Talk:Li Hongzhi/Archive 1

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

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

message: He teaches that the “great law" is boundless and is judging mankind and is weeding out corrupt people in a process called "Fa-rectification." Claiming to be the only one who is offering salvation to mankind, Li promises to turn his disciples into gods if they follow the moral requirements of his Dafa and expose what he considers to be the evil regime in China.
First please mention that is not just any regime is the Chinese Communist Party (CCP). -- HappyInGeneral 08:59, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You'll have to provide a reference that shows him calling either an evil regime and claiming to offer the only salvation, or words to that effect. We can't base such a direct statement on anything less. CovenantD 15:19, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Shouldn't you do that? Since you entered this paragraph. Actually I won't mind if you delete the whole paragraph. -- HappyInGeneral 13:44, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If you look back through the history, you'll see that all I've done is remove the unsupported addition you made to Tomananda's insertion. I've now changed it back to his version again and tagged it as needing a citation. If you add any thing to it, you need to provide documentation also. CovenantD 15:29, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Paragraph about Godhood and Evil Regime 

message: I added to the page the issue of the Patent. --Otomo 18:59, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This info is from one article published by an official mouth piece of the CCP. The article is so defamatory and slanderous that a rational person wouldn't take it seriously. In between it's attacks it hardly says anything of any substance. What stir has this caused? Would you care to cite a source indicating such a stir? Unless more info can be provided to substatiate this section I opt to have it removed. --Mcconn 08:52, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Patent  

message: 1) I renamed the section "Li as a mundane human being" to a more suitable and contextual title, "Chinese government assertions of Li's life prior to Falun Gong". This is because the content of this section is completely from one Chinese government controlled source. This context is especially important to note since the article was released a mere two weeks after the official crackdown began. At that time, the Chinese government used their media to say anything they could  to defame and demonize Falun Gong, and often fabricated information. It's therefore an incredibly biased source. If this section is expanded to include more sources the name can be appropriatly changed. 
2)The section above cited the source as being "done by UCLA Center for East Asian Studies". Although this journal may have published the report, it was done by the Beijing review. I explained above why I added the context about the date and it's relevance to the persecution.
3)The article had a picture overkill, including four different pictures of Mr. Li. I thus removed two of the less important photos. I also rearranged the remaining two into more logical places. It only makes sense that the official photo would go at the beginning.
4)I removed the section on "Interviewing the Master". This was not a valid section. Information from interviews can be used as sources within more focused sections, but this kind of information cannot constitute a section itself unless there is a clear point to be made about it. It is a type of source, not a subsection in and of itself. Moreover, doing this invites the kind of POV that the section already contained, ie. picking out "highlights" from interviews according to one's own thinking. This is not how an objective encyclopedia article is written.
5)I removed the section "Quotes" for the same reason as above.
6)I added a statement about Mr. Li's life in the US. 
The section entitled "Divinity of Master Li" is a mess. I don't have time to work on it now, but I certainly will in the near future. I'm going to start paying closer attention to this page. --Mcconn 08:44, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Summary of Mcconn's edits - August 17

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

message: I am just beginning to work on these things, I am a practitioner, and want to see if I can make a positive contribution. I have seen the continual reverting and don't think that is the best approach. Tomananda et al, there is no problem with putting up things about Master Li's divine origins. It is fine. We can reach some agreement on the wording. 
So many pictures does not look good. Just use one Fa image and one of Master in a business suit. The point can be made in that way. The Main Buddha picture is not really appropriate, nor is the misleading and erroneous text about worship, below it. 
Is there a link to the version you want, that I can work on? Going to extremes makes it very obvious that you are trying to damage the Fa and not interested in making an encyclopedic article. It would be best to put everything in a clear and rational way. The section about the interview - do you think that is necessary? In a moment I will look up some other individuals to get an idea of how Biographys work on wikipedia, refer them to you, and maybe we can use that as a sort of guide. 
I want to make it clear that there's no problem stating that Master is here to offer salvation to humankind, to guide people to high levels, and that Master is rectifying the cosmos with the Fa. That is what Falun Dafa teaches, right? No problem. I am just saying that it should be done rationally. Anyone reading your version can instantly see it is overtly biased.
Right now your version is up but it probably won't be that way for a while. Is there a kind of permanent page that retains the wikipedia template, so different people can edit it etc.? I will look at it carefully, then write some things here about what I think could be improved etc.. Then we can discuss it and come to some kind of agreement and change the article in that way. Unfortunately, I do not have a copy of the biography, and I do not think there is an official english translation, so I am unable to do much with that section. Some of that writing really must be off the NPOV goal, right? There are some lead-in sentences, the words 'saintly sketch', different comments that aren't necessary, and so on. All of that should go. That is personal interpretation aimed at mockery and that is obvious. Just state things clearly and simply. It will save us time if each person presents something closer to the middle ground in a reasonable way than going to extremes.
Okay, so please give me the link to the version you want, then we can go from there. A section on divinity is okay, but it just needs to be done right. What do you think about what I have said? 
Note: Dafa is really righteous, everything Master has said is purely righteous, the only problem happens when you have ill intentions and a wrong understanding. Nothing makes sense without cultivation, and since you lack that, you are bound to play the role you are. I am just mentioning this so you understand where I'm coming from a bit better. We truly believe that this is the best thing and we do not fear anything or conceal things. --Asdfg12345 12:50, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Progress on the article 

message: With the page unlocked, I've started editing again. I think editing it as I just have should produce an article we can all work with without any immediate revert wars. At the time of writing this, little of what I've just edited is new. They are mostly all my previous edits, most of which I explained without any real dispute in here: . Moreover, I've inserted them into the article while removing little of what was there in the locked version.
I changed the intro to my previous intro. The main thing that I removed from the locked version of the intro is the birthdate dispute, which is included further down the page in the disputes section. The photo is replaced because the one that was previously up did not have acceptable copyright status. The rest of the intro is mostly addition.
I kept the divinity section, not because I think it's any good, but because I don't want an edit war. I know a lot of people here care about that section, so maybe we can figure out what to do best with it through discussion rather than reverting.
"Interviewing the master", and "quotes" are gone. These are not valid sections. If whoever wrote them wants that info in the article, then maybe they can find a way to contextually and responsibly include it, but you can't do it like that. I explained this before here.
I also explained the problems with the section "Li Hongzhi as a mundane human being" here as well. However, we these things considered I still included the relevant information in the biography section, while deleting the previous section. I hope we can find a better source for this information in the future. 
I kept the arrest warrent section, but I don't think that it deserves a section itself. Instead it would be better to have section regarding Mr. Li's relations with the Chinese government as a whole, in which this info would be included. So if we can get a section like that going then this info can maybe be merged.
  
I've already expressed my disapproval of the patent section, however I want to see more people comment on it before doing anything about it. I've reposted my original statment on it below.
Please consider these things before making any reverts to my edits, very little has been removed. If you've got a problem then respond here and we can discuss it. Mcconn 05:28, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Editing again - Something we can all work with, I hope

message: I added to the page the issue of the Patent. --Otomo 18:59, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This info is from one article published by an official mouth piece of the CCP. The article is so defamatory and slanderous that a rational person wouldn't take it seriously. In between it's attacks it hardly says anything of any substance. What stir has this caused? Would you care to cite a source indicating such a stir? Unless more info can be provided to substatiate this section I opt to have it removed. --Mcconn 08:52, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Patent  

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

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

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

message: Please discuss. Yueyuen, it is incorrect to say "No one has to answer your ridiculous questions before editing here". That's personal attack. And you are violating the spirit of discussion and communication in group editing. Fnhddzs 01:47, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: So the page is locked. What are we to do? The practitioners here, including myself, have brought up and explained all problems with the conent which the "critic" editors seek to keep. Yet, they continue to revert back to it. I'm sorry guys, is there something we're missing? Is there something of yours that we aren't including which we have not explained why, or that you were able to provide a decent reason for including? Please respond. I don't want the page left on this stupid (yup, I said it) POV version. Mcconn 15:09, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I said it, and regret it. Sorry for the offensive remark. Mcconn 14:40, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, while I could make the editorial quibble (and only because I have a different opinion) that "stupid" is a bit much as a descriptor, you were describing what you thought of the POV, not the person, so what you said doesn't fall under WP:NPA IMO. --Fire Star 火星 03:29, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Revert war? Page locked? Discussion is NEEDED

message: This image is going to be deleted because it has not released under a free license. It might qualify for fair use though, because it's an official picture from . --Matt314 19:43, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Image:Master1.jpg 

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

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

message: After the persecution, Li was interviewed in his home. I just wanted to show you the picture, from the interview, cause to me it kinda more looks like an ordinary appartement, than a 580,000 $ house. (the link will work now) http://editorial.gettyimages.com/source/search/details_pop.aspx?iid=56916337&cdi=0 
But even if he would have made money by selling his book to people who don't want to download it for free, and bought an expensive house from the money. So what? What is wrong with that? Why is this worth an entire section in the article?
Another thing regarding Yenchin putting this abstract artwork into the araticle. Your argument for doing that was that you wanted to use it as "proof" that Falun Gong would be an evil Cult spreading that Li Hongzhi is a Buddha or whatever, right? Well they don't. This is only an abstract painting by an individual artist. It was never spread or sold publicly. How come i practice Falun Gong, and put in an ordinary photograph showing Li Hongzhi's face, and YOU being the one deleting and replacing it with the abstract painting? --Hoerth 19:23, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: 580.000 $ house

message: I have placed an Unbalanced template on this article due to the following.  Please keep in mind that I have only made edits to this article within the past few days and I have not reviewed the history.  That said, if this article were to be arranged with positive things about Mr. Li and with negative (i.e. controversial) things, the sections would appear as follows:
Positive:
*Awards and Recognition 
**Support, praise and gratitude 
Controversy:
*Li's claims of divinity 
** "Main Buddha"
*Arrest warrant for Li
*Disputes 
** Making money from Falun Gong 
** Birth date 
Additional sections:
*The Interviews with Mr. Li Hongzhi looks to be something that was cut down and could go into Biography.
*The biography and introductory paragraphs seem neutral.
The shear amount of text that would be under the Controversy heading is much longer than what would be under the Positive section.  Copying the text from the edit box and pasting into Word gives a counts of characters with spaces for each as:
* Positive - 13,652 characters
* Controversy - 1,709 characters
There is nearly 8 times the amount of controversial text than there is non-controversial text.  This article is clearly not balanced.
Additionally, I have added the Controversial and Calm talk tags as I feel that this article, and anyone who comes to it could benefit from seeing them.
I feel that the article should be arranged as stated above but rather that make such changes myself, I wanted to see what other thought.  Thanks.  --EarthPerson 23:15, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: EarthPerson, I disagree with the way you analyze this page and hence your conclusion.  “Li's claims of divinity” section should be placed in the positive category.  That section simply reports the claims of Li.  It is neutral.  You might think of it as controversy but to the person who made those claims and people who believe in them they are positive.  It is incorrect to label this page as unbalanced.  What do you think?  --Samuel Luo 02:04, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Also review WP:Undue weight for why your character count is exactly the wrong way to determine the balance of the article. CovenantD 06:51, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Oh, and two of the templates you added to the article belong on the talk page. I've moved them for you, but next time be sure to read the template that you're adding. CovenantD 06:55, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unbalanced, Controversial and Calm talk article tags 

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

message: I said a long time ago that this isn't a valid section. Quotes from interviews can be used within other contexts to make a specific point, but I don't see why they need a section themselves. What makes one interview quote more important than another? Is it because some editors consider some quotes controversial or strange? Without any second hand sources, who are they to decide? and the same goes for what is or isn't a "highlight". This section is completely pov. Interview quotes are sources, like any other first hand source. They are not independant sections. Why should this section be included? If ample reason cannot be given to validate the existance of this section, then it should be deleted as soon as possible. Mcconn 15:52, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This section is important not only because Li is no longer giving interviews but also because it provides answers to many questions that the public is interested in.  Why are you so uncomfortable about what your master has said?  If you guys are truly about truthfulness why do you guys want to conceal information like this to the public?  I don’t think you are a true follower of Li; I think you are one of those people who are helping Li to fool his followers and the public for money or whatever reason.  I have noticed that there are two kinds of people in the Falun Gong.  While most of them have no problem with Li’s statements, some of them, like you, are uncomfortable which shows that you are not a true follower of Li. --Samuel Luo 19:37, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Samuel, how would you feel about replacing the interview section with Lunyu? Lunyu is well sourced, is extremly important and it answers a lot of questions people might have about it's author and about it's teachings. Still one might think that this page has a different requirement and if Lunyu is important here it can be linked. Don't you think that the same thing is true for the Interview section? --HappyInGeneral 12:16, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

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

message: ===Cutting out irrelevent biographical content===
This section doesn't seem focused. It seems a mix between biographical content and content related to the divinity section. For instance, the beginning quote by Nina Willdorf and clearwisom's introduction or Mr. Li has nothing to do with Mr. Li's divinity. I think that this section existed before there was a biography section, which is where there is so much unnecessary biographical content. This stuff can be cut out to make the section more focused. I just finished deleting some of it and moving some of it. If anyone objects please reply. Mcconn 02:58, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: People are complaining that I've removed sourced content. In fact, with regards to this section, all I've removed is the Nina Willdorf quote and the Clearwisdom intro of Mr. Li, which I reasoned above. Actually, there was a part of the clearwisdom quote that wasn't deleted, but was instead moved to the bottom where it fits into the section appropriately. There was another big section from the biography which I moved to moved to the biography section. I also removed the pov about followers worshiping Mr. Li from the picture caption. The only other edits I made were a couple changes of wording. That's it. So what's the big fuss about? I will continue to revert the reverts until valid reasons for them can be provided here on the talk page. Mcconn 21:14, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: An assertion to unilaterally revert until personally satisfied is an assertion to edit war, and is in opposition to the policy of consensus. I know you are a reasonable editor, so this isn't a warning, just an FYI. --Fire Star 火星 15:40, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

message: This section doesn't seem focused. It seems a mix between biographical content and content related to the divinity section. For instance, the beginning quote by Nina Willdorf and clearwisom's introduction or Mr. Li has nothing to do with Mr. Li's divinity. I think that this section existed before there was a biography section, which is where there is so much unnecessary biographical content. This stuff can be cut out to make the section more focused. I just finished deleting some of it and moving some of it. If anyone objects please reply. Mcconn 02:58, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: People are complaining that I've removed sourced content. In fact, with regards to this section, all I've removed is the Nina Willdorf quote and the Clearwisdom intro of Mr. Li, which I reasoned above. Actually, there was a part of the clearwisdom quote that wasn't deleted, but was instead moved to the bottom where it fits into the section appropriately. There was another big section from the biography which I moved to moved to the biography section. I also removed the pov about followers worshiping Mr. Li from the picture caption. The only other edits I made were a couple changes of wording. That's it. So what's the big fuss about? I will continue to revert the reverts until valid reasons for them can be provided here on the talk page. Mcconn 21:14, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: An assertion to unilaterally revert until personally satisfied is an assertion to edit war, and is in opposition to the policy of consensus. I know you are a reasonable editor, so this isn't a warning, just an FYI. --Fire Star 火星 15:40, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

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

message: I removed this section:
"Since the biography, Li Hongzhi has made many comments which may be interpreted as claims to divinity. For example, by 1996, Li was hinting that he was not just an ordinary human being, but rather a reincarnated deity who has lived many previous lives. “The things imparted to me by my several masters in this life are exactly what I intentionally arranged a few lifetimes ago for them to obtain. When the predestined occasion arrived, it had already been arranged that they [would] impart those things back to me so that I could recall my Fa in its entirety.”[9]"
Why? Because I think it is wrong. What does it mean by "interpreted as claims to divinity"?. Interpeted by who? Interpeted by those who try to slander Dafa and Master Li? That cannot be included because it is not neutral. Master Li never said "I am a Divine being" or "I am a God/Buddha/Dao" so how can you say those things. That sections was just brought in without consent by some people that want to slander Dafa with the Chinese Communist Party propaganda. Omido 17:25, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Here's what I think. By saying that he arranged the fate of certain individuals in previous lifetimes, it is given that Mr. Li not only has power beyond ordinary human beings, power that extends beyond his current lifetime, he even has the power to arrange people's lives. Most people would say that this is God-like power. I think the wording of the paragraph that you removed can be changed, but I still think the quote is relevent. If there is a real problem with the term "divinity", then perhaps we can use something else, but I can see why the person who named this section named it as such. Omido, I suggest that the paragraph in question and the heading be restored until we've discussed this a little more. Actually, I think it's fine if you want to change the wording of the paragraph in question before further discussion, but it's jumping the gun to flat out remove it. Just my opinion. Mcconn 20:07, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

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

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

message: @ Yenchin: You are free to change your fair use rational, but please don't delete the copyright remark, untill the issue has been resolved, and don't again link the picture till then either. Please abide by the wikipedia principles regarding copyrighted artwork.  As I said, you wanting Li Hongzhi to appear like a Buddha IS NOT a reasonable argument for "Fair use". Thank you --Hoerth 18:35, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Where did you "stated clearly the Fair Use Rationale"? --62.231.110.18 11:16, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Do I even need to answer you, Mr. Anonymous? Oops, I did. --Yenchin 17:40, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  OK, then let me repeat this question: where did you "stated clearly the Fair Use Rationale"? --HappyInGeneral 12:37, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The whole paragraph behind the words "Fair use rationale:". If you use your actual eyes, not your pineal gland, you'd see it. --Yenchin 18:20, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Hi Yenchin, I searched the words "Fair use rationale" on this page, and they only show up in this section of "Buddha Painting" could you perhaps point out where exactly should I look, with my eyes/browser, etc ... Thanks --HappyInGeneral 10:29, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ask your buddy Hoerth, since he's been whining over the pic. --Yenchin 09:24, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Buddha Painting

message: This bit I found to be unhelpful, and ungrammatical, in that order: 
 Li apparently does not want the general public to know anything about his life. 
 In Li Hongzhi's Canadian lectures held on May 23, 1999 in Toronto, a question was asked to Mr. Li
The "apparently does not want" is a conclusion by one of our editors. Is there a source where Li explicitly says that he doesn't want to talk about himself or does the editor simply surmise this? According to Jimbo Wales: No original research is a fundamental bedrock policy on Wikipedia. This means: unless you can confirm a controversial assertion with a cite to an independent mainstream publication, you must leave it out of the article.
The second problem is the "a question was asked to Mr. Li" bit. The usage of "Mr." isn't something usually done at Wikipedia, and the "to" is inelegant, at least. I simplified the sentence to retain the info without the original research, honorific, or ESL prose. --Fire Star 火星 19:25, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Explaining my "clunky prose" edit 

message: These conversations tend to get complicated... So I'm going to lay it all out to keep things organized. I tried to grab all the changes that might need to be discussed, but if I missed something anyone wants to discuss feel to add a section at the bottom using the same format. I left the source-code for the edit down there for ease of use. 
I'm going to try to stay out of the conversation for the most part as the subject is fairly new to me, but I can offer my impression of any particular change or comment in terms of wikipedia policy/guidelines.  Basically that means I'm here as your personal admin-slave. :) ---J.S  (T/C/WRE) 13:11, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Nice, neutral changes. Kudos! I support their incorporation. --Fire Star 火星 12:56, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Your main argument here, HiG, is that the reason the above paragraph should be excluded is because the critics of FG are not specified, so it is 'weasel', POV-pushing and OR.  Does this mean that the next time I say that FG practitioners think something, I am also doing likewise for my 'pro-FG stance'?  Jsw663 04:51, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We need to try to be spesific as posible.  When refrencing groups we must have a source that supports the claim that "Group of people X supports Y". ---J.S  (T/C/WRE) 15:29, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Disputed Edits 

message: Before                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                 	After
Li's quotations, especially his numerous claims to supernatural abilities, are often used by Falun Gong's critics as material to allege illegitimacies and charges of fraud upon the practice itself. The fact that the two versions of the biography (that on his book and that by the CPC) differ so dramatically has made Li's background impossible to grasp in its entirety. In recent years, however, CNN and BBC have both accepted the CPC's version of Li's background with a few points of discretion BBC: Who is Li Hongzhi?.	(nothing)
* I'm curious... what is the reasoning in removing this section? ---J.S  (T/C/WRE) 13:11, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Your main argument here, HiG, is that the reason the above paragraph should be excluded is because the critics of FG are not specified, so it is 'weasel', POV-pushing and OR.  Does this mean that the next time I say that FG practitioners think something, I am also doing likewise for my 'pro-FG stance'?  Jsw663 04:51, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We need to try to be spesific as posible.  When refrencing groups we must have a source that supports the claim that "Group of people X supports Y". ---J.S  (T/C/WRE) 15:29, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Biography (p7) 

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

message: "According to a Wall Street Journal report "American Dream Finds Chinese Spiritual Leader," on November 1 1999, Li purchased a  house in New York for $293,500" Someone has put a "citation needed" after this. Surely WSJ Nov 1 1999 is effectively a citation? Rich Farmbrough, 22:46 17  April 2007 (GMT).
: My questions is this, where is the link to this claim? For example I would like to see that it states this price of the house and all the intricate details to it. So far this is an unverifiable claim. I don't deny that it exist, all I'm asking is a source where I can verify. Thank You. --HappyInGeneral 08:16, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The date, the title of the article and the name of the publisher are provided. You can get a copy of it by going to your local library.    --Samuel Luo 19:08, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: A web-link is not required and the text does not need a citation if the source is mentioned in the verbiage. The requirement on text at wikipedia is not citations... the requirement is Verifiability.  And there is no requirement that the text must be viewable on-line. ---J.S  (T/C/WRE) 20:42, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: $293,500 house

message: Since it seems that more admins are paying attention or playing a role in this page. I want to bring up something that have been brought up a number of times in the past, but never resolved - the interviews section. Please refer to the discussions here and here. The main reason that this issue hasn't been resolved is that the people who support it won't participate in discussion over it. When it is removed, they put it back, adding a quick comment about it being sourced or such, while ignoring the real problem and without going to the talk page. I've been away from wiki for almost two months, and I'm rather surprised to see it still there. This section, consisting of personally-selected quotations from an interview transcript, does not meet wiki requirements for the use of primary sources in NOR. Mcconn 15:43, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Some material from the interview section was taken out without an explanation.  This material answers important questions such as why Li immigrated to the U.S.  This material comes directly from Li; there can be no justification for removing them on this page. --Samuel Luo 21:15, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

text: I'm waiting for a response. If you can't make a point in reponse, Sam, then I take it that you've understood the problems with this section and are willing to give it up. Is that so? Mcconn 15:15, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Heres my general rule-of-thumb about primary sources:  Is the source being used to back up a topic that has been discussed by a non-trivial secondary source?  If the answer is No, then it's very likely the information is unimportant and shouldn't be included.  However, if the answer is yes then it's ok so long as the section is focused on the information covered by the secondary sources. ---J.S  (T/C/WRE) 18:45, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

text: The answer is most certainly "No". What we're looking at is a section about quotes from interviews. It consists of two quotes taken from two articles on an anti-Falun Gong website, and a a few others personally selected from a single interview. There are no secondary sources and there is no actual topic. It's garbage and it's been here for way too long, but everytime I make these points and try to remove it. My edits are automatically reverted by a handful of individuals and without any discussion. I really want to get this settled this time. I would appreciate any input anyone has on this. Mcconn 10:28, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

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

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

message: He reverted 6 times on May 3rd. Will an admin please take some action? Thanks Mcconn 05:10, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Samual in violation of 3RV rule again

message: I regularly look through all english language Falun Gong websites. I could not find the "Buddha Painting" shown in the wikipedia encyclopedia entry. Also Li Hongzhi repeatedly stated that he is just an "ordinary man" and that one should regard him as such. Also in Zhuan Falun he stated: "Genuine cultivation practice depends upon the person him or herself. What’s the use of your kowtowing and worshipping the master if you do whatever you want today upon stepping outside this door? We do not care for this formality at all. You could even damage my reputation!" "In some qigong practices, practitioners who have never seen their masters claim that if they pay a few hundred yuan and kowtow to a certain direction, that will be good enough. Isn’t that self-deception and deceiving others? Additionally, these people are very devoted thereafter and begin to defend or protect their practices and masters. They also tell others not to study other practices. I find it quite ridiculous." (Zhuan Falun chapter 4 - Buddhist Anointment)  
I don't mean to say that that painting wasn't done by an artist who practices Falun Gong. I only mean to say that i regard it as inappropriate to put this painting in an encyclopedia entry. It should be replaced with a normal photograph of Li Hongzhi. The reason i think so is because whoever put this painting in here did so in order to make it appear as though Li Hongzhi would require his practitioners to worship him. Even if that wasn't the intention for putting it here, one could easily think that it is supposed to imply that. But that actually exactly goes contrary to Falun Gong's requirements. But since the article implies that, some Falun Gong practitioners upon visiting wikipedia might start to think that it is required to worship Li Hongzhi and so might actually start to do this. Or even worse some people who support the Communist Party's violent persecution Falun Gong, might actually use wikipedia to defend the genocide saying things like "it is necessary for the Communist Party to wipe out the cancer of Falun Gong. See we have allways said that Falun Gong is dangerous to society and lures it's crazy and superstitious members to worship it's capitalist founder. You always thought that it was only us party members saying that about Falun Gong, but now you see it has even been veryfied by independent western encyclopedias like wikipedia."   What i just said might seem to be exagerated, but this actually happened. So i beg you, don't use wikipedia as a tool to spread hatred against Falun Gong so as to make people indiferent of the persecution. Don't slander Falun Gong. Not for the sake of Falun Gong or Li Hongzhi, but for the sake of ending the persecution.       --Hoerth 17:53, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think you're right about that particluar picture. Whatever pics included on the mainpage should be as neutral as possible, and conform to  Biographies of Living persons. However, given that there have been a number of photos or artworks done of Mr. Li wearing a Kasaya or in the image of a Buddha, notably one that was included in an older version of Zhuan Falun, I think it's ok to have one pic like this in contrast to a normal photo (which should be the main pic). But I don't think the "Painting Lord" pic is the best, for the reasons you mentioned. And we also don't have a normal photo right now, which is a problem. Mcconn 04:33, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

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

message: This is a direct quote from WP:External links (emphasis mine): "Wikipedia articles can include links to Web pages outside Wikipedia. Such pages could contain further research that is accurate and on-topic; information that could not be added to the article for reasons such as copyright or amount of detail (such as professional athlete statistics, movie or television credits, interview transcripts, or online textbooks); or other meaningful, relevant content that is not suitable for inclusion in an article for reasons unrelated to their reliability (such as reviews and interviews)."
: Olaf, maybe you'd want to sign your own edits like this one above.  However, the rule above only says that there shouldn't be entire interview transcripts.  It never said that quoting interviews was not allowed (if done so in moderation).  Blanking an entire section is an extreme action; can we not find a compromise here?  Jsw663 17:33, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry for forgetting the signature. The point is, placing an entire chapter called "Interviews with Mr. Li Hongzhi" is clearly against the spirit of this policy. "The responsibility for justifying inclusion of any content rests firmly with the editor seeking to include it".  I don't find any mention about entire interview transcripts in the policy I cited; indeed, I've never seen an interview transcript anywhere in Wikipedia apart from this article. If you can find one, please show me. An encyclopedia is supposed to be written in an encyclopedic style. ✔ Olaf Stephanos ✍ 17:45, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thanks for saying what I just said again, Olaf.  At least read before you criticize.  The interview section should only be included if it is re-written in an encylcopedic format, with references to that interview.  However, some of the interview can be included, as long as it is done in moderation, and not in its entirety.  Jsw663 17:50, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

message: Good job guys, the entire article is now basically a Falun Gong pamphlet. I'm not going to even try fixing it as everything I write will just be deleted. Colipon+(T) 01:07, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, reverting back to an ancient version was not very productive. We should reform the articles instead of reverting them. ✔ Olaf Stephanos ✍ 07:20, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You should print copies of this article and distribute them in unsuspecting North American cities. I guarantee you'll get quite a few more municipal honours. Colipon+(T) 08:49, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I didn't see you complaining when this article was a real puff piece against Li Hongzhi, even though Wikipedia is very unambiguous about biographies of living persons: "Be very firm about high quality references, particularly about details of personal lives. Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material — whether negative, positive, or just highly questionable — about living persons should be removed immediately and without discussion from Wikipedia articles, talk pages, user pages, and project space. This policy applies equally to biographies of living persons and to biographical material about living persons in other articles. The burden of evidence for any edit on Wikipedia, but especially for edits about living persons, rests firmly on the shoulders of the person who adds or restores the material." Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons ✔ Olaf Stephanos ✍ 09:24, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Congratulations 

message: I have a question for people who allege that the archived source is flawed, and that "anyone could have modified it". What would be the motivation for modifying it? If it were the CCP that modify it, would they not modify it to make Li seem more mundane and ordinary? Who else would care enough to modify Master Li's biography anyway? Your logic is horrendously flawed. Who would modify Master Li's biography to glorify him? Colipon+(T) 21:39, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm talking about a general principle, not about a particular biography. You cannot use private websites as sources except in articles about themselves, no matter what information they are claimed to contain. The Wikipedia policies are unambiguous about this issue. Please read through Wikipedia:Reliable sources and Wikipedia:Verifiability. Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons is yet another point to be made. You may grit your teeth, but those who learn to play by rules will always have the upper hand on Wikipedia. ✔ Olaf Stephanos ✍ 21:54, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We can certainly use a book as a source when we are talking about what is stated in it.  In this case, it is the book that is the primary reference.  I believe that is perfectly OK under Wikpedia policies.  If we happen to know where a copy of the part of the book that we are talking about can be found, I also see no problem in letting people see it by providing a link (unless of course we have reason to believe that the original author would be unhappy due to lack of copyright authorization or some such reason).  So, as I said when reverting the recent edit by Olaf Stephanos that removed the related paragraph, I personally see no problem with what was/is in this article.  —Wookipedian 22:10, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

text: See, that's interesting Olaf, because you yourself stated in your edit summary, "An archived, private website doesn't comply with Wikipedia:Reliable sources. Anybody could have changed its content very easily." Changed its content? Answer my question first. Why would they change the content to what you see on that website from the original?  What is the motivation behind it? What is the purpose of it? If there is no reasonable explanation for the reason behind "changing its contents", then all your contentions that it is not a reliable source falls, as this source is directly verifiable with the first Falun Gong publication itself. Colipon+(T) 00:22, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: On that aspect, I would basically agree with Olaf Stephanos.  A random private web site does not merit being cited as a source in general.  Here I think there is an exception, because there is the published book against which the web site content can be checked. But otherwise, absent that, I would have completely agreed with Olaf Stephanos. —Wookipedian 01:16, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

text: I would have too. Colipon+(T) 01:26, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Master Li's biography 

message: As archived in the history of this article, and duly noted by McConn on June 9, 2007, this edit occured:
:10:01, June 1, 2007 Dilip rajeev (Talk | contribs) (9,643 bytes) (I have restored the article to an earlier, more encyclopaedic version. The previous article, I felt, was highly un-encyclopaedic and carried A LOT of self-written commentary and CCP propoganda...)
Excuse me if I'm wrong, but when deleting entire sections like that there should be a large amount of discussion. The justification, again, deals with "CCP propaganda", like every other time, and goes along the same line of logic as "The CCP is evil, therefore no one should be allowed to criticize Falun Gong and Li Hongzhi". This has got to stop. Because this revert had no justification, I feel obliged to restore the original section, and if users find a problem with specific segments, please discuss it before its removal. Thanks. Colipon+(T) 22:23, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Reverts by Dilip