally only mentioned a bit more about the persecution, in what way was that "anti-chinese"?

You always try to put stuff that would make Li appear to be a rascist into the article. Rick Ross even called him Nazi. But on what grounds? Different heavens for different races? How is that a race discreeminating ideology? Christians say that too. Christians originally even did not at all permit interracial marriage. Yet Falun Gong does not hav a rule against that.

Do you know the #1 word the Nazis used in discremenating against jews and christians? It was "un-Deutsch" (anti-German) As soon as a jew said something, it was simply labeled "un-Deutsch" and so no matter what he said nobody listened. Actualy Germans could also be labeled "anti-German". It didn't actually mean somebody was against Germany, it actually just means that somebody said something the party didn't want him to. People back than thought of the party and Germany as being the same concept. but it is not.

So you see, the reason I can talk all I want here, is not that I do not have proof, but that you don't really look at it, because you allready had a fixed opinion about Falun Gong - yet based not on personal experiance but on communist propaganda and rumours picked up. So now, no matter what you hear about Falun Gong, you try your best to fit it into the category of an "evil cult".

If you find something that can't be made to fit into that category you simply ignore and deny it (without even really looking at it).

That is called prejudice and it what caused those 6 million deaths durring the holocaust. It is also what caused those 80 million deaths durring the 50 years the CCP was in power, and it is what now allows such a brutal persecution of 70 - 100 million totaly mainstream chinese people to continue.

So tell me just who is it that's really against China?


Hi Fire Star,

You removed a sentence where I stated as a fact that the following principles: Truthfulness, Benevolence, Forbearance are actually universally good principles. You say that by stating this I was not following a neutral point of view.

Please review truthfulness benevolence tolerance and let me know if you agree with the following statement. “... Falun Gong, which is based on the universally good principles Truthfulness, Benevolence, Forbearance.” As you know the rest of the statement is true. Falun Gong is based on these principles. If not please see

If you don’t agree then please let me know if you have an alternative view on these principles that might tell you that this is not a fact?

I would not want to leave this change on your shoulder just because of a momentary impression, because I think this statement alone is important, since it's the core of Li Hongzhi's teaching.

Thank you, user:HappyInGeneral

Greetings. The problem with the statement is that it isn't up to an encyclopaedia to tell people that anything is "universally good." Saying that is an opinion, there are actually likely to be people who would disagree with any such statement. For instance, it is possible to conjecture that if certain people had forborn Adolf Hitler, we'd all be speaking German now. It may seem a silly example, but we can't disallow the possibility that someone may believe so. A truly neutral presentation just provides the info with appropriate links, and the reader should be able to make up their own minds. Regards, --Fire Star 火星 14:13, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
Greetings. I agree that an encyclopedia has to tell people about facts. If facts are disputed then the judge and jury should be the reader himself. But also I do believe that an encyclopedia should not hide the facts. And based on that I think we should continue because I can’t see how can it not be a fact that the following principles Truthfulness-Benevolence-Forbearance, are “universally good”? Especially when they are considered simultaneously as they are in the core teachings of Falun Gong.
I did think on your example with Hitler, however, you see that the main tragedy there was not the fact that there might have been some forbearance (which I think there was not, because fear is a much better word to describe the situation under that pressure). Rather the major lack of forbearance from Hitler and from many of his followers created all those tragedies during the holocaust. Those certain people who did not forbear for Hitler (consider that Hitler and their followers where only a few compared to the damage that they done), those people actually did forbear for the other millions of people suffering who’s fate was sitting on their shoulder.
So as you see great forbearance can only lead to great benefits. Also here is a link [1] where there are many many more examples. --User:HappyInGeneral 4:22, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
.... after 12 days: Fire Star, please comment the section above, otherwise I'll consider that you agree with the "universally good" statement about the core principles of Falun Dafa. HappyInGeneral 11:58, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
No, I don't, and I've explained why. What you have said doesn't address my points that: 1. There are people who disagreee with the statement, or 2. That it isn't Wikipedia policy to pronounce value judgements on religious idiom. Wikipedia is not a soapbox. The idiom may be true, it may not, Li Hongzhi may use it in a traditional sense, he may use it as part of a larger programme to control his followers, that doesn't matter. "Forbearance" in the Chinese sense of ren isn't unique to Falungong, indeed the currency of the concept culturally predates Li Hongzhi by many centuries. His use of traditional terminology is well known to be unique to his personal religion, so an attempt to fool people into thinking that Li and FLG are, by extension, "universally good" because the words for the concepts he preaches are "univerally good" (look, it says so on Wikipedia!) is using Wikipedia, by extension, to endorse Li's religion. It isn't appropriate for us to turn Wikipedia thereby into a list of so many free adverts for a dodgy Chinese cult leader, and it isn't going to happen. To do that, you are going to have to start your own website. --Fire Star 火星 13:11, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
Thank you for pointing out the article Wikipedia is not a soapbox. From this and from the example of extension, I can see why you, being as one of the administrators, might have a legitimate ground for having reservation for this expression. Still that does not change my common sense, which I guess I’m allowed to place here that these principles of Truthfulness-Benevolence-Forbearance are indeed “universally good” in the traditional sense, which, by the way, it is the only sense that I’m aware of. So for the moment, I'll leave it like this, I know I’m right, but I’ll do my homework better and I’ll get back to you. -- HappyInGeneral 17:02, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Please do not add things without consensus[edit]

Please do not pick up one or two phrases without context and put here, which makes the article confusing.

Note, I just read this article and took out one sentence in the "Divinity" section. It was the final sentence I removed, something like
"wow! if he could alone atone for all the sins of sentient beings and turn them into gods, how high of a good would he have to be?"
I removed it because it actually should not be there.
17:45 viernes, 11 de agosto de 2006 Standard Time +0000 UTC

Adding sections[edit]

Hi editors. I've added sections to this articles in order to have a logic. Please read the article and you will still find your content there. If there is to be changed anything please point out where specifically is the problem, don't just revery the whole thing. If you are not sure you can discuss the issue here. -- HappyInGeneral 16:56, 13 June 2006 (UTC)


It looks as though John Sun's only claim to fame is his relationship and alleged gifts to Li Hongzhi. There is not enough notability to warrant his own article when the information is more relevant to Li Hongzhi and the controversies surrounding him. CovenantD 17:12, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Paragraph about Godhood and Evil Regime[edit]

He teaches that the “great law" is boundless and is judging mankind and is weeding out corrupt people in a process called "Fa-rectification." Claiming to be the only one who is offering salvation to mankind, Li promises to turn his disciples into gods if they follow the moral requirements of his Dafa and expose what he considers to be the evil regime in China.

First please mention that is not just any regime is the Chinese Communist Party (CCP). -- HappyInGeneral 08:59, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

You'll have to provide a reference that shows him calling either an evil regime and claiming to offer the only salvation, or words to that effect. We can't base such a direct statement on anything less. CovenantD 15:19, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
Shouldn't you do that? Since you entered this paragraph. Actually I won't mind if you delete the whole paragraph. -- HappyInGeneral 13:44, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

If you look back through the history, you'll see that all I've done is remove the unsupported addition you made to Tomananda's insertion. I've now changed it back to his version again and tagged it as needing a citation. If you add any thing to it, you need to provide documentation also. CovenantD 15:29, 16 June 2006 (UTC)


I added to the page the issue of the Patent. --Otomo 18:59, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

According to the People's Daily article, Jing Zhanyi a senior engineer applied for a process patent paid for by Li Hongzhi. This issue has caused quite a stir in the Falun Gong community and brought out questions about Mr. Li character.

People's DailyClumsy fraud, harmful heresy

This info is from one article published by an official mouth piece of the CCP. The article is so defamatory and slanderous that a rational person wouldn't take it seriously. In between it's attacks it hardly says anything of any substance. What stir has this caused? Would you care to cite a source indicating such a stir? Unless more info can be provided to substatiate this section I opt to have it removed. --Mcconn 08:52, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Summary of Mcconn's edits - August 17[edit]

1) I renamed the section "Li as a mundane human being" to a more suitable and contextual title, "Chinese government assertions of Li's life prior to Falun Gong". This is because the content of this section is completely from one Chinese government controlled source. This context is especially important to note since the article was released a mere two weeks after the official crackdown began. At that time, the Chinese government used their media to say anything they could to defame and demonize Falun Gong, and often fabricated information. It's therefore an incredibly biased source. If this section is expanded to include more sources the name can be appropriatly changed.

2)The section above cited the source as being "done by UCLA Center for East Asian Studies". Although this journal may have published the report, it was done by the Beijing review. I explained above why I added the context about the date and it's relevance to the persecution.

3)The article had a picture overkill, including four different pictures of Mr. Li. I thus removed two of the less important photos. I also rearranged the remaining two into more logical places. It only makes sense that the official photo would go at the beginning.

4)I removed the section on "Interviewing the Master". This was not a valid section. Information from interviews can be used as sources within more focused sections, but this kind of information cannot constitute a section itself unless there is a clear point to be made about it. It is a type of source, not a subsection in and of itself. Moreover, doing this invites the kind of POV that the section already contained, ie. picking out "highlights" from interviews according to one's own thinking. This is not how an objective encyclopedia article is written.

5)I removed the section "Quotes" for the same reason as above.

6)I added a statement about Mr. Li's life in the US.

The section entitled "Divinity of Master Li" is a mess. I don't have time to work on it now, but I certainly will in the near future. I'm going to start paying closer attention to this page. --Mcconn 08:44, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

The Big Lie Continues[edit]

I notice that Dilip has been sytematically deleting pictures of Master Li in his Buddhist robes with the halo over his head. These pictures came from a Canadian Falun Gong website and help to depict what Li says about himself as the exlusive savor of mankind and how he has represented himself to his disicples. We then have one of these pictures replaced with one of Li in a Western business suit. It's all about the image. Has there ever been a "spiritual" group which is so obsessed with it's image that it will engage in endless battles with Wikipedia editors in an effort to suppress images and text which are totally accurate, yet deemed "unfavorable" to the group? --Tomananda 07:46, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Yueyuen is committing vandalism[edit]

Unless you (Yueyuen) respond to my comments above, your should not revert my edits. I usually provide summaries or comments, like those above, becuase I want people to understand what I did and take it seriously. If you are going to revert it then the least you can do is explain why you don't except my edits. I certainly would give the same courtesy to you. Moreover, some of my edits change things that were simply and clearly false. Yet, you reverted them anyway. And what have you contributed? Huge pictures, all depicting Mr. Li as a Buddha, which of course is to show Mr. Li in a way that supports your pov. And these pictures were given fraudulant Copyright tags. Just because an image is on an internet webpage doesn't mean that it's automatically in the "public domain". Nowhere on wiki commons does it say that any picture from any website is automatically in the public domain. If you want to use these pictures, you have to get permission from the administrator of the website. It is for all of these reasons that I consider your edits vandalism. Thus, I am reverting them. I am actually not necessarily against everything you contributed. But if you want some content included in the article then add it in a way that doesn't replace everything that was there before and provide explanation.Mcconn 08:21, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't know anything about the source of the really big picture of Li on top of a bunch of Buddhas, but as to the other two my understanding is that they are totally legitimate, were published by the Falun Gong itself, and are in the public domain. I think it's fair to talk about balance in the Li article and therefore all editors can and should debate the best mix of pictures of Li for this article. But under no circumstances is the suppression of this material, in general, allowable by Wikipedia editing standards simply because practitioners don't want to see depictions of Li as the main Buddha.
It's true that some of Li's Buddha pictures were produced early on in Li's career, but that does not justify their exclusion from this article. These pictures are relevant to an understanding of Li's overall biography, which is the subject of this article. I have read that when Li started his new career as a Qigong master, he went out and bought a Buddhist costume to have publicity shots taken of himself. I believe the source for this infomration comes from Li's earliest disciples in China.
Your claim that the posting of early publicity shots of Li dressed in Buddhist robes represents a POV is not supported by Wikipedia policy. It's important to remember Buddhist writers were among the earliest and strongest critics of Falun Gong because they felt that Li was mis-representing the tenants of Buddhism. Because of that historical fact...well documented by Penny and other commentators...having a depiction of Li dressed as a Buddhist in this article is totally relevant to telling the story of his life.
As to your comments about the text, I have not been involved in those discussions. But in general, I feel strongly that the Li Hongzhi article must mention his claims to divinity as well as his claims of being just an ordinary (mundane) person. As we have discussed for months, the goal of Falun Gong is the attainment of consumation and in order to reach this goal the supernatural intervention of Li Hongzhi is essential. Li has stated that a being needs to be saved by Dafa and himself personally. He has stated that the Dharma taught by others, including Sakyamuni, no longer can save people...only his Dharma, which he calls the Dafa, can save people now. "I am telling you now that Dafa belongs to me, Li Hongzhi, It is taught to save you and spoken from my mouth." --Tomananda

18:26, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

I notice that these pictures of Li in the Buddhist robes and halo are called "Master Li's FaXiang" on the Falun Dafa Canada site. Can someone please translate those words? Here's the site: [2] --Tomananda 07:58, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Where is the source indicating that these pictures are public domain? You want to use them, but do you have the legal right for that? Just curious. ---Olaf Stephanos 06:58, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

"Faxiang" means "Law image". I'm not against including Mr. Li's statements of divinity, however, they have to be mentioned responsibly and in a logical and npov fashion. This goes without saying and I don't know how anyone can really say that the current section, and it's place in the article, live up to that. Tomanda, you reverted to Sam's version because you prefer it, but you still have not responded to the fact that this version contains false information (UCLA report?), redundancy (birthdate, which does not belong in the intro anyway), and unelligable sections (interviewing..., quotes..., patent...). Moreover, the picture at the bottom is one practitioner's artwork which does not necessarily reflect all practitioners thinking. If the theme were different (ie. a portrait) it may be acceptable, but because of the statment that art is making, that Mr. Li is the lord of Buddhas (a claim that he has never made), it shouldn't be included (at least not while the article is so small). The pictures should be focus and pertenant. The reason why I said the pictures were POV is due the way they were presented on the page - as the lead picture, much larger than the rest, and outnumbering other kinds of pics. As for copyrights, unless you or anyone else can prove that these pictures are in fact in the public domain and that no consent is needed to use them I will continue to remove them. Don't be so quick to revert without addressing the issues at hand.

You say that Buddhists were the first to denounce Falun Gong, but you are refering to statments from state-run Buddhist organizations, of which the leaders are often (or always) party members. Those criticisms may be from a Chinese Buddhist orgnaization, but is it a true Buddhist organization? I'm sure there are many Buddhists who think otherwise. Mcconn 07:37, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Mcconn: I am open to our deciding as a group which pictures belong, and I agree we don't really need all of these pictures. The impression I got was that you were objecting to any Buddhist type picture, which I think is unreasonable. I will be happy as long as we have at least one picture of Li in Buddhist robes, since I know these are part of the story of his life and therefore important. I'm sure you know that Li himself had some of these pictures taken of himself early on in China. As to what's in the public domain, I only know that some other editor said above that some of these were, and I believe he was referring to the smaller pictures which are available on the Falun Gong Canada site. However, the larger picture, which you identify as a practitioner's artwork, is already flagged as meeting the copywright requirements of Wikipdeia itself (just click on the picture to get that information.) As far as I'm concerned, if you can agree to one of these Buddhist pictures...I am not particular as to which one...the article will be balanced.
As to the criticism coming from early Buddhist writers before the ban, that information comes directly from Penny's article. He has written quite a lot about the sources of this early criticism, so rest assured it is not my imagination. Since you have asked I will dig up the article and summarize, with quotes, his major findings in a day or so. By the way, the fact that some of these early Chinese critics may have been party members does not disqualify them as sources..I hope you are not suggesting that it does! --Tomananda 08:11, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm not against a Faxiang image either, I believe that one would create a proper balance. But we can't violate copyrights. I will see what I can find. As to the 'Buddhist' critics, I'm not disqualifying them as sources. Instead, I'm saying that they're not necessarily 'Buddhist', or at least some caution needs to be taken when making that claim. As for reverts, I reverted to the page I did because the other has too much junk (most of which I addressed above without response). The page I reverted to is also weak, incomplete, and has some pov, but it's a better base than the other. I think some of the content from the other version can be worked into this one to provide a better page. Mcconn 08:42, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

I have found an excellent early picture of Li and apparently the rights belong to the Embassy of the People Republic of China in Spain. I am sure they would authorize it's use in Wikipedia. I will write to them to confirm. Here's the link: [3] --Tomananda 08:48, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
I have never seen that picture except on the Chinese embassy websites. Even if the original is genuine, this picture's dark and murky colour scheme suggests that it has been processed. Perhaps the only reason you call it "excellent" is because it gives an ill-omened portrayal of Master Li. If that's not the case, I must say that your criterion for "excellence" is really weird.
Sometimes I feel that anything goes for you guys as long as it makes people sneer at Falun Gong or Master Li. Chinese government, Rick Ross, overt hate propaganda, you name it... all in the name of "exposing the true nature of Falun Gong". ---Olaf Stephanos 19:47, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Just to give you guys a heads up. The picture with Li above a bunch of Buddhas can be found from, it can be found in the Canadian FLG website. The "Main Buddha" text is also NPOV. The text fits the image perfectly. Side note: In English versions of FLG articles, "Zhu Fo" is translated into "Magnificent Teacher". HA! --Yenchin 09:35, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

I suggest we return the article to its previous status. We don't need so many excessive single pictures of a same person. Fnhddzs 04:25, 25 August 2006 (UTC) P.S. Yenchin, why you processed and modified the pictures? It is cheating. Fnhddzs 04:44, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Excuse me, processed what? Modified what? Take a look yourself to compare and worship him if you please. [4] --Yenchin 05:50, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
If you are referring to the wonderful picture of your "Main Buddha", I can point you to here for further worshipping services:
Do I need to tell you who owns --Yenchin 06:12, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
I have indicated on the picture page. At least the jpg file is changed to gif file. The picture link of "Main Budda" is a painting by an artist. It is not appropriate in a biography article. Fnhddzs 15:44, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
Fnyhddz: Your logic escapes me. The Falun Gong itself has posted this picture of Li on it's official web page and in the picture Li is depicted as a "main Buddha"...but because it is a painting, and not a photograph, we can't use it in Wikipedia? That doesn't make any sense. Unless we reach a determination that all practitioner-created content is forbidden in Wikipedia, I don't see how you can reject this picuture, on the one hand, yet allow practitioner statments about the persecution and alleged organ harvesting to stand. We can't have a double standard here. --Tomananda 22:21, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Just because the file format is different you are accusing me of "modifying and processing" the actual picture. Such a leap in logic is not suprising considering the whole pile of straw grasping accusitions made by FLG fanatics in the past. Fnhddzs why don't you show me where the actual content of the two pics are different (for instance, like Li looking less Buddhalike)? --Yenchin 04:51, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Progress on the article[edit]

I am just beginning to work on these things, I am a practitioner, and want to see if I can make a positive contribution. I have seen the continual reverting and don't think that is the best approach. Tomananda et al, there is no problem with putting up things about Master Li's divine origins. It is fine. We can reach some agreement on the wording.

So many pictures does not look good. Just use one Fa image and one of Master in a business suit. The point can be made in that way. The Main Buddha picture is not really appropriate, nor is the misleading and erroneous text about worship, below it.

Is there a link to the version you want, that I can work on? Going to extremes makes it very obvious that you are trying to damage the Fa and not interested in making an encyclopedic article. It would be best to put everything in a clear and rational way. The section about the interview - do you think that is necessary? In a moment I will look up some other individuals to get an idea of how Biographys work on wikipedia, refer them to you, and maybe we can use that as a sort of guide.

I want to make it clear that there's no problem stating that Master is here to offer salvation to humankind, to guide people to high levels, and that Master is rectifying the cosmos with the Fa. That is what Falun Dafa teaches, right? No problem. I am just saying that it should be done rationally. Anyone reading your version can instantly see it is overtly biased.

Right now your version is up but it probably won't be that way for a while. Is there a kind of permanent page that retains the wikipedia template, so different people can edit it etc.? I will look at it carefully, then write some things here about what I think could be improved etc.. Then we can discuss it and come to some kind of agreement and change the article in that way. Unfortunately, I do not have a copy of the biography, and I do not think there is an official english translation, so I am unable to do much with that section. Some of that writing really must be off the NPOV goal, right? There are some lead-in sentences, the words 'saintly sketch', different comments that aren't necessary, and so on. All of that should go. That is personal interpretation aimed at mockery and that is obvious. Just state things clearly and simply. It will save us time if each person presents something closer to the middle ground in a reasonable way than going to extremes.

Okay, so please give me the link to the version you want, then we can go from there. A section on divinity is okay, but it just needs to be done right. What do you think about what I have said?

Note: Dafa is really righteous, everything Master has said is purely righteous, the only problem happens when you have ill intentions and a wrong understanding. Nothing makes sense without cultivation, and since you lack that, you are bound to play the role you are. I am just mentioning this so you understand where I'm coming from a bit better. We truly believe that this is the best thing and we do not fear anything or conceal things. --Asdfg12345 12:50, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

More: the version that I wanted to work on is up now so I will write some things here.

.changed the comment below the first Fa image from 'Master Li Hongzhi posing as a Buddha' to 'Master Li Hongzhi's Fa image'. They are known as Fa images. 'posing as a Buddha' is incorrect and it is an attempt at defamation. What is a Buddha? Have you ever seen a Buddha? How do you know what a Buddha looks like? Do Buddha's have form? Has Master Li Hongzhi said 'I am a Buddha'? That text should not be there.

.changed 'an international movement starting in China' to 'a cultivation way of the buddha school'. The latter more correctly explains what Falun Dafa is. The former is too vague and it is inaccurate. In particular, you are trying to depict Master Li in a certain way, and particularly with the Fa images, to say directly that Falun Dafa is cultivation practice is more appropriate.

.I have to go now, that stuff about the birthdate dispute shouldn't be there. I'll make a subheading for that and explain the situation. Because to mention that, you also need to mention that Master has said that he has never claimed he is Buddha Sakyamuni, that mistakes with birthdates are common, and so on.--Asdfg12345 13:11, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Another comment[edit]

Maybe I was a little naive stepping into this. There are a zillion reverts. The practioner page seems more logical to me. Samuel et al, why don't you add a Fa image and a section on divinity to it? The problems I see with your page are:

.Too many pictures. The point is made with just one. The Main Buddha picture is inappropriate. Also, the commentary below the pictures are obviously POV. I corrected one but you won't accept that? What was wrong with the correction I made? See above for my correction, I feel it was reasonable.

.Having the interview there is extraneous, how does it really relate to the article, a biography of Li Hongzhi?

.The very obvious POV in depicting the 'short Biography' and tone of the Divinity section. There's nothing wrong with a divinity section, but the way you do it requires some revision to make it to encyclopedic standards.

.The mention of dispute in birthdate, this doesn't belong in the introduction and requires further explanation. There is already a little subsection for that, anyway.

.The italics in the quote section. There were no italics in the original text. No italics should have been added. There should also be some more quotes, with some kind of balance. You put that there for a clear purpose.

I haven't spent much time doing things on wikipedia. Maybe you are all jaded and think this is just the way it is. Revert after revert with no real discussion. That would be disappointing, wouldn´t it? I wrote some things above, maybe no one has had time to respond or discuss. I understand if that is the case, as it is a little complicated. But isn't this page specifically for that? Why not discuss things before changing it? If the page you guys have made is there for a week or something while we work together to put create something reasonable then I don't think that's a major loss. Or if there was some other link where, aside from the main page, we could edit a page we all agree on, while the revert war on the public page continues, that would also be okay. Can anyone help me on this? Any links?

Also, if you do not respond, discuss or compromise, it will be obvious to any impartial observer. Say the same things happens with this page as the Falun Gong page, and then another page - that the page needs to be locked and a mediator requested - it will become clear that you guys have been behaving unreasonably. Anyone will be able to see that you have a dark purpose here, and they will think less of what you are trying to do. Please think about the situation, and discuss with me the points I have just raised in relation to the page you want to put up. Thanks--Asdfg1234508:38 p.m. Friday, 25 de Agosto de 2006

Asdfg: you can copy and paste the entire article into the discussion page (maybe a new discussion page would be best) simply by clicking on "view source". No one objects to discussing changes in the article, it's the wholesale deletion of content that many of us object to. --Tomananda 04:17, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

That is fair enough. I do not want wholesale deletion either. Your version is up now, though you have not responded to my proposals above. I would like to clear these few things with you before I change them. Then when I have a list of things to work on, that we have previously agreed to, I can implement them and you check it over. I'll make that page soon and do it up like that, so we can alter things until there is a final page we agree to. Aside from what is above, this is what I propose, roughly, for the page. Share with me your ideas:

. one Fa image with no snide remarks and one of Master in a business suit . taking out the mention of the birthdate dispute in the introduction . some changes to the divinity section, such as changing the tone, the POV comments, and some other factors. It needs to be reworked to meet NPOV standards. It is fine to report Master's childhood experiences etc., no problems. . the interview section should be removed. I assume you only want it there for the cynical selection of 'highlights'; this is not appropriate for an encyclopedic article. .i mention again that quote and the ill intentioned use of italics. Those italics were added by someone and that was not acknowledged. That's poor form.

this is just meant to be reporting on stuff, not pushing your opinion or attempting to depict Master in a negative way. When you answer me with ideas you have, whether you support or object to my proposals, or if there's anything more to discuss.. then based on that I will make a new discussion page with the current article, we can play with that, then when we agree we can fix it up. I hope this approach is okay for you. I am not against you. Thanks.--Asdfg12345TThe current time in (UTC/GMT) is 4:39 sábado, 26 de agosto de 2006

Well, I agree with some of your suggestions but it's important to point out that I didn't submit any of the edits in this section, so other editors, such as Samuel, will need to be involved. I'll briefly make a few comments about some of your concerns:
  • Given that so little has been written about Master Li, I think we should allow as much biographical material as possible, including drawing on the early western media interviews and the first biography that appeared in Zhuan Falun. Having said that, I can see your point about how this material should be framed. For example, I would agree to deleting the POV sentence "Master Li didn't used to be so secretive about himself" and replacing it with something more neutral.
  • Similarly, I would replace the sentence "No one seems to know who Master Li is" with something like: "Master Li has made different statements about himself. According to commentators, some of Li's statements indicate that he assumes a divine status for himself, however he has also claimed to be just an ordinary person. (footnotes) Although practitioners generally do not talk about Li, pictures of Li appearing on Falun Gong websites sometimes use the term "main Buddha" to depict Li's status."
  • Concerning picture captions, I agree the word "posing" should be replaced with something more neutral..perhaps "depicted as a Buddha" would work or: "Master Li Fa (Buddha) picture"
  • I also would accept lowering the number of pictures to two, providing one is of Li in the Fa (Buddha) image as we now have.
  • Concerning italicizing words in a direct quote, you are correct...that should not be done in an Encylopedia article.
  • Generally, my approach to editing...and in fact Wikipedia policy to allow any material which is properly sourced (not original research) and relevant to the topic. With that standard in mind, I would hope we could agree that a wide range of biographical material on Li, given it's scant nature, should be allowed. Ultimately, I think practitioners will need to bite the bullet and allow some material they don't like to be reported here. However, additional material which is deemed more favorable to Li can also be added by the practitioiners and we can all work together to frame the material in the most neutral way possible. As a good example of how Falung Gong editors and critics of Falun Gong have worked together to form an edit which is balanced and totally compliant to Wikipedia standards, I invite you to review the "Is Falun Gong a cult?" section on the Criticism page.
I know I haven't answered all your questions above, but I hope this is a start. Since Samuel wrote a great deal of this material in the first place, I ask that he respond to your post as well.--Tomananda 18:13, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Just quickly, about the Main Buddha thing, that is only the name of that painting right? I think that is the only time 'Main Buddha' is used. It is not that Master is depicted as Main Buddha in pictures on Falun Gong sites, or practitioners as a whole refer to or consider Master as Main Buddha. It is just the name of the painting. Do you see the difference? We just use the word Master, Teacher, Shifu when talking among ourselves.--asdfg12345Just quickly, about the Main Buddha thing, that is only the name of that painting right? I think that is the only time 'Main Buddha' is used. It is not that Master is depicted as Main Buddha in pictures on Falun Gong sites, or practitioners as a whole refer to or consider Master as Main Buddha. It is just the name of the painting. Do you see the difference? We just use the word Master, Teacher, Shifu when talking among ourselves.--asdfg12345The current time in (UTC/GMT) is 08:19 p.m. Sábado, 26 de Agosto de 2006

Actually, Sabado, it's more than having the "main Buddha" title appear on depictions of Li on Falun Gong sites. If you were to read through the Archive discussion topic "Summary of Central Concepts" in Archive #12, you'd find that several editors have proposed the "a Buddha" or "main Buddha" title to describe how practioners think of Li. For example, Andres, who is a practitioner, posted the following comment:
Also, master li can be considered a living buddha in a way but just like you would consider the dalai lama perhaps, nobody makes a big deal about it right?, i think we should avoid the term god because your concept it different from ours, perhaps we could use the term "higher being" i think it contrasts with both understandings right?
Leaving aside the issue about the use of the word god here (Li uses that term frequently, but I do not argue that by "god" he necessarily means a "personal God" in the Western sense, with a capitol G), I think it's essential that we point out in the Wikipedia article that practitioners do think of Li as a "living Buddha" or "main Buddha." Frankly, it doesn't make sense to me why this is such a big stumbling block. How about you, personally: Do you not think of Li as a "main Buddha"? I have asked this question before and often I have not gotten a straight answer, so I would appreciate hearing what words you think adequately describe Li. --Tomananda 21:43, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

The Main Buddha worship is sufficient and obvious enough to be openly used in[5][6][7] and Epoch Times[8]. But if one checks English pages you'd probably find nothing. I also urge people who can read Chinese to look at the Epoch Times article. It is just 1 example (out of many) of followers, if not under LHZ's agreement, view of Li as a savior in the end times. Many famous Chinese prophecies such as the "Back Pushing Graphs"(Tui Bei Tu) and I believe the "Biscuit Hymn"(Shao Bing Ge) have been used similarily. --Yenchin 02:53, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

The page is meant to be a biography of Li Hongzhi, not to discuss how he is understood by practitioners. The Main Buddha picture is a subjective depiction by one practitioner, do you think it is relevant to talking about Li Hongzhi? The comment you have quoted from Andres also demonstrates something. Different practitioners have different understandings of situations, so what you hear from one person cannot represent the body. Please keep that in mind when you read my comments as well. They are just my own understanding. Also, sorry that I have not responded to your question about how I think of Master. I think it will not serve any purpose for us to add in strictly personal comments or discussions about understandings. Wouldn't it be better just to keep it to things related to the articles in question, from now on? Soon I will do that page. --asdfg12435Sunday, 2006-08-27 T13:08 UTC

A biography also consists of what others think of the character. This is why we can find stuff like "criticism" and "influence" and so on in various articles of other people. As for the main Buddha worship, the worshipping is widespread enough in the followers as I've shown. Subjective, as all religion followers are, but definitely not just "one". So the text beneath is a fitting description to work with the image. It is of course related to the article.
Here's a fun fact: I used Falun (法輪) as a keyword to search on and got 9 results. I used Zhu Fo (主佛) and got 964. Which includes poems written by followers to LHZ. We're talking about an official FLG website here.
Also if FLG followers are still clinging to "their own understanding", I guess you guys would rather refrain from complaining what "out of context" text means what. --Yenchin 15:31, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Everyone's got their own understanding and we do things accordingly. Mr. Li has said that worship is NOT part of Falun Dafa, but some practitioners do it anyway. That's their choice and Mr. Li has not completely condemed this behavior, so it's not like they're wrong for doing that. If the article becomes longer and goes more in depth into of these kinds of aspects, I'm not necessarily against the use of this picture (although I am against you making it and the others the size of my screen!!). The condition is that it is contextual, and is balanced appropriately within the larger article. Right now I don't know how anyone could say that this is the case. It's not contextual at all, it throws off the balance (the article is too short for this at this point), and it's HUGE. Also asdfg1245, please use the "four tide(~)" way of signing your name.-- Mcconn 16:33, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Yenchin, thanks for providing such relevant sources to make the case that Li is thought of as a "main Buddha" by his disciples. Note that no practitioner/editor has denied this claim, but now they are saying we shouldn't report how they view Li. Of course this is nonsense. We read a biography of Jesus because he is thought of a savior by Christians, not because he was a Jewish teacher who challenged the orthodox teachings of the ruling Rabbis. (Although that's interesting too.)
I'm afraid this is a subject Falun Gong practioners cannot write honestly about. But to argue that this stuff is not important or relevant is not how Wikipedia defines notability. What could be more notable than a man who has come to this realm to save all sentient beings, teach his Dafa to the gods, prevent the explosion of the universe, destroy the evil and wicked Chinese Communist Party and eliminate all homosexuals (like me) that Falun Gong practitioners and those who do not criticize Li's Dafa can return to their original true states of being? --Tomananda 02:30, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

PS: What does Zhu Fo mean???

Zhu Fo is the Mandarin Chinese pronunciation for "Main Buddha". Zhu is "Main" and Fo is "Buddha". If the FLG websites publish articles by followers praising LHZ as the Main Buddha, it shows that this worshipping is more encouraged. --Yenchin 13:27, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Ya, ok. Whatever you say guys. Mcconn 15:02, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Editing again - Something we can all work with, I hope[edit]

With the page unlocked, I've started editing again. I think editing it as I just have should produce an article we can all work with without any immediate revert wars. At the time of writing this, little of what I've just edited is new. They are mostly all my previous edits, most of which I explained without any real dispute in here: [9]. Moreover, I've inserted them into the article while removing little of what was there in the locked version.

I changed the intro to my previous intro. The main thing that I removed from the locked version of the intro is the birthdate dispute, which is included further down the page in the disputes section. The photo is replaced because the one that was previously up did not have acceptable copyright status. The rest of the intro is mostly addition.

I kept the divinity section, not because I think it's any good, but because I don't want an edit war. I know a lot of people here care about that section, so maybe we can figure out what to do best with it through discussion rather than reverting.

"Interviewing the master", and "quotes" are gone. These are not valid sections. If whoever wrote them wants that info in the article, then maybe they can find a way to contextually and responsibly include it, but you can't do it like that. I explained this before here.

I also explained the problems with the section "Li Hongzhi as a mundane human being" here as well. However, we these things considered I still included the relevant information in the biography section, while deleting the previous section. I hope we can find a better source for this information in the future.

I kept the arrest warrent section, but I don't think that it deserves a section itself. Instead it would be better to have section regarding Mr. Li's relations with the Chinese government as a whole, in which this info would be included. So if we can get a section like that going then this info can maybe be merged.

I've already expressed my disapproval of the patent section, however I want to see more people comment on it before doing anything about it. I've reposted my original statment on it below.

Please consider these things before making any reverts to my edits, very little has been removed. If you've got a problem then respond here and we can discuss it. Mcconn 05:28, 12 September 2006 (UTC)


I added to the page the issue of the Patent. --Otomo 18:59, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

According to the People's Daily article, Jing Zhanyi a senior engineer applied for a process patent paid for by Li Hongzhi. This issue has caused quite a stir in the Falun Gong community and brought out questions about Mr. Li character.

People's DailyClumsy fraud, harmful heresy

This info is from one article published by an official mouth piece of the CCP. The article is so defamatory and slanderous that a rational person wouldn't take it seriously. In between it's attacks it hardly says anything of any substance. What stir has this caused? Would you care to cite a source indicating such a stir? Unless more info can be provided to substatiate this section I opt to have it removed. --Mcconn 08:52, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Editing Divinity[edit]

I have made some changes to the Divinity section. Nothing major, mostly tidying up and changing sentences here and there. I think that first sentence is rather vague. Though it is a quote from someone, the meaning of it is not clear. I think it would be better to introduce the subject of Master Li's divinity in some other way. Saying that he does not like to discuss himself or that practitioners do not like to discuss him is okay, but that sentence is strange and does not really express anything. It would be okay if the Divinity section were more explicit about whater Master is doing in terms of Fa-rectification; and the parts about the biography could be done better. I will spend some time on that soon. --Asdfg12345 01:42, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Made some more changes. I tried to make the words less pejorative and more straightfoward, and also defined some terms more clearly and did a bit more explaining - expanded on some parts. Content-wise it is basically the same. I hope the changes I have made do not go the opposite way - while the previous writing seemed obviously mocking, I hope I have not made it in praise of what Master says. It would be ideal to just present it in a straightfoward way. An example is that I changed something like 'Master Li started making more grandiose claims', to 'explicit and profound claims'. While the first is obviously aimed at mocking the claims, I hope the second is not to praise them. What Master says is just what he has said, and people can judge it for themselves. Maybe all the inbetween sentences can be stripped very bare, and mainly use quotes of Master Li to get across what he is saying about himself. Also, at the moment this section seems incomplete. It would be best to introduce the notion of Master Li's divinity in a different way and explain it more thoroughly. Now that the pages are unlocked I can be more regular, so if you are tempted to make major changes please post them here so we can discuss. Another thing is that I changed that explanation of Fa-rectification, and moved it. What was there was an innacurate description, as that was only referring to the Fa's rectification of the human world. Also, to discuss Master Li's divinity properly, Fa-rectification and his role in it also needs to be addressed, since they cannot be spoken of separately. Please note that I do not object to having this content, but it must be presented as responsibly as possible.-- 03:23, 13 September 2006 (UTC)


Yenchin. Can you please add here all the "facts" individually here, so we can all see which facts are you refering to? Before changing the whole page? I see no problem in adding facts, as long as they are indeed facts. And actually wikipedia has some requirements like No_original_research when adding a fact. Thank you for your understanding --HappyInGeneral 09:00, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Birthdate Dispute[edit]

The main reason that I think it should not appear in the introduction is that to mention it, it is not sufficient just to say what the CCP said, and not what Master has said in response. They need to be said side-by-side. Having all that in the introduction is a little extraneous - a good paragraph for one dispute. The introduction is just an introduction - going into an explanation about one particular dispute seems inappropriate. That is the main reason. If there is something I have overlooked please inform me.--Asdfg12345 02:01, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Worshiping or Respecting?[edit]

Let me first start with a quote from Zhuan Falun, the basic teaching of Falun Dafa where Master points out, in Lecture 3 the following:

"Accordingly, please do not come to me for the formality of worshipping the master."

This would mean than any practitioner who would worship the Master would need to look inside and change his behavior. My understanding is that this is because what it is important for a practitioner is to upgrade his moral (xinxing) standard. The act worshiping is meaningless.

"What’s the use of your kowtowing and worshipping Teacher if once you step out the door, you still continue to conduct yourself as usual and do whatever you want, competing and fighting for your fame and self-interest among everyday people? You may also damage the reputation of Falun Dafa under my banner!"

"By upgrading your xinxing and assimilating to the characteristic of the universe in your cultivation among everyday people, the characteristic of the universe will no longer restrict you; you are then allowed to move up.", Zhuan Falun, Lecture 1. 'xinxing' (shin-shing)—mind or heart nature; moral character.

I placed this brief explanation here in the hopes, that everybody will understand, what is the main job of a cultivator and also to understand that Falun Dafa practitioners, according to the requirements of Li Hongzhi, do not worship him blindly. --HappyInGeneral 11:30, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

This is a lousy excuse. LHZ forbidding it in one of his writings is irrelevant to the fact that Minghui Net publishes articles, songs, paintings, and poems...etc showing how the fanatics are worshipping Mr. Li. Not to mention there is no negative response to this behavior coming from Mr. Li himself. The former is direct evidence of worshipping, the latter, indicating that Mr. Li is quite happy to assume the title. --Yenchin 13:39, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

The burdon of proof falls on you Yenchin, and you have not provided any evidence to support your claims. Simply because practitioners create songs, paintings, peoms, etc. about Mr. Li does not mean that they worship him. That logic is totally off. In my 5 years of practicing Falun Gong, although I've heard of some people worshiping Mr. Li, I have NEVER seen anybody worship him. I've known one person who I heard does that, but that's only what I heard. This alone is enough to indicate that this behavior is not widespread. Moreover, the quotes by Happyingeneral are from multiple places in the central text of Falun Dafa, which is a lot more than simply one of his writings. And as I said, the burdon of proof is yours, not ours, and it's pretty heavy. Mcconn 16:51, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Li does not stop the worshipful activitis of his followers, it seems to me that he is enjoying it. More importantly, the caption of the picture describes a fact--most if not all of Li's followers do worship him as a god or main Buddha. --Samuel Luo 20:22, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Even he is considered the Main Buddha, why do you think that he is worshiped for that? What is your definition for worship? I think it's much more appropriate to use the wording of Respect. Worship is misleading, because Falun Dafa practitioners do not need to kowtow or do anything else in a ritualistic way in order to be recognized as Falun Dafa practitioners. --HappyInGeneral 21:15, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

To Mcconn: Uh, hello? Works about Mr. Li and referring him as "Main Buddha" is more than enough evidence. Also citing quotes of forbid from ZFL for evidence against is laughable. It is like saying that people don't break laws because the laws forbid so. News Flash: If someone breaks the law and there is no punishment, that means it is accepted. The burden of proof is actually on you to start working on the authors, composers....etc to ask them what's going on in their mind, your second burden of proof is to ask Minghui Net what's going on in their mind.
To HappyInGeneral: Yeah right, another example of FLG word-mutilation.
1 : to honor or reverence as a divine being or supernatural power
2 : to regard with great or extravagant respect, honor, or devotion <a celebrity worshipped by her fans>
I'll lay it straight here. Most of us non-FLGers are referring to the 1st, which shows nothing about rituals. Try harder. --Yenchin 13:33, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
I think that even from your point of view respect should be just as good a word and it would not entangle with the other meanings of word worship: "formal or ceremonious rendering of such honor and homage: They attended worship this morning." . This I think it is important because Falun Dafa is quite different from this point of view from many cultivations practices.
Respect however has some quite similar meanings, which I think does describe better the current situation: "esteem for or a sense of the worth or excellence of a person, a personal quality or ability, or something considered as a manifestation of a personal quality or ability: I have great respect for her judgment." --HappyInGeneral 07:50, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
Ah, twisting words. You're using a noun while I, as well as the captions are using the verb. Try harder.
The "respect just as good a word" assumption is laughable. I have stated the reasons for the words worship, they are far from pure respect. Stating someone is "Main Buddha", portraying him above Buddha images, writing all kinds of poems and songs and praise articles is far from "respect". --Yenchin 14:23, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
All the examples given above are not ritualistic, so that is why it is better to use the word respect, if it would be worship, it would be wrong, since Falun Dafa practitionars try to live acording to the principles laid out in Zhuan Falun. Also consider that this is one of the definitions of the word respect: "esteem for or a sense of the worth or excellence of a person, a personal quality or ability, or something considered as a manifestation of a personal quality or ability: I have great respect for her judgment." , so I really think that it is relevant word to describe practitionars relationship with Master. --HappyInGeneral 15:47, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
You are still basing your argument on a noun, not a verb. The "not ritualistic" argument is even more disgusting. I can point out various figures recieving similar treatment from their followers. Hitler, Mao Zedong, Chiang Kai-Shek, Kim Jung-Il and his dad.... --Yenchin 03:50, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
There is a huge difference. All the people you mentioned above are people requested + forced their followers to kill. By now you might know the principles of Falun Dafa: Truthfulness, Compassion, Forbearance. And there is also an explicit reminder that Falun Dafa practitioners are forbidden to kill.
Please try to reason not slander. --HappyInGeneral 11:15, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Revert of 26 September 2006 explained[edit]

1. "rv Ah yes, more whining." It's not whining, it's a discussion, you present your point of view, I present mine. Please see and take into some consideration my point of view which is explained above.

Nope, you revert and present yours. I don't see any reason for you guys to point the finger, it's just whining. --Yenchin 14:43, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
I'll repeat my question here: "Do you prefer reverting without talking?" --HappyInGeneral 15:39, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
No, so I revert your "without talking reverts" back. --Yenchin 03:43, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
"Do you prefer reverting without talking?" your answer is No. I thank you for that.
'I revert your "without talking reverts" back' well, you'll have a very easy job because all my reverts are explained. --HappyInGeneral 09:12, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

2. "Birthdate - changing a few words". You just take out the part where it says that this allegation happened only after the persecution began. Basically that statement is very important because it show's the extent of ridicule that is used to make up excuses, in order to persecute people who just want to cultivate by the following principle “Truthfulness, Compassion and Forbearance”

My response: Has the Chinese government ever provided a different date for Li's birthday before the ban? The answer is no, all governmental records show that Li was born on the July 7, 1951. That little statement you inserted is not a fact and unnecessary.
That might be true, but still the Chinese Communist Party only emphasized it and made an accusation out of it after the persecution began. --HappyInGeneral 20:36, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
Date, persecution, whatever. It is irrelevant to whether Li is using it to boost his status. --Yenchin 14:43, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
Actually, it's quite relevent. It provides context for the dispute. It had never been an issue before. Neither Mr. Li nor the CCP placed any importance on it. It only became an issue when the CCP dug it up as part of their campaign to defame and demonize Mr. Li. This is all relevent. Mcconn 09:16, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
The photos of Li posing as Buddha actually support the perspective that Li attempted to pose as some incarnation as Buddha first. --Yenchin 03:43, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
The good news is that since you felt like this, the image is in, for some time now. It has this label: "Artwork done by a Falun Dafa practitioner depicting Mr. Li in the image of a Buddha." --HappyInGeneral 19:41, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

3. "Intro, taking out a paragraph unrelated to the identity of Li." actually it's related because it shows character.

My response: this statement would fit in a section that describes how Li wants his followers to spread his teachings, not here in the intro of Li hongzhi.
Actually the section is talking also about the spreading of Falun Dafa. And the fact that Li Hongzhi asked the practitioners not to take any money is just a small example of his character. --HappyInGeneral 20:36, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

4. "External links" this is kept only that I would like to have a clear separation between critical and favorable entries. Right now there is no order between them.

5. There is an image which does not have it's license issues worked out: "does not have sufficient information on its copyright status.". Otherwise I think that is a good image.

6. "Interviews with Mr. Li Hongzhi" was deleted during the revert. Please respond to Mcconn "Summary of Mcconn's edits - August 17" point 4, before putting it in again in this form. --HappyInGeneral 08:11, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Some practitioners stated that for one to edit Falun gong articles they must read the book multiple times. You are setting up more rules, now we must answer your questions before editing. you guys are such .... --Yueyuen 00:11, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
Do you prefer reverting without talking? --HappyInGeneral 06:32, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
When a page is the matter of such dispute there has to be discussion to resolve it. No one ever said you HAVE to read Zhuan Falun multiple times. It was a suggestion. Mcconn 09:16, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Reading Zhuan Falun while editing Falun Gong pages[edit]

About reading Zhuan Falun many times, when you are considering to edit Falun Gong pages on wikipedia. I also think that it is a good idea.

Don’t assume that I’m demanding this of you, however I would try to explain why I think this.

Let’s take an imaginary situation when there are a group of daemons and a group of Buddha’s. If you are in the group of daemons they will tell you that the group of Buddha’s are the worst daemons you have ever seen.

However if you have the chance to go to the group of Buddha’s you might see the truth, that they are indeed Buddha’s, in which case perhaps you will also receive a lot of blessing, since Buddha’s are the most compassionate figures known to humans.

We’ll then again in my humble opinion it’s just the same in reading CCP propaganda, versus, reading Zhuan Falun. If you don’t read Zhuan Falun, then let me ask you, what do you know about Falun Gong practitioners who are treasuring the teaching of this book, trying to live according to the principles laid out in this book, and who are trying to clarify the truth when lies arise?

Consider the current situation in China where: “Any Falun Gong practitioner or who delivers beliefs and materials of Falun Gong could be sent to prison. In order not to get me involved in trouble, please do not send such document to me later, thank you very much.” This is a quote from an Chinese coworker who lives in China to which I sent a link and the 9 commentaries. I see a lot of fear in him, just because he received a link in an email that actually he requested from me. It was a casual work related email in which at the end I placed this information in 2 lines.

He is not fearful of Falun Gong but of CCP.

Also while I'm on this topic, let me ask you, if you would believe that there is Buddha nature and Daemon nature, which one would you like to help? --HappyInGeneral 11:07, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Here we go again. Buddha doesn't encourage his disciples to whine and spread hate. Buddha doesn't handle criticism with intolerance. Buddha doesn't cling on lies, false claims, and handle rebuttals with intolerance. Heck, Buddha isn't formed from "atoms" so common people "can't see him", and Buddha doesn't radiate enormous amounts of neutrons or gamma rays. Demons, on the other hand do have such behavior, including harming people with powerful energy. --Yenchin 14:57, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
You are trying to avoid the main question, and that is: If you would believe in Buddha and Daemons who would you help?
There is also another question of which I'm not sure what is you opinion, but curios non the less: How scared do you think that is the general population in China to be persecuted and potentially arrested because their association with Falun Gong in China?
About Buddha's being composed of atoms: Do you believe that for Christians there was a Jesus Christ god reincarnated on earth? You know there are 3 billion people who believe in that and not mocked because of it. So, can you tell me who is intolerant, whine and spread hate?
Also let me tell you this, my believe is that Buddha created everything, he can do whatever he likes, even with us, but all what Li Hongzhi asked from us is to raise our moral standard, which is coincidentally fine with me, because that is all that I want. --HappyInGeneral 16:07, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
Yenchin - Mr. Li doesn't do these things either. That's just your pov. Mcconn 09:16, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Samuel Website[edit]

   *  By Samuel Luo, a Falun Gong critic.

1. I find it odd to name it FalunGongInfo when it's just critical. This is just completely misleading. It's somewhat like telling people that they won 1 million dollar and after you got their attention tell them about some advertising. This is an old and deplorable commercial trick.

2. The site content is original research and mostly POV, both of them are against wikipedia rules. So why would it be normal to be the first external link? One that people usually click? When according to wikipedia rules it should not be present at all on the page?

3. Why are you putting this much effort in criticizing Falun Gong? Granted it's you right. But I still don't see what is your practical motive. I stated my motive, since I am a practitioner who considers the principles of Truthfulness, Compassion, Tolerance as being very good, will you state your motive?

My motive is simple, the Falun Gong is a deceptive and harmful cult (many American cult experts have attested to this). --Samuel Luo 19:28, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
People should have the right to believe anything they like. So from that point of view I respect your belief, but then again, can you do the same with my belief? Personally I find nothing deceptive or harmful in believing that as long as I get closer to Truthfulness, Compassion and Forbearance, I will have a better existence. --HappyInGeneral 19:39, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Response to #1:More "moral high ground" logic with laughable results. Does the name "" ring a bell?--Yenchin 03:14, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

"moral high ground" is very important to practitionars. We do want to improve our moral standard, so we don't want to do anything otherwise, it all has to be on "moral high ground". is a site run by Falun Dafa practitioners and it offers information about the situation of Falun Dafa in China. So in this case the name is by no means misleading. --HappyInGeneral 09:29, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Response to this criteria, large amounts of content from FLG clone websites should be taken away as well, are you prepared for that?--Yenchin 03:14, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Which Falun Gong clone sites? --HappyInGeneral 09:29, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

And here we are seeing the typical FLG fanatic whining again. Appeal to motive. It's always the same formula, appeal to pity whining about being persecuted, appeal to motive hiding the urge to not sound like other fanatics who accuse critics as "PRC lapdogs" and so on. A group which spread lies and hate is far from "Truthfulness...etc", Sam and other editors are reporting simple, straightfoward facts. The truth is, you fanatics can't deal with it. --Yenchin 03:14, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Fanatic? Is that me or is that you? As far as I know fanatics are characterized in intolerance. We practice Tolarance as well as Truthfullness and Compassion. Do you see anything wrong in these principles?
You have the right to slander Falun Gong and say that is spreading lies and hate, but does that make you the one who says the Truth? --HappyInGeneral 09:29, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Falun Gong people pracitce tolerance and truthfulness? I have been threatened with lawsuits three times and my freedom of speech as well as others who are critical of the FAlun gong have been suppressed. I have no reason to beleive that yuo guys tolerate critics. I also do not see any practitioners care to practice truthfulness. All that you guys are doing here is to prevent the true teachings of the group being exposed to the public, you even delete Li's pictures on his page. --Samuel Luo 19:51, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

"Threatened with lawsuits" as far as I can see these are only words to slander Dafa. Do you also have some recording to back up your claim? Also the exact description of what you have done? Because I'm sure that no Falun Dafa practitioner would intend any lawsuits just to block your free speech.
Which image are you referring? The one that has no license? This is wikipedia, this means that even though not to many there are some rules, especially the one of copyright, that should be followed. Other then that I have nothing against that image, I also find it very good, that is if you are referring to the image where Master is in a suit. If you are referring to the one where Master is depicted as divinity (an image from another dimension), that is already in for some time. --HappyInGeneral 20:07, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
According to wiki policy, a self-established website can only be used as source to talk about themselves. Cannot be used as a valid source to talk about others. So Samuel's website is not a valid source.

In addition, whether Samuel Luo is a credible "critic" is in question. In an interview, he said he confronted his mother (a Falun Gong practitioner) about homosexuals issues and his mother said .... . However, his mother said she never said that. Fnhddzs 22:45, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Revert war? Page locked? Discussion is NEEDED[edit]

Please discuss. Yueyuen, it is incorrect to say "No one has to answer your ridiculous questions before editing here". That's personal attack. And you are violating the spirit of discussion and communication in group editing. Fnhddzs 01:47, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

So the page is locked. What are we to do? The practitioners here, including myself, have brought up and explained all problems with the conent which the "critic" editors seek to keep. Yet, they continue to revert back to it. I'm sorry guys, is there something we're missing? Is there something of yours that we aren't including which we have not explained why, or that you were able to provide a decent reason for including? Please respond. I don't want the page left on this stupid (yup, I said it) POV version. Mcconn 15:09, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
Yes, I said it, and regret it. Sorry for the offensive remark. Mcconn 14:40, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
Actually, while I could make the editorial quibble (and only because I have a different opinion) that "stupid" is a bit much as a descriptor, you were describing what you thought of the POV, not the person, so what you said doesn't fall under WP:NPA IMO. --Fire Star 火星 03:29, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Homophobia and racism[edit]

When this article is unprotected, I'd like to add information about his homophobia and racism.

Li thinks that that gays are “disgusting” and somehow a “black substance” accumulates within the bodies of gay men. “Disgusting homosexuality shows the dirty abnormal psychology of the gay who has lost his ability of reasoning at the present time,” says Hongzhi. And one day he claims gays will be ‘’eliminated’’ by ‘’the gods.’

Commenting on interracial relationships:

He has said that “mixed-race people…[are] instruments of an alien plot to destroy humanity’s link to heaven.” And that these interracial unions are somehow part of “a plot by…evil extraterrestrials.”


--Revolución hablar ver 09:13, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

It isn't always in the interests of Rick Ross to provide truthful, accurate and sourced information. Maybe you should read a little bit about him. He's a businessman, not a professional researcher. This is one of the reasons why all the information about Li having said this or that ought to be based on primary sources.
On a side note, it's amusing how Rick Ross always writes "...says Hongzhi" instead of "...says Li". Apparently he's not aware that Chinese family names are usually written first. ---Olaf Stephanos 13:09, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
Although the poster of the above message may not be aware of it, all of the Li quotes concerning homosexuality come from original sources. You may not agree with Rick Ross, but he nevertheless does maintain standards of accuracy in reporting. Concerning the inter-racial quotes, these strike me as correct as well. If need be, I could track them down. But for now, I want to give the poster above some encouragment. The truth about Li's teaching's will come out, regardless of the spinning done by practitioners. Li is, indeed, a homophobe....and now that we have learned about the internalized homophobia of a major Christian Evangelist...Ted makes me wonder if Li, himself, might not be a closetted gay. --Tomananda 01:19, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
Also, it is a known practise in English to use a name like Hongzhi when referring to a Chinese person. It is often dome academically because of the limited pool of syllables from which to draw a Chinese family name and the use of identical syllables for different names (Wu style and Wu style Taijiquan for example). I'm not saying Rick Ross is an academic, either he doesn't know or he is using the given name contemptuously I'll guess. --Fire Star 火星 14:44, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Olaf, it doesn't really interest me if he made a mistake regarding which part of his full name he used for his last name. It's these facts I'm concerned with. This man and his cult are regarded as heros by ignorant Westerners, just because they have been persecuted by China. This man has even been nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize, which is interesting in that he has done nothing for progress or peace rather than advancing his cult that worships him as God. The facts about Falun Gong and Li need to be reported on a neutral, factual encyclopedia. And to Tomananda, we can not assume every homophobe is a closeted gay. While closeted homosexuals do exist amongst homophobes, in unfortunate large numbers, most homophobes are heterosexual both publicly and privately. --Revolución hablar ver 09:31, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Revolucion I would please suggest you to find and read the whole sections where Li Hongzhi has talked about homosexuals and homosexuality, not just those things from Rick Ross. I practice Falun Gong, and I do not worship Li Hongzhi. I do not know why you describe Falun Gong as a cult. It is free and open to anyone, there are no rules or regulations, there is no money involved, people come and go as they want, everything is voluntary; Olaf described it as a set of free teachings. We do not want to harm anyone or restrict their rights. The reason we are practicing Falun Gong is to attain the Tao and go back to the origin of existence. We cultivate Truthfulness-Compassion-Forbearance; they are the main principles of Falun Gong. I am not sure if you have heard this before. My understanding of the things Li Hongzhi has said about homosexuality is because homosexuality is seen as something that is against the cosmos, against the Tao, or the natural order. The idea is that those engaged in homosexual behaviour are actually already harming themselves. I have said that I do not have a problem with everything Li Hongzhi has said being reported, but I have always spoken about reporting everything responsibily and with context. I am writing all this because this is the first time I have seen you posting here, and maybe you didn't know. It is good that you actually acknowledge the persecution. It is a miserable feature of those who are against or do not understand the teachings of Falun Gong, that they will even begin trying to justify a cruel and inhumane genocide. That is really the worst thing. Have you read about the cases of torture, rape, injections with nerve-damaging drugs, beatings, burnings, and now, even organ harvesting from living Falun Gong practitioners? I think it is good for a person to keep a spirit of healthy disagreement at times, but it's a shame when some basic things like the genuinely benign nature of the practice and the utter cruelty of the persecution are overlooked.--Asdfg12345 19:54, 24 November 2006 (UTC)


This image is going to be deleted because it has not released under a free license. It might qualify for fair use though, because it's an official picture from [10]. --Matt314 19:43, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

"Master Li"[edit]

This article does not need all these "master" references to Li. Would anyone mind if they were removed, upon unprotection of this article? --Revolución hablar ver 09:34, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

I think that's fairly appropriate. --Asdfg12345 19:35, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Just quickly, to Samuel now[edit]

Samuel the changes I made were not even really in favour of Li Hongzhi. Please do more to explain why you would revert them. In fact, one of them was necessary for it to belong in wikipedia! I changed it from effectively saying that "Li Hongzhi is doing Fa-rectification" - which should not go in wikipedia - to saying "Li Hongzhi says he is doing Fa-rectification" - which can go in wikipedia. And you even reverted that. You also reverted another place where I changed a POV statement to a NPOV statement - in the biography. I suspect that you did not actually look at the changes, or at least did not look at them closely enough. I hope you do not persist in doing this. I also want to expand on other parts of the biography sometime soon, so I hope you do not continue with this approach. It's pretty uncooperative and counter-productive. Please reconsider. --Asdfg12345 11:34, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Li claims to have divine power, has he not? No one outside of the FG has ever questioned Li's divinity thus the title you are using is inappropriate. The title "Li's claim of divinity" simply describes what Li has claimed, and the body of the section should use that kind of language to keep a balance. --Samuel Luo 19:53, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
Hi Samuel, I was not sure what Asdfg12345 was thinking of exactly so it took me some time, but here is my input on the matter. The fact that I did not revert the title was not because I agreed with it, but because I was not sure then how to explain it.
As you said, Li claims that he has divine power, but there are some people who do not believe it. That is fine, still in that case people might be asking themselves how can there be this person who is saying that he has divine powers? So I believe that it’s more respectful to use the term “The question of Li Hongzhi's Divinity”.
Also when you say that "No one outside of the FG has ever questioned Li's divinity" are you implying that everyone except Falun Gong cultivators find it easy to accept that there is a person with divine powers present among us in this period of history? Well that would be odd, don't you think? --HappyInGeneral 23:36, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for not reverting the title. The phrase “But these powers were not as important as his wisdom” is better than your “Though the biography emphasises that above all,” because the word wisdom summarizes the content following it. This phrase “many more beautiful things which have existed there for a long time” is unnecessary and awkward. --Samuel Luo 21:34, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
When quoting is better to leave everything in, otherwise it could be called quoting out of context. Other then that you were placing there a quote from biography so normal to say that “Though the biography emphasizes that above all, <then the quote>”, instead of making personal judgment by saying “But these powers were not as important as his wisdom”. For example, who said that there were more important? You? --HappyInGeneral 23:36, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
These two titles "Li's claim of divinity" and “The question of Li Hongzhi's Divinity” talk about two separate issues. We can have two sections to go with these two titles if you like. Because the material we have now are Li’s many claims of divinity, the first works better. I don’t think people outside of FG are believing in Li’s divinity, they probably think he is crazy. However there is no debate on the issue, until then the title you like does not work.

Li's bio stressed on his enlightenmenet (wisdom) so it is correct to use that phrase, but if you insist on using the other one, it is fine with me. --Samuel Luo 01:20, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Okay put in the thing I mentioned above. Kept the title "Li's claims to divinity" Just another paragraph summarising the next part of the biography. Other thing is, I have put the words "citation needed" about the sentence saying Li has become the subject of controversy ranging form so-and-so. Is there a source for this? What is the nature of the controversy? I do not think that sentence should be left there just like that. There should be some attempt to explain in a sentence or two the nature of the controversy and the context surrounding it. This is reporting responsibly on the issue. I've put the tag there because that sentence on its own is unsourced and does not say what it is based on. Just putting a sentence there like that, without explanation or anything doesn't make too much sense or read very well. For example, would a sentence that said "Many people have said that Li Hongzhi and Falun Dafa are really great" be appropriate to put? Just like that? No. Not really. It is the same here. That sort of stuff needs to be explained and sourced. The tag is a temporary measure, so maybe if you have a bit of time sometime soon Samuel, you can get to work on that? I think I remember you were the one who put that sentence there.--Asdfg12345 03:26, 3 December 2006 (UTC)


In my last edit summary I typed WP:RFA, I meant to type WP:REF. Sorry for the confusion. --Fire Star 火星 03:25, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

About the disputed paragraph of biography in Divinity section[edit]

I think mainly to Covenant: you said it was big POV and also the selection of quotes was that way. I would ask you to please look at that section of the biography. The wiki divinity section goes from the beginning of the biography, recounts all the supernormal experiences like levitation and invisibility, then stops. The part I adapted is just below the other parts that are already summarised. You can take a look at the section I summarised. I basically just took out the main points and stuck them there with some wording in between. It is pretty much just reporting what the biography said. I know that it says rather nice things about Li Hongzhi, but fine. That's not really the point. My issue is that half of the thing is being reported but not the other half. That is just as relevant as the other parts of the biography. So I ask you to take a look at the section of biography that I have adapted and see if you can find another way to read it. It is basically just describing why he brought out Falun Dafa. Obviously that is going to mean a mentioning Li Hongzhi's reported feelings, and obviously that is not going to be something bad against Li Hongzhi. I'll just say it quickly now: first point> it is unreasonable that only half the biography be reported, and especially only the half that people will read and not be able to understand - i.e. supernormal things. This part is reporting things people will be able to understand. Is there some reason for reporting one part and not the other? second point> if you think that my adaptation is biased or misleading then I apologise. Please take a look at the section and see if there is another way to read it or you have some ideas for improvement. I do not think just deleting that part of the biography is the best approach to cooperation and progress. Change it, rephrase it and we can come up with something. I just want that part of the biography accurately reported alongside the rest. Also I'm about to delete that sentence of Samuel's that I flagged as per reasons stated just above. --Asdfg12345 02:27, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

I see that you revised that paragraph, however, the language is still awful and the whole thing is still a pov. I don't object to the inclusion of what you say in this sentence: "Li has also become the subject of much praise, gratitude and support because of his disseminating Falun Dafa, which has reportedly allowed people to unconditionally achieve good health and high realms of mind." HOwever, only after you make it work. --Samuel Luo 18:55, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

I won't repeat my comment above as all of that still stands. If you can make an improvement to that sentence then do it. Don't delete wholesale everything I do. We are supposed to cooperate to make these pages, not just revert everything. I am trying to be careful now that I stick to wikipedia policies, only introduce things sourced properly, and basically that I am playing by the rules, plus at the same time giving ample opportunities and encouragement for others to do the same. That is what I want to be able to do and that is what I am trying to do. I think that you should consider that and also strive towards that. Despite our incompatible views on this subject, we are still able to come up with acceptable wiki pages if we stick to policy and try to do things properly. If you opt for continued dispute over the content I have introduced I would kindly request that you please cite the correspondent piece or part of wikipolicy, or your interpretation of it, and explain things on that basis. We will keep going around and around in circles without that kind of anchoring. I am saying that the content I introduced is directly summarising legitimate sources, and it is referenced. I have also explained how the paragraph I put is trying to balance the POV I felt was ALREADY in the biography - all the talk of supernormal things but not of the other things, why? - and that it was only a direct summary of the biography's content. I don't think I need to explain the praise and support part; that's very obviously aboveboard and I think you realise that you should not have deleted it.--Asdfg12345 04:56, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Appeal to motive fallacy. Again, and again, and again. It never gets old. --Yenchin 13:43, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
I would rather call it circumstantial evidence :) --HappyInGeneral 14:25, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
"supported by a significant quantity of corroborating evidence." Oops, looks like more mutilation of science and logic from our FLFanatics. --Yenchin 02:59, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
And in the mean time do you have a better picture of that "extremely expensive mansion"?
Yenchin am I wrong in saying that you state that Li Hongzhi lives in a mansion? Do you have evidence to support that? --HappyInGeneral 16:22, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
The word "mansion" isn't used in the article, so this entire discussion is irrelevant to the article. CovenantD 16:59, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
Not to mention HappyInGeneral's laughable attempt to avoid the topic of the mutilation of logic. --Yenchin 18:39, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
The personal comments aren't making this any more relevant, either. CovenantD 19:46, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

580.000 $ house[edit]

After the persecution, Li was interviewed in his home. I just wanted to show you the picture, from the interview, cause to me it kinda more looks like an ordinary appartement, than a 580,000 $ house. (the link will work now) But even if he would have made money by selling his book to people who don't want to download it for free, and bought an expensive house from the money. So what? What is wrong with that? Why is this worth an entire section in the article?

Another thing regarding Yenchin putting this abstract artwork into the araticle. Your argument for doing that was that you wanted to use it as "proof" that Falun Gong would be an evil Cult spreading that Li Hongzhi is a Buddha or whatever, right? Well they don't. This is only an abstract painting by an individual artist. It was never spread or sold publicly. How come i practice Falun Gong, and put in an ordinary photograph showing Li Hongzhi's face, and YOU being the one deleting and replacing it with the abstract painting? --Hoerth 19:23, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

painting or photograph?[edit]

I think that the painting of Mr. Li should be replaced with a simple photograph. Certainly there is a publicity photo or other image, perhaps from one of the books, that shows the subject of the article which is Li himself. Mr. Li's image in the painting is an area less than 400 by 500 pixels - only 1/35th of the full size painting. And if only that portion were used, it would look very fuzzy with too little detail. To me, the painting seems very far from neutral. --EarthPerson 19:49, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

I put in a normal picture of Li Hongzhi two day's ago:
it's just that Yenchin immedeatly replaced it with the copyrighted abstract painting again. --Hoerth 19:54, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
I have replaced the painting with a neutral photo of the man himself found at which I believe to qualify as fair use. Please note that I have renamed the photo as "Li hongzhi photo.jpg" to make the name neutral and meaningful. I think that it is best for this article to have a photo of Li depicted just by himself and not in the practice clothing. Opinions are welcome. --EarthPerson 20:48, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

The issues discussed next to the image is on Li's "claim on divinity". The image is louder than words because it shows a view from a follower (after all, someone drew it), as well as Minghui Net's admittance of such a view (they put it on their website). Replacing it says nothing to the issues discussed in the text. --Yenchin 02:59, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Yenchin, I am okay with the painting in the claims on divinity section. Had I thought longer on it, I would have moved it there myself. However, I feel that the painting should be clearly labeled either in the photo caption or in that section of the article as the work of a follower and not necessarily Li's view of himself. I quickly looked over the site that I believe the painting is from but only found Chinese text which I cannot read. I would appreciate more context on the painting. --EarthPerson 15:50, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Yenchin, in my version I kept the art work, only I renamed it from Main Buddha to "Painting Lord", because that is the actual name of the painting. As far as I can tell the wording Main Buddha is your original research.--HappyInGeneral 12:00, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

I personally won't object the usage of "Painting Lord". Originally including the "Main Buddha" text in the image is actually cutting you guys some slack. But if you insist... --Yenchin 03:51, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Li has claimed to be some kind of deity at the beginning of his Falun Gong. This picture here was created by him and distributed among followers in 1992. I believe the painting in discussion here was also created under Li’s direction. --Samuel Luo 19:24, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
just want to point out that this is not a picture either. Do you really think that Li has auras around his head and body? It seems very clear to me that these "art works" were created for a obvious purpose. --Yueyuen 22:00, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Well in the early days I believe the "Main Buddha" thing probably hadn't formed, but whether it is the "faxiang" series, or the Main Buddha image it speaks a lot on these issues. Minghui Net has them, showing that it is indeed encouraged. And like I said, if the FLGers feel that the image should be taken down or whitewashed then there will be a lot of text to supplement this point. --Yenchin 00:43, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Unbalanced, Controversial and Calm talk article tags[edit]

I have placed an Unbalanced template on this article due to the following. Please keep in mind that I have only made edits to this article within the past few days and I have not reviewed the history. That said, if this article were to be arranged with positive things about Mr. Li and with negative (i.e. controversial) things, the sections would appear as follows:


  • Awards and Recognition
    • Support, praise and gratitude


  • Li's claims of divinity
    • "Main Buddha"
  • Arrest warrant for Li
  • Disputes
    • Making money from Falun Gong
    • Birth date

Additional sections:

  • The Interviews with Mr. Li Hongzhi looks to be something that was cut down and could go into Biography.
  • The biography and introductory paragraphs seem neutral.

The shear amount of text that would be under the Controversy heading is much longer than what would be under the Positive section. Copying the text from the edit box and pasting into Word gives a counts of characters with spaces for each as:

  • Positive - 13,652 characters
  • Controversy - 1,709 characters

There is nearly 8 times the amount of controversial text than there is non-controversial text. This article is clearly not balanced.

Additionally, I have added the Controversial and Calm talk tags as I feel that this article, and anyone who comes to it could benefit from seeing them.

I feel that the article should be arranged as stated above but rather that make such changes myself, I wanted to see what other thought. Thanks. --EarthPerson 23:15, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

EarthPerson, I disagree with the way you analyze this page and hence your conclusion. “Li's claims of divinity” section should be placed in the positive category. That section simply reports the claims of Li. It is neutral. You might think of it as controversy but to the person who made those claims and people who believe in them they are positive. It is incorrect to label this page as unbalanced. What do you think? --Samuel Luo 02:04, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
Also review WP:Undue weight for why your character count is exactly the wrong way to determine the balance of the article. CovenantD 06:51, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
Oh, and two of the templates you added to the article belong on the talk page. I've moved them for you, but next time be sure to read the template that you're adding. CovenantD 06:55, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

I removed the unbalanced tag since it is not justified. --Mr.He 20:05, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Sentence from money section[edit]

This sentence can't stand on it's own: "Some critics charge that Li hypocritically made money from the Falun Gong movement despite promising never to charge for teaching or helping followers." It's empty. Who has said this and on what grounds? If this context and a valid source cannot be provided then the sentence must be removed. Mcconn 17:48, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Interviews section[edit]

I said a long time ago that this isn't a valid section. Quotes from interviews can be used within other contexts to make a specific point, but I don't see why they need a section themselves. What makes one interview quote more important than another? Is it because some editors consider some quotes controversial or strange? Without any second hand sources, who are they to decide? and the same goes for what is or isn't a "highlight". This section is completely pov. Interview quotes are sources, like any other first hand source. They are not independant sections. Why should this section be included? If ample reason cannot be given to validate the existance of this section, then it should be deleted as soon as possible. Mcconn 15:52, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

This section is important not only because Li is no longer giving interviews but also because it provides answers to many questions that the public is interested in. Why are you so uncomfortable about what your master has said? If you guys are truly about truthfulness why do you guys want to conceal information like this to the public? I don’t think you are a true follower of Li; I think you are one of those people who are helping Li to fool his followers and the public for money or whatever reason. I have noticed that there are two kinds of people in the Falun Gong. While most of them have no problem with Li’s statements, some of them, like you, are uncomfortable which shows that you are not a true follower of Li. --Samuel Luo 19:37, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
Samuel, how would you feel about replacing the interview section with Lunyu? Lunyu is well sourced, is extremly important and it answers a lot of questions people might have about it's author and about it's teachings. Still one might think that this page has a different requirement and if Lunyu is important here it can be linked. Don't you think that the same thing is true for the Interview section? --HappyInGeneral 12:16, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Ever heard of assume good faith? What's with all the attacks? Your reasons for including this section are that he doesn't give interviews anymore and that in these interviews he has said things the public is interested in. Well, neither of these are valid reasons to keep the section. The section actually has to be about something, rather than simply a collection of quotes that you, for one reason are another, think are important. If they are important then they can be integrated into another section that deals with the specific topic that they address. If you think it is important to mention that Mr. Li doesn't give interviews anymore, then perhaps this can be mentioned somewhere else, but it isn't a good enough reason to include a section on personally selected "highlights" from various interviews. Mcconn 21:12, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm going to remove the section if no one has anything more to say about it. Mcconn 00:39, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm not a fan of revert wars. Nothing is getting accomplished by the war over this section. Please talk here. Let's work it out. This revert war is going to continue until we've reached some consensus. Mcconn 17:41, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

I think in the section of , another editor seems to give good reason for not keeping this alone as a section. Either from the organization aspect or from the content aspect, this section alone should not exist. Fnhddzs 05:06, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Divinity Section[edit]

Cutting out irrelevent biographical content[edit]

This section doesn't seem focused. It seems a mix between biographical content and content related to the divinity section. For instance, the beginning quote by Nina Willdorf and clearwisom's introduction or Mr. Li has nothing to do with Mr. Li's divinity. I think that this section existed before there was a biography section, which is where there is so much unnecessary biographical content. This stuff can be cut out to make the section more focused. I just finished deleting some of it and moving some of it. If anyone objects please reply. Mcconn 02:58, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I agree with Mconn. I also think that the word Divinity should be changed because it is an attempt to slander Mr. Li Hongzhi and Falun Dafa. I don't know where the word Divinity came from, Mr. Li Hongzhi never said he is Divine or that practitioners or anybody else should treat him as some God or Buddha. Omido 17:19, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

People are complaining that I've removed sourced content. In fact, with regards to this section, all I've removed is the Nina Willdorf quote and the Clearwisdom intro of Mr. Li, which I reasoned above. Actually, there was a part of the clearwisdom quote that wasn't deleted, but was instead moved to the bottom where it fits into the section appropriately. There was another big section from the biography which I moved to moved to the biography section. I also removed the pov about followers worshiping Mr. Li from the picture caption. The only other edits I made were a couple changes of wording. That's it. So what's the big fuss about? I will continue to revert the reverts until valid reasons for them can be provided here on the talk page. Mcconn 21:14, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
An assertion to unilaterally revert until personally satisfied is an assertion to edit war, and is in opposition to the policy of consensus. I know you are a reasonable editor, so this isn't a warning, just an FYI. --Fire Star 火星 15:40, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

That's not what I meant. It's not about being personally satisfied. I simply want discussion. So far no one has made any attempt to engage in reasonable discussion over these edits on the talk page. How can any consensus be reached without any talking? All I've gotten is meaningless retoric and personal attacks in some peoples' edit summaries. Is it that I have no right to change anything on the page? Any edit I make seems to be immediately reverted. I might understand if some valid reasons were provided on the talk page, but they haven't been. It's really not fair to edit in this manner. I will not allow my work to be covered up or tossed aside without any good reason, nor should anyone else. This is not how wiki works. Mcconn 18:25, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

I have noticed that Mcconn gave reasonable discussion for his edits. However other editors seem to seldom discuss for what they do. So I think he did well in terms of conforming the wikipedia spirit. Nobody want a revert war. I support Mcconn. Fnhddzs 04:59, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
Is there a policy regarding repeated revert without any attempt for discussion? Fire Star should know about it, right? Could you please let me know about it? I'm not yet familiar with all the policies. --HappyInGeneral 11:20, 30 December 2006 (UTC)


I removed this section: "Since the biography, Li Hongzhi has made many comments which may be interpreted as claims to divinity. For example, by 1996, Li was hinting that he was not just an ordinary human being, but rather a reincarnated deity who has lived many previous lives. “The things imparted to me by my several masters in this life are exactly what I intentionally arranged a few lifetimes ago for them to obtain. When the predestined occasion arrived, it had already been arranged that they [would] impart those things back to me so that I could recall my Fa in its entirety.”[9]"

Why? Because I think it is wrong. What does it mean by "interpreted as claims to divinity"?. Interpeted by who? Interpeted by those who try to slander Dafa and Master Li? That cannot be included because it is not neutral. Master Li never said "I am a Divine being" or "I am a God/Buddha/Dao" so how can you say those things. That sections was just brought in without consent by some people that want to slander Dafa with the Chinese Communist Party propaganda. Omido 17:25, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Here's what I think. By saying that he arranged the fate of certain individuals in previous lifetimes, it is given that Mr. Li not only has power beyond ordinary human beings, power that extends beyond his current lifetime, he even has the power to arrange people's lives. Most people would say that this is God-like power. I think the wording of the paragraph that you removed can be changed, but I still think the quote is relevent. If there is a real problem with the term "divinity", then perhaps we can use something else, but I can see why the person who named this section named it as such. Omido, I suggest that the paragraph in question and the heading be restored until we've discussed this a little more. Actually, I think it's fine if you want to change the wording of the paragraph in question before further discussion, but it's jumping the gun to flat out remove it. Just my opinion. Mcconn 20:07, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Mconn. According to my understanding, Master Li can be regarded as a qigong-master. Is he not teaching qigong? Of course it is not ordinary qigong, it is qigong cultivation practice of the Buddha-School. So he is a High Level Qigong-Master and not an ordinary qigong master that is teaching people healing and keeping fit. I still do not think that it should be named "divinity". Dafa is not taught to validate ordinary human notions. It does not matter if ordinary humans think Master Li is divine. If Master Li never himself said he is divine, then I think he should not be regarded as divine by ordinary people. Master Li himself said that it is okey if ordinary people regard him as an ordinary human being. This is my understanding. Omido 08:57, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

He has also said repeatedly that he is greater than the gods and more effective than Gautama Buddha or Jesus. Those aren't the claims of an ordinary qigong teacher. Also, there is an inferred claim by him (again referring to his being more effective than any other teacher) that no other system of qigong has any effective spiritual component, just FLG. This is demonstrably debatable, and must stand as only his claim, as many other systems come from monasteries or are practised for devotional purposes. Breathing systems as diverse as yoga and Gregorian chanting are used to worship God. For Li to say that only his system is spiritually effective, added to his repeated assertions that since we can't truly understand his greatness we should treat him as a "normal human for now" is germane to a section in an article about him regarding claims of divinity. --Fire Star 火星 15:37, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

What's this section about? It's not just about "more information on Mr. Li", that's not an appropriate title. In my understanding, the section was created to include material describing Mr. Li as more than an ordinary man, but rather an individual possessing enormous power, power that many would view as God-like. The section isn't drawing any conclusions. It's not saying that Mr. Li is divine, and it's not saying that he isn't telling the truth. It's not suggesting how one should regard Mr. Li, but instead reporting statements describing the super-mundane aspects of Mr. Li's personna. If this section is written well and free of POV, I'm not against it. Perhaps a better title would be "Li Hongzhi Beyond the Ordinary". What do you think of this? Mcconn 15:50, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

I wouldn't be against renaming the section. Li Hongzhi Beyond the Ordinary is too assertive, IMO. Something more neutral like "Li's own description of his place in Falundafa metaphysics" perhaps... --Fire Star 火星 19:29, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

No problem. Actually, I don't really like "Li Hongzhi Beyond the Ordinary" either, but I couldn't think of anything better. I just changed it to "Li Hongzhi's personna within Falun Dafa Metaphysics". The reason that I didn't use the words "Li's own" is because the content from the biography was not written by Mr. Li himself, so it's not necessarily his own description. I also thought that "personna" was better than "place" because the section is more about who he is rather than how he is regarded. Mcconn 17:38, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

I think wikipedia articles are to report something independent of personal understanding, not to spread personal POV or whispers.No original research is the policy. If some day, many years later, everybody in the society agree on this part, then maybe the article could write so. [11]. Please talk to me if you think wikipedia is for POV. Fnhddzs 05:12, 30 December 2006 (UTC) .

Buddha Painting[edit]

@ Yenchin: You are free to change your fair use rational, but please don't delete the copyright remark, untill the issue has been resolved, and don't again link the picture till then either. Please abide by the wikipedia principles regarding copyrighted artwork. As I said, you wanting Li Hongzhi to appear like a Buddha IS NOT a reasonable argument for "Fair use". Thank you --Hoerth 18:35, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

I want LHZ to appear like a Buddha? I can't help but only reply with "LOL". And like I said, the only "issue" raised is your ignorance on copyright. --Yenchin 12:45, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Yenchin please keep it easy on the personal attacks. State up front what is the problem with the copyright understanding instead of saying 'your ignorance on copyright'. Thx. --HappyInGeneral 11:35, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

The burden of proof is up to you. You repeatingly complain about copyright issues yet you never lay them out in your edits. I've stated clearly the Fair Use Rationale, while you are merely throwing out general complaints. It shows that you know nothing about copyright issues and that is the actual problem, if there is, on this image. --Yenchin 18:19, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Where did you "stated clearly the Fair Use Rationale"? -- 11:16, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
Do I even need to answer you, Mr. Anonymous? Oops, I did. --Yenchin 17:40, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
OK, then let me repeat this question: where did you "stated clearly the Fair Use Rationale"? --HappyInGeneral 12:37, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
The whole paragraph behind the words "Fair use rationale:". If you use your actual eyes, not your pineal gland, you'd see it. --Yenchin 18:20, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
Hi Yenchin, I searched the words "Fair use rationale" on this page, and they only show up in this section of "Buddha Painting" could you perhaps point out where exactly should I look, with my eyes/browser, etc ... Thanks --HappyInGeneral 10:29, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
Ask your buddy Hoerth, since he's been whining over the pic. --Yenchin 09:24, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Explaining my "clunky prose" edit[edit]

This bit I found to be unhelpful, and ungrammatical, in that order:

Li apparently does not want the general public to know anything about his life. 
In Li Hongzhi's Canadian lectures held on May 23, 1999 in Toronto, a question was asked to Mr. Li

The "apparently does not want" is a conclusion by one of our editors. Is there a source where Li explicitly says that he doesn't want to talk about himself or does the editor simply surmise this? According to Jimbo Wales: No original research is a fundamental bedrock policy on Wikipedia. This means: unless you can confirm a controversial assertion with a cite to an independent mainstream publication, you must leave it out of the article.

The second problem is the "a question was asked to Mr. Li" bit. The usage of "Mr." isn't something usually done at Wikipedia, and the "to" is inelegant, at least. I simplified the sentence to retain the info without the original research, honorific, or ESL prose. --Fire Star 火星 19:25, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

How can we keep this image on Wikipedia?[edit]

There are the following questions about this image. Even though for me is clear that this image can be shown on Wikipedia because on the source web page it is stated that it can be printed by anybody, as long as they use a good printer.

For the moment we know from where the image came from, but at least I don't know who made it or who is the copyright owner. --HappyInGeneral 11:48, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

did you try sending an email to the webmaster of I don't know how to get that information either, or whether it exists. --Asdfg12345 01:16, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

I did sent them an email, hopefully they will answer. --HappyInGeneral 13:16, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

the image is replacable fair use and must be deleted[edit]

This image is not public domain. It is a copyrighted image which is provided gratis for people to download and print. That is not the same as relinquishing copyright. Thus this is being used here as "fair use", however, because Li Hongzhi is alive, it is replacable fair use and so violates Wikipedia:Fair use: "No free equivalent is available or could be created that would adequately give the same information". A free equivalent could be created. I have tagged the image for deletion. Here is the information someone may need in order to replace it:

Thanks for uploading Image:Master Li high from falundafa org.jpg. I notice the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first fair use criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed image could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this image is not replaceable, please:
  1. Go to the image description page and edit it to add {{Replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original Replaceable fair use template.
  2. On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.
Alternatively, you can also choose to replace the fair use image by finding a freely licensed image of its subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or a similar) image under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.
Note that any fair use images which are replaceable by free-licensed alternatives will be deleted one week after they have been tagged for deletion, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. coelacan — 17:21, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

okay how about now? i have just deleted the other stuff. if i have done anything wrong i have not meant to. the correct attribution for the copyright status of the image is as now seen.--Asdfg12345 19:51, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

I think this is a misrepresentation of the image's copyright status. The tag you added, {{attribution}}, says "This image is copyrighted; however, the copyright holder allows the image to be freely redistributed, modified, used commercially and for any other purpose, provided that their authorship is attributed." However, I am looking at and I see no indication of this whatsoever. Where does it say this? coelacan — 08:29, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

But how we can be sure that is the original? Since it is a digital image maybe that question has no meaning, so I guess the question is if it is necessary to use the same image from another source, like Clearwisdom, which the attribution tag applies to? I think that will solve the problem. I guess that would be the most correct solution, too. I suppose simply changing the link would do the job, since they are identical files. Let me do that now. Thank you for going to all the trouble on this, and I think it is best to do everything in the most honest and best way, too.--Asdfg12345 11:58, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Here is the image on Clearwisdom. I still don't see there any indication that the image is allowed to be redistributed, modified, and sold. In the absence of an explicit statement of this by some website that can safely be presumed to have the copyright and thus the right to say so, we have to assume that these things are not allowed. So, where did you get the information that said this image could be modified and sold? Can you provide a link to the website where it says this? coelacan — 12:09, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I emailed them. If you like I can try to have them send you an email personally, or I can ask them if I can forward the email they sent to me. They wrote that to me, that all their stuff can be used as long as it is attributed to them. Let me see about the special email function wiki has, I will set it up on my username now so you can email me. Then I will ask them to send you an email, what do you reckon? I just asked them what the copyright status is with all their images. All the images on clearwisdom which are not from third party reports etc., they are clearwisdom's images, so this attribution status applies to them. Actually, I imagine you need to hear from them yourself, or they need to declare it themselves, since otherwise I could just be making up an email. I thought of that just then. Okay, let's see.--Asdfg12345 12:14, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Actually you might need to give me further advice about how to proceed. I take it neither of us are supposed to act as the official gatekeepers of the validity of attribution claims. I mean, if someone else comes along and questions it, do they then need to contact me and ask for confirmation? How do these things usually go? I suppose I do not fully understand how the various image copyright statuses can be 100% proven/verified. Anyway, if an email or a forwarded email from them, or a splice of the email pasted here onto wiki will do the job, then let me know. Are there some official wikipedia gatekeepers who are making sure the images on wikipedia comply to their cited copyright status? Are you one of them? I had thought it was just the responsibility of the person uploading the file/attributing a copyright status to it. I am not sure. Anyway, again, let me know if an email etc. will do the job. I just thought of these other complications a moment ago.--Asdfg12345 12:38, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi again. You are correct in guessing that there is an official process for permissions tracking. If you receive an email telling you that it's okay to use the image for absolutely any purpose including modification, sale, and redistribution, then the best thing to do would be to go ahead and upload the image to Wikimedia Commons (see Wikipedia:Moving images to the Commons) and then the tracking people on Commons can be contacted by the instructions at Commons:OTRS. It is normally just the responsibility of the uploader to make permission clear, however, that can only work when there is a weblink for others to look at and verify that the image is indeed licensed for free use. Emailed permissions require OTRS. If they write back to you and say "you can do anything with the image except sell it" or "you can do anything with the image except modify it" then we can't use the image here. coelacan — 18:53, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Okay I will have to get back to you. I just had a look at the free licenses available on wiki. So for whatever you think should be done with the image, that is okay for now. Right now it is a bit difficult for me to sort this out properly, and I won't be able to look into this for a while. Just as an aside, I find it quite curious that (taking a look at the free-licenses), wiki requires that images be free for commercial use. It seems there is no license or provision that says this image is fine for everyone to use, as long as they say where they got it and don't make money off it--that seems odd to me. Why should people be able to make money off the images on wikipedia? Why can't you just let your stuff be shared as long as people aren't going to go and profit from it? This is a kind of unrelated question to this image in particular, but if you know about this and the logic behind this I would be quite interested to know. I don't really understand the reasoning behind it, I mean it seems counter to the idea behind wikipedia--the free encyclopedia. People aren't allowed to somehow make money off the content of wikipedia, are they? How is this different? My curiousity is piqued.--Asdfg12345 01:13, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

You can read a thorough FAQ about this subject at User:Fastfission/Noncommercial. In brief, licensing on Wikipedia must be compatible with the GFDL, the license under which Wikipedia is available to republishers (like We release our text contributions under the GFDL when we edit. The images we upload must also be released under the this or a compatible license (or, on the English Wikipedia, which is hosted in the USA, they can be fair use, but this does not apply to living persons). The GFDL is a copyleft free license, but this "free" means "free as in freedom, not necessarily free as in [free] beer". That is, libre, not necessarily gratis. Wikipedia is both libre and gratis, but anyone can download Wikipedia and offer it from their own website under the same license, and theoretically they can charge for it. This license, like the GPL, is based on The Free Software Definition, and one of the requirements of freedom by this definition is that you must be able to "redistribute copies so you can help your neighbor". That may include charging money, so that you can buy bread or a new Lexus, at your discretion. Now, it would be a violation of copyright law for Wikipedia to break the GFDL now that all these editors have licensed their contributions under this license. So in order to keep compatability with the license, content like images that are distributed along with Wikipedia must be licensed under GFDL-compatible licenses, and one of the requirements of that compatability is that everything must be legally available to be sold. That was a little more long-winded than it needed to be. Hopefully I didn't try your patience. Anyway, did the people you emailed specify that resale was acceptable? coelacan — 07:39, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Okay, checking around the websites again, there's no indication that this is free for any use including modification and commerce, so I've tagged it again as {{Replaceable fair use}}, and it will be deleted in approximately seven days unless new evidence is provided. coelacan — 03:18, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't think that this image is easily replaceable because, since all images with Mr. Li Hongzhi are from Minghui/ClearWisdom sites which will then fall under the gratis license category you mentioned. To go in and take a picture with his approval, would be hard (at least for me). Could you perhaps point out in this case where should we go and get some pictures which will be OK to use on Wikipedia?
Also based on this I have a request. Until there is no other picture of him which has the GFDL license, can we keep this one? After all it's Gratis, so wikipedia will surely not be sued over keeping it. --HappyInGeneral 11:27, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
We do not know if the copyright holder wants to allow this kind of use, so we have to err on the safe side and act within the law. The fact that they make the image available for people to download for free does not mean they allow others to make the image available. This is still a violation of their copyright until they provide permission otherwise. See Special:Upload, where it says: "Do not upload images found on websites or on an image search engine. They will be deleted." That is all that has been done here, an image on a website was uploaded without any free licensing. It is a common misconception that a gratis image means "public domain", but it does not, and we are still in violation of copyright law. I'm afraid we cannot make an exception for this, except as the United States fair use laws allow, as outlined at Wikipedia:Fair use. In this case, since Mr. Li is a living person, it is possible to make a freely licensed image of him, so fair use does not apply. As to how you may get a freely-licensed image of him, there are many options. Someone who lives near him may take a picture of him when he is out in public, entering or exiting a Falun Gong building, or giving a public lecture (I understand he has appeared at universities in the past, this would be an opportune time). You actually do not need his permission if he is in a public place, under US law in most states. I do not know what city he is in, but if there are no Wikipedia editors on this page who live near him, you can make a request at Wikipedia:Requested pictures. Also, if anyone who is "high up" in the Falun Gong organization reads this and talks to him, then he may be persuaded to sit for a portrait photograph that would then be released under a GFDL-compatible license. coelacan — 00:31, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
Comment - The Japanese wikipedia article on Li has the same image from the same place and has it marked as released into the Public Domain. --EarthPerson 16:11, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
There is no justification provided on the Japanese page for the claim of Public Domain. It appears to be a copyright violation there as well. I have informed an administrator on the Japanese Wikipedia of this issue and I expect the image will be deleted there as well. coelacan — 00:31, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Controversial figure[edit]

Without simply dismissing anything the Chinese government says as a hoax or a fabrication, at least some justice can be done in the intro section regarding Li being a controversial figure. The entire article basically tries to prove Li as a truly benevolent human being if not some supernatural person or force.

I suggest the following to be put in the intro:
Since the search warrant issued by the Chinese government, Li Hongzhi has been residing in the United States. He remains a controversial figure both inside and outside China. While his image is largely positive in the West, Chinese religious experts as well as the Chinese government have criticized Li for what they consider illegitimate practices.

This version reflects NPOV more than the version I planned to put up, which you see below:
Since the search warrant issued by the Chinese government, Li has sought asylum in the United States, using China's terrible human rights record as a tool to let him continue his residence in the US and spread his teachings in a less confrontational manner than his preaching inside China. His practice of Falun Gong, although followed by many people, has been long subject to controversy both inside and outside of China. Many religious experts specializing in Taoism and Buddhism dismiss his teachings as simplistic, skewed, and fraudulent. The Chinese government have branded Li an evil cult leader.

But of course, I am a dog of the CPC, I am but their overseas mouthpiece.

The following, then, is obviously not true because anything the CPC says is to be unquestionably considered bullshit:

According to the Beijing Review report, in the period of 1970-78 Li worked as a trumpet player at a PLA stud farm and Jilin Provincial Forest Armed Police department. Then for the next four years he was an attendant at the hostel of the Jilin Provincial Forest Armed Police department. Starting from 1982 Li worked in the security department of the Changchun Cereals and Oil Co. In 1992, Li quit his job and began to propagate the Falun Gong practice and spiritual teachings to the general public in China.

I'm just wondering, if the official CPC version of his biography is general bullshit, then the Falun Gong biography of him must be completely true. Or is it? Is it all true? Oh someone please help me answer this question through my talk page (and while doing that please do not try to convert me).

I can only express at this moment that the people who edit this article will at least consider my intro. Or at least insert something in there that says he is a controversial figure, and then provide both sides of the story, instead of having an article trying to prove his omnipotence.

I am, of course, ignorant and probably doomed. Master Li is great. Oh well, Peter Popoff will come and protect me.

Colipon+(T) 06:04, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

  • In the introduction part the following is present "Additionally, Li has become the subject of controversy, ranging from his birthdate to status as a cult leader and allegations of profiteering." So the controversy issue is mentioned. And below there is the disputes section which details the controversy's.
  • About the two biography's. I really have no problem with the CCP's biography, even though I can not guaranty that it's 100% reliable, then again, as far as I understand the biography that appeared in Falun Gong was not written by Li Hongzhi himself, so about that too I'm not 100%.
As far as I can see he did both things, for example, I'm cultivating and I'm going to work, there is nothing contradictory in that for me. But then again this is my understanding, on this I'm not dealing with absolutes, since the complete truth is likely to be a lot more complex than what I can grasp from the little I can see on the surface. --HappyInGeneral 13:15, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

No one's denying the validity of the CCP bio. And it doesn't contradict anything in the other bio. If you take a look at the third paragraph in the bio section, you'll notice that your concerned information is included. So what's the fuss Mr. Sarcastic? Mcconn 18:42, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I'll just try to be brief. Firstly, Colipon, please make use of the edit summary function to quickly explain your edits. It can be difficult at times to sum them up, but give it a crack please. It is quite useful for other users. It took a while for me to work out exactly what you did. I do not assume you did it deliberately to obscure your series of edits. Also, I think it would be better if you made those kind of personal comments about Mcconn on this page. That's one thing. Another is, what are you doing? Why would you restore that obviously POV, biased and cynical selection of interview "highlights". I had kind of been taking your contributions seriously. I feel that that is not a reasonable move. Nor is adding all the poorly written biographical material back in. I notice your reduction to the Porter summary - okay. I do not accept removing that mention in the introduction though. You want to mention the negative views but not positive - why? I don't think that's justified. They both should be mentioned alongside each other. I think there were some other things you did. There were several. I would consider it very helpful and kind of you if before you made major changes, multiple changes, or a series of changes, you just gave mention of them quickly and outlined some reasons. I would also do the same. I have just done little things which I consider obvious upon comparison, so that's why you haven't got that from me. Maybe I am at fault too. It is hard to keep track of what you are up to, so please just let us know, and outline the reasons briefly. Particularly, when you do a series of them without any edit summaries, it becomes more difficult to work out what is what. If you did one I would be able to compare one version to another, but with 4 without any explanations, I have to compare one to another, like that a few times, which is more time consuming and hassle-inducing. There is a "preview" function you can use before pressing "save", to check it out before saving. Okay, maybe there were some other things, I would like to express my confusion with this behaviour and also my wishes for a shared high-calibre of editing conduct. Anyway, sorry, not so brief in the end.--Asdfg12345 23:08, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't know why people are telling me how I should explain my edits when a few users constantly throw in praise about Falun Gong and Li Hongzhi without any explanation. All of my legitimate points (Falun Gong health benefits section; Epoch times talk page; Li controversial etc.) have been so far, ignored or denied, and when I am bold enough to make an edit for NPOV I am attacked for being unjust. Colipon+(T) 23:56, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

The problem with the BBC article[edit]

Clearly, the BBC is a legitimate source, there's no problem there. The problem is with the article. The article reflects the authors opinion, rather than fact, in a lot of places. Ex. "He resembled more a well-fed business executive than the leader of quasi-Buddhist, spiritual movement.", "Li lives in hiding in the New York area.", "His followers muttered...", "blended Qi Gong with theories drawn from Taoism and Buddhism, as well as more eccentric musings about the universe.". And there are phrases that are simply false: "Falun Gong - which literally means "The Power of the Law Wheel"" (Gong does not mean power in this case, it means exercise or practice), "Professor Zhang Kunlun fled China earlier this year and now lives in Canada." (Professor Zhang was already a Canadian citizen before going to China). And there's more than what I just named. This is simply to say that what's in the article is not straight fact, rather the facts are mixed with opinion and innaccuracies.

The following phrase is what is currently in the wiki article, "He claimed supernatural abilities and allegedly healed the sick, along with stories of other miraculous deeds that circulated the country, and gained a large following." The phrase creates the idea those things are the reason why Falun Gong gained a large following, and thus gives no credit to the actual teachings themselves. While I'm not dening the truth of the things it states, these have never been a subject of importance in the practice itself, save healing perhaps. And I think, no matter what, it's impossible to prove why the practice became so popular, one can only alledge in this case. So I consider it a mix of fact and opinion, and misleading in understanding the growth of the practice. In light of this, and the other problems in the report, I removed the statement. Mcconn 18:43, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

McConn, unfortunately I think this action will lead to a ridiculous number of edit wars. Arguably, most truly-independent news organizations do not have one, uniting official stance, because they are not told what to publish. They always consist of individuals who have different perspectives. I'm not saying these individuals use the most neutral language - hey, even the K/M report, for example, uses far from neutral language. As far as I see it, the BBC is a secondary source, as it is news reporting without any hidden agenda. But is this an excuse to simply delete the source because their opinion doesn't agree with yours? No. So until you can cite an actual Wiki policy violation, the content, even if ::it is not entirely NPOV, must still stand. Jsw663 18:26, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
I am bowing my head in disbelief here as I read McConn's comments. McConn, I lived through those years in China, I know of friends and relatives who have practiced FLG years before you even heard about it, I participated in one of the first FLG healing sessions in Nanjing, and I know of friends and relatives that were persecuted. Please excuse the unfair weight I give to my personal experiences here, but it is very hard for me to believe Li Hongzhi and Falun Gong's claims not because I hear or believe they are questionable, but because I have seen first-hand. When I first read this BBC article (or editorial, if you so please), I was surprised at the amount of truth in it. It is unfortunate that even though I know full well what Li Hongzhi did in China I cannot say anything about it because I will be accused of being a CCP agent, and all of my sources are considered fraudulent. Let me ask you, if the BBC, which is by no means a pro-CCP media outlet, thought the article was opinionated or deliberately trying to smear Falun Gong, then let us with reasonable consideration realize that they would not let the article be published in the first place. Let's be reminded a good number of sources on controversial articles all come from official Falun Gong websites (which you claim is neither opinionated nor fraudulent). This is very frustrating. Colipon+(T) 21:55, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
If you want to, McConn, take out the phrase that you think is not fair towards FLG right now. But I must apologize ahead of time for when I find numerous other sources which say the same thing. By then it will be more difficult for you to deny what that phrase says. Your choice. Colipon+(T) 22:05, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

I have added something about the aspect of the teachings which made people practice Dafa. As Mcconn mentions, the way you had it made it look like people practiced Dafa for that (healings and miracles). I was not in China of course, so maybe there were a bunch of people there for that. Teacher also mentions that in the lectures - that some people probably came to get healed. I am not dismissing your understanding and experience, Colipon. But let me point out that we cultivate for Zhen-Shan-Ren, and not for healings and miracles. The other thing is the interview section - what is going on here? Does anyone actually think that it is NPOV to pick out some "highlights" from the interviews and put them there? Who chooses which parts are "highlights"? What is the criteria for being a "highlight"? Is there perhaps a POV that is being pushed which determines the selection of "highlights"? Let me know. Another thing is the constant deletion of "as well as praise and gratitude for teaching Dafa" - words to that effect. I put that at the beginning right after "the subject of controvery for being a cult leader, profiteering" you get the idea. I want both things to be put there. Has he become the subject of controversy for those things? yes. Has he become the subject of praise and gratitude for disseminating Dafa? yes. Have both been documented by independent sources? yes. Is there any reason that one should be mentioned and the other not? Would you like it if I deleted your sentence, and just left the second part? I do not think that would be considered fair.

There were three points there. I hope I have not done any extreme or biased editing, that I have explained my reasons well, and that I am not appearing overbearing or doing anything wrong. I think we should come up with a different title for the "Divinity" section. --Asdfg12345 22:59, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

I want to mention another problem with putting in that statement. I would understand including it if this article were about that statement, or if it elaborated more on it, but it doesn't. It's just one thing he included in passing in order to provide better context. It's just like all those other articles that mention how Falun Gong is about "breathing exercises" in passing. How many articles have you seen that have said that? I know I've seen tonnes. And it's simply not true. It's just a "fact" that they get from who-knows-where in order to provide better context for the article. I wouldn't have a problem including that statement in the article if we put "blah blah blah says..." before it (rather than just stating it), and if it came from a more focused article or a study. Colipon, you said that there are other sources that have said this. Could you present a few? In the meantime, I'll look for other explanations of why the practice gained popularity. Mcconn 04:39, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Do you truly think the statement "He claimed supernatural abilities and allegedly healed the sick, along with stories of other miraculous deeds that circulated the country." is faulty or incorrect? Do you really want me to find the other sources? Which kind of sources do you want me to find? Do studies count? Do testimonials count? Do western news reports count? If so, give me a few days, and tell me where you want this list to be put. Do you want it posted here so everyone can see the truth talk for itself? Or do you want it on your user page in a more discreet fashion so you have a better chance defending it?
Right now I am leaning towards to not even try, although I have a few studies on hand. Pro-FLG editors either ignore or dismiss everything they feel is critical towards Falun Gong.
Let me remind you that no one from the pro-FLG camp has responded to my comments about health benefits, no one has responded about the study, no one has responded about the biased sourcing in the Epoch Times, the fact it is controversial. Once all of these points are properly addressed, I will handle this issue here. ASDFG has also failed to address his own statements without trying to change the subject. You have to understand how frustrating this is for me. Colipon+(T) 05:41, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
I just think that it's not the whole picture, and that it's not really credible to quote it from that particular article. I'm not denying that others have said this, I just think that this isn't the best article to cite it from. If you have others please present them here. But do you acknowledge the problem with citing this statement from this article? Do you see the points I was making? Mcconn 16:36, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
The thing is, Li Hongzhi does claim supernatural abilities in all of his lectures. The BBC is a notable enough news source that if they bother to sum up a person's public utterances what they say about them will have a place in a Wikipedia article. It goes right to the heart of having an article that isn't a simple advert for Li. The theology that Li uses to justify his claims can also be presented, but that the backing for the claims themselves being entirely Li Hongzhi's word, that his unique claims have never been proven or demonstrated in any way to be true publicly, also has a place in an article like this. --Fire Star 火星 21:25, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
Fine, I've made my points, but if all of you still believe that it's ok to use this article as a source for that statement, then I'll accept it. I'll accept it provided that it is not written as fact, but as something stated in a BBC report. Mcconn 03:33, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
That is as it should be. We can't say that the BBC is any more correct or incorrect than Li, the CCP or anyone else. We can only report, not validate. The BBC article whould be listed as such, what they say and nothing else. People can then give whatever weight they want to the report. --Fire Star 火星 03:58, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

cult leader[edit]

Li’s teachings on the importance of racial purity have provoked considerable controversy. Critics opine that Li is intolerant of racial differences, and he teaches that mixed race people are "incomplete", even apparently invoking unsourced "modern science" to bolster his pronouncements. In one of his lectures, Li states that the mixing of races is a chaotic phenomenon that has manifest only in the “Dharma Ending Period” and that different races bear the image of the gods that created them; that each race of people on earth have their own cosmic paradises but people of mixed race lose this connection. In 1996, he said that “Mixed races have lost their roots, as if nobody in the paradise will take care of them. They belong to nowhere, and no places would accept them.” [29] In 1997 Li Hongzhi further explained, "People of the yellow race have people of the yellow race up there, and people of the white race have people of the white race up there. He’s lost this thread.” [21]

Speaking in Sydney in 1996 [30], Li Hongzhi said:

If you are an interracial child, it is, of course, neither your fault nor your parents' fault. Anyway, it is just such a chaotic situation brought about by mankind, in which such a phenomenon has appeared. The yellow people, the white people, and the black people have the corresponding races in heaven. Then, if one is not from his race or does not belong to his people, he will not take care of him….. All interracial children were born in the Dharma-ending period. People are not to be blamed for it, because everyone is drifting in the tide, and nobody knows the truth. This is the way they have come through. If you want to practice cultivation, I can help. As for which paradise you will go to, we will need to look at your situation. I will assimilate more of whichever portion that is better preserved. Anyway, you should concentrate on your cultivation and should not concern yourself with these things.

This guy is pretty crazy and manipulative...


Edit requests for this page 2007-02-14[edit]

1. change from:

Li Hongzhi (Chinese: 李洪志; pinyin: Lǐ Hóngzhì, born c. 1951) is the controversial founder of Falun Gong, also called Falun Dafa, a system of mind-body cultivation. He currently resides in the United States with his wife and daughter and is a US permanent resident.
Li Hongzhi (Chinese: 李洪志; pinyin: Lǐ Hóngzhì, born c. 1951) is the founder of Falun Gong, also called Falun Dafa, a system of mind-body cultivation. He currently resides in the United States with his wife and daughter and is a US permanent resident.
He is not the controversial founder, because he is the only founder of Falun Dafa.

... more to come, right now I'm preparing a draft at: Talk:Li_Hongzhi/Edit_request_2007-02-14. Actually this might take a while because I want to read first: Biographies of living person. --HappyInGeneral 11:18, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

My two cents - can be interpreted variously. LHZ is a controversial figure himself, mainly because he has created so much mystique around himself. The Falun Gong / Falun Dafa is also controversial, because of what it does / seeks to do. Therefore will accept either keeping previous version, or change placement of the word controversial to before Falun Gong. Jsw663 14:54, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Hey Jsw, check out WP:Weasel. User:Blnguyen also explicitly advised against the use of that word on the conflict page, and removed it citing weasel words. --Asdfg12345 17:52, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Well I read the wikipedia policy regarding Biographies of living person, and this situation is very serious since this article has quite a few of WP:OR. Let me quote directly the policies:


Remove unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material
Editors should remove any contentious material about living persons that is unsourced, relies upon sources that do not meet standards specified in Wikipedia:Verifiability, or is a conjectural interpretation of a source. Where the information is derogatory and unsourced or poorly sourced, the three-revert rule does not apply. These principles apply to biographical material about living persons found anywhere in Wikipedia, including user and talk pages. Administrators may enforce the removal of such material with page protection and blocks, even if they have been editing the article themselves. Editors who re-insert the material may be warned and blocked. See the blocking policy and Wikipedia:Libel.
Administrators encountering biographies that are unsourced and controversial in tone, where there is no NPOV version to revert to, should delete the article without discussion (see Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion criterion G10 for more details).
Jimmy Wales has said:
"I can NOT emphasize this enough. There seems to be a terrible bias among some editors that some sort of random speculative 'I heard it somewhere' pseudo information is to be tagged with a 'needs a cite' tag. Wrong. It should be removed, aggressively, unless it can be sourced. This is true of all information, but it is particularly true of negative information about living persons."[2]
He considers "no" information to be better than "speculative" information and reemphasizes the need for sensitivity:
"Real people are involved, and they can be hurt by your words. We are not tabloid journalism, we are an encyclopedia."[3]


Also how is acceptable that a site like: is accepted as a source for presenting the mundane life of Li Hongzhi. This is by no way official. If you want to present this information it should be in a corner as this is a possibility, but as presented in this site, it's clearly not official. --HappyInGeneral 14:16, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
In reply to HiG (pity I didn't see this earlier) -
1. Please show me the example/instance where Blnguyen explicitly stated that the adjective 'controversial' was weasel when describing Li Hongzhi.
2. Please also provide some alternatives apart from merely deleting the word. Blnguyen should also suggest an alternative if he is proven to have said that 'controversial' is weasel. After all, no editor here is saying he's a "criminal" or a "fraud" as the Chinese government is describing him.
3. By the policy you quoted above you are in effect saying the entire Li Hongzhi biography (Wiki entry) should be junked. This is clearly not the way forward.
4. The website you have quoted (the UCLA one) is from a published, peer-reviewed journal, probably in China. If it was some unheard of journal, it would not have been at its 42nd volume already in 1999. Just because the content within that article is critical of Falun Gong does not make it fall foul of WP:NOR in any way. And I truly don't think that the pro-FG are editors who can really talk about 'official' sources. After all, what is almost all the pro-FG stuff about? Who has peer-reviewed Li Hongzhi's claims? They are all from their direct source, and are as effective as sources directly from the Chinese government. However, the site in question here is actually an academic journal, which makes it a valid 3rd-party source (as it is academic and not a government publication). So, let's not have our personal opinions distort reality, shall we? Jsw663 07:51, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
1. Well my main argument against the formulation "is the controversial founder of Falun Gong" is the it can be interpreted in many ways including, he might not be the only founder, which he is. Also when you say that he is controversial is just like everybody would think that, which again is not true.
2. Why would we provide an alternative since we just showed that it is a weasel word. The sentence:

Li Hongzhi (Chinese: 李洪志; pinyin: Lǐ Hóngzhì, born c. 1951) is the founder of Falun Gong it is quite correct.

Alternatively consider this formulation:

George Walker Bush (born 6 July 1946) is the 43rd and current President of the United States, inaugurated on January 20, 2001 and re-inaugurated on January 20, 2005.

Same is for other notable people. For example in the case of George Walker Bush wouldn't you say that there are perhaps some people who regard him as a person with some controversies?

3. Well we should really consider WP:LIVING when changing a biography. Don't you agree?
4. My main problem with the UCLA report is that this is trying to obfuscate the source of the information. If you say that the CCP said that, I will not argue with that. But if you say that the UCLA said something which is exactly the same as another primary source the CCP, than the primary source should be used, otherwise it's just about hiding the true source of this information. I'm sure that there is a policy regarding this too, maybe an administrator can help me point it out. --HappyInGeneral 13:39, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

1. + 2. Actually this reminds me, I think we had this argument a while back. If I remember correctly I was in favor of "Li Hongzhi, born 1951, is the founder of the controversial Falun Gong" (rather than controversial founder), which emphasizes that the controversy is not on Li himself, but on the group he found (i.e. Falun Gong). But again this is only my opinion; I think we should raise this issue again once the ArbCom case concludes and let everyone chip in, ok?
3. The point is that it is not always necessary to rewrite the entire article from scratch in order to adhere to Wiki policies, as it has not disintegrated to that level yet.
4. But that UCLA's website is NOT UCLA's own opinion. They were merely reproducing a journal article, which published that AUTHOR'S own opinion (or if he was quoting the CCP, then it was the CCP's opinion). You are free to dispute how the author arrived at his/her conclusions, or whether you disagree with them, etc. - but that is your opinion, just like I disagree with the K/M report - it is an opinion. But it is not right for us to reinterpret the author's writings then pass THAT off as facts as well. This is why I don't quite see your reason for objection from any policy standpoint, but if you are disagreeing from a personal POV standpoint, I can fully understand. Jsw663 04:38, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Edit requests for this page 2007-02-14, now draft done.[edit]

{{edit protected}} I read both the Li Hongzhi page and the Biographies of living person policy and I notice several things that are not in accordance with this policy on the Li Hongzhi page, so I started making a draft here: Talk:Li_Hongzhi/Edit_request_2007-02-14.

Could you consorned editors, administrator and anyone else actually review these changes I proposed in this draft and let me know if these changes are according to WP:LOP or if there is any objection in requesting for these changes to be included in the article?

This issue was also posted on see Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Falun Gong/Workshop Also please note that since this is a biography it should fall under speedy handling.

Thank You Very Much :) --HappyInGeneral 15:20, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Also added a this page to the Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard --HappyInGeneral 13:59, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
From WP:LIVING "Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material — whether negative, positive, or just highly questionable — about living persons should be removed immediately and without discussion from Wikipedia articles, talk pages, user pages, and project space." --HappyInGeneral 20:26, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
Yes check.svg Done - Please mark Talk:Li_Hongzhi/Edit_request_2007-02-14 as an archive. The GFDL requires that we keep an detailed history for any edit we make. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 13:55, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
Has anyone else noticed that the image under the Awards and Recognition section does not have a caption? --EarthPerson 19:53, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
Silence does not equal consent. I thought people were aware of this. Hopefully JS will have the sensibility to undo his action and let proper consultation take place first. I wasn't even aware of this edit until just a few minutes ago as I don't spend my life on Wiki trying to promote any one cause, or flood my user page with propaganda. Jsw663 07:40, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
Well consider this[12], the change of the page was done at 16 March and at 14 February, I added the following:
I read both the Li Hongzhi page and the Biographies of living person policy and I notice several things that are not in accordance with this policy on the Li Hongzhi page, so I started making a draft here: Talk:Li_Hongzhi/Edit_request_2007-02-14.
This shows that there was no communication for more then a month. I would ask that since the page is protected the proper channel is to provide clear short diffs with the required changes, just like when making a draft with all the changes that you want to make to that page. Also have it public and give it enough time for discussion. This way there is the possibility to discuss and get consensus on the changes. Thank You. --HappyInGeneral 13:20, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
Sorry it's taken me so long to reply to this issue. I've been on a little wikibreak and dealing with some stuff in "real" life. I wasn't aware there was a problem with his version of things or if there was anyone disputing his changes. Most of the changes in this edit look reasonable. Much of it looks to clear up some weasel words, unsourced (or poorly sourced) statements and clarifications of some points. Much of the rest of the changes are minor cosmetic changes (Ie, "Pureinsight" → "PureInsight").
In effect, silence does equal consent. If you disagree with the changes... thats fine, but there was two weeks to speak up. Noone wanted to discuss things then... but thats fine. There is no deadline and we can still make changes. But, like I said, most of the changes that were made look reasonable so I'm not sure I see any need to revert the entire edit wholesale. If you wish to discuss aspects of the edit (like removal of content on line 4, etc) then I'm sure y'all can all come to some kind of agreement. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 12:44, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Disputed Edits[edit]

These conversations tend to get complicated... So I'm going to lay it all out to keep things organized. I tried to grab all the changes that might need to be discussed, but if I missed something anyone wants to discuss feel to add a section at the bottom using the same format. I left the source-code for the edit down there for ease of use.

I'm going to try to stay out of the conversation for the most part as the subject is fairly new to me, but I can offer my impression of any particular change or comment in terms of wikipedia policy/guidelines. Basically that means I'm here as your personal admin-slave. :) ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 13:11, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Nice, neutral changes. Kudos! I support their incorporation. --Fire Star 火星 12:56, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Introduction (p2)[edit]

Before After
According to Pureinsight, a ''Falun Dafa'' website, Li Hongzhi introduced Falun Dafa on [[May 13]], 1992 at the fifth Middle school in Changchun City, China. From 1992 to 1994, Li travelled across China, giving more than 54 lecture series and teaching the Falun Gong exercises. Li continues to give lectures at Falun Gong conferences outside of China today.<ref>[ Pureinsight]</ref> He is the recipient of numerous awards from state and congressional bodies in the U.S and Canada, and has twice been a Nobel Prize nominee.<ref>[]</ref><ref>[] CNN Nobel Prize article</ref> However, the significance of these awards has been the subject of debate given the fact that they are considered easy to obtain and many politicians are unaware of Li's teachings when they are asked to sign a proclamation or endorse him for an award. [] According to PureInsight, a ''Falun Dafa'' website, Li Hongzhi introduced Falun Dafa on [[May 13]], 1992 at the fifth Middle school in Changchun City, China. From 1992 to 1994, Li traveled across China, giving more than 54 lecture series and teaching the Falun Gong exercises. Li continues to give lectures at Falun Gong conferences outside of China today.<ref>[ "A Chronicle of Major Events of Falun Dafa (3rd Edition)" from PureInsight]</ref> He is the recipient of numerous awards from state and congressional bodies in the U.S and Canada, and has twice been a Nobel Prize nominee.<ref>[ Summary of Proclamations (pdf)]</ref><ref>[ An Article about Nobel Nominations on CNN]</ref>

Introduction (p3)[edit]

Before After
The state-run, Chinese media hold, however, that he was a PLA trumpet player and department clerk before he took on an interest in [[Qigong]] in the late 1980's. Owing to vast differences in the two versions of Li's biography it is difficult to pinpoint Li's background conclusively. Additionally, Li has become both the subject of controversy - ranging from claims of a fraudulent birthdate to status as a cult leader and allegations of profiteering. The state-run, Chinese media hold, however, that he was a PLA trumpet player and department clerk before he took on an interest in [[Qigong]] in the late 1980's{{fact|date=February 2007}}. Until today Li Hongzhi has received awards and recognition of appreciation for the benefits of his teachings and he was also accused of claims of a fraudulent birth date and of having the status of a cult leader and allegations of profiteering.

Biography (p1)[edit]

Before After
These claims are impossible to verify and therefore does not have serious biographical value in the media, but lays the foundation for the teachings of Li's ''Falun Dafa''. <ref>[ A Short Biography of Mr. Li Hongzhi, Founder of Falun Xiulian Dafa, President of the Research Society of Falun Buddha Science] </ref> These claims lay the foundation for the teachings of ''Falun Dafa'', taught by Li Hongzhi. <ref>[ A Short Biography of Mr. Li Hongzhi, Founder of Falun Xiulian Dafa, President of the Research Society of Falun Buddha Science] </ref>

Biography (p7)[edit]

Before After
Li's quotations, especially his numerous claims to supernatural abilities, are often used by Falun Gong's critics as material to allege illegitimacies and charges of [[fraud]] upon the practice itself. The fact that the two versions of the biography (that on his book and that by the CPC) differ so dramatically has made Li's background impossible to grasp in its entirety. In recent years, however, CNN and BBC have both accepted the CPC's version of Li's background with a few points of discretion <ref>[ BBC: Who is Li Hongzhi?]</ref>. (nothing)
  • I'm curious... what is the reasoning in removing this section? ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 13:11, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
    • "are often used by Falun Gong's critics ..." this is weasel word, since it does not mention who are the critics.
    • "differ so dramatically ..." this is OR and POV pushing, it does not mention who states that they differ so dramatically. Actually I think that both of the biography's can stand together and they are not 100% exclusive.
    • "impossible to grasp in its entirety", again who can not grasp it entirely?
    • "CNN and BBC have both accepted" well read the article they don't state that they accepted the CPC version in the sense that they say that the other version is false, so this sentence is POV pushing and OR again. --HappyInGeneral 23:37, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
Your main argument here, HiG, is that the reason the above paragraph should be excluded is because the critics of FG are not specified, so it is 'weasel', POV-pushing and OR. Does this mean that the next time I say that FG practitioners think something, I am also doing likewise for my 'pro-FG stance'? Jsw663 04:51, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
We need to try to be spesific as posible. When refrencing groups we must have a source that supports the claim that "Group of people X supports Y". ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 15:29, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Making money from Falun Gong (p3)[edit]

Before After
Some critics charge that Li made money from teaching Falun Gong despite promising never to charge for teaching or helping practitioners. (nothing)

Image:Master Li high from falundafa org.jpg[edit]

FYI, I have removed Image:Master Li high from falundafa org.jpg while going through the list of "Replaceable fair use images as of 25 March 2007". It was noted on the image page that the same image was used on the Japanese Wikipedia and tagged as PD. I checked and that image has since that time been deleted from the Japanese Wikipedia. There is no evidence that the image has been released under a free license and Wikipedia's policy is not to keep non-free images of living people in the hopes that we can get an image released under a free license. If anyone has an interest in contacting this individual to ask for a suitable image to be released under the GFDL, there is a sample letter of permission at Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission. --BigDT 04:05, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

$293,500 house[edit]

"According to a Wall Street Journal report "American Dream Finds Chinese Spiritual Leader," on November 1 1999, Li purchased a house in New York for $293,500" Someone has put a "citation needed" after this. Surely WSJ Nov 1 1999 is effectively a citation? Rich Farmbrough, 22:46 17 April 2007 (GMT).

My questions is this, where is the link to this claim? For example I would like to see that it states this price of the house and all the intricate details to it. So far this is an unverifiable claim. I don't deny that it exist, all I'm asking is a source where I can verify. Thank You. --HappyInGeneral 08:16, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
The date, the title of the article and the name of the publisher are provided. You can get a copy of it by going to your local library. --Samuel Luo 19:08, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
A web-link is not required and the text does not need a citation if the source is mentioned in the verbiage. The requirement on text at wikipedia is not citations... the requirement is Verifiability. And there is no requirement that the text must be viewable on-line. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 20:42, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Interviews section... again[edit]

Since it seems that more admins are paying attention or playing a role in this page. I want to bring up something that have been brought up a number of times in the past, but never resolved - the interviews section. Please refer to the discussions here and here. The main reason that this issue hasn't been resolved is that the people who support it won't participate in discussion over it. When it is removed, they put it back, adding a quick comment about it being sourced or such, while ignoring the real problem and without going to the talk page. I've been away from wiki for almost two months, and I'm rather surprised to see it still there. This section, consisting of personally-selected quotations from an interview transcript, does not meet wiki requirements for the use of primary sources in NOR. Mcconn 15:43, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Some material from the interview section was taken out without an explanation. This material answers important questions such as why Li immigrated to the U.S. This material comes directly from Li; there can be no justification for removing them on this page. --Samuel Luo 21:15, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Incorrigible behaviour.--Asdfg12345 01:49, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

My goodness, after all that arbcom business you're still talking the same bs as before. Yes, the material comes directly from Mr. Li, but that does not mean that it can't removed or that it meets wiki's requirements, this logic doesn't work Sam. If the material is important information about a certain subject, then it can be worked into a section on said subject, but it doesn't stand on it's own. Your basis for including that material is that it is "highlights" from a certain interview, which is completely your own opinion. Can we get an admin here to say something? Mcconn 02:06, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm waiting for a response. If you can't make a point in reponse, Sam, then I take it that you've understood the problems with this section and are willing to give it up. Is that so? Mcconn 15:15, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
Heres my general rule-of-thumb about primary sources: Is the source being used to back up a topic that has been discussed by a non-trivial secondary source? If the answer is No, then it's very likely the information is unimportant and shouldn't be included. However, if the answer is yes then it's ok so long as the section is focused on the information covered by the secondary sources. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 18:45, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
The answer is most certainly "No". What we're looking at is a section about quotes from interviews. It consists of two quotes taken from two articles on an anti-Falun Gong website, and a a few others personally selected from a single interview. There are no secondary sources and there is no actual topic. It's garbage and it's been here for way too long, but everytime I make these points and try to remove it. My edits are automatically reverted by a handful of individuals and without any discussion. I really want to get this settled this time. I would appreciate any input anyone has on this. Mcconn 10:28, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Is there anyone else who would like to dispute this before the section is removed? please do so ASAP Mcconn 10:59, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

As far as I'm concerned I agree with your reasoning, so please go ahead and remove it. --HappyInGeneral 13:03, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Done. Mcconn 15:53, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

My answer to J.S (T/C/WRE)’s question is yes. Material in this section help people to understand Li. Interviews are always important when writing about a public figure, thus the essence of these interviews should be included. Mcconn’s claim that the section “consists of two quotes taken from two articles on an anti-Falun Gong website” is simply not true. The last time I checked all the quotes are linked to major American media. I am restoring this section and I suggest that we wait for the opinion of the mediator.--Yueyuen 20:02, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

The reason why I've persistantly been putting forth my arguments to eliminate this section is because I know that I'm right and that it violates wiki policy. J. Smith's question was "Is the source being used to back up a topic that has been discussed by a non-trivial secondary source?" And you said "yes" with the reasoning that the material helps people to understand Li. Where is the logic? It's true that these quotes were published in the media (which was subsequently published on the anti-Falun Gong website we have linked), but the quotes themselves are still primary sources, even if they exist within a secondary source. As the NOR policy states, "Secondary sources draw on primary sources to make generalizations or original interpretive, analytical, synthetic, or explanatory claims." There is none of this in this section. This secion only consists of raw quotes personally selected from a couple of interviews by a WP user. How can anyone say this doesn't violate wiki policy, especially in context of the guidlines stated in Biographies of Living Persons? Mcconn 04:48, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

The Awards/Recognition Image[edit]

The awards and recognition image contains a non-neutral point of view. The composition of overlapping certificates is quite obviously tries to evoke in the viewer an impression that Li Hongzhi has substantial credibility. It tries promote Li Hongzhi's credibility rather than provide factual information. Thus it should be removed. 01:07, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Actually this compilation is factual of the actual awards. There is no reason to delete this image as long as it reflects the truth. If you think it's otherwise please point to a wikipedia guideline on this. PS: Thank you for taking this to the talk page instead of just deleting at the expense of an other editor's contribution. --HappyInGeneral 02:13, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
I acknowledge that the awards are authentic. However, it is quite evident that they were arranged with a political agenda, rather than to inform the reader. It does not belong in an Encyclopedia. -- 06:56, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
Actually there is much controversy on any of the positive contribution of mister Li Hongzhi and so this is a collection of the awards, which show's beyond a doubt that there are indeed many honors received by mister Li Hongzhi, becomes highly relevant. Also it is factual, I don't know why do you call it political ... Can you point out any Wikipedia policy where it is stated that factual information can not be presented? --HappyInGeneral 14:00, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
By the way the large number of certificates are arranged, it is quite obvious that the intent of the image is to give an impression of credibility to Li Hongzhi. Therefore, it is an image with an agenda. Wikipedia is not a place for advocacy. An image with MOST POPULAR OPERATING SYSTEM IN THE WORLD FOR PERSONAL COMPUTERS in big, bold letters would not be inaccurate for an article on Windows, put it would be obvious that its purpose would be to promote rather than inform. It would suffice to mention the fact that various municipal governments have given awards and recognition to Mr. Li Hongzhi, with proper references. (BTW: I am the same person as --8521105559a 23:15, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for presenting the wikipedia policy on which you are referring to. So you say that it is encyclopedic to say that Microsoft Windows is "The most popular operating system in the world for personal computers", but it's not encyclopedic to say that it is the MOST POPULAR OPERATING SYSTEM IN THE WORLD FOR PERSONAL COMPUTERS. Right I can agree, because the same information can be provided without making it bold, which also makes it nicer not so intrusive to present.
Presenting the bunch of awards I think it's important because: there are a lot of people who say that all these are fake, because they are influenced by the lies of the Chinese Communist propaganda. Because of this I think that this image contains some important factual information which should be included in an encyclopedia. If you think the image is intrusive then perhaps we can make this image a little bit smaller? How does that sound? --HappyInGeneral 06:34, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
It would be better to have "Li Hongzhi has received numerous awards and recognition from state and municipal governments in North America" with a reference to Would that be okay?--8521105559a 23:51, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
Well the link it self should be this:, but other then that I think this is a valid proposal, as far as I can see it. So if you do it I won't revert it, however please consider that this information should be kept at sight just because it's not self evident for many people who are influenced by the CCP propaganda. So this is why I would put this reference in the description of the image, and thus make it even more complete. --HappyInGeneral 02:26, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Samual in violation of 3RV rule again[edit]

He reverted 6 times on May 3rd. Will an admin please take some action? Thanks Mcconn 05:10, 4 May 2007 (UTC)


I regularly look through all english language Falun Gong websites. I could not find the "Buddha Painting" shown in the wikipedia encyclopedia entry. Also Li Hongzhi repeatedly stated that he is just an "ordinary man" and that one should regard him as such. Also in Zhuan Falun he stated: "Genuine cultivation practice depends upon the person him or herself. What’s the use of your kowtowing and worshipping the master if you do whatever you want today upon stepping outside this door? We do not care for this formality at all. You could even damage my reputation!" "In some qigong practices, practitioners who have never seen their masters claim that if they pay a few hundred yuan and kowtow to a certain direction, that will be good enough. Isn’t that self-deception and deceiving others? Additionally, these people are very devoted thereafter and begin to defend or protect their practices and masters. They also tell others not to study other practices. I find it quite ridiculous." (Zhuan Falun chapter 4 - Buddhist Anointment)

I don't mean to say that that painting wasn't done by an artist who practices Falun Gong. I only mean to say that i regard it as inappropriate to put this painting in an encyclopedia entry. It should be replaced with a normal photograph of Li Hongzhi. The reason i think so is because whoever put this painting in here did so in order to make it appear as though Li Hongzhi would require his practitioners to worship him. Even if that wasn't the intention for putting it here, one could easily think that it is supposed to imply that. But that actually exactly goes contrary to Falun Gong's requirements. But since the article implies that, some Falun Gong practitioners upon visiting wikipedia might start to think that it is required to worship Li Hongzhi and so might actually start to do this. Or even worse some people who support the Communist Party's violent persecution Falun Gong, might actually use wikipedia to defend the genocide saying things like "it is necessary for the Communist Party to wipe out the cancer of Falun Gong. See we have allways said that Falun Gong is dangerous to society and lures it's crazy and superstitious members to worship it's capitalist founder. You always thought that it was only us party members saying that about Falun Gong, but now you see it has even been veryfied by independent western encyclopedias like wikipedia." What i just said might seem to be exagerated, but this actually happened. So i beg you, don't use wikipedia as a tool to spread hatred against Falun Gong so as to make people indiferent of the persecution. Don't slander Falun Gong. Not for the sake of Falun Gong or Li Hongzhi, but for the sake of ending the persecution. --Hoerth 17:53, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

I think you're right about that particluar picture. Whatever pics included on the mainpage should be as neutral as possible, and conform to Biographies of Living persons. However, given that there have been a number of photos or artworks done of Mr. Li wearing a Kasaya or in the image of a Buddha, notably one that was included in an older version of Zhuan Falun, I think it's ok to have one pic like this in contrast to a normal photo (which should be the main pic). But I don't think the "Painting Lord" pic is the best, for the reasons you mentioned. And we also don't have a normal photo right now, which is a problem. Mcconn 04:33, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Wasn't there a normal picture in here? I also put one up. They all seem to have been deleted by the same guy who put that painting in. --Hoerth 10:34, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

The photo failed the fair use clause. I've looked for a PD one, perhaps from a visit of Li to a member of the US congress with no luck. Others have contacted various websites without response. I believe there is some discussion of this above. Personally, I think that the painting equally fails fair use. Cheers. --EarthPerson 18:11, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Failed it? Since when? The pic has been on the site and so far the only time there was consideration was when the pic had to be reduced. Also failing to find a pic on an English site doesn't mean it is inappropriate to be used on the English Wiki. There is no text directly shown on the pic. English readers will have no problem looking at the pic. Also the paragraph it is to be issued is related to "claims of divinity". A normal photo is unlikely relevant to the topic. If this concept is too hard to understand, try putting a normal photo of a FLG member in the persecution section, what's the point? Of course nothing. This is where the footnotes come in. The original footnote of the pic in question was neutral enough. The section has discussion. Making a big fuss over the pic is like Sam's repeating attempts to remove the pic of the wounded girl in the persecution article. --Yenchin 17:52, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Interviews are "not suitable for inclusion in an article for reasons unrelated to their reliability"[edit]

This is a direct quote from WP:External links (emphasis mine): "Wikipedia articles can include links to Web pages outside Wikipedia. Such pages could contain further research that is accurate and on-topic; information that could not be added to the article for reasons such as copyright or amount of detail (such as professional athlete statistics, movie or television credits, interview transcripts, or online textbooks); or other meaningful, relevant content that is not suitable for inclusion in an article for reasons unrelated to their reliability (such as reviews and interviews)."

Olaf, maybe you'd want to sign your own edits like this one above. However, the rule above only says that there shouldn't be entire interview transcripts. It never said that quoting interviews was not allowed (if done so in moderation). Blanking an entire section is an extreme action; can we not find a compromise here? Jsw663 17:33, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
Sorry for forgetting the signature. The point is, placing an entire chapter called "Interviews with Mr. Li Hongzhi" is clearly against the spirit of this policy. "The responsibility for justifying inclusion of any content rests firmly with the editor seeking to include it". [13] I don't find any mention about entire interview transcripts in the policy I cited; indeed, I've never seen an interview transcript anywhere in Wikipedia apart from this article. If you can find one, please show me. An encyclopedia is supposed to be written in an encyclopedic style. Olaf Stephanos 17:45, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for saying what I just said again, Olaf. At least read before you criticize. The interview section should only be included if it is re-written in an encylcopedic format, with references to that interview. However, some of the interview can be included, as long as it is done in moderation, and not in its entirety. Jsw663 17:50, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

The interview section is a collection of important information about Li from reliable sources. It meets Wiki rule to include such information. Your removal of this interview has no consensus and violates Wiki rules.--Yueyuen 21:11, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't matter that it's from a reliable source. It violates a number of other policies, as Olaf and I have already clearly pointed out. Are you really this dumb Yueyuen, or are you just playing? Mcconn 02:53, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
I see no Wiki policy supporting the removal. I might be dumb but I am not in a cult. --Yueyuen 05:19, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
Nor are Falun Gong practitioners. You got the policy/ies in question cited by Olaf on this page and you have his opinion on interviews, which is very well written and clearly argumented (I think). I really don't see what further explanation do you want, which is what Mcconn's statement above yours probably means. This is my opinion as a person who has never edited the article and has a clear view of things. Emanuil Tolev 08:47, 21 May 2007 (UTC) Sorry for forgetting to sign. Emanuil Tolev 08:47, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Mediation update[edit]

The Mediation Committee is currently discussing whether or not it is possible for mediation of Falun Gong articles to continue. We appreciate your patience and any input you have to offer here. For the Mediation Committee, Martinp23 20:05, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Article needs clean up[edit]

I wish to point out that the article is full of self-written POV from the two editors recently banned. On one of those users, Samuel Luo, an editor pointed out,

"I didn't notice that User:Chinatravel was traced back to Samuel as well. How curious. He's not only fighting against Falun Gong, but removing sentences such as "400-2000 protesters were killed and 7000 to 10000 were injured" [in the Tiananmen square massacre] from Human rights in the People's Republic of China as well. In fact, I think Samuel could be more or less directly working for the Chinese embassy."

I wanted to point out that the article currently sounds like CCP propaganda with facts distorted and interviews and journal articles taken out of context as if with the sole intent of slander. Dilip rajeev 15:48, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Hi, I added the title 'Article needs clean up' to this section and I agree with you. Do you have time to do it? --HappyInGeneral 15:52, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

I suggest that the pictures of Mr. Li giving lectures be removed. They don't serve any purpose, and they make the article look less professional. I support the picture of him being interviewed though, however an official picture would look better. Mcconn 15:44, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

In my opinion, the images of Mr. Li Hongzhi delivering lectures on Falun Dafa are of central importance to the article. I'd be grateful if you could make your thoughts clearer. Thankyou. :)
Dilip rajeev 05:15, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

I just don't see the significance of them, and I also think that they could interpreted as pro-Falun Gong propaganda as they portray Mr. Li lecturing in front of large crowds in fancy lecture halls. Besides, they're so small that most people probably can't see them clearly. They just seem to degrade the article to me. Why do you think that these are of central importance? Mcconn 16:25, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

I think explaining his imparting Falun Dafa in China has a place in this article, along with photos as appropriate. It is important to have this information in the article about the lectures and transmitting the Fa because that is pretty much how people know of Li Hongzhi and the thing he has done.--Asdfg12345 17:36, 9 June 2007 (UTC)--Asdfg12345 17:36, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm not suggesting to take information regarding this out of the article. I'm just saying the I don't think the pictures should be there. What purpose do they serve? Mcconn 18:04, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

The same as any other picture. They are good.--Asdfg12345 03:24, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

No. They need to serve a purpose. They can't just be "good" in your opinion. A picture of Master Li serves the purpose of letting people see what he looks like, which is an important part of an article about any individual. But I don't see the point of having 5 pictures of him lecturing in fancy lecture halls in front of large crowds. Perhaps one, but not five. Mcconn 04:20, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

I apologize for my irrelevant and seemingly disapproving comment in the last post about "fancy lecture halls in front of large crowds". I don't know why I wrote that. After thinking about it, I believe that one picture of Mr. Li giving a lecture would be good, since that is the main way, aside from the short articles and poems, he has disseminated the teachings of Falun Dafa to his students. It's also usually the only time he makes public appearances these days. So how about we settle for the geneva picture, and and get rid of the four small ones? Mcconn 05:05, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and removed the four small ones. What do you think? Mcconn 12:22, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

no probs--Asdfg12345 01:06, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Too much stuff deleted[edit]

Dilip, I know that there was a lot of stuff in the version that you reverted that was unsourced, and pov in nature, but not all of it. And you can't just go and revert the whole article at your will without any discussion. The fact is that you deleted a lot of content that was well-sourced and relevant. Look, we're playing for the same team here - we're both practioners - but I don't like the way you edit sometimes, particularly this one. These pages are being watched more closely these days, and by doing this kind of editing you're asking to get yourself blocked. I suggest that you put the old page back up, and make the changes you see fit (and these must be in accordance to the policies). There also needs to be discussion before removing any section. That's the way we play the game. Mcconn 18:21, 9 June 2007 (UTC)


Good job guys, the entire article is now basically a Falun Gong pamphlet. I'm not going to even try fixing it as everything I write will just be deleted. Colipon+(T) 01:07, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree, reverting back to an ancient version was not very productive. We should reform the articles instead of reverting them. Olaf Stephanos 07:20, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
You should print copies of this article and distribute them in unsuspecting North American cities. I guarantee you'll get quite a few more municipal honours. Colipon+(T) 08:49, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
I didn't see you complaining when this article was a real puff piece against Li Hongzhi, even though Wikipedia is very unambiguous about biographies of living persons: "Be very firm about high quality references, particularly about details of personal lives. Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material — whether negative, positive, or just highly questionable — about living persons should be removed immediately and without discussion from Wikipedia articles, talk pages, user pages, and project space. This policy applies equally to biographies of living persons and to biographical material about living persons in other articles. The burden of evidence for any edit on Wikipedia, but especially for edits about living persons, rests firmly on the shoulders of the person who adds or restores the material." Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons Olaf Stephanos 09:24, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

He is divine. End of discussion. Colipon+(T) 23:50, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Master Li's biography[edit]

I have a question for people who allege that the archived source is flawed, and that "anyone could have modified it". What would be the motivation for modifying it? If it were the CCP that modify it, would they not modify it to make Li seem more mundane and ordinary? Who else would care enough to modify Master Li's biography anyway? Your logic is horrendously flawed. Who would modify Master Li's biography to glorify him? Colipon+(T) 21:39, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm talking about a general principle, not about a particular biography. You cannot use private websites as sources except in articles about themselves, no matter what information they are claimed to contain. The Wikipedia policies are unambiguous about this issue. Please read through Wikipedia:Reliable sources and Wikipedia:Verifiability. Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons is yet another point to be made. You may grit your teeth, but those who learn to play by rules will always have the upper hand on Wikipedia. Olaf Stephanos 21:54, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
We can certainly use a book as a source when we are talking about what is stated in it. In this case, it is the book that is the primary reference. I believe that is perfectly OK under Wikpedia policies. If we happen to know where a copy of the part of the book that we are talking about can be found, I also see no problem in letting people see it by providing a link (unless of course we have reason to believe that the original author would be unhappy due to lack of copyright authorization or some such reason). So, as I said when reverting the recent edit by Olaf Stephanos that removed the related paragraph, I personally see no problem with what was/is in this article. —Wookipedian 22:10, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
See, that's interesting Olaf, because you yourself stated in your edit summary, "An archived, private website doesn't comply with Wikipedia:Reliable sources. Anybody could have changed its content very easily." Changed its content? Answer my question first. Why would they change the content to what you see on that website from the original? What is the motivation behind it? What is the purpose of it? If there is no reasonable explanation for the reason behind "changing its contents", then all your contentions that it is not a reliable source falls, as this source is directly verifiable with the first Falun Gong publication itself. Colipon+(T) 00:22, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
On that aspect, I would basically agree with Olaf Stephanos. A random private web site does not merit being cited as a source in general. Here I think there is an exception, because there is the published book against which the web site content can be checked. But otherwise, absent that, I would have completely agreed with Olaf Stephanos. —Wookipedian 01:16, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
I would have too. Colipon+(T) 01:26, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Time article[edit]

I love this Time article. I want to post it here as a curiosity only. I know I will receive attacks very soon, likely from Olaf, that this is unreliable like all other sources that have a hint of criticizing Falun Gong.

Not much is known about Li Hongzhi, 48, the man who created Falun Gong in 1992. He worked as a grain clerk in northeast China's Liaoning province. He played trumpet in a troupe run by the forestry police in neighboring Jilin. And then he wrote a very odd book that affected millions.

Li's rambling dissertation, Zhuan Falun, has only added to accusations that Falun Gong is a cult. Li writes he can personally heal disease and that his followers can stop speeding cars using the powers of his teachings. He writes that the Falun Gong emblem exists in the bellies of practitioners, who can see through the celestial eyes in their foreheads. Li believes "humankind is degenerating and demons are everywhere"�extraterrestrials are everywhere, too�and that Africa boasts a 2-billion-year-old nuclear reactor. He also says he can fly.

I wish I could fly.

So Time, in partnership with CNN, has also joined the list of "unreliable sources". Yet is apparently completely impartial.

For anyone who tries to refute this, let me tell you ahead of time that it will simply degrade the little credibility you have left. So it is my advice that you do not reply at all.

Colipon+(T) 00:37, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Apart from the fact that Li doesn't claim that "his followers" could "stop speeding cars using the powers of his teachings", and he only talks about levitation as a phenomenon in the world of cultivation, these tiny bits of trivia collected from here and there basically attempt to portray Falun Gong in an essentialized light, just like you could say: "Arabs supply oil, wear rags in their head, have a deep commitment towards Oriental mysticism, and are potential threats as terrorists." Aren't these all true? Well, yes - in a certain sense, if you're willing to disregard everything else and try to create a stereotypical picture of a ridiculous and irrational Other. I'm not arguing with you, Colipon. Time magazine qualifies as a source, even when they write guff, we'll just search for something to complement that quote. But I'm warning you about your stated arrogance and irony.
Do you know what's the real problem with most accounts about Falun Gong? They try to make Falun Gong seem unique in its sometimes outlandish, unconventional claims about reality. But it really belongs to a larger continuum that has been going on for several decades. Supernaturality has been an inherent part of qigong research since the 1980s. Unusual energies of qigong masters have been confirmed by various studies. Even Qian Xuesen was supporting the supernaturalist paradigm in qigong. Living beings in other dimensions are not only talked about in qigong, but in dimethyltryptamine experiments as well, wherein such experiences can be produced to anybody in controlled laboratory settings. We're in an age of transition from secular materialism to something completely different, and any things coined "supernatural" are the favourite laughing stock of the masses of "common sense" scientists. That's the deep, underlying borderline between center and margin in the contemporary scientific culture. I'm not at all amazed when even academic journals and Time magazine resort to otherizing that would be called racism in ethnic or national contexts. Olaf Stephanos 09:11, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't think Wikipedia cares about the current dynamic in our transformation away from secular materialism. What we care about is whether or not TIME is a reliable source. And apparently it is not. Colipon+(T) 22:26, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

What are you referring to by saying "apparently it is not"? I said that I think the article is guff, but TIME qualifies as a Wikipedia source. What strawman are you poking at, Colipon? Olaf Stephanos 22:56, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
Well, what I'm saying is how ridiculous this has become. Everything that is written about Falun Gong that seems to taint its image is immediately removed, and even when a good and reliable source is stated, you or one of your fellow practitioners come and remove it, or attempt, through to maze your way through with what appears to be some philosophical arguments while all you're really doing is trying to hide the dark side of Falun Gong.
Fine. If you want to do that, go right ahead, I'm not going to stop you (nor, really, CAN I stop you at the rate you are reverting things). But at least when I put positive things about Master Li, like the fact that he can fly, please do not delete it and allege the source is wrong. Colipon+(T) 01:59, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
Colipon, it seems you're not able to participate in this editing process without constantly scorning and deriding other editors whom you disagree with on a fundamental level. You even spice up the article with ironic, completely unencyclopedic comments such as "This is, however, simply not true", even though it's all too apparent you only want to taunt. You know they don't belong there, but you add them anyway.
I have never systematically removed material from Wiki-qualified sources. I only want verifiability and reliability, as defined by the policies. You quoted the original biography, and it seems there were no changes made into the English version found on the archived, private website. Fine. For your information, I don't have the printed biography at my disposal, so I couldn't have done it myself. Also, the Wikipedia editors who practice Falun Gong are not a hegemonic group, and we often disagree about what to add and what to remove. You may have seen that I've reverted other practitioners' edits several times. I want an academic approach to this subject, and eventually I want these articles to become featured. To achieve this, we must begin by removing substandard content, verifying that the sources meet Wikipedia standards, as well as expunging all original research and weasel words that the articles were infused with in the age of Tomananda and Samuel. Just because some of your edits have been challenged doesn't mean they'd never be accepted, provided that you discuss these changes and back them up, which is what you've done.
I think the TIME magazine article in question has basically taken the CCP propaganda unfiltered, not only because Li Hongzhi has never talked about himself when he has mentioned levitation, and he explicitly says in Zhuan Falun that Falun Gong students should never act so foolishly as to think they can stop speeding cars with the power of his teachings. That's something we should mention. But I won't remove the reference to the TIME magazine, since the Wikipedia standard for inclusion is verifiability, not truth. In fact, I'm seriously confused about why you keep on ranting about deleting those things, as nobody seems to have done that.
Everything I do has no ulterior motives. If I've put forth some "philosophical arguments", I've just tried to explain why I don't think like you in hope that you'd amend your depreciatory attitude. It was not our party who made the mistakes that ruined Tomananda and Samuel. If you want to cooperate with other editors, please do so in good faith and courtesy. If you can't set aside your sneer, maybe it's better that you go do something else instead. Olaf Stephanos 16:36, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
Thank you Olaf. Check back in the original archives. I have tried to edit in good faith since 2003. Some editors here, unfortunately, have destroyed that good faith. All of my edits since June 2006 have been removed when I checked back on this article a week ago. This is the good faith you're talking about. Tell me all you want, you and your predecessors have all attempted to convince me through some creatively synthesized rationale that what you are doing is benevolent and good. But at this point it is impossible for me, at least, to believe that. Therefore replying to me with as much energy as your last post is, I must reiterate, a pure waste of your time. Quite frankly because I have heard it a few hundred times already.

Where do I go with the mediation committee. They don't seem to be too useful here. Colipon+(T) 20:39, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Biography of Li Hongzhi as written on the original Zhuan Falun[edit]

I am flipping through the first Zhuan Falun book that I got at a park while walking in a Nanjing park in 1997. The park had a large stand set up, on it propped a banner that read "Zhen-shan-ren" and below it was a bunch of books and three young men. Actually, one of them was middle aged, if I recall correctly. He shoved the book at me, and I was genuinely interested at the time. So I asked him if he wanted money for it, he said I could come back and give him money if I liked the book. So I took it home.

I tried to search for an ISBN but apparently there is none, the front flap just has the publisher and a date, followed on the next page by a photo of Li Hongzhi. It was published in 1997 by Jilin Sheying Publishing House (吉林摄影出版社), based in Changchun, two years before the ban. I verified the contents with the Falun Dafa website's official Zhuan Falun book, and it is fully consistent, with one exception. After the last chapter there is a biography of Li Hongzhi, which has been deleted on current Zhuan Falun copies for reasons unknown.

Let me simply give you the first few paragraphs in Chinese, and the truth will speak for itself here. Master Li is very hard to understand, but we will understand him further through this dissertation.






Because this is undoubtedly an official version of Li's biography as published by Falun Gong before the ban in China (with a translated archive version available in English, and it is, in fact, consistent in translation with the writings above; some editors continue to unreasonably question the authenticity of it), I think it is valuable that we insert this biography into the article itself to further understand Master Li.

I know some editors will, like every other time, come and question the authenticity of this text. They will likely say that someone verified its contents or made up its contents, or come up with another creative way of dodging its full-fledged authenticity. I hereby ask anyone who has a similar copy of Zhuan Falun published before the ban and persecution to come and verify its contents, and please tell me if it is inconsistent, hell, tell me if a single word is inconsistent. Colipon+(T) 05:11, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Well I have never seen a Zhuan Falun book with this biography, still I know that there was one with a biography, which then was removed, because as far as I know the author considered that this biography is not relevant for the teachings. --HappyInGeneral 11:53, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Colipon, the question is why you are so interested in including this biography. Do you know that it was written by a journalist and not by Mr. Li Hongzhi. Do you also know that there are very good reasons why Mr. Li Hongzhi asked that it was removed from Zhuan Falun? It is probably not entirely accurate because it was not written by Mr. Li Hongzhi, so why include something that is not entirely accurate. Do you yourself know what is accurate and what is not? /Omido 12:37, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Li Hongzhi had perfect control over his own book. Tell me, why would he publish the official Zhuan Falun text with the biography in it if he found it harmful? In addition, you give no reason as to why the biography was published in the first place, and you give no reason for why Li would later remove it. Do you yourself know what is accurate and what is not?

This biography was in use on all Zhuan Falun texts in China since its publication until its ban. To say that it should not be in the article because it is not "accurate" is simply ignorant. Colipon+(T) 21:13, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Well personally I would prefer an accurate biography for sure, do you know which one it is the accurate one? Considering that Li Hongzhi might be a divine being, what would you call an accurate biography? --HappyInGeneral 08:04, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
Right. The issue here is for Wikipedia to recognize that this was an authentic version of Li Hongzhi's biography as authorized by him to be published in China when Falun Gong first surfaced. No one has came to dispute this. There is absolutely no reason to believe that this biography was not the official Falun Gong biography of Li before it was removed. This biography has nothing to do with the Communist Party, nothing to do with the persecution. It simply sheds some light on who Li is to the general public.
The dynamic here again is that certain users are dodging stones in the face of challenges. None of my questions were ever answered, because I know there is no answer to them. Unless those questions can be answered, which would qualify this biography as an "invalid source", this biography has its rightful place in the article. Colipon+(T) 23:42, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Questionable/ironical sentences[edit]

Added a title here to separate this discussion from the biography, as Colipon mentioned. --HappyInGeneral 11:53, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Removed "The Chinese media brands Li as a "new-age entrepreneur" who used Falun Gong solely for business profit. This is, however, simply not true. [3]" It's too much POV and irony in this sentence. Also why do you quote the Chinese media? The chinese media is a puppet for the chinese communist party and uses all kinds of propaganda to defame Falun Gong and justify the persecution. Everybody is clear on this. You should not do these kind of things. There are countless experience sharing articles on that testifies about how cheap the Falun Gong classes were, unlike other qigong lectures. /Omido 15:23, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Sure. Please, do not try to change the subject. Let's deal with this biography here. Colipon+(T) 20:40, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and. If I were you, I would have also removed this sentence: "However, this is probably not true because these American sources are allegedly unreliable." It's too much POV and irony in this sentence. Also why do you quote these American sources? These American sources are obviously a puppet for the chinese communist party and uses all kinds of propaganda to defame Falun Gong and justify the persecution. Everybody is clear on this. You should not do these kind of things. Colipon+(T) 20:42, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Right, since you introduced it, you could also remove it. --HappyInGeneral 11:53, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

There are countless trustworthy and neutral western and chinese people speaking highly of Mr. Li Hongzhi, why do you insist on using the CCP's controlled propaganda media in this article? This is not fair. Omido 12:33, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

I think that wikipedia is a free place, this means that it's quite normal that there will be some CCP activist that try to push the agenda. However I don't see any problem with this as long as they keep their information attributed, sourced and they are not overly insistent trying to flood all other opinions, like Samuel did. So for this reason, I don't see any problem with this statement "The Chinese media brands Li as a "new-age entrepreneur" who used Falun Gong solely for business profit.[1]" from Colipon. Also perhaps we should only state clearly that the CCP uses many lies in their propaganda to justify the persecution. (BTW: just as any other state controlled persecution is doing in any other state, see holocaust for example). --HappyInGeneral 15:05, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
I'm tempted but I will not do this revert just yet, I want to see what Omido has to say first. --HappyInGeneral 15:06, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

I like quoting you people because it is so easy to find deep flaws in your logic. So here you are basically saying that the "trustworthy and neutral western and chinese people" are only trustworthy and neutral if they speak highly of Mr. Li? But when a Time article does not, it is no longer trustworthy and neutral? How is that in any way not fair? That makes no sense at all.

As a result, let me reply like this.

There are countless trustworthy and neutral western and chinese people that are very critical of Mr. Li Hongzhi, why do you insist on using Falun Gong's websites as sources in this article? This is not fair. Colipon+(T) 21:08, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Colipon, I don't think that there is anyone seriously disputing the fact that there are people who like Falun Gong and there are people who don't like Falun Gong. --HappyInGeneral 08:08, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
Right now, the article appears as if the world is in love with Falun Gong, and Li Hongzhi. Colipon+(T) 23:45, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

I did not say that only people that speak highly of Mr. Li Hongzhi are trustworthy. I said that CCP is not trustworthy because they have killed inocent people for the last 150 years. You are so affected by the CCP party culture that you are protecting them without even knowing about it, this is the saddest things. I hope you can read the "Nine Commentaries on the Communist party" so that you can have a clearer understanding about the wicked CCP. This would benefit you alot.

"Right now, the article appears as if the world is in love with Falun Gong, and Li Hongzhi." This is your opinion and your opinion is not neccesarly the truth. Actually, this article is far from being done. I think it lacks positive and good things about Falun Gong. Much more good and true things will be inserted into these articles. Omido 20:44, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

I was going to copy and paste what you said and simply change "CCP" to Falun Gong, then I thought about it, and wanted to correct some of your factual mistakes. For one, Omid, we have had this discussion previously on MSN Messenger, and you showed me that you have very little understanding of Chinese religion, history and culture. Secondly, The CCP has been only in existence since 1921, and really has only been a powerful force in China since 1933. As a result saying they have "killed innocent people for the last 150 years" is simply untrue.
Thirdly, your refusal to accept third party views is not only rampant, but infamous, and the fact that your defence for making ridiculous statements often deviates to something along the lines of "The CCP is evil" is simply unreasonable. Fourth, I agree the CCP has done things that are not considered as up to moral standards. Members of my own family, including my father, was purged by the CCP during the Cultural Revolution. Having gone through that reign of terror myself I think I would harbour an even more negative opinion and outlook on the CCP than the nine commentaries. Yet you constantly ignore the fact that the article should have nothing to do with the CCP. In fact, it is simply a sort of deviation for the public to ignore the truth behind Falun Gong while only being focused on what the CCP has done. The CCP is was never part of the equation. Falun Gong is Falun Gong, and Li Hongzhi is Li Hongzhi, regardless of whether or not the CCP decided to crackdown on it. Colipon+(T) 22:01, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
Oh, and yes. Please never say something like "you have been so affected by CCP party culture that you are protecting them without even knowing about it, this is the saddest things" again. I find that rather insulting, especially from a person who has demonstrated little or no understanding of Chinese history and politics, that you think we are all brainwashed and our incapable of independent thought. I think it is quite the opposite. Colipon+(T) 22:04, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
And please, let's get back on topic. What to do with that biography. See discussion above. Colipon+(T) 22:06, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

About flying[edit]

I added some more information about flying [14] since Colipon insists in having it in the article: [15].

However I think this quest is only to find something radical and to somehow suggest a wacky thing.

I don't believe that the statement about flying should be in biography, since it's a cultivation state, it should be perhaps in the teaching part.

Who has any thoughts on this? --HappyInGeneral 10:57, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

OK, I found the answer: [16], it was Wookipedian, saying: "Removing non-biographical material in biography section that was re-inserted by Colipon in an edit that had no edit summary provided." and actually I agree with him, so I'll remove this statement. --HappyInGeneral 11:01, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
Oh I love this.
However according to his teaching flying is only one step in the cultivation practice and tens of thousands of people can achieve this:¶

"Once the Macro-Cosmic Orbit starts revolving you’re doing cultivation. And it can bring about different cultivation states and different forms of gong. It can bring us a unique cultivation state, too. And what’s the state? Maybe you’ve read in some of the ancient books, like Legends of Immortals, The Book of Elixir, Daoist Canon, or Guide to Nature and Longevity, where they talk about something called "levitating in broad daylight." It’s about a person flying up into the air in broad daylight. I can tell you that a person can actually levitate as soon as his Macro-Cosmic Orbit is opened. It’s that simple. Maybe some folks are thinking, "People have been cultivating for so many years, you’d think there’d be tons of people who had opened their Macro-Cosmic Orbits by now." I’d say it’s not unrealistic to say tens of thousands of people can reach that stage. That’s because the Macro-Cosmic Orbit is really just the very first step of cultivation." Zhuan Falun, Lecture Eight, The Cosmic Orbit

I think it is an important part of the Fa.

Then I think we should restore the section on his supernatural powers and his divinity. Colipon+(T) 21:49, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm glad you like it, I added it again :) --HappyInGeneral 13:49, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

I have reinstated the flying statement as it is directly sourced from a TIME magazine, verifiable by clicking on the link. I am not violating any sort of Wikipedia policy. Therefore, please do not try to delete it again. Colipon+(T) 22:41, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

The Li's Claim of Divnity section should be moved to the Falun Gong teaching page. Those things that Mr. Li Hongzhi are speaking about is the Fa/The Law, so why is it on the Li Hongzhi page? Omido 11:01, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

I strongly oppose the "Li Hongzhi Divinity Section". Why? Because Falun Gong is a cultivation practice, it is about cultivating oneself and becoming a good person, assimilating to the cosmic characteristics of Truth, Compasssion, Forbearence. When one only brings out the supernatural or/and divine things, this creates the wrong impression about Master Li Hongzhi and Falun Gong among non FLG practitioners. Master Li have held countless seminars and lectures, how many times have he spoken about himself? Not many. According to my understanding, Master Li mainly speaks about the cultivation of oneself aswell as stopping the persecution of FLG in China. Master Li has never claimed he is a Buddha or God and those divine things he speaks about are very rare. Therefore, that divinity sections creates misunderstanding about Falun Gong among non-FLG practitioners. We should find a way to balance it, or move it entirely to the Falun Gong teaching section. /Omido 11:19, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

That is quite simply, unreasonable. All the sources on the section are either Falun Gong sources, or third-party. Li Hongzhi has done things that can be interpreted as "claiming divinity". Wikipedia's job is to demonstrate what some of these things are, without creating an impression upon the reader in any way. I think wikipedia readers are perfectly capable to be their own judges when they read Li's claims of divinity section, and whether or not Li is divine is up to their interpretation. Wikipedia is not enforcing any views upon its readers.
Quite ironically, this is what the article would do had the divinity section NOT existed. All the article was then was a compilation of Falun Gong sources that praise Li. If anything that creates the wrong impression, as the third-party views are completely hidden from the reader. Colipon+(T) 23:32, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
The fact that users continue to revert without prior discussions is quite simply just frustrating. The following section has been removed in its entirety in the past day.

Since 1996, Li’s statements about his identity have become more explicit. In March, 2002, Li announced that:

“No one knows who I am. I do not know who I am, either. No being has ever seen me, and no being has ever called me by any name. I have neither form nor name, and I am different from anything that composes any being in the cosmos. To the sentient beings in the cosmos, I have nothing. Perhaps when the cosmos is no more, only I am there. I have nothing. No being knows who I am. Yet without me, the cosmos wouldn't exist. The reason I have come here is to save all sentient beings amidst the Fa-rectification at a time when the colossal firmament of the cosmos is disintegrating.” [17]

On February 15 2003 at the Western U.S. Fa Conference, Li further discussed his situation. He first stated that his situation isn’t something that ordinary human beings can imagine. Then he described his origins: “I came from the inside, and came from the outside; I came from nothing, formed into something, appeared at the pinnacle of the colossal firmament, and then from there I descended step by step to the most surface, the Three Realms [which includes our human dimension]. No being knows who I am.”

Li then made claims about his service to the human race. “In fact, today's human race would have been destroyed a long time ago if it weren't for the Fa-rectification. The standard of the human race's thinking is already at a level lower than hell. It's because of the Fa-rectification that I atoned for the sins of all sentient beings in the Three Realms.” He then went on to claim what he has done for his disciples: “As far as our students are concerned, it was as if I scooped you out of hell back then. (Applause) I have truly borne for you the sins you committed over hundreds and thousands of years. And it doesn't stop at just that. Because of this, I will also save you and turn you into Gods. I have spared no effort for you in this process. Along with this, since you'll become Gods at levels that high, I have to give you the honors of Gods at levels that high and all the blessings that you need to have at levels that high. (Applause) Never, from the beginning of time, has any God dared to do this. Something like this has never happened before.”[18]

According to the teachings of Li Hongzhi, Fa-rectification refers to the process of renewal, harmonization and perfection of the entire cosmos. Li Hongzhi writes that the old cosmos possessed the characteristic of formation-stasis-degeneration-destruction, and that the cosmos has now reached its final stage, of destruction. Through Fa-rectification, a process being undertaken by Li himself, this destruction is said to be being prevented, and instead the universe is being restored to its original purity, in the process saving all beings - including humans. [2][3][4][5]

This is the good faith you are talking about? What a joke. At least consult with the rest of us here first before removing it. Colipon+(T) 23:43, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Could you tell me which part of it would you want to see included, and perhaps even why?
For example the part: "I came from the inside, and came from the outside; I came from nothing, formed into something ...", how many people do you think that will understand it if it's only placed there like that? As far as I understand he sais he is coming from the outside of all existence, which is actually natural, because the Fa that was created by him created this existence. Of course for me to come to this understanding, I did study quite a lot the scriptures putting on emphasis on Zhuan Falun. And even so I still can not guaranty that this is the absolute meaning of what is stated there.
Could you perhaps offer a phrasing where this is fairly presented? Aka. in context and without irony? --HappyInGeneral 22:20, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

HappyInGeneral your post is completely irrelevant. You should go read WP:LIVING for reasons why that content does not belong here.--Asdfg12345 00:04, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Alright, point out specific sections if you find me wrong here, but thus far I have gathered the three pillars of WP:LIVING:

  • Neutral point of view (NPOV)
  • Verifiability
  • No original research

In terms of NPOV, there is no problem as the section makes no judgments on Li's character. It simply states what he said and did in a clearly neutral fashion. There are no phrases like "Li is divine" or "Li's claims are ridiculous".

In terms of verifiability, the text themselves come from either Falun Gong websites (which I'm sure all of us can agree as being "verifiable"), or otherwise very clearly stated. His quotes are clearly verifiable, and are never placed in a context that is slanderous.

Finally, in terms of original research, the section does not jump to any immediate conclusions on any singular issue.

As a result, I am not convinced that this violates any part of WP:LIVING. To me this seems to be a perfectly neutrally written paragraph. Colipon+(T) 04:05, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

I pointed out specific sections in my post below. Please read it carefully. I can elaborate and explain more fully the problems with the content based on the cited sections of WP:LIVING if you like, but what is below should make it clear enough. --Asdfg12345 05:21, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Colipon, I don't think its too accurate to write things like Mr Li has said he can "fly" or anything. As we are striving toward a factual article that will provide people with unbiased information, we must strive, as much as we can, to present things with background material. In the video lectures and several other lectures, the issue of supernormal abilities etc are explained very clearly and in very scientific principles. I am wiling to share my understanding on the issue with you if you are interested. This, I think, must be taken into consideration when we mention such things in the article. I also would urge you not to reject things just because it doesn't fit into to the framework of what we think we know. If it is so aren't we having blind faith on our own beliefs? We must comprehend things calmly, rationally and objectively, certainly not emotionally.

Theories are models that serve to explain a set of phenomenon. Not a description of reality as such. The Newton's "laws" serve as a simple framework to model motion at non relativistic speeds. Special relativity, as a model, helps us understand motion at higher speeds. Other phenomenon like quantum tunneling fit into neither of the above two models. My point is it is unscientific to reject a phenomenon just because it doesn't fit into a certain text-book model or any of the present-day text book models. Many quantum mechanical phenomenon like matter undergoing diffraction, quantum entanglement, superposition of states, and quantum tunneling are as "weird" as, if not more than, a particle existing at the two places as the same time. I am just trying to say there is more to science than saying - "That doesn't fit into the framework of what I know, so it cant be true." Falun Dafa lectures explain very clearly and scientifically all issues that are discussed in the lectures, including the issue of supernormal faculties. I'd urge you to kindly go through these nine lecture videos( ) along with these three lecture ( Teaching the Fa at the Conference in Europe , First Fa Teaching Given in the United States, Lectures in United States ) and also the book Falun Gong ( ). Further, if you can try practicing the exercises, at least for a couple of weeks, you can verify objectively and "experimentally" the truth of what is said in the teachings. Dilip rajeev 10:08, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Reverts by Dilip[edit]

As archived in the history of this article, and duly noted by McConn on June 9, 2007, this edit occured:

10:01, June 1, 2007 Dilip rajeev (Talk | contribs) (9,643 bytes) (I have restored the article to an earlier, more encyclopaedic version. The previous article, I felt, was highly un-encyclopaedic and carried A LOT of self-written commentary and CCP propoganda...)

Excuse me if I'm wrong, but when deleting entire sections like that there should be a large amount of discussion. The justification, again, deals with "CCP propaganda", like every other time, and goes along the same line of logic as "The CCP is evil, therefore no one should be allowed to criticize Falun Gong and Li Hongzhi". This has got to stop. Because this revert had no justification, I feel obliged to restore the original section, and if users find a problem with specific segments, please discuss it before its removal. Thanks. Colipon+(T) 22:23, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Colipon, the CCP sources for information is the worst sources you can find and they are not trustworthy at all, especially when it comes to Falun Gong. Maybe you don't know that the CCP said they would destroy Falun Gong, maybe you don't know that they use all their political power to try to destroy Falun Gong. Do you really think that the CCP words can be used in an article which is created so that people can understand the truth about Falun Gong? The CCP sources absoloutly should not be used in any wikipedia article which is about Falun Gong, because everything the CCP says when it comes to Falun Gong is built on self-interest and political ambitions. Their sources are the most unstable, especially when it comes to wikipedia. Maybe you have not understood this yet, but this wikipedia article is for people to understand the truth about Falun Gong, not to assist the CCP in creating more false slander and propaganda. In that case, why are you insisting on using the CCP sources? Arn't you [in that case] assisting the CCP in the persecution? This is the worst thing. /Omido 11:27, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

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

Presumption in favor of privacy:

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

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

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

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

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

  1. ^ [19]
  2. ^ "The Blessings From Dafa", by Li Hongzhi, May 19 2002
  3. ^ "To the European Fa Conference in Stockholm", by Li Hongzhi, June 12 2005
  4. ^ "Foretelling the Fa’s Rectification of the Human World", from "Essentials for Further Advancement II", by Li Hongzhi, on December 9 2001
  5. ^ The Eternal Story