Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 15:05, 5 January 2010

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Li Hongzhi article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4Auto-archiving period: 42 days

The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.

Please stay calm and civil while commenting or presenting evidence, and do not make personal attacks. Be patient when approaching solutions to any issues. If consensus is not reached, other solutions exist to draw attention and ensure that more editors mediate or comment on the dispute.

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Biography This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Misplaced Pages's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. China This article is within the scope of WikiProject China, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of China related articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChinaWikipedia:WikiProject ChinaTemplate:WikiProject ChinaChina-related ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Buddhism This article falls within the scope of WikiProject Buddhism, an attempt to promote better coordination, content distribution, and cross-referencing between pages dealing with Buddhism. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page for more details on the projects.BuddhismWikipedia:WikiProject BuddhismTemplate:WikiProject BuddhismBuddhism ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Religion: Falun Gong Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, a project to improve Misplaced Pages's articles on Religion-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.ReligionWikipedia:WikiProject ReligionTemplate:WikiProject ReligionReligion Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is within the scope of Falun Gong work group, a work group which is currently considered to be inactive.

Archives

1, 2, 3, 4

This page has archives. Sections older than 42 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

Archives

Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4

This page has archives. Sections older than 42 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

Li Hongzhi's response to third party material

Just want to store some quotes here to discuss and maybe implement. I understand from WP:LIVING that primary source material is to be avoided, and there are strictish parameters for its usage, particularly if it is controversial/misleading etc.. Anyway, for addressing third-party things there might be some latitude. It might be a good idea to have a brief response from Li Hongzhi to the stuff about the birthday. That paragraph should move from the intro btw according to WP:Lead, but anyway, I will store the stuff here for now:

Washington 2002: "...The head of the evil in China has spread lies that I claim to be Jesus or Sakyamuni. You all know those are shameless lies made up by that bum who just lies at will. I’m not Jesus, and I’m not Sakyamuni, but the Fa has created millions and millions of Jesuses and Sakyamunis who have the courage to walk the path of Truth, who have the courage to risk their lives for the sake of the Truth, and who have the courage to devote their lives to saving sentient beings." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Asdfg12345 (talk • contribs)

Removal of NPOV tag

I have removed the NPOV tag from this article as I believe the current version more or less reflects a neutral account of Li's life and his role in Falun Gong. I also straightened up the lead section to reflect the article's content. The lead section is not sourced, but I felt it was unnecessary to clutter the section with sources when this is done extensively in the article itself and in the main Falun Gong article. The article still needs a lot of work. For example, Li's role within Falun Gong still needs to be explained, but otherwise this article has been cleaned up of its former whitewashed POV state. Colipon+(Talk) 12:42, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Half an hour

This may be a minor point, but quoting the original source: "Today, the gong powers attained by Li Hongzhi have reached an extremely high level, some of which can hardly be imagined by ordinary people. One evening in July, 1990, he and several apprentices were practicing gong in the courtyard of a government organization in Beijing. Soon, the sky became overcast. Lightning flashed and thunder rolled, seemingly just overhead, and the apprentices were becoming somewhat nervous. According to the rules of most types of fa, such weather was inappropriate for practicing gong. However, they saw their master sitting with his legs crossed on a large stone, steady as a mountain and showing not the least sign of vacillation or any intention of withdrawing. So they continued to practice gong. Strangely enough, although the clouds were very heavy and very low, and thunder shook the skies, no rain fell. When the practicing came to an end, the master calmly told his apprentices: "It will not start to rain before half an hour is up. You may leave now with your hearts at ease." One of the apprentices lived in the western part of the city, and it took him about half an hour to get home by bus. Just as he stepped through the door of his house, the rain came pouring down, as if a hole had been pierced in the sky. There are many such miraculous stories told about Li, but they will not be recounted in this article, as ordinary people may find it hard to accept them.", does not match up with what is currently in the article "In Zhuan Falun, Li further writes that while practising with disciples in 1990, he was able to push away stormy weather and hold off rain for "exactly half an hour"." For now I'll delete/rephrase it, hope it's ok. --HappyInGeneral (talk) 20:18, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

That is not the original source. The original source is the 1994 copy of Zhuan Falun, which is used in turn by secondary source Benjamin Penny, who is cited. Colipon+(Talk) 20:43, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

I see sorry, do you have a quote for that? Still perhaps we can agree that the rain thing has little relevance here. --HappyInGeneral (talk) 20:54, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

The quote was helpfully offered by yourself above, I don't know why you are still asking for a quote. It is relevant because it is a primary example given in Zhuan Falun to demonstrate Li's miraculous powers. It is irrelevant to go into detail, but it is relevant to at least mention. Colipon+(Talk) 20:57, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

OK, actually in the quote there is no "_exactly_ half an hour" does not sound genuine and it is not per the quote, so I'll remove just that to be precise and add an additional citation to this source. Sounds good? --HappyInGeneral (talk) 21:22, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Sure. Take out the "exactly" if you so wish. Colipon+(Talk) 21:29, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Last Paragraph and Spiritual Biography

The last paragraph:

Li Hongzhi and Falun Gong have received a wide range of awards and proclamations from Australia, Canada, Japan, Russia, and the United States. These include certificates of recognition from several governmental bodies in the United States - including Honorary Citizenship awarded by The State of Georgia and city of Atlanta. A number of cities in North America have proclaimed "Master Li Hongzhi Days". In 14 March 2001, The Freedom House honored Li Hongzhi and Falun Gong with an International Religious Freedom Award for the advancement of religious and spiritual freedom at a ceremony in the United States Senate. In the same year, Li was ranked the most powerful communicator in Asia by Asiaweek magazine "for his power to inspire, to mobilize people and to spook Beijing."

can hardly be considered to be neutral. Similarly, almost all items in the bibliography and external links are sympathetic to Li and his movement.

Also, having a separate Spiritual biography portion places undue weight on the POV of Li's supporters. This section is also written in an uncritical way, without qualifying language that would call attention to the controversial nature of Li's biography. Ymwang42 (talk) 03:29, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

These are verifiable facts, what do you mean that they are not neutral? --HappyInGeneral (talk) 08:59, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Very droll. Everyone knows it's crap exaggeration which was common with all the qigong masters' hagiographies in China during the 80s and 90s. The only thing verifiable is that the 'biography' exists. Ohconfucius 10:27, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

I was not talking about the biography. I was talking about the sourced statements between, see references between and . --HappyInGeneral (talk) 11:14, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't really mind keeping the "awards" section there. But please, if you have a suggestion on making things better, please just be bold and edit the article, or suggest something on the talk page with regards to what changes you see are necessary. We don't want another user that comes on here and says "this article is bad" and then leaving. Colipon+(Talk) 21:05, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

I have shortened the awards section to a much more appropriate length, while keeping the references. I have deleted mention of awards won by Falun Gong, as this has no direct relation to the biography. (In fact, inclusion of the Falun Gong awards gives a deceptive appearance of governmental support of the person Li Hongzhi.) I still think that the bibliography and external links section is excessive. I hope others will include some less positive views in these sections.Ymwang42 (talk) 09:23, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Good. Ohconfucius 09:27, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Agreed that the awards do show CCP support for Li. He was invited overseas by the Chinese ambassador to France--that indicates support to me. So do the awards. Why should they be deleted for this? It's just stating a fact about whatever happened, it's published by a reliable source, so what's the problem? --Asdfg12345 12:32, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

update: I put those two awards back. As far as I understand, the stated reason for removing them is because they make the subject look good? I didn't think this was actually a reason for deleting information--because it's favourable to the subject. I'd understand if the page were overrun by such information, but it's one section, and it's unclear why that information shouldn't be available to readers. If there are some editing changes that could be made to trim it, that would always be good. --Asdfg12345 12:39, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Removal of content by asdfg

This was entirely removed

I sense another "re-balancing" of POVs to make the article more favourable towards Falun Gong is in the works.

Colipon+(Talk) 23:52, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

As far as I understand, we are supposed to use reliable sources in these articles. Also, I understand that scholars characterise the CCP's works on Falun Gong, and Li Hongzhi, as propaganda. I understand that qiren qishi was one of the central attack pieces the CCP brought out at that time. I can see how there could be a case for presenting some information about this in the article--i.e., that he was the subject of a smear campaign by the CCP after the persecution--including in there some select things the CCP said at that time, but including detailed claims like this from an unreliable, propaganda source seems out of line with wikipedia content policies, as far as I understand. Please let me know if you disagree, or how you see this in the scheme of things. Ownby says something small. Can find more if you need me to substantiate the claims I've made in this paragraph--though I think they're not very controversial.--Asdfg12345 12:30, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Vandalism

Simon, could you please point out what "clear vandalism" did you fix here? Thanks --HappyInGeneral (talk) 00:43, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

• AFAICT, there is nothing wrong with the version which you tried to "fix". "His role within Falun Gong has been discussed by academics, skeptics, and journalists" is pretty much meaningless statement of fact. My reaction would be 'So what?'. Ohconfucius 04:14, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

• Actually there are several points that where improved. But that is not the point here, the point here, is what was so wrong to label those edits as clear WP:VANDALISM? Maybe Simon did not know the policy, but I'm sure you do. So please don't avoid the question on hand. --HappyInGeneral (talk) 13:37, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

• I grant that the addition of the references are improvements. Amongst other changes, a cite of Penny was removed. I fail to see how most of the other changes are "improvements", in that they import a significant partisan bias. Ohconfucius 13:43, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

• Let me repeat the question, in case you missed it: "That is not the point here, the point here, is what was so wrong that justified Simon to label those edits as clear WP:VANDALISM? Maybe Simon did not know the policy, but I'm sure you do. So please don't avoid the question on hand." --HappyInGeneral (talk) 13:48, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

• Perhaps you could point out to me wher I labelled anything 'Vandalism'? Ohconfucius 13:50, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

• Well you did answer in this section, which makes it look like you are trying to give support/excuse the revert with the vandalism sign on it made by Simon here. This impression is easily created because you never once said that you don't agree with his labeling. --HappyInGeneral (talk) 13:57, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

1. "Li Hongzhi qiren qishi," p. 64

• Misplaced Pages controversial topics
• Biography articles of living people
• All unassessed articles
• Start-Class biography articles
• WikiProject Biography articles
• Start-Class China-related articles
• Unknown-importance China-related articles
• Start-Class China-related articles of Unknown-importance
• WikiProject China articles
• Start-Class Buddhism articles
• Unknown-importance Buddhism articles
• Start-Class Religion articles
• Mid-importance Religion articles
• WikiProject Religion articles