Talk:Jun Hong Lu/Archive 1

Reversion
What's BLP?

My sincere apology for not following the rules here as I did not bother to learn. There are highly reliable sources on Lu but unfortunately mostly in another language(Chinese) and also on the more conventional medias, namely newspapers and televisions. He is relatively unknown to most non-Chinese speaking population which is rather unfortunate, otherwise we would not have to debate about anything at all. There is a Chinese Wikipedia equivalent website that has an incomplete article on the subject that I did not participate in writing otherwise it would just look like that one I tried to write here. Please find the enclosed link. http://www.baike.com/wiki/%E5%8D%A2%E5%86%9B%E5%AE%8F 23:23,14/6/2015 (UTC+10)

Please discuss this issue here,. Your edits are not appropriate for Wikipedia; I have warned you about edit warring and now you are even stripping the problem tags from this page. BLP pages are of high concern and we cannot include false attributions. Ogress smash! 07:49, 12 June 2015 (UTC)


 * BLP means it is a Biography of a Living Person. There are many extra restrictions on these because the risk to living people of having incorrect information or unproven allegations about them on Wikipedia is so much higher than for other topics.  -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 18:59, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Supposed Chinese adherence
Claims have been made this man and his organisation are notable in Chinese, we just don't know it in English. However, his Chinese Wikipedia page was speedily deleted ages ago under Criteria for speedy deletion; this hardly seems like "English speakers just don't understand". Meanwhile, the page is being meatpuppeted by obvious Jun followers. Ogress smash! 15:14, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Personal experiences for editing his article
There are two types of people would try to edit here regarding him and his dharma door in both Chinese and English. One type is against him and the other is for him. I would rather wikipedia do not have an article on him since there are plenty of other sources. My advice to the potential editors is-- don't bother to edit unless there is anything defaming, because it would be deleted by you know who. --VThomson (talk) 03:07, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published sources. See WP:RS. Ogress smash! 03:47, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
 * If an entry with a reference from radio australia can be deleted because of so called "reliability", I have better things to do than waste my time on wikipedia --VThomson (talk) 08:32, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
 * An interview done on Radio Australia is not reliable. Jun Hong Lu is doing the talking.  He is neither independent or reliable.  Any interview, anywhere has the same problem.  You can quote what he says, but can't use it to source something.   See the link Ogress gave.  Bgwhite (talk) 08:57, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
 * It was simply a report on the reward of his peace prize. You must have rocks in your head to think that is not reliable. --VThomson (talk) 09:20, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
 * You are literally a single-purpose account who has been blocked for refusing to read Wikipedia's guidelines; don't throw rocks (i.e. insult other editors) if you live in a glass house. Ogress smash! 17:21, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't think some of the so called editors are acting reasonably and am certainly not going to waste any more time here . --VThomson (talk) 02:53, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 June 2016
Despite the wide publicity received and said number of believers, many orthodox Buddhist sects have represented concerns that Guanyin Citta do not represent true Buddhism. [8]Many of his interpretations are not found in Buddhist texts and sutras, and while he occasionally quotes sutras and mantras, they were misrepresented. Furthermore, he claims (or claimed by his believers) to be a manifestation of Bodhisattva Avalokitesvara (Guanshiyin), when it was mentioned in many sutras such as Shurangama Sutta that manifestations of any Buddha or Bodhisattva are not allowed to reveal themselves to layman.
 * Controversy

A true Buddhist is required to seek refuge in the triple gems, the Buddha, the Sutta and the Sangha, while there is no such requirement in Guan Yin Citta. In fact, there is no evidence of Lu Junhong seeking refuge in the triple gems, and therefore is not a buddhist.

Triple gems in Buddhism refers to the Buddha, the Sutta and the Sangha, while in Guan Yin Citta it refers to reciting scriptures, making vows and performing life liberation.

Reciting scriptures in Buddhism involves the thousands of scriptures spoken by the Buddha, while in Guan Yin Citta, it only refers to the Heart Sutra and Great Compassion Mantra. In fact, the reading of other sutras are not encouraged in Guan Yin Citta.

In Buddhism, the concept of enlightenment involves complete understanding of the Four Noble Truth, the eightfold paths and the twelve dependent origins , which are not emphasized and misinterpreted in Guan Yin Citta.

Ccctttttt (talk) 15:30, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format.  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  02:08, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 June 2016
Jun Hong Lu has been flagged by Buddhist communities in countries such as Malaysia, China and Singapore as a cult leader. Chinese reference: http://www.dizang.org/wd/wd4/073.htm (in Chinese), http://www.chinabuddhismencyclopedia.com/en/index.php/Malaysia_Buddhist_Community_Warns_About_Lu_Jun_Hong (From Malaysia), https://scontent-sin1-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/1525_656348427838224_8365234338713418354_n.png?oh=0579fc02a29fe357bea5589cbe249b57&oe=57C1E06F (from Singapore)

101.127.106.150 (talk) 15:57, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format.  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  02:09, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 June 2016
Add a new section

Controversy
Despite the wide publicity received and said number of believers, many orthodox Buddhist sects have represented concerns that Guanyin Citta do not represent true Buddhism. [8]Many of his interpretations are not found in Buddhist texts and sutras, and while he occasionally quotes sutras and mantras, they were misrepresented. Furthermore, he claims (or claimed by his believers) to be a manifestation of Bodhisattva Avalokitesvara (Guanshiyin), when it was mentioned in many sutras such as Shurangama Sutta that manifestations of any Buddha or Bodhisattva are not allowed to reveal themselves to layman.

A true Buddhist is required to seek refuge in the triple gems, the Buddha, the Sutta and the Sangha, while there is no such requirement in Guan Yin Citta. In fact, there is no evidence of Lu Junhong seeking refuge in the triple gems, and therefore is not a buddhist.

Triple gems in Buddhism refers to the Buddha, the Sutta and the Sangha, while in Guan Yin Citta it refers to reciting scriptures, making vows and performing life liberation.

Reciting scriptures in Buddhism involves the thousands of scriptures spoken by the Buddha, while in Guan Yin Citta, it only refers to the Heart Sutra and Great Compassion Mantra. In fact, the reading of other sutras are not encouraged in Guan Yin Citta.

In Buddhism, the concept of enlightenment involves complete understanding of the Four Noble Truth, the eightfold paths and the twelve dependent origins , which are not emphasized and misinterpreted in Guan Yin Citta.

Ccctttttt (talk) 03:14, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the template. —&thinsp;JJMC89&thinsp; (T·C) 03:29, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 June 2016
Please add this section and tell me which part to change, for example if you feel any sources are unreliable.
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the template.  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  22:56, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Controversy
Despite the wide publicity received and said number of believers, many orthodox Buddhist sects have represented concerns that Guanyin Citta do not represent true Buddhism. [8]Many of his interpretations are not found in Buddhist texts and sutras, and while he occasionally quotes sutras and mantras, they were misrepresented. Furthermore, he claims (or claimed by his believers) to be a manifestation of Bodhisattva Avalokitesvara (Guanshiyin), when it was mentioned in many sutras such as Shurangama Sutta that manifestations of any Buddha or Bodhisattva are not allowed to reveal themselves to layman.

A true Buddhist is required to seek refuge in the triple gems, the Buddha, the Sutta and the Sangha, while there is no such requirement in Guan Yin Citta. In fact, there is no evidence of Lu Junhong seeking refuge in the triple gems, and therefore is not a buddhist.

Triple gems in Buddhism refers to the Buddha, the Sutta and the Sangha, while in Guan Yin Citta it refers to reciting scriptures, making vows and performing life liberation.

Reciting scriptures in Buddhism involves the thousands of scriptures spoken by the Buddha, while in Guan Yin Citta, it only refers to the Heart Sutra and Great Compassion Mantra. In fact, the reading of other sutras are not encouraged in Guan Yin Citta.

In Buddhism, the concept of enlightenment involves complete understanding of the Four Noble Truth, the eightfold paths and the twelve dependent origins , which are not emphasized and misinterpreted in Guan Yin Citta.

Ccctttttt (talk) 04:00, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Controversy
If any editors feels that the sources are unreliable, please let me know. If you are disagreeable with any points, please let me know instead of just removing the entire section without quoting any evidence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ccctttttt (talk • contribs) 22:41, 18 June 2016 (UTC)


 * I have no opinion on the reliability of the sources provided for that section, but with one exception (that does not mention the controversy) they do not mention Jun. Thus taking some general texts about Buddhism and concluding that "Jun is no Buddhist" is original synthesis, not appropriate for Wikipedia. The sources provided above that do mention Jun in the context of warnings are not reliable; one is a press release, none of them give an indication of being subject to editorial oversight. Without reliable sources explicitly supporting our content, that content violates the policy on biographies of living persons and must be removed. Huon (talk) 10:01, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

I have changed the references to official government press release articles. Hopefully this is a more valid reference and does not violate the policy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ccctttttt (talk • contribs) 00:02, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

There were many occasions where Lu openly said that Bodisattva Avalokitesvara speaks through him, which directly implies that he represents the Bodisattva. On many of his videos, when his believer calls him the reincarnation of the Bodisattva, he also accepts it gleefully. In China, a religion is considered a cult if the religion attempts to make his leader looks like a deity or a God or anyone supernatural, which Guanyin Citta did to Lu. If necessary, I can even point which Buddhist sutras says that what Lu did is unorthodox. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ccctttttt (talk • contribs) 10:20, 14 July 2016 (UTC)


 * I suspect that you have no idea on the buddhism religion in China (no offense). A religion does not consider as a cult based on the previous reasons given above.

I'd guess that the Buddhist federation of China,and state administration for religious affair (SARA), and the Chinese legislation does not have idea what a cult in China is either. Since they are the ones who had considered guanyin citta is a cult in China. I was merely reposting what they said. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ccctttttt (talk • contribs) 03:37, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

Images
I removed the gallery from the page. While the images were related to the subject, I do not see how it adds value to the page. Wanted to bring the edit here in case any users disagree. Meatsgains (talk) 17:17, 26 July 2016 (UTC)


 * I'm currently working on Wikiproject Australia Stub Class Articles. I would think that having pictures on some of the sections will add value to the quality scale of the article. Can you please revert the gallery? Mybaobei (talk) 07:02, 27 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Support removal of gallery. WP:MOS is clear that images have to augment the article in some way; these clearly did not. Muffled Pocketed  09:18, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
 * , thank you for the removal of the gallery. I agree, we should follow WP:MOS. JimRenge (talk) 09:32, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

COI label
The label was over a year ago and throughout the year I noticed there have been many editors edited the page. COI issues should have resolved. Should we remove the COI label? Angiele Adkins (talk) 08:11, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 16:51, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Lu Jun Hong.jpg