Talk:Li Hongzhi/Archive 2

Conformance to standards laid out in WP:LIVING
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: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biographies_of_living_persons#Using_the_subject_as_a_self-published_source. 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)

The biography appeared appeared as an appendix to Zhuan Falun published by some publishers in China, till 1996 when Mr Li Hongzhi asked for the biography, written by a journalist, to be removed from the book. Pulling out stuff from a biography that, as far as we know, has not been completely acknowledged by the person himself and presenting those things completely out of context is a blatant violation of the policies laid out in WP:LIVING. Jimbo Wales states in WP:LIVING: "We are not tabloid journalism, we are an encyclopedia." Yet tabloid journalism is what parts of the article sound like. CCP propaganda is presented, at times, without any mention of the persecution and the attempts on part of the CCP to slander Falun Gong, which has been strongly criticized by governments and human rights organizations throughout the world. This, in my opinion, is a violation of WP:NPOV.

I also wish to point out the Wikipedia policy cited by User:Adfg12345 in his previous post.

Dilip rajeev 05:59, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Used his magical powers to save the world from a comet
Is it true that Li Hongzhi claimed to have redirected a comet heading for earth into hitting Jupiter using his magical powers, or is this all Chinese government propaganda? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.239.204.81 (talk) 18:24, August 29, 2007 (UTC)

hah, what a joke. All the Dafa books are available online, so they only flaunt their stupidity by making up things that are demonstrably false. Everything the CCP has said about flg, that I've seen, is either a partial or complete lie. This case is no different.--Asdfg12345 11:34, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately for you, I have read the original Falun Gong "scriptures" (in Chinese) prior to their persecution. And my impression... A LOT of CCP propaganda were based on facts (apparently the CCP can sometimes be truthful. Sad, surprising, but true.). Sure, Falun Gong wasn't the worst of its kind (during the Qigong craze that swept Chinese mainland in the 1980s and 90s), but close. 151.201.9.156 00:57, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

This is what the communists said "焦立勋揭露说，1997年发生了彗星撞击木星事件，这本来是一个正常的天文现象，李洪志却利用这件事大作文章. 他从外地回到长春后，对焦立勋等人胡诌说，人类已到末劫时期，这次彗星原本是要撞击地球的，是我李洪志施展能量和法术，改变了彗星原来的轨道，让它撞到木星上去的. 以后，只有跟我修炼“法轮功”，才能在人类大毁灭中幸免. "（http://www.gmw.cn/01gmrb/1999-11/06/GB/gm%5E18232%5E2%5EGM2-0606.htm）.

This is what Li Hongzhi said: "大法之福——十年正法，乾坤再造，救度无量众生于坏灭，开创无量大穹圆融不灭之法理，之无量智慧. 此乃众生之福，众大法徒之威德. 为师十年传大法，仅世间定数已大动，历史定下彗星之灾已过，三次大战已免，九九年天地成住坏灭之忧已不复，法正人间在即. 世间众生将回报大法与大法徒救度之恩. 善哉，善哉，善善哉！李洪志 2002年5月19日"（http://www.epochtimes.com/gb/2/5/20/n191126.htm）、"如果不为你们承担历史上的一切，你们根本上是无法修炼的；如果不为宇宙众生承担一切，他们就会随着历史的过去而解体；如果不为世人承担一切，他们就没有机会今天还在世上. "(《正法时期大法弟子》http://www.zhengjian.org/zj/articles/2001/8/16/14654.html).

This is what his followers said: "关于大法修炼者的“誓约”，以前同修的体会文章这样写道（大意）：极久远的史前的一天，师父跟众神说：将来邪恶要迫害大法，有愿意助师正法的请签“誓约”. 结果只有极少数的正神签了 “誓约”，冒着天胆，跟随师父层层层层转生，来到世间助师正法，而大部分神，没有敢冒天胆签下“这开天辟地都没有过”的神圣而洪大的誓约. "、"其实整个大穹都是师父造就的，大法弟子的一切能力也都是师父赐予的，何须大法修炼者去助师正法呢？然而师父把助师正法这穹大的机缘恩赐予了我们，使得我们能够在这个过程中再现“真、善、忍”宇宙大法洪大的“真”、洪大的“善”、洪大的“忍”，从而为大法和新宇宙未来的觉者建立殊胜的威德，重返天庭. "（http://www.minghui.cc/mh/articles/2001/10/31/18790.html）151.201.9.156 20:28, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't read Chinese and since this is the English WP, would it be possible to get an accurate translation of the above responses. I am basically looking for a credible reference to the comet allegation. As all texts are freely available online, I would like to know where such claims are made or is this just a troll trying to incite a riot in the TALK pages?208.254.130.235 (talk) 00:08, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

The first passage is by the government and goes into detail about the claim. The second passage is more or less praise for FLG and how he saved the world from WW3 and the "comet disaster". The third passage has nothing to do about the comet and is just more or less sappy praise. There needs to be some serious translation done for inclusion into this article, as all the "controversial" issues are very highly sourced and available in Chinese, which is conveniently removed from all English publications. 80.52.178.116 (talk) 11:54, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Controversial beliefs
Why is there no mention of Li's homophobic and racist views in the article? --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 09:54, 16 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Not to mention other bizarre things Li said in the 1999 Time interview, like he knows people who can levitating off the ground, and aliens controlling humans.. Hzzz 01:54, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

I can understand your concearns about making sure not to discriminate people. But isn't it strange that even though i have close ties to the Falun Gong community as well as the homosexual community, i have never seen any Falun Gong Practitioner treating a homosexual with disrespect.

Bottom line: They don't discriminate against you, but you are spreading the same things against them that the Communist Party uses to persecute and kill them at this very moment. Are you sure you are acting AGAINST discrimination?

So it's fine when people whom you regard as "homophobic" get killed because of that? But if you would know them, you would know that they aren't even homophobic. You should not spread things against human beings that can result in their being de-valued as such - Even if you are doing it in the name of homosexualaty.

--Hoerth 13:51, 25 August 2007 (UTC))

Difficult to say where Li Honzhi ends and FG begins. Do these beliefs belong here, or in the FG article? Without specific context of how these views were shaped in his childhood or youth, I would be tempted to say these should not appear here, but only in the FG article or sub-page. Ohconfucius 05:02, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't know who put this section in. I've deleted it outright. It is completely irrelevant and constitutes original research. Who says the beliefs are controversial? Why are some beliefs mentioned on this page and not others? Anyway, it is a good idea to put them on the teachings page and present them in a normal way, according to due weight. --Asdfg12345 07:20, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

True that these are "traditional" beliefs in China which the vast majority still hold today, and as such are not controversial. But from a liberal western, politically correct perspective, they are. I questioned the relevance in this article, and you appear to agree. However, your grounds for deleting (from the edit summary) are that the paragraphs were original research, not entirely true: for example, the homophobe quotes can be seen on the FG website here and here. Ohconfucius 09:31, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

sorry, of course I didn't mean that they were made up or whatever. I mean their inclusion under the title "controversial beliefs" was OR. Do you know what I mean? saying they are controversial just like that is original reserach. There's no source for that.. hmm, and in either case that is a non-neutral way of framing, that's for sure. Essentially the beliefs don't really belong on this page anyway, whether they're ones that are considered controversial or uncontroversial. That's all I meant. I think we agree on this one.--Asdfg12345 14:59, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Ya.. its a like saying Jesus Christ or Gautama Buddha are whatever-phobic because the scriptures say these things are immoral..

220.226.42.55 22:48, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Li's homophobic comments, extensively published at the time but later modified (esp. in the English translations), is not relevant. 151.201.9.156 01:01, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

This is what Li said about homosexuality: "弟子：为什么说同性恋是不道德的？ 师：大家想一想，同性恋是人的行为吗？天造了男人，造了女人，目地是什么？是繁衍后代. 那男人和男人，女人和女人，那一想就知道他对不对了，小事儿不对了说他是错了；大事儿不对了那就是没有人的道德规范了，不配做人了. 我告诉大家为什么今天社会会这样？这是没有正法约束人造成的. 这个大法就要在最乱的环境中传，在所有宗教都度不了人了的时候，所有的神都撒手不管的这样一个状态中来传. 法的力量大嘛，最好时期还不用这么大法来传，最不好的时期才能体现法的威力呢. 但是也是有另外原因的. 弟子：为什么搞同性恋的人被认为是坏人？ 师：我告诉大家，我今天要不传这个法，神首先消灭的对像就是同性恋者. 不是我来消灭他，是神. 大家知道同性恋找了一个根据，他说在古希腊的文化中有，是. 古希腊的文化中有类似的现象. 大家知道古希腊的文化为什么没有了？古希腊人为什么没有了？是因为它败坏到那种成度就销毁了. 神造人的时候，给人规范了人的行为、生活方式，人超出了这个范围就不叫人. 可是你们却有人的外形，那么神就不能容忍你们存在着，就要销毁掉. 你们知道，世界上的战争、瘟疫和天灾人祸为什么会出现呢？就是因为人有业力，给人消业而存在的. 将来再美好的历史时期也会在地球上存在着战争、瘟疫和天灾人祸，那是给人消业的一个办法. 有的人犯了罪，可以通过肉身的死亡、痛苦消去他的业力，然后他再转生就没有业力了，他的生命不会真的死嘛，再从新转生. 可是有人造的业太大了，那么就涉及到他的生命的本质，都将被销毁. 同性恋不但自己违反神给予人的规范，还在破坏着人类社会的道德规范，特别是给儿童造成的印象会使将来的社会象魔鬼一样. 就是这个问题. 可是那种销毁，不是说一消灭了就没了，是层层在我们看来非常快的速度中消灭，可是他在那个时间场中却是极其漫长的，一次一次的，极其痛苦的被消灭着，是非常可怕的事情. 人应该光明的活着，堂堂正正的象个人活着. 不应该放纵自己的魔性，为所欲为. " (瑞士法会讲法,http://www.falundafa.org/book/chigb/swiss.htm) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.201.9.156 (talk) 20:35, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

But these weren't modified in english to make them more palatable or whatever. No Dafa practitioner would modify the Fa to make it more 'acceptable' to people, or to indulge human attachments. I'm not fanatical about this. Whether what Shifu has said is true or not is an irrelevant question--just wait and see. It is the same about the comet stuff. The CCP did distort what he said, though it was based on something probably just as seemingly preposterous to many people. There should be no beef with Falun Gong over these things. Who cares what practitioners believe. Please focus on their right to believe it, and the evil things being perpetrated against them just for that. No one is asking anyone to practice Falun Gong, or preaching or imposing anything. You can think it's silly, that's normal, but you should not think it is bad, because it is not. All this is founded on righteous faith in the truth of the cosmos and nothing more. Look at the facts of the persecution in an objective way, and look at Falun Gong in an objective way, and you will see there is nothing wrong with it, and the persecution is indeed truly wicked.--Asdfg12345 13:34, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

To a certain extent, I do agree that persecution is altogether wicked on grounds of religious freedom, but that does nothing in justifying OR incriminating Falun Gong. And the CCP's claim is not really that far from the mark. Although Li did not directly claim that his powers moved the course of the comet (not that he said in public as published by Falun Gong anyway), his "大法之福" implies a pivotal involvement not only in the prevention of a "comet disaster", but also in prevention of another (world) war (or three wars), and his claims in "正法时期大法弟子" imply a crucial involvement not just in the practice of Falun Gong, but the survival of the entire world.

I strongly believe that Li Hongzhi's claim to divinity or supernatural powers (of which there are many, not the least of which were posted above) or whatever you practitioners understand him to be, should be included in the article both introducing him, as well as Falun Gong itself. Instead, these articles skim through such claims like this -- "including his direct OR indirect claims of having 'supernatural powers'" (more like "AND", isn't it?). The claim of his participation in creation itself, for example, was published in the "semi-official" media of Falun Gong with no modification or disclaimer, therefore reflecting, to a certain degree, Falun Gong's stand on who and what Li Hongzhi is. An article devoid of this can only be interpreted as purposefully misleading those unfamiliar with Falun Gong. Just to give an example, in an article about Islam, would you leave out how Muslims perceive Mohammad, i.e. the LAST and the GREATEST prophet? 151.201.9.156 21:09, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Here is the site that posted "揭发江湖骗子李洪志书面材料", 5 years PRIOR to the CCP persecution. http://www.xys.org/xys/ebooks/others/history/contemporary/Lihongzhi.txt. Do any of you think that this may be added to the "Disputes" section? In addition, does this not also fill in some of the blanks about his earlier life? 151.201.9.156 05:36, 19 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I can't believe that ! Controversal Sections ? About his birthdate ? Not a word about his claims on levitation and David Copperfield and the little green men ? This article is POV. I'll add something, feel free to modify it but don't remove it. Tkak 18:19, 17 August 2008 (UTC))

Racially-segregated Heaven?
"In Li's view, the races are not to be intermingled. Mixed-race children, he notes, are a symptom of societal decline. A race has its own particular biosphere, and whenever children are born of a mixed-race relationship, they are defective persons. Li contends that heaven itself is segregated. Anybody who does not belong to his race will not be cared for. I do not just say that. It is really true. I am revealing the secret of heaven to you."

the above quote is from http://www.apologeticsindex.org/f02.html, but there are many places where this (alleged) opinion are reported. If this is genuine, it should be in the article; if it is not, then it should also be in the article, together with evidence that it is a CCP fabrication, or whatever.

As it stands, this article is certainly not 'NPOV' - it reads like the leaflets and newspapers that Falun Da Fa constantly bombards us with. The propaganda _for_ Falun Gong outside of the PRC is certainly as one-sided as that against it is in that country. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.243.112.20 (talk) 04:23, 8 August 2008 (UTC)


 * All Falun Dafa writings are on the internet and thus indexed by google. So check this out . All that I'm saying that this quotation is not quite right and it's definitely out of context. --HappyInGeneral (talk) 14:32, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

merger proposal
Peng Shanshan is a non-notable, fails WP:BIO, and is only known for one event. The article should be merged with the closest related topic, which I believe to be Li Hongzhi. Ohconfucius 09:07, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

pfft, if you want just delete it. I don't think it should appear on this page.--Asdfg12345 10:59, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Nobel peace prize nomination
Qualified Nominators – The Nobel Peace Prize The right to submit proposals for the   Nobel Peace Prize, based on the principle of competence and universality, shall by statute be enjoyed by:
 * 1) Members of national assemblies and governments of states;
 * 2) Members of international courts;
 * 3) University rectors; professors of social sciences, history, philosophy, law and theology; directors of peace research institutes and foreign policy institutes;
 * 4) Persons who have been awarded the Nobel Peace Prize;
 * 5) Board members of organizations who have been awarded the Nobel Peace Prize;
 * 6) Active and former members of the Norwegian Nobel Committee; (proposals by members of the Committee to be submitted no later than at the first meeting of the Committee after February 1) and
 * 7) Former advisers appointed by the Norwegian Nobel Institute.

FG are not exactly propaganda shy. Should we mention a nomination to the Nobel Peace Prize? and Do we know who nominated Li Hongzhi for the NPP? Clearwisdom displays a blank letter nominating Li for the prize. As most people are not aware that that any professor of social science, history, etc can validly nominate to the prize, it would not be a great stretch for FG to find a friendly law professor to nominate Li, and both could benefit from the prestige of the Nobel prize nomination. Ohconfucius 04:03, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

it says he was nominated for the nobel peace prize, but here http://nobelprize.org/nomination/peace/ it says the names of the nominees cannot be revealed until 50 years later. Well yeah, falun gong have to lie about their leader to get support. Dennis23232 (talk) 22:54, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

"Dafa disciples just wanted to do their cultivation, and weren't asking for too much. A handful of people don't understand us. We will give them time to come to know us, then. You can curse and you can attack, but we won't treat you the same way." Li Hongzhi --Hoerth (talk) 19:58, 11 January 2008 (UTC) I'm unable to verify this quote. Please provide a source.--Asdfg12345 22:41, 15 January 2008 (UTC)


 * To quote another WP editor: "Nobel Peace Prize nominations are not notable. The only qualification for a nomination is to be alive. Tens of thousands of individuals qualify as nominators, including all national legislators and all social studies professors.... over a hundred people are nominated every year. The Nobel Prize foundation keeps nominations secret for 50 years, and nominations are unverifiable unless the nominators make them public (which they are asked not to do). In a few cases the nominations become well-known and reported widely in the contemporary press, and those are about the only ones that WP mentions." --Simon D M (talk) 13:51, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

If this is true, then Nobel price has further proved to be a joke, after Yasser Arafat, Dalai Lama, last time I checked, Rush Limbo was nominated too. Foxhunt99 (talk) 16:23, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Aliens/Time Interview
Should his views on aliens controlling humankind's views and science be included in this article? This seems to be a major event that may have caused his critics to dislike him more and his supporters to join with him.

"In 1999, its founder, Li Hongzhi, told a Time magazine reporter that aliens from other planets were responsible for corrupting mankind by teaching modern science." -The New York Times, February 6, 2008-A Glimpse of Chinese Culture That Some Find Hard to Watch. In addition, a simple search on the internet reveals numerous articles and the interview itself that may develop his views further.Google Search -Herenthere (Talk) 03:28, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

funny article. the alien stuff might be more appropriate for teachings page, i would have thought?--70.18.202.219 (talk) 04:20, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Funny how neither Falun Gong or Teachings of Falun Gong mention this. But his views on aliens are more personal, and does not seem related to the teachings directly. -Herenthere (Talk) 17:06, 9 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I did not go to the link, but I have never heard of aliens controlling our minds and destiny before. I have heard of this in conjunction with Scientology.  Are you sure this isn't a mix up?208.254.130.235 (talk) 17:08, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Resources to Add
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/10/28/geniustable128.xml, Top 100 living geniuses, Li Honzghi is at 12.

"Each genius was then awarded scores out of ten against criteria which included: paradigm shifting; popular acclaim; intellectual power; achievement and cultural importance." --HappyInGeneral (talk) 10:47, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Awards and Recognition
The Nobel nomination aside, much of this appears to be overly self-serving to rely on self-published sources. If there are no reliable 3rd party sources, most of this section will have to go. --Simon D M (talk) 14:05, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't think this is particularly self serving. The award thing is widely known, and it's referenced to Ownby which I can later find and resource. primary sources are allowed when they aren't particularly self-serving. These things here are basically informational. They do not say "Li Hongzhi is so great and this is why!", they are saying "he got x and y award." This really doesn't warrant a deletion, does it? What have you got against this guy anyway? He just taught a nice spiritual practice, sheesh. I'm reinstating the sources as not being self-serving, but informational, and allowed given that primary sources are allowed in articles about themselves.--Asdfg12345 14:41, 18 March 2008 (UTC)


 * The awards are not notable unless demonstrated otherwise, nothing personal against Mr Li. Publishing lists of awards can easily be construed as self-promotion. When you have the 3rd party RS that mentions the awards they can go back. Similar lists have been removed from pages like Prem Rawat and Nirmala Srivastava for the same reason. --Simon D M (talk) 15:00, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Good point, I'll find the Ownby thing sometime. Primary sources have a role, but it would bring down the quality of the article if they were construed as self-promotion, as you opine in this case. The Ownby thing is actually on the main page, might as well grab it now.--Asdfg<b style="color:black;">12345</b> 15:07, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

I had to laugh when you added that part that said the info was drawn from wikipedia!--Asdfg<b style="color:black;">12345</b> 16:19, 18 March 2008 (UTC)


 * The 'Genius' survey was indeed reported in a newspaper but looks like a publicity stunt by a consulting firm. Nominations were based on email, the winner's main achievement was the synthesis of LSD, and the report is largely made up of cut & paste from Wikipedia. It doesn't take a genius to see that this is scraping the bottom of the barrel for 'awards and recognition'. We could have a big battle over this but I think we can all see that this kind of content isn't doing anything to make WP better. --Simon D M (talk) 16:23, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't know what criteria would be regarded as acceptable to come up with a list like this, nor would deign to speculate on the motivations of the apparent panel. It's not like everyone made the list. I don't know how they came up with it. I think it's fair that it appear here, and had not considered that it would cause any controversy?--Asdfg<b style="color:black;">12345</b> 16:32, 18 March 2008 (UTC)


 * WP is not a valid source for WP but newspaper articles are. This is a newspaper article based on a report based on WP. "Exceptional claims in Wikipedia require high-quality reliable sources; if such sources are not available, the material should not be included." --Simon D M (talk) 16:39, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

I imagine they only got the information about people from wikipedia, then did whatever grading and so forth on their own. I don't think this means the whole thing should be thrown out and we don't report it. I think it's a fairly relevant piece of information about this man, don't you?--Asdfg<b style="color:black;">12345</b> 02:33, 19 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Whatever ratings were done appear to have been done by unnamed individuals assembled by a consultancy who didn't seem to bother looking beyond WP for info. It may be relevant, and it may have been reported in a RS, but there's no evidence that the report itself is anything more than a trashy publicity stunt. For now I'm willing to leave it there with the current qualifications. --Simon D M (talk) 11:30, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

I feel the same way about these absurd sensationalist sources such as Rick Ross, who don't know a thing about qigong, Falun Gong, or the cultural context of the teachings, but who take it upon themselves to attack them like they know what they're talking about. As far as I am concerned, this is all sensationalist rubbish. It is purely uninformed opinion and rhetoric, not backed up by scholarly work, not backed up by reality. They're fringe views in the academic community and the only reliable source I am aware of is Singer, in one of her books. But there's other journals attacking Singer and saying she went into decline in her later years, and what's in the article there is stuff from a CCP interview! And Rick Ross is not any kind of expert. I tend to agree that this "genius survey" isn't worth much, and I only put it in, and insisted on it, in an attempt to balance the opinions of the CCP and Rick Ross types. I'm concerned about the prominence of these outlandish and minority claims, that have no evidence, cited to sources that fail reliability. Let me check WP:LIVING on this. There's probably something that warrants purging it.--Asdfg<b style="color:black;">12345</b> 12:34, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Whoops, sorry, it's not very prominent. These guys just give me the creeps. I'll dig up the Edelman and Richardson pdf. --Asdfg<b style="color:black;">12345</b> 12:37, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

C'mon man, you know the way to trump poor sources is with good sources, not with other crap sources. Hassan isn't an academic, but he is a prominent figure in the anti-cult world. Re: Singer, she has good academic credentials, good doesn't mean she is right about everything. The worst thing for an academic is to be ignored and she certainly avoided that. The FG articles shouldn't be trashing Hassan and Singer either, if that's going to happen it should happen on their pages. The FG articles can, however, produce sources counter to Hassan & Singer's contentions re: FG. --Simon D M (talk) 13:31, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

reincarnated what?
Hi. You won't find anywhere in the books Li saying he is a reincarnated boddhisatva. You won't even find an explicit statement of saying he is a reincarnated deity. The first formulation is totally and demonstrably wrong. The second preserves the intention of the source without doing it the indignity of repeating a falsehood. The outcome is, in the end, identical from the perspective of wikipedia. The only correction is a technical aspect that Kohn should never have gotten wrong. There's nothing wrong with having the deity formulation, it doesn't change anything except this point, I hope you will simply allow it.--Asdfg<b style="color:black;">12345</b> 03:18, 21 March 2008 (UTC)


 * In "Falun Gong and the Threat of History" (p 236-237), Adam Frank also says that Li implies that he is a bodhisattva or a mahasattva. This is in: Gods, Guns, and Globalization ISBN 1588262537. In any case, it's not for us to alter what the sources are saying. If you think it's wrong, you can just contextualise it by saying that "Kohn writes" or "Frank writes". I also can't understand why you add in 'deity' when you say it can't be sourced. --Simon D M (talk) 07:37, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Saying deity instead of boddhisatva is not really changing the meaning of Kohn's text. It's still an accurate representation of what she says. A boddhisatva is a kind of deity. Li never said he was a boddhisatva. As I say, he never said he was a deity either, he has even explicitly said "I've never said I'm a god or buddha" or something like that. We can add that in if you want, but I don't think it's particularly essential. I understand if people interpret that Li implies he is a deity, god etc., but not specifically a boddhisatva, he never says that, never implies it, it's just plain wrong. Saying deity instead of boddhisatva however preserves the intended meaning of the original without including the technical error. Let me give a good example. A text I just saw on Falun Gong repeated again and again that the main book was "Zhu Falun". This is obviously mistaken. We're not going to repeat on wikipedia "Zhu Falun" just because the text does. While one is a technical error and the other obviously a spelling error, I would have thought the same principle applies. I just can't see any reason to preserve factual errors in sources when the final meaning is identical, i.e., according to Kohn Li says he is a reincarnated deity.--Asdfg<b style="color:black;">12345</b> 10:30, 23 March 2008 (UTC)


 * From the Buddhist perspective a bodhisattva is not a deity, and Li's statement that he has 'incarnated again to teach the Buddha Fa' (cited in Frnak) clearly implies bodhisattvahood. I know FG re-interprets a lot of Buddhist terms so it might be useful if you explained the FG concept of 'deity' and 'bodhisattva'. Incidentally, mispelling and even factual errors can be dealt with using square brackets, 'sic', context, etc. --Simon D M (talk) 12:16, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

If you have some better way to deal with the issue I raise then go for it. I thought it would be simplest to do what I did. I do not know precisely what bodhisattva connotes in Buddhism. I am understanding the term here as the name for one form of enlightened being, and understanding the term 'deity' as a general descriptor for enlightened beings.--Asdfg<b style="color:black;">12345</b> 14:49, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

If you read Bodhisattva and Deva (Buddhism) (especially Deva (Buddhism)) you will see that Li's statement implies the former and not the latter. If a deva takes birth in the world he is just a human who was a deva in his previous life, so if a deva who is a bodhisattva takes a birth he is a human who is a bodhisattva (unless he becomes a buddha). I'll revert and wikilink the term. --Simon D M (talk) 18:05, 23 March 2008 (UTC)


 * We're talking about different things. In terms of Falun Gong, it's inaccurate to say he said he is a reincarnated boddhisatva. If you insist on it, then, you say (sic) can be placed in the quote? I question whether this is the best way of doing it. You can search all the teachings on falundafa.org, you'll never find a sentence like it. Anyway, I still think it should give a general term like "enlightened being" or "deity" instead of boddhisatva, but I can't very well edit war over it. --Asdfg<b style="color:black;">12345</b> 23:50, 23 March 2008 (UTC)


 * If I say that I make barrels for a living, then you can say that I have said that I'm a cooper even if I never used the word, because the definition of a cooper is somebody who makes barrels for a living. Anybody who incarnates to spread Buddha Fa is a bodhisattva by definition, anybody who claims to do so is claiming to be one. So it seems the 2 RSs cited have not made unreasonable jumps and therefore there is no reason to change their words (even if that were ever acceptable in WP). --Simon D M (talk) 08:24, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Yep, I didn't realise this is where you were coming from. This is not exactly the signification of boddhisatva in Dafa. A boddhisatva may transmit the Fa, but not all who transmit the Fa through history have been bodhisatvas. Sakyamuni was a tathagata, for example. --Asdfg<b style="color:black;">12345</b> 05:32, 25 March 2008 (UTC)


 * It's the same in Buddhism, not all who transmit the dharma are bodhisattvas, but those who incarnate to do so are. Sakyamuni started as a bodhisattva but became a buddha/tathagata. --Simon D M (talk) 11:03, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Welcome back Dilip
Yes, the cult label may well be used to marginalise the group, but it is directly relevant fact, and well backed up by sources. It seems to me that you are removing something just because you don't like it. Please desist! Ohconfucius (talk) 03:31, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Please do not get me wrong. I think I had mentioned my reasons in the Edit summary. I was not removing something just because i "donot like" it. The "cult" label is now known to be something coined by the CCP to justify the persecution. Today, HR organizations, the academic community and all major governments recognize this to be a mere propaganda tool. Li Hongzhi is the recipient of several governmental awards and is someone Highly Respected by millions around the world. My concern is that the the content of the paragraphs is presenting things without the background of the completely false and Libelous propaganda associated with persecution of Falun Gong in china. Especially the nima sen and rickross stuff. The content there, I feel, is in violation of WP:Living and WP:Libel. Dilip rajeev (talk) 20:54, 2 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I think that, by insisting on inserting "shortly after the onset of the Persecution of Falun Gong", you are once again letting your very strong personal feelings creep in. I feel that "shortly after the Chinese authorities banned Falun Gong" is a precise act which took place on a calendar date which focuses the time-line, instead of the rather imprecise and gratuitous "onset of persecution". The other changes you made are also of a semantic nature: Everything opponents (including notably the Chinese Govt/CCP) says is "claimed" while everything Li or FG say is "stated" - so I would like you to be a bit more even handed here. I also note you objected to the WSJ "revealing", so please could you furnish the evidence that someone else published that fact before the WSJ? I am going to put back some of the changes in that spirit. Ohconfucius (talk) 03:17, 5 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I prefer "onset of persecution" because murder, killing ,arrests and torture cannot exactly be characterized as a "ban". "Onset of persecution" provides sufficient context and explains, to the reader, the motive behind CCP's actions - while the term "ban" completely fails to do so.


 * The term "revealed that Li obtained" boils down to mere libel considering that Li Hongzhi never lived in the house and was not aware of the house transfered to his name and that he firmly refused the gift once he became aware. Your way of putting it makes a big leap of faith and assumes that Li knowingly obtained a house - while the fact is he was not even aware of the transfer.


 * At the time, I was fully aware that Mr. Li does not accept gifts or donations from practitioners. Therefore, knowing that Mrs. Li doesn't understand a word of English, I found some other reason to have her sign her name to the documents, but it was I who paid the entire sum for the house. At the time, Mr. Li was out of town. When he returned, Mr. and Mrs. Li found out what had happened and firmly refused to accept the house; they were adamant that I immediately transfer the title to my name. I was very reluctant to do so and didn't contact a lawyer to start the paperwork until mid-July. By Aug. 4, the title of the house had been officially transferred to my name. It often takes local townships a few months to update their public computer records. Thus, when you checked the computer records in August, the records had not yet reflected the transfer. According to a clerk working in the township office, the public computer record was eventually updated on Oct. 22. - Letter to the Editor, WSJ http://clearwisdom.net/eng/clarification/letter_to_wsjournal.html


 * Note that even the public computer record was updated with the transfer before the WSJ article ( Nov, 1999) was published. Now, insisting that it be put as "revealed that Li obtained the house" is nothing but a blatant violation of WP:Libel and WP:Living.


 * Using "claimed" for CCP's statements is an absolute necessity because The Amnesty International, HRW, Kilgour Matas Reports, UN Reports all point out the sheer amount of slander, libel and lies involved in CCP propaganda.


 * Apologizing for not making the reasons for my changes clear on the talk pages.


 * Dilip rajeev (talk) 07:30, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Sima Nan
I am baffled (well, I'm not, actually) by Rajeev's insistence on removing a well-sourced and relevant text relating to the opinion from the above critic. I'm actually more baffled how this violates WP:BLP. The quotation is taken from a "pro-freedom" source which has been banned by authoritarian regimes, and is the statement of opinion of an apparently well-known Chinese cult critic who likens Falun Gong master to Mao Zedong. It seems to me like a perfectly acceptable use of citation and is in no way libellous or slanderous. The deleter states "Such views have come under strong crticism from the academic and human rights community". This is a translation of "there are others who disagree with this view". It is not a valid argument for deleting, as the view's pertinence, attribution and reliability are all attested to. Just because a view is not universally accepted does not mean it should not be cited. Ohconfucius (talk) 05:42, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

As I consider the justification for removal is flimsy at best, the Sima Nan stuff will be going back in shortly. Ohconfucius (talk) 07:24, 14 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Regarding this edit I just read  which is provided as source for it. There is a very generic remark that there are lots of charismatic leaders in China.

Mr. Sima says Chinese history is full of charismatic masters like the group's founder, Li Hongzhi. He adds that Chairman Mao, who founded China in 1949 and was the country's top leader until his death in 1976, was, himself, actually quite similar to these masters.

// SIMA CHINESE ACT - IN FULL, FADE OUT //

Mr. Sima says the image of Mao Zedong looking down from the Tiananmen rostrum while millions of people fervently shout the Chairman's praises reminds him of a Qigong exercise.


 * Isn't this remark then an WP:Undue for a conclusion like: "linked to Li's exercises to Chairman Mao Zedong's cult of personality."? I mean either get into details on this or strike it as being a very generic perception, because this can be also used to compare Mao's name chanting to any other mass qigong movement. Now really what's the point for that? --HappyInGeneral (talk) 22:48, 18 May 2008 (UTC)


 * A further point I just noticed. How is it not slanderous? Mao was a mass murderer, a very evil man. Making a comparison like that is deeply slanderous in the worst way. How would you like to be compared to Mao or Hitler or someone like that?--Asdfg<b style="color:black;">12345</b> 01:45, 19 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Why don't you say Mao was just a peasant while you are at it? All the above may be true, but that assertion on your part in the context of this article and citation would be pure original research. Nothing in the citation or the source which says that or even hints at it. In fact, China still publicly maintains that Mao is a national hero, and his prominent image remaining at Tiananmen Square so many years after his demise would be testament to that. I would thus argue that, coming from a Mainland Chinese, the comparison would be praise. Ohconfucius (talk) 04:21, 19 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I would hardly argue that Mao pursuing a failed agricultural policy resulting in unintentional deaths an act of "mass murder", and find comparisons with Hitler even more insulting.--PCPP (talk) 09:58, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Haha, good one! If you insist on having it, we would defer to the precise quote, and include like Sima Nan says "Chinese history is full of charismatic masters like ... Li Hongzhi." -- not the nonsense comparison that is not even in the cited material, know what I'm saying. --Asdfg<b style="color:black;">12345</b> 04:40, 19 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Isn't this edit more about Mao then Li Hongzhi? And the edit is not only irrelevant, but as I see it, it's trying cheaply, to make a subtle connection between the 2, while from a morality stand point they are complete opposite. --HappyInGeneral (talk) 21:46, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
 * The comparation itself is not obvious, plus how is this a relevant point of view? --HappyInGeneral (talk) 22:14, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Confucius, he does not actually link Li to Mao. Read the quote again: "Mr. Sima says Chinese history is full of charismatic masters like the group's founder, Li Hongzhi. He adds that Chairman Mao, who founded China in 1949 and was the country's top leader until his death in 1976, was, himself, actually quite similar to these masters." -- the only relevant part to us is the first sentence. The rest gets dropped.--Asdfg<b style="color:black;">12345</b> 02:06, 20 May 2008 (UTC)


 * You just dislike juxtaposing Li Hongzhi with Mao Zedong, but I cannot let you get away with that change. I disagree that it's irrelevant - Sima does compare Mao with "these masters" in terms of their charisma - its important. Ohconfucius (talk)

He does not explicitly link Li Hongzhi with Mao so stop adding it in, it's original research.--Asdfg<b style="color:black;">12345</b> 03:28, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

We can quote what Sima Nan says, but we cannot add in our own thoughts. I think you are playing point scoring games. If you insist on doing this, then you have to put the full quote in, above. --Asdfg<b style="color:black;">12345</b> 03:31, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

You know I don't play games. Please, in what way did I fail to put in the full quote?? Also, who says that Sima is a "controversial figure"? This is clearly tendentious editing on your part. Even VOA describes him as a journalist, and that is where I got the description from. Ohconfucius (talk) 03:44, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

You have my unqualified apology.--Asdfg<b style="color:black;">12345</b> 03:48, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I have no problems with it now. Ohconfucius (talk) 04:45, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

POV ? ... how to measure what can stay? I hope not by revert counts.
Hello Ohconfucius, regarding this revert I would like to ask you how do you count equitably what is too much praise and what is too much criticism? For example it's funny to say that I'm POV from your POV ... because yes you do have one too, in which case neither of us can say who's is correct or who's can stay or go, correct? This is why I would like a way to measure it or arbitrate it, and not just keep reverting on it, which you know is bad. --HappyInGeneral (talk) 17:06, 23 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Although there may be exceptions, in most other biographies, there would be a description of the time and details of the award, full stop. I believe that I have allowed some latitude in including the part of the quote you so much like. Perhaps I should have deleted it outright as both a superfluous eulogy and a potential copyright violation. However, I won't revert again. Li Hongzhi needs all the praise he can get ;-). Ohconfucius (talk) 01:54, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

I think it's reasonable to at least explain why he got the award (the spiritual void thing); who he beat may be superfluous. Gratuitous insults are also always superfluous. --Asdfg<b style="color:black;">12345</b> 12:34, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

POV and OR
At the moment, if the new criticism are continuously deleted, then the article would be quite POV. The criticisms you have chosen to not delete can hardly be even be considered actual criticisms. Pulling punches in a section entitled "controveries" is certainly not the way to go. I very well realize the WP:OR issue, see WR:POV Intranetusa (talk) 06:42, 18 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I wrote a longer response here. But just on the actual additions: much of that still falls under original research. Before I say that again, could you please indicate to me whether you have read the policy, it's here: WP:OR. I'd like to know you have read it before we keep discussing this. There's no point us talking if you don't know that policy. The point is that you can't infer from sources and cast aspersions; I don't believe the source said anything about hatred. Anyway, let's discuss it on the Falun Gong main talk page. I suggested addressing these aspects of the teachings and the responses they have received from journalists and scholars on Teachings of Falun Gong--I'd like to know what you reckon.--Asdfg<b style="color:black;">12345</b> 09:23, 18 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Laomei, you're getting very close to breaching WP:CIVIL. A Wikiquette complaint has already been filed against you for a different post.  Please ensure that you remain civil, do not disparage others beliefs, and do not directly attack other editors.  Thanks   BMW  (drive)  22:09, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Laomei has already breached both WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA, and he's now banned from this topic for two months, as far as I can tell. If that is not the case I would enjoin him to engage in a discussion about the disputed material, rather than simply reverting and making personal attacks. --Asdfg<b style="color:black;">12345</b> 07:01, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Some changes to structure
I feel some structural changes are required... just to point out one.. does the "relationship with Chinese authorities" t merit a namespace of its own? it completely ignores how he was given many awards before 1999 and mentions merely a couple of controversies after onset of the persecution campaign.. Perhaps this could be merged with life outside china... just a suggestion... Also wanted to remind fellow editors that we ought to pay close attention to WP:LIVING when making changes to the article. Dilip rajeev (talk) 10:51, 10 July 2008 (UTC)


 * A good source has to say such and such is controversial for us to say it's controversial. We can't choose things we think are X and report them as such. This is my understanding of WP:OR, anyway. Can someone let me know if I'm missing something, or cite some policy to the contrary? --Asdfg<b style="color:black;">12345</b> 12:14, 10 August 2008 (UTC)


 * See above.  It is this post [by user:Laomei, removed] that led to  a Wikiquette complaint  BMW  (drive)  22:10, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Just Coincidence?
Two Naustradmaus Prophecies:

He will appear in Asia and be at home in Europe (West in general?)

The man from the East will come out of his seat

Passing across the Apennines to see France

He will fly through the sky

The article says Li Hongzhi first taught ouside of China, in France! Does that mean.. "come out of his seat.. to see France"?!

And Here is another...

In the year 1999, seventh month,

From the sky will come a great King of Terror.

To bring back to life the great king of Angolmois,

Before and after Mars is to reign by good luck.

[Century X, quatrain 72]

I read a website saying Mars could be a reference to Marx or the Red Communist Party of China - And the wikipedis says the persecution of Falun Gong started exactly on the seventh month of 1999! 65.49.2.92 (talk) 05:12, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Prophecies can not prove anything and as long as reliable media did not pick up on it, we can not include it in the page, because it would be Original Research, see WP:OR. Other then that I agree with your point of view, and suggest going through these books:, you might find them quite interesting. Regards, --HappyInGeneral (talk) 09:44, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

The new section, Time interview
I think the basic issue here is one of original research. Why make a particular selection of what he said? How are those particular claims controversial? That's original research. He's said a whole lot of stuff across a range of fora on a range of topics, so why not have a section for each of them, or why this one and not others. This needs to be established or I think it's somewhat unencyclopedic to pick and choose what we think is "controversial". Why don't we have a section called "Li's view on ecology", "Li's view on classical music"... Ideas?--Asdfg<b style="color:black;">12345</b> 00:28, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Please See: WP:Living
In fact the writings and lectures of Li Hongzhi run over 2000 pages, the topics mentioned here do not even occupy 0.001% of his writings and lectures. Why should attention be brought on that alone? Isnt that being a bit sensationalist? further there are oter interviews too from NTDTV etc and it is a particular IP's point of view that these statements are "controversial" - thats OR - we cannot stuff things that appear sensationalist or controversial to us into the article just based on our liking. Wikipedia if I understand right has rather strict policies when it comes to material in Biographies of Living Persons. Wikipedia policies specifically state that:

"If someone appears to be promoting a biased point of view, insist on reliable third-party published sources and a clear demonstration of relevance to the person's notability." - WP:Living

"Biographies of living people should be written responsibly, conservatively, and in a neutral, encyclopedic tone. While a strategy of eventualism may apply to other subject areas, badly written biographies of living persons should be stubbed or deleted."

"Biographies of living persons should not have trivia sections."

"When in doubt, biographies should be pared back to a version that is completely sourced, neutral, and on-topic."

"Care must be taken with article structure to ensure the overall presentation is broadly neutral; in particular, subsection headings should reflect important areas to the subject's notability."

"Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid; it is not our job to be sensationalist."- WP:Biographies of Living Persons.

Dilip rajeev (talk) 12:49, 19 August 2008 (UTC)


 * For f...'s sake, I'm not sensationalist, he is ! Claiming that aliens have invaded earth and that people can levitate, wether you want it or not, it's controversial. It doesn't matter a bit if this guy has written 1000 books or 0, it doesn't change anything to what he said. Just check the "Jehovah Witnesses", you have all the false-predictions they made. And, hell, if you don't think it's controversial, then add it as a "belief" section. People have the right this fact. tkak 22:04, 12 September 2008 (UTC))

Petition for removal of POV "sources"
This entire article is seemingly based around Falun Gong sources which have a history and policy of attacking any and all critics. As the SOLE sources of this controversial figure, it is highly inappropriate. This page has been highjacked by Falun Gong members acting with a very high conflict of interest and the truth has been removed repeatedly from this article by the same handful of users repeatedly. This is a disgrace. At the very least, alternate sources NOT linked to Falun Gong should be included in this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.52.178.116 (talk) 11:36, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

The autobiographies, which the large majority of this article rely on are in violation of SPS "Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published, then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason, self-published books, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, blogs, knols, forum postings, and similar sources are largely not acceptable" Due to it being entirely "self-serving"

Furthermore, the publishers are directly controlled by the subject himself and his organization and are therefore not verifiable or reliable in any way. 80.52.178.116 (talk) 12:03, 27 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I moved everything down here as per custom. Wikipedia doesn't do this kind of thing: "However, Li did have a talent, a rather charming one—he played the trumpet" and "he was also perceived as an eccentric, with a bit of a bad temper to boot by his co-workers here." etc. (the last paragraph I'm not even going to mention, it's all scrap) -- what is this? If you want to say he was charming I can tell you I'll probably delete it because it's irrelevant. It's the same with the bizarre story (apparently lifted from state media? inadmissible source) about Li building a wall between his neighbours' houses?? What's that about? Is that material for an encyclopedia article? Does it conform to WP:BLP? (btw, pls read this page carefully). Basically if you have no direct attribution, whatever stuff you put on the article can simply be deleted without so much as a how-do-you-do, just look here: "Editors should provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, or the material may be removed." The rules for biographies of living people are even stricter (I'm going to copy the whole intro here):


 * Editors must take particular care adding biographical material about a living person to any Wikipedia page. Such material requires a high degree of sensitivity, and must adhere strictly to all applicable laws in the United States and to all of our content policies, especially:


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


 * We must get the article right. Be very firm about the use of high quality references. Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material about living persons — whether the material is negative, positive, or just questionable — should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion, from Wikipedia articles, talk pages, user pages, and project space.


 * Biographies of living persons (BLPs) must be written conservatively, with regard for the subject's privacy. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid; it is not our job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives. The possibility of harm to living subjects is one of the important factors to be considered when exercising editorial judgement.


 * This policy applies equally to biographies of living persons and to biographical material about living persons on other pages. 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.
 * ENDS


 * I think I don't need to say more myself with regard to the content you added. Even if it's attributed directly it still doesn't belong in the article. A final point I'll make is about self published sources: they are permissible in articles about themselves. It's detailed here. I agree that there should be more independent commentary, but what you're doing certainly isn't contributing to that. Why don't you search for Benjamin Penny's article about Li's biography? I'm removing the material you added, again, per the BLP policies quoted above, and leaving another note on the arbcom enforcement page. --Asdfg<b style="color:black;">12345</b> 12:37, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

TIME Asia quotes
Ive readded the section under personal controversies. Asdfg apparently POV removed them earlier. -Zahd (talk) 23:36, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

There are unaddressed points above that you should respond to. It's unclear why a few sentences of an interview should be taken out of context and added to the article--how are they useful, how are they related to Li Hongzhi's notability, how do they inform the reader of useful information on the subject? This is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid. You may find what Li Hongzhi says titillating, but that's not the criteria for inclusion. There are also strict rules for biographies of living persons. If there is an ongoing disagreement, please see and respond to my notes above, which explains the rationale for removing them in the first place. Thanks.--Asdfg<b style="color:black;">12345</b> 00:45, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

I'll just copy here actually: ''“I think the basic issue here is one of original research. Why make a particular selection of what he said? How are those particular claims controversial? That's original research. He's said a whole lot of stuff across a range of fora on a range of topics, so why not have a section for each of them, or why this one and not others. This needs to be established or I think it's somewhat unencyclopedic to pick and choose what we think is "controversial". Why don't we have a section called "Li's view on ecology", "Li's view on classical music"... Ideas?--Asdfg12345 00:28, 18 August 2008 (UTC)”''


 * I think your'e defending Li for some biased reason. Your referrals to BLP are nonsense, and your reasoning for exclusion is just as valid. In no way is taking whole statements by Li to be regarded as "original research". -Zahd (talk) 00:43, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

I am asking in what sense the remarks that have been excerpted are useful for the reader in understanding the subject, and how they are central to Li Hongzhi's notability, according to reliable sources. If you don't present evidence of that, as far as I understand, according to BLP, there is no reason for their inclusion. I gave an example: why don't we also have a section of Li's views on classical music, on ecology, and on a range of other subjects? Wouldn't you say that it is equally valid? He has also spoken extensively on those subjects, as far as I understand. It is original research to pick a few lines from an interview and present them--why are those few lines worthy of inclusion? Why not other lines? We should establish this first. Also, you provided no source, and there are strict rules on WP:BLP for unsourced content; I was right to remove the material. Please see: "Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material about living persons — whether the material is negative, positive, or just questionable — should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion" (emphasis in original).

Here is another quote:

"Wikipedia also contains biographies of people who, while notable enough for an entry, are not generally well known. In such cases, exercise restraint and include only material relevant to their notability, while omitting information that is irrelevant to the subject's notability. "

Finally, it would be better to simply engage with what I am saying rather than make insulting remarks or question my motives. I raised a few points here, I hope we can engage in a productive discussion about them.--Asdfg<b style="color:black;">12345</b> 11:00, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
 * The issue isn't that we must deal exclusively with what concepts make him famous or notable, but what he actually says and promotes. He made seriously interesting claims about what he understands and what he can do. These are relevant to him, as a being, and to the concept of being he has of himself. -Zahd (talk) 04:15, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
 * When you say interesting can you quote how many media outlets find this interesting? The point is that if it's only you who judge this as being "interesting" then it does not belong to wikipedia.
 * In the mean time I restored an older version of the quote's, to avoid sensationalism and to keep the facts on what Li Hongzhi actually said. However don't take this to mean that I endorse these quotes. I don't think many peoples actually read the articles in the Time Magazine, although the author has books, which a lot of people actually read. Over 70 million people, if we are to believe the statistics gathered by the Chinese government + the people that read them after 1999. --HappyInGeneral (talk) 19:21, 24 November 2008 (UTC)


 * To Zahd: The point is that what "he has actually said and what he promotes" spans thousands of pages, and hundreds of topics. I asked why we don't include what he has said about classical music and ecology, but you have not responded. Until it is straightened out why these quotes are relevant, per BLP they have no place here. I gave the quote above, here it is again, from BLP: "Wikipedia also contains biographies of people who, while notable enough for an entry, are not generally well known. In such cases, exercise restraint and include only material relevant to their notability, while omitting information that is irrelevant to the subject's notability. " What you just said, "The issue isn't that we must deal exclusively with what concepts make him famous or notable..." is in direct contradiction to that, so I will remove the material yet again, which is in accordance with wikipedia policies.


 * In passing, I would like to point out, again, that your edit summary is out of line. You wrote "Asdfg is removing it per a POV agenda to destroy in the article controversial facts about Li, namely his claim to strange, interestingly outlandish things." -- this violates several wikipedia guidelines, including WP:AGF, and WP:CIVIL. Your thoughts that Li's comments are "strange, interestingly outlandish," aren't part of the criteria for inclusion in wikipedia, and they aren't the criteria for my taking you to task on the subject. By citing this as a reason for inclusion, you are showing that you do not have an interest in conforming to wikipedia policies in this case. All I've done is cite wikipedia guidelines and ask you how you see your edits conforming to them, and expressed my understanding of how they do not conform to them. Instead of responding to me on that, you have ignored it and attacked me personally. I'm not sure what you think about that.


 * Apart from this, this may be a good opportunity for you to have a look at the recent news which has circulated on this topic (broadly speaking). This is a recent article in the Weekly Standard, about organ harvesting from practitioners of Falun Gong in China. Actually, this is the first that the allegation that Christians have also been targets of organ harvesting has been aired, so that is also something else: . The United Nations Committee on Torture also made a recent statement calling for an independent investigation of the topic, and for the perpetrators to be punished, you can read about that here: .--Asdfg<b style="color:black;">12345</b> 01:21, 25 November 2008 (UTC)


 * If the concepts he's expressed in the quote weren't interesting, I would not raise the issue. More to the point, if they weren't interesting, you would not be opposing their inclusion. The quotes are not just interesting, they in essence are very damaging. They make him look foolish to a certain extent; not unlike other cult leaders who have immersed themselves in their own egotistically vain sense of divine purpose and personal power. I'm sure Li is a very nice being, but the quotes are just too intersting, and too damaging, to leave alone. I think you undertand this, and are acting out of bad faith in removing them. The ideas you've suggested, that other uninteresting concepts have equal weight doesn't hold water. I'm certainly aware of the evil persecution the Chinese government is perpetrating against Falun Gong practicioners. Certainly you can understand that they don't want to revisit the unspeakable damage brought to that country by Hong Xiuquan and his cult. Certainly FG has its appeal and its understandable that it has popularity. But because FG has a leader, the concepts that leader promotes are relevant to understanding his character. You are acting out of a certain kind of censorship in removing that material. -Zahd (talk) 04:55, 25 November 2008 (UTC)


 * To be honest, I don't find them damaging, and I don't think they make him look foolish to any extent. I'm opposing their inclusion on grounds of wikipedia policy: that no relevance to his notability has been established. I've quoted policy, and your statements on the matter are direct admissions that you have no interest in the process, and are pushing an agenda with their inclusion. can't revert again or I'll violate my personal rule of 1rr. But tomorrow I will revert, and then report you if you revert again without responding to my arguments. this is BLP. --Asdfg<b style="color:black;">12345</b> 05:17, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
 * What you are promoting is censorship, based on an incorrect reading of policy. The quotes are "relevant to his notability" because he said them, and did so in a major publication. -Zahd (talk) 05:41, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

：It's still unclear why these particular quotes, of all the ones he said in the interview, are more notable or relevant. Why don't we have the whole interview? Or other parts of it? Will you mind if I add in other parts of the interview? Should I choose freely from the others parts that I take a liking to? Please respond to these questions according to your understanding, and in as close reference as possible to the policy on BLP. I also pointed out how your remark directly contradicted the note laid down in BLP, but you haven't responded to that. I'd also like you to respond to that.
 * I'd also like to say something else. I didn't mean my previous note to be terse or harsh-sounding. But I'd also like to kindly say that I do take exception to your accusations against me. You don't know me, you've never met me, and you don't know the first thing about me. What gives you the right to make accusations about my character? All I have done is respond to you with policy and no fussing about. I could have made rude remarks with a scornful tone, accusing you of muck-raking, or saying "you only want these here [insert any reason]..." etc., but I haven't done any of that. I'm against censorship. I would also like a responsible presentation of this subject, and one which conforms to wikipedia policies. I would much prefer it if you responded to my arguments from policy directly, rather than making personal accusations and attempting to obfuscate or ignore the policies, and what I am saying. As I say, tomorrow I will revert again, and if you simply revert without responding to all I've said, I will initiate some kind of dispute resolution procedure. We are required to edit according to policy, not as we please, and the policy here is very clear: you have not established how these quotes are relevant to Li Hongzhi's notability, but only said how you think them silly and how you think they make the subject look bad. Obviously that's not what we're going on here. I'm not even necessarily against their inclusion, I've just raised how they are violating policy. It's kind of simple, and doesn't really need any incivility to resolve.--Asdfg<b style="color:black;">12345</b> 10:27, 25 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Finally, your remarks about the subject of the article aren't helpful to maintaining a productive editing environment. You write on your user page that you are all about love, but here you are saying unfounded and hateful things about people you don't even know. If I were you, I would think about that.--Asdfg<b style="color:black;">12345</b> 10:33, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

FYI: These pages are on probation, I just left a note on the arbitration enforcement noticeboard about this.--Asdfg<b style="color:black;">12345</b> 23:53, 25 November 2008 (UTC)


 * A long list of cherry-picked quotes like that is not relevant for the article. --Apoc2400 (talk) 23:58, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Pretty much what I was trying to say. Full marks for brevity.--Asdfg<b style="color:black;">12345</b> 10:47, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Hello, I don't mean to stir up an old fight, but it seems that some of Li's stranger than normal remarks are certainly more relevant to his notability than the 2000 other pages of his writing to the general public; It would not have been printed as part of a report from such a well known magazine otherwise. I wish to get a consensus to add something at least about these remarks in the Controversy section, sourcing the original Times report as well as the BBC news article "Who is Li Hongzhi". You have raised that why out of the entire article one would choose to quote or add about these particular remarks. My reply would by that the contents of this wiki covers in good length everything else brought up in the article ~ his teachings, his childhood, the persecution of the FLG, EXCEPT the remarks about aliens and such. Approximately 1/10 of the BBC article along with a subheading 'Aliens' is devoted to the topic, I would assume this sufficient enough evidence that it is apart of his notability, particularly when room has been found in this wiki to include topics addressed in the other 9/10 of the article. If you disagree, perhaps give a source as to why this would not notable (from the perspective of the general public) rather than just saying you don't feel it is. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bedbug1122 (talk • contribs) 03:18, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Arbitrary break
My Comment: Can we find people who has personal attack directed to Li based on the interview and the quotes(If that violates WP:NOR, maybe a news article citing such attacks, and then cite the list pages)? If so, This is sufficiently relevant ("overnight experts" regarding persecution of FG?) that we can assert

"Negative(I am not sure if this word violates WP:NPOV) personal remarks /include reference/ directed to Li has been made by (name) based on the interview by Time Asia /include reference/"

Or a variant of it. Thank you for your attention. K61824 (talk) 03:19, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Controversy
Li's controversy goes far beyond his birthdate and his financial position, I'm afraid. I agree with above users in using major publications and inserting it into the article. There also needs to be an arbitrator to keep watch of this in case it's deleted for unknown reasons again. Colipon+(T) 01:26, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Food for thought:, talks about Li Hongzhi's beginnings, talks about Li Hongzhi's biographies that are no longer available. Both very interesting, do people consider these good sources? Colipon+(T) 01:26, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
 * See, the information you referred to is present in: Li_Hongzhi first paragraph. --HappyInGeneral (talk) 09:50, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree with Colipon that there needs to be serious administrative oversight of all FLG articles. The sheer amount of bloat, peacockery and weasel words in this article just boggled my mind.  I've deleted much of the piffle but I fully expect a FLG POV pusher to revert it.  I just hope they don't.Simonm223 (talk) 00:04, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
 * If you find non-neutral, unsourced words in the article, just remove them, but don't blank sourced content. What you consider "bloat" can be highly relevant to others. Based on your edits, it seems like you wanted to remove references to everything that discusses third parties sympathising with Li Hongzhi. Those minor awards and recognitions ("Honorary Citizen", "Goodwill Ambassador") are probably not worth mentioning, but if 28 Members of European Parliament nominate Li as a candidate for the Sakharov Prize, and CNN describes him as a front-runner for the Nobel Peace Prize in 2001, that is not something you can casually remove. Moreover, justifying the removal of reliably sourced content by telling us your opinion about the Freedom House is another example of not understanding WP:V. The Arbitration Committee has previously considered this tendentious editing, and if I were you, I wouldn't want to soil my edit history with such evidence.


 * WP:Biographies of living persons also contains important criteria by which to judge this article; Jimbo Wales is particularly strict when it comes to enforcing these policies on Wikipedia. &#10004; Olaf Stephanos &#9997;  11:19, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Just like clockwork... For the record a nomination is not the same as an award and is not notable.Simonm223 (talk) 14:30, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Where does it say that? Is this your personal opinion, or the opinion of the Wikipedia community? Why don't you even try to give point-by-point replies to my arguments? &#10004; Olaf Stephanos &#9997;  16:20, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Request for Comment
There is a serious disagreement between myself and pro-FLG editors regarding content of this article. Primarily of issue are two items: 1) whether awards that Li was nominated for but did not receive are notable enough to be included in his biography. 2) whether information available on other FLG related sites needs to be included in this page. Please refer to the edit history for additional details.Simonm223 (talk) 13:46, 17 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Nominations for the Nobel Peace Prize are not highly discriminate. The criteria is so loose that all one needs is apparently ONE university professor to successfully nominate. OTOH, it's quite often used (mistakenly) by journalists when writing about a subject to indicate their standing. WP should not make that mistake. No question that the said nomination should be removed from all articles where they appear (not just Li Hongzhi). That was just an example that I have looked into. We should review the criteria for the valid nominations to the other awards. Also, some awards are given out like confetti -BTW, I'm not saying any here are. Any such examples should be immediately removed. Ohconfucius (talk) 15:45, 9 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Such things could be mentioned briefly, to the effect of they exist, without going into depth on them and making it look like the authors of the article are giant fans of the subject. Thoughts? I haven't even read through the article for over a year, btw. Welcome back, confucius. --Asdfg<b style="color:black;">12345</b> 15:36, 10 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I have found the statute for the Sakharov Prize, which states that successful nominations require at least 40 signatures in the European Parliament. Having achieved 28 means that it failed to secure nomination. It has now been removed from the article. Ohconfucius (talk) 08:11, 11 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I still maintain that the Nobel Peace Prize material should be excised as it is also a nomination and not an award. To be frank I have no problem listing awards Li won but including the NPP nomination is nothing more than trying to cast a controversial new religious movement figure as if he were the Dalai Lama or something.  As Ohconfucius pointed out this is not an award that is hard to be nominated for.  Also... CNN claiming he was the front runner?  Based on what information?  Media literacy includes questioning vague and un-substantiated claims from journalistic sources.Simonm223 (talk) 13:08, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

NPOV dispute
I dispute the neutrality of this article. The reason for this is because it highlights Li's awards, and takes his personal controversies very lightly. In addition, in the controversy section, almost all "personal controversies" are refuted as though this is a piece that serves to defend Li's reputation. As there is an on-going discussion about all Falun Gong articles I ask that the tag remain until all editors can come to an agreement. Colipon+ (Talk) 03:18, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

I have made some bold edits to the intro and the body of the article, specifically removing selective David Ownby quotes that act to paint a misleading picture of Li. I added a David Ownby quote that Li was a former clerk and trumpet player. Please discuss if you see issues with these edits. Colipon+ (Talk) 18:28, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

whatever happened to the paragraph on his date of birth controversy? It may not be worth a paragraph, but it's worth two sentences, at least. Ohconfucius (talk) 07:40, 10 August 2009 (UTC)


 * This is a terrible article. I don't even know where to start... May as well just delete it and start all over... *sigh* Colipon+ (Talk) 15:10, 10 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I've rewritten the article. Ohconfucius (talk) 07:53, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Financial position
I don't understand what the section is doing here. It seems pretty lame and irrelevant. I am aware that the Chinese authorities wanted to pin claims of personal enrichment and racketeering on him, but nowhere is that mentioned. Instead we have these paragraphs of meaningless drivel without context. What shall we do about it? Delete? Ohconfucius (talk) 07:55, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Well I would suggest giving it some context. Deleting it altogether seems unreasonable. Colipon+ (Talk) 12:50, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

This section is very clearly agenda-ridden. The reason I say this is, it launches into a pre-emptive defence of Li's financial issues even before any accusations are made. And as far as I can tell, this section doesn't even explain what this "controversy" is before painting Li in shining armour. This is ridiculous. Colipon+ (Talk) 20:16, 11 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Hongzhi does own some pretty expensive property though this may be through royalties on his multitudinous books. As nobody neutral is looking at his finances at this time it's kind of hard to be certain if he is getting rich off his parishoners.Simonm223 (talk) 21:31, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

I boldly removed this entire section as per discussion above:

Financial position
In May 1999 Li rebuked claims by some critics that he was angling for money. He said: "Why would I put forth so much effort just to make money? All I would need would be to tell all of you to give me ten dollars, then I would be a billionaire. What a fast and easy way that would be! You all would be happy to give it to me and I could receive it openly. Why would I resort to putting forth so much effort? I think that sometimes people have impure intentions. They take things in a very narrow-minded and stupid way."

In an interview in Sydney on May 2, 1999, mentioning his financial status, Li said : "In mainland China I published so many books, but added together, they haven't exceeded twenty thousand Renminbi (equivalent to US $ 2,469). This is what the publishing company gave me. When publishing books in other countries of the world, you know there is a rule, which pays 5 or 6% royalties to the author, so each time I can only get a little bit, a few hundred, or a few thousand dollars."

Ian Johnson points out that during the greatest period of Falun Gong book sales in China, Li Hongzhi never received any royalties because all publications were bootleg. Danny Schechter states that, as Falun Gong's popularity grew, "Li Hongzhi made it clear that his mission was to bring the practice to everybody because it is beneficial, and that he was not in it for the money. After this investigation, I found the group to be very anti-materialist in its orientation--spiritualist not materialist."


 * If anyone has concerns with this please comment and discuss. Colipon+ (Talk) 21:58, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

This article needs a lot of work
I will be honest here. The amount of out-of-context and promotional information in this article is staggering. Some of the quotes can be eliminated or paraphrased. There needs to be more mentions of his personal controversies, including academics who have considered Li a "cult of personality". I have attempted to do some fixing here myself but would definitely need some help. Colipon+ (Talk) 21:49, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

I haven't read through the article for over 18 months.--Asdfg<b style="color:black;">12345</b> 21:50, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

diffs
I'll just add the diffs I welcome explanations for, then we can them when resolved. This may be useful as a model in any article?--Asdfg<b style="color:black;">12345</b> 21:50, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Please explain:


 * -- says the number of attendees of lectures. Is this irrelevant?


 * -- establishes Li Hongzhi and Falun Gong's reception/impact in China. Would you be happy with a *wince* Ownby reference, or perhaps Penny?


 * Most of the info I removed is because they need a more reliable third-party source. FalunInfo has a lot of promotional material on Falun Gong and these should be used on this article with the utmost discretion.


 * Ownby does not need to be quoted as himself. His findings can be effectively paraphrased and presented as a fact, because he qualifies as WP:RS. Colipon+ (Talk) 21:54, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

okay. Please see WP:SELFPUB; also, I'll go ahead and source those two pieces of information to some reliable sources, then.--Asdfg<b style="color:black;">12345</b> 22:31, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

edits - please explain
Regarding this diff


 * 1) Why did you remove the wikilink on the crackdown, that was pointing to the persecution of Falun Gong?
 * 2) Why do you change say into claim? Attributing in a NPOV fashion requires say, not claim.
 * 3) "While the biography in China Falun Gong " => why is the while there, there is no contradiction with the rest of the paragraph.
 * 4) You changed: "persecution of Falun Gong" into "suppression of Falun Gong". There was quite a few of lengthy debate over that, here is one such debate. --HappyInGeneral (talk) 08:33, 20 August 2009 (UTC)


 * The changes are in reaction to these edits of yours. The responses below correspond to your numbering:
 * The article persecution of Falun Gong is linked to twice already in the article - once in the Falun Gong box, and a second time in the 'See also' section. I did not want to get into the inevitable discussion again when someone comes along and changes 'crackdown' to 'persecution' ostensibly because the underlying link says 'Persecution'.
 * As it is disputed, and there is doubt in both cases, use of the word "claim" would be acceptable. You will note that I did not change it for Li Hongzhi unilaterally, but also to apply to the Chinese government statement.
 * The construction is correct. Two contrasting views are juxtaposed. I did miss removing the full stop which was interposed (now done), as it was not easily visible in edit mode.
 * I am fed up to the back teeth of Falun Gong practitioners changing every instance of 'crackdown', 'suppression', 'oppression' or similar word to 'persecution'. The use of a variety of synonyms within an article avoids reader fatigue and makes for better prose. Just because there is persecution doesn't mean you need to flog the word to death to make a political point. Ohconfucius (talk) 09:04, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
 * &4 is the same, I'll discuss bellow.
 * OK
 * I still don't see where the "Two contrasting views" or why they are contrasting, as I see it they both say something, but neither does negate the other. Can you please provide quotes that are clear that they are in contrast?
 * "I am fed up to the back teeth of Falun Gong practitioners" I know, and the feeling is somewhat mutual, because what you fail to understand is that there is great difference between 'crackdown', 'suppression', 'oppression' (which do not imply torture, labor camps, etc.) and 'persecution' which does. --HappyInGeneral (talk) 09:41, 20 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Point 3: By all means remove the 'while', but you will need to change the intervening comma to a semi-colon.
 * Point 4: You're wrong there. Just because there is no other word which has exactly the same meaning as 'Persecute', doesn't mean you don't occasionally defer to the word 'crackdown' etc. which also happens to apply. Incidentally, the discussion you linked to concerns renaming the article from 'Persecution' to 'Policies', and is not hugely relevant to the running text within the article we are discussing now. I consider this more of a stylistic discussion. Ohconfucius (talk) 09:49, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Point 4: OK, so if I understand correctly you are saying that all of them apply anyway. I agree that when there is a persecution going on, all the watered down alternatives like 'crackdown', 'suppression', 'oppression' do occur. I also agree that sometimes it is best to avoid repetitions to make the article sound better. Actually that is why I did not changed the word crackdown at the beginning, but I did put the persecution wikilink on it, so it will not carry only its watered down meaning. As for the word suppression, I found it unnecessary while the word persecution was not repeated in that context, so it worked just as well. Regarding this comment => "Just because there is persecution doesn't mean you need to flog the word to death to make a political point.", I don't think it's right to say that it is a political point. As long as there is a persecution going on, it would be (how should I say) idiotic and/or naive not to say anything and to just allow it (or even invite it) to continue. So I don't think that naming the facts for what they are is politics, but rather a basic human right. --HappyInGeneral (talk) 10:16, 20 August 2009 (UTC)


 * "it would be (how should I say) idiotic and/or naive not to say anything and to just allow it (or even invite it) to continue". Idiocy and naivety have precious little to do with it. We are not in the business of writing essays, nor do we endorse jingoism, and to say that we must say it because it is happening would be incorrect in our context. It's a political judgemental issue which is outside the realm of WP. We write text, using sources to back it up. Then, we try and keep in perspective all significant viewpoints. That's about all. Ohconfucius (talk) 01:58, 21 August 2009 (UTC)


 * (As a side, the word "crackdown" is usually understood as something much more severe by the general readership, as it involves the notion of the sound of physically breaking or destroying something. It is therefore not "watered down" in the ears of most people.) Seb az86556 (talk) 02:50, 21 August 2009 (UTC))


 * Concur, when I hear "crackdown" it conjures to mind crushing something pretty hard. It is not a watered down term.Simonm223 (talk) 12:29, 21 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I'd also agree that "crackdown" is not clearly a weaker or milder term than persecutution. http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/meast/07/25/iran.world.protests/ for instance refers to the post-election events in Iran as a crackdown and certainly doesn't seem intended to minimize those events.TsukiToHoshiboshi (talk) 07:00, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

I've attempted to edit this article for clarity, as many sections were phrased in a confusing manner. A few sections (especially in the spiritual biography section) were muddled enough that while I think I've kept the intent I may actually have reversed or altered it, so someone with more background should probably check the diffs.TsukiToHoshiboshi (talk) 07:36, 25 August 2009 (UTC)


 * QUOTE " what you fail to understand is that there is great difference between 'crackdown', 'suppression', 'oppression' (which do not imply torture, labor camps, etc.) and 'persecution' which does."
 * Right there is a very strong case for crackdown, suppression and oppression being used instead of persecution since many of the FLG's accusations remain unproven. Neutrality, by your logic, would require us to avoid "persecution".Simonm223 (talk) 18:25, 28 August 2009 (UTC)


 * We would probably have no problem if most of the instances of the word are not specifically attributed, but stated as fact. Ohconfucius (talk) 05:40, 2 September 2009 (UTC)