Talk:Li Hongzhi

message: The section dealing with Li's date of birth did not actually describe the nature of the debate (for instance, it did not even explain that May 13 is the birth date of Sakyamuni, or state what the Chinese government thinks the implications are). Zujine tried to fix this, and Shrigley reverted him for reasons unknown.  I have again tried to fix it such that it actually tells us something useful. 
The old version seemed focused on the question of whether or not Li changed his date of birth in the government records. But that is not source of the controversy;  Li agrees that he changed the records.  The actual debate centers on the question of whether his purpose was to simply correct the record, or whether he was trying to bolster his spiritual authority and misrepresent himself by aligning his date of birth to that of Sakyamuni.  The Chinese government argues the latter,  and Li argues the former.  This being the case, in my edit I stated clearly that Li did change the government records, and provided his explanation of why he did this.  I left in the background about the Changchun faction, even though I frankly don't see how it helps clarify the issue. I also added a note to explain how the Chinese government has attempted to make use of the birth date change, as that was previously lacking. 
Two final notes:  Chinese government sources have actually given two dates of birth for Li: July 7 and July 27.  David Ownby notes this discrepancy, and I have also now noted it. Also, the old version relied on primary sources, namely Chinese government websites.  Primary sources should be used with extreme caution in BLP, and this is all the more so when those primary sources are described as propaganda by the reliable sources.  I have removed it in accordance with WP:BLP.Homunculus (duihua) 17:33, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: By "primary source" are you referring to the People's Daily Opinion piece. I can understand why an opinion piece might be less than ideal in a BLP despite it being published in a mainstream source but your statement seems to indicate that you believe that government controlled Chinese media should be avoided in this article. That seems like the kind of position that you should verify through the BLP noticeboard. Sean.hoyland - talk 17:52, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Sean,  the reliable academic sources describe all accounts of Li Hongzhi's life from the PRC post-1999 as propaganda. David Ownby writes that all such details, even the mundane ones, are "obviously state propaganda, produced in the context of the campaign against Falun Gong."  Benjamin Penny writes that "one of the targets of the government’s propaganda was the biography of Li Hongzhi, its founder and leader," and elsewhere states "information about Falun Gong published in the People’s Republic is necessarily part of a negative publicity campaign,” and so should be “treated with caution.” The People's Daily is included within that category, and is decidedly not a neutral, mainstream source on Falun Gong. It is a primary source, and a highly partisan one at that.  Falun Gong accounts are also primary sources.  The article should rely on quality secondary sources.  I am happy to take this to the BLP noticeboard if you believe that's necessary.Homunculus (duihua) 18:05, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm uncomfortable with the blanket exclusion. I see your argument as being analogous to someone arguing that we can't use US State Dept press releases in a BLP about a suspected terrorist. It excludes an important, albeit highly partisan, part of the picture. All governments have enemies that they talk about. These kind of concerns are usually handled on a case by case basis in BLPs. I doubt that this will be a problem in practice though as there are plenty of sources. Sean.hoyland - talk 18:31, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Where possible, Chinese government sources should be corroborated with another RS. There is a lot of propaganda emanating from the state, obviously, as many academics have noted. The issue I take here is that, in the very least, state media presentations of materials pre-persecution is more or less acceptable, and not everything the Chinese gov't publishes on this matter is automatically sinister or part of a well-organized conspiracy, especially prior to 1999 (one 'pet issue' in this regard is the alleged link between Luo Gan and He Zuoxiu, which remains in the main article for no good reason). Much of the propaganda following 1999 is essentially embellished versions of pre-1999 investigative reporting. Like the article notes, many of Li's 'rival groups' did the first 'exposes' of Li and Falun Gong in general. The point is, Li's detractors were numerous and far-reaching prior to the state's propaganda campaign. This inevitably exposes another issue with the content - which is that a 'dichotomy'-style presentation of Li's biography is highly misleading. Penny discusses this in great detail, I do not have the passages in front of me, nor the time to flip through the pages again. Colipon+(Talk) 21:23, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

text: A pronoun missing an antecedent is not "complete loss of meaning". The relevant part of Li's remarks are still quoted: he thinks that the Sakyamuni accusation is a "smear", which is what this Wikipedia article thinks too, judging by the myriad of qualifications on Chinese government sources (compared to the liberal and preferential use of Falun Gong sources). Some of these qualifications may be inappropriate, since the Changchun report comes from 1992, long before the "persecution". Li's entire quote is just a rant against alleged bureaucratic errors during the Cultural Revolution in general. His opinions about that period shouldn't be quoted because he has no academic qualifications to talk about history that doesn't affect him. Shrigley (talk) 20:22, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

text: Shrigley said the information I provided "sourced to blogs and other improper primary sources, was removed after substantial discussion. Please don't re-add them without addressing the points". But I do not see any discussion regarding this here. I believe the  quote from Mr. Li's answer in Fajie (based on Fa speech recording in 1994) that he is not Buddha Shakyamuni should be deemed as very relevant. Marvin 2009 (talk) 18:43, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: A similar statement, made to Time magazine, is already in that section.  This is just a matter of using secondary sources rather than primary sources. I hope that seems reasonable to you.Homunculus (duihua) 19:40, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text:  I remember that the 2nd Time interview was in August 1999. It happened after CCP launched the crackdown in July 22nd 1999. However the book Fajie I mentioned was published in 1997 and the transcript the book based on was recorded in 1994. The significance is totally different. Marvin 2009 (talk) 20:54, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Birth date controversy

message: An editor is changing the 'nationality' field from Chinese to United States.  Li lives in the United States, but nationality is not defined by place of residence alone, but also by national identity.  I suggest keeping nationality as "Chinese," but listing place of residency as United States. On the citizenship question,  the same editor is writing that Li became a citizen in the 1990s.  This claim is sourced (incorrectly) to Time magazine,  as well as to Reuters (which gives a one line "Li, a US citizen, ..."), and encyclopedia Britannica, which curiously states that Li became a U.S. citizen in 1997 and settled in the U.S. in 1998.  I reverted this previously because, according to the preponderance of sources (and better sources),  it's not the case.  Palmer, among others, states that Li settled permanently in the United States in 1998 under an investor immigration status, which granted him permanent residency, but not citizenship.  David Ownby states that Li "moved to the United States in 1996 but did not received his green card until 1998" (a green card, in case it's not clear, is for permanent residency, not citizenship). The Time magazine article that was incorrectly used to attribute the claim that Li is a citizen instead states "Li decided to apply for immigration to the U.S." in 1997. As anyone who has ever attempted to navigate the labyrinthine maze of USCIS knows, one does not decide to apply for immigration to the U.S. and mysteriously gain citizenship the same year. Many other sources also state that Li is a permanent resident, not a citizen, and Li himself said this in 1999. If there are no sound objections, I am going to change back to state that Li's nationality is Chinese, and that he became a permanent resident in 1998. Homunculus (duihua) 12:55, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: The most reliable sources on this subject (ie. David Palmer, David Ownby, etc) do not say that Li is a citizen. They say that Li moved to the United States in 1996, and gained permanent residency in 1998. The preponderance of reliable sources on this subject say the same thing.  Needless to say, if Li gained citizenship in 1996 as the Encyclopedia Britannica claims, he would not have sought permanent residency in 1998. The Encyclopedia Britannica evidently made a mistake. It happens; even normally reliable sources are fallible. To the question of "nationality," we evidently have different definitions of the term. You think nationality refers to citizenship.  I think citizenship refers to citizenship.  Nationality can be defined by national or ethnic origin, national identity, residence, or citizenship. In all respects except current place of residence, Li is probably best described as a Chinese national.  Homunculus (duihua) 17:55, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I re-read your comments, and realized ever more clearly that the problem is that you don't understand U.S. immigration. You seem to believe that there is no conflict between the claims that Li gained citizenship and then obtained permanent residency, because you seem to think that "permanent residency" describes a state of living permanently in a place.  I suggest you read Permanent residence (United States). You will discover, as I stated above, that permanent residency refers to a person's legal immigration status. It is a path to citizenship; a person is typically eligible to apply for U.S. citizenship after three to five years of being a permanent resident. Once one obtains citizenship, one is no longer classified as a permanent resident. The most reliable sources writing from the late 1990s onward describe Li as a permanent resident, which implicitly means he is did not gain U.S. citizenship in the 1990s.  I hope that's clear.  I fixed the article again, and just removed the nationality field altogether as an interim solution while this is in dispute. There's no value in having incorrect or even questionable information remain in a BLP. Homunculus (duihua) 05:28, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: FWIW, Homunculus is right. "Permanent resident" and "citizen" are mutually exclusive terms under U.S. law. The misunderstanding might have spread here where some (possibly badly translated) text calls him a "permanent citizen" — that term neither exists nor does it make sense. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 05:44, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

text: Look, you don't need to underline every damn shitty thing you throw at us, no matter how stupid you think we are. This is pretty much equivalent to yelling. Stop you campaign and stop edit-warring over this; leave the page as it is. Is that now clear enough? Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 10:12, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I neither have "power" nor am I an "authority." You simply need to quit this junk and we're cool. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 21:47, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Citizenship / Nationality

message: Regarding use of Chinese government websites to assert that Li is wanted in China, it's common knowledge that the Chinese government is engaged in a propaganda campaign against Li and Falun Gong. There are loads of articles and books and news article that document this, and we wouldn't count the Chinese government as a reliable source in this context. Yet a couple editors (one of them now banned) have felt compelled to add Chinese government sources to support the statement that the Chinese government issued a warrant for Li's arrest. I don't get why. There is already a BBC article that talks about this from a pretty balanced angle.  Why is it necessary to supplement this with links to propaganda articles which, in addition to supporting the cited claim as primary sources, also contain a good deal of inflammatory and derogatory statements about a living person?  This seems to contradict the spirit of the Biography of Living Persons policy. The external links guideline discusses this: 
:In biographies of living people, material available solely in questionable sources or sources of dubious value should be handled with caution, and, if derogatory, should not be used at all, either as sources or via external links. External links in biographies of living persons must be of high quality and are judged by a higher standard than for other articles. Do not link to websites that are not fully compliant with this guideline or that contradict the spirit of WP:BLP.
Am I missing something? TheBlueCanoe 15:03, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, you are missing the simple fact that the Chinese government is a reliable source for the position of the Chinese government on issues of relevance to the Chinese government. Your arguments for removal are spurious. Sean.hoyland - talk 15:26, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
replies: text:  I agree with Sean. BlueCanoe's rationale is just gaming the system. STSC (talk) 17:01, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Chinese government as RS?  

message: Hi. I just restored the deleted Porter references. I understand the reason they were deleted - because it was described as a Master's thesis, and one which was presumed to have no major scholarly impact or import. Both those contentions are not the case. 
Here are the reasons why I have restored it. 1) It's cited in several scholarly works; 2) Porter has authored several academic journal articles based on the research conducted for his masters thesis; 3) Ownby, one of the foremost authorities on the practice, cites the thesis as being superior in quality to much of the other scholarship that's out there (specifically Maria Chang's book, which was published in the Yale University Press). He writes "Noah Porter's excellent "Falun Gong in the United States: An Ethnographic Study" is, by contrast, rich in information on Falun Gong, based on fieldwork carried out in Tampa, Florida, and Washington DC, and energetic research in all available sources. Although not a sinologist by training of even a professional academic (at least when he carried out his research), Porter's methodology resembles my own, and our findings accord on many points." 
Thus the fact that Ownby highlights his work in his literature review like this does imply that it has significant scholarly influence. 4) As I have re-added the citation, it is not even the Master's thesis that is being cited, but a book. Either point here - that we're now citing a book, or that it was a Master's thesis with significant scholarly impact - would be sufficient to overcome the objections raised. I present both. TheSoundAndTheFury (talk) 03:41, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I saw that book before I removed the source. It's published by Dissertation.com so I don't think it changes the status of the source with respect to WP:SCHOLARSHIP. It's still a masters thesis. No comment on the evidence of significant impact other than it's probably the kind of borderline case that would benefit from going to WP:RSN. It's not really being used for anything that strikes me as controversial at the moment, at least in this article, I haven't looked elsewhere, so perhaps it's fit for purpose here. Taking it RSN would probably be advantageous if it is going to be used more extensively. Sean.hoyland - talk 03:58, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Porter

message: I normally refrain from getting involved with Falun Gong articles as they are usually hotly debated, and I'm not an experienced editor. But I have practised Falun Gong since 2002 and have read a fair bit about the "Zhongnanhai appeal", and in my understanding this part of the article is incorrect in several ways:
"As news spread of Falun Gong's anti-government protests which mobilized tens of thousands to surround the Chinese government headquarters..."
I believe this is incorrect as the event wasn't an anti-government protest, it was an appeal to the Premier to ask for formal recognition and for the increasing harassment to stop, which was resolved positively by the Premier in the afternoon. Yes a lot of people turned up, but it was still a peaceful appeal, there was no slogan chanting or shouting, in my understanding everyone was on best-behaviour.
I think this is important as "anti-goverment" was one of the falsehoods spread by the leader of the Communist Party, Jiang Zemin to frame Falun Gong and justify the crackdown to the government and Chinese people... ie, "Falun Gong attacked the government, so the government has to crackdown".
Falun Gong asks its practitioners to follow the local laws, be good people and not disturb the unity of society. But when people are being treated unfairly, it's their basic right to appeal to the government and clarify the facts. And this, I believe, is exactly what happened in this event, with successful resolution. This is not "anti-government".
Also, saying "Falun Gong...mobilized tens of thousands to surround the Chinese government headquarters" is an over-simplification and gives two wrong impressions, 1) that people were ordered by someone to go there, and 2) that they were intent on surrounding the government compound. Neither was true. 
The practitioners were not "mobilized" by anyone, and they had no intention of "surrounding the Chinese government headquarters"... that was another spin by Jiang Zemin. Yes a lot of people ended up going, but they had just organised to go amongst themselves, they weren't asked to go by Falun Gong's teacher, and there are no "leaders" in Falun Gong. When a lot of people turned up, they were directed by police to line up along the footpath next to the wall of the central government compound, which they did. 
Two days later Jiang framed it as "Falun Gong surrounded the main government compound". If they did, it was because they were told to by police. 
Does this matter enough to change the sentence? I think so, because of the historical context... Jiang Zemin used exactly these falsehoods to frame Falun Gong and put the persecution into motion. Repeating them as truths, even in passing, on wikipedia doesn't seem right. 
One wiki article does seems to cover what happened fairly accurately: 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falun_Gong#Tianjin_and_Zhongnanhai_protests
I wasn't sure if I should just edit the sentence, as someone would probably just revert it, without some discussion first.
Regards,
Enigmatum (talk) 19:08, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Valid points. I say go ahead and edit it yourself according to WP:BOLD. Just take a neutral tone and add a couple references from third-party sources to verify it. As you stated, there is some decent coverage on the Falun Gong article, so you can probably find reference material there. —Zujine|talk 21:07, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
replies: text:  Recently I noticed the same issue as User:Enigmatum talked about last October, so I edited it using a reliable source - Chan, Cheris Shun-ching (2004). "The Falun Gong in China: A Sociological Perspective". The China Quarterly, 179 , pp 665–683. But User:Jsjsjs1111 reverted my edit without any reason. Today I undid his move. Marvin 2009 (talk) 11:50, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Zhongnanhai appeal 

message: To user:Marvin 2009, please do not persistently remove the significant information regarding the wanted circular on Li issued by the Chinese government. STSC (talk) 06:45, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Jiang Zemin's demand was rejected by INTERPOL and USA government in July 1999. As I explained in the edit abstract, your July 1999 source cannot represent 'still wanted' today, plus it is a CCP source, which is unreliable on this topic. According to China scholars Daniel Wright and Joseph Fewsmith (Reference: Fewsmith, Joseph and Daniel B. Wright. "The promise of the Revolution: stories of fulfilment and struggle in China", 2003, Rowman and Littlefield. p. 156), China Central Television's evening news contained little but anti-Falun Gong rhetoric and the government operation was "a study in all-out demonization". In addition, Jiang Zemin was wanted by oversea court because of the crackdown of FG and is currently sued in Chinese court and oversea courts. If you do not stick to your double standard, you can add such info as well.Marvin 2009 (talk) 12:27, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: It's a fact that the Chinese has issued a wanted circular on Li whether it was rejected or not. This is significant information and should be included in Li's biography. By all means, you may put whatever true information on Jiang Zemin. STSC (talk) 12:48, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: “Still wanted”, this is your interpretation. There is no any reliable source supporting such a claim. Please follow WP:NOR. Marvin 2009 (talk) 14:46, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: As far as the Chinese government is concerned, the wanted circular is still valid, it has not been cancelled. Do you have the source saying Li is no longer wanted? STSC (talk) 16:42, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: WP:OR says "This includes any analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to reach or imply a conclusion not stated by the sources." The unreliable CCP source (from year 1999) you provided does not say 'still wanted' or has such a meaning. So-called 'still wanted' is only your derivation, which defied the WP:OR statement above. Marvin 2009 (talk) 21:02, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: If you don't like the "still", just omit it. How about "Li is wanted"? Is that OK? Do you like? STSC (talk) 03:58, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: let's just stick to the plain facts and say that on such-and-such date the chinese government issued a wanted statement. that's it. on the matter of whether li is still wanted we can remain agnostic. problem solved.Happy  monsoon day  04:04, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
replies: text:  Agree. Plus the preface is not necessarily a good place for this, since the current version already included the related detailed info in the paragraph starting with "On 29 July 1999,... Marvin 2009 (talk) 05:34, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Li is wanted 

message: He appears to be deceased, his supporters are mourning in the street. But no source yet. --Anthony Ivanoff (talk) 10:15, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds convincing. TheBlueCanoe 17:02, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: This is not a platform for speculation or discovery- we report, compile, and document existing, referenced apprehension.Mavigogun (talk) 16:16, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deceased? *This is not a venue for speculation*

message: See Natural nuclear fission reactor. Doug Weller talk 19:07, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Not a man made reactor 

message: Hi fellow editors, recently someone added the NBC-Epoch Times controversy into the lead section, and it seems like some other editors were trying to remove it, but got reverted back. Nevertheless, I do see that it can be improved in terms of providing a wholistic view.
The NBC article (source of the quote in the lead section) is written mainly to criticize its competing media --The Epoch Times, and it includes an attack on The Epoch Times's founders' faith (Falun Gong) as well as on their faith's founder (Li , who this BLP is for). After this article published on NBC, both The Epoch Times and Falun Gong websites responded in public statements. And I find that their counter arguments made some reasonable points responding to the NBC article, and thus think that adding some of their claims onto this page would make the story more complete.
Here are their public statements: from Falun Gong's website and The Epoch Times website.
So I hereby ask permission to add some of their claims made as a response to the NBC article. If nobody objects, I will go ahead and do so.--Thomas Meng (talk) 18:23, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Niether of these are reliable sources. Both are hard WP:RS fails. :bloodofox: (talk) 21:02, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

text: That would be a hard no... Even if we consider them about self we cant use them for narratives. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 22:40, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Possible inclusion of the other side of the story 

message: For many years, this biography showed two birth dates in the infobox and explained them both in prose. Then in May 2018 an anonymous IP changed the article to focus solely on 1951 in the infobox and first paragraph. 
I propose we restore the uncertainty of birth date, as there are a great many reliable sources questioning the two dates, and there are scholarly sources that accept the 1952 date as fact. For instance, David Ownby in his 2008 book Falun Gong and the Future of China gives his chapter 4 the title of "The Life and Times of Li Hongzhi in China, 1952–1995". Ownby gives as the basic "thumbnail sketch of his pre-1992 life" the plain fact of his July 27, 1952, birth. It was only later that "divergences" began to appear with the birth date, according to Ownby. Other scholarly authors that accept 1952 as the year of birth include Jeffrey Ian Ross (University of Baltimore) in the 2015 Routledge book Religion and Violence: An Encyclopedia of Faith and Conflict from Antiquity to the Present; James R. Lewis (University of Tromsø) who wrote in his 2017 paper "'I am the only one propagating true Dharma': Li Hongzhi’s Self-Presentation as Buddha and Greater" that the Chinese non-profit anti-cult group Kaiwind tracked down the specifics of the 1994 birth date change procedure, writing a report about it in 2015, which Lewis believed was accurate; Jonathan H. X. Lee (San Francisco State University) who wrote in his 2015 book Chinese Americans: The History and Culture of a People that the modified 1951 date was "claimed" by Li Hongzhi; and Hongyan Xiao who included basic biography information in 2001's "Falun Gong and the ideological crisis of the Chinese Communist Party: Marxist atheism vs. vulgar theism". 
Since the 1951 birth is not accepted as truth by some respected scholars, we must restore a sense of uncertainty to this biography. Binksternet (talk) 01:16, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Restoring uncertainty to birth date 

message: We should instead provide specific examples of such "conspiracy theories", since fact that they are founded, and if Li Hongzhi had direct editorial action on them or not is also up for debate.
There's also a question of emphasis. E.g. should the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christianity page say that Christianity or any other religion is an unfounded conspiracy theory without evidence? As much as I'd like to, I don't think we should. Disclaimer: my Wife does Falun Gong.
This page should also likely be protected, it is an obvious target for vandalism.
Cirosantilli2 (talk) 09:09, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Unfounded conspiracy theories" on the summary is not neutral 

message: I want to contract u. 37.111.248.84 (talk) 17:24, 28 May 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  email address 

message: There is a text passage under "Falun Gong" which starts with "Regarding these concepts, he said[...]". Apparently this passage seems to be out of context. I can't see how it follows on the preceeding passage(s). It also quotes a "Lewis" which is not mentioned in any text passage of the heading. Shoesoft93 (talk) 16:36, 7 September 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: You're right, someone deleted the preceding sentence a while ago. I restored the missing text from the article history. MrOllie (talk) 16:54, 7 September 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unrelated text passage under "Falun Gong" 

message: if i may quote the sister article of Teachings of Falun Gong
Li Hongzhi's conservative moral teachings have caused some concern in the West, including his views on homosexuality, democracy and science. The founder taught that homosexuality makes one "unworthy of being human", creates bad karma, and is comparable to organized crime. He also taught that "disgusting homosexuality shows the dirty abnormal psychology of the gay who has lost his ability of reasoning", and that homosexuality is a "filthy, deviant state of mind." Li additionally stated in a 1998 speech in Switzerland that, "gods' first target of annihilation would be homosexuals." In light of Li's teachings on homosexuality as immoral, a nomination of Li for the Nobel Peace Prize by San Francisco legislators was withdrawn in 2001. Although gay, lesbian, and bisexual people may practice Falun Gong, founder Li stated that they must "give up the bad conduct" of all same-sex sexual activity.
since most of these are direct quotes, i think it would be notewhile to add such content on any sections related to his beliefs/controversies 98.59.80.64 (talk) 04:56, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: As shown above in the "Why is the page semi-protected?" section,this section was already discussed and deemed too heavily emphasized. Also, please state your sources for your "direct quotes" above. 92.200.207.67 (talk) 03:40, 23 December 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  possibly add a section on Li Hongzhi's opposition to homosexuality