Talk:Li Hongzhi/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

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.[20][21] 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".[22] 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.[23] 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."[24]

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 ^¡digame! 10:27, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

I was not talking about the biography. I was talking about the sourced statements between, see references between [20] and [24]. --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 ^¡digame! 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

“ "Chinese authorities asserted that acquaintances Li Jingchao and Liu Yuqing helped to develop the system, and other earlier followers helped write texts and touch up photographs; it was not tested exhaustively beforehand, but was completed only one month before its official launch.". ”

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 ^¡digame! 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 ^¡digame! 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 ^¡digame! 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)

I have already been very clear about why ASDFG's recent edits constitute vandalism and feel no need to repeat myself ad-nauseum just because you don't accept it. Your edit was reverted as vandalism because you reverted to ASDFG's vandalizing edit. Simonm223 (talk) 15:13, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Actually, if you looked at what I changed, I thought I mostly removed bias from the writing. There were flashy adjectives and nouns when plain ones would have done. It would be really helpful if people could be specific in making objections. I'm tiring of the personal attacks.--Asdfg12345 12:17, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Oh wow.. so I see it was reverted? I'm not sure what I should do in this situation. <--- I wrote that before I edited. Okay, so I kept the reffs fixed up. And I kept the Penny sentence. The change I made was to delete the CCP source, and to add in the much needed context about when the CCP's claims were made. And I have changed the wording so it does not seem like "While Li says... the CCP shows that..." -- as it was set up. I don't see a reason here to set it up like that. Also, one disappointing thing I might note is that in the rush to put in any kind of negative material available, what's been lost is some thoughtful information that would actually help the reader understand the cultural and historical context these things are happening within. Penny says a lot of interesting things about the biography of spiritual masters in Chinese history, relating it to the Falun Gong story. It would be interesting to have some parts of that analysis in here. I think this kind of thoughtful commentary on what is going on, rather than leaping in and trying to smear the subject, is much better. We should have a section called "Biography" and include the claims and counter-claims, and analysis, surrounding it. It should include the birthdate controversy and the supernatural ability stuff. Does anyone disagree with that? The other changes I made were mostly at the language level. If they're disputed, let's talk. The point is to make the writing neutral.--Asdfg12345 12:30, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Li's Whereabouts

Is this article being updated? It seems odd there's nothing beyond 2002. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.155.165.25 (talk) 10:12, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

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)

Violations of WP:LIVING

The sensationalist language used, how the article, at every corner, airs CCP Propaganda, waters down the positive sources, etc. amount to gross violations of WP:LIVING.

For instance, Britannica states: "He studied under masters from the Buddhist and Taoist faiths. With the surge in China in the late 1980s of Qiqong-related activities—from which many Falun Gong exercises descended—Li decided to synthesize his techniques in order to establish a synergy between the mind and nature. He compiled many of his lectures into a book entitled Zhuan Falun, which served as the main text for his methodology. In it, he called for spiritual enlightenment through meditation and the striving toward a high moral standard of living. ". The intro airs post-persecution CCP propaganda( pre-persecution CCP sources say a different story), without context, then weakly counters with a biography the subject himself had requested removed stating attention should be on the Teachings, and on cultivating Xinxing, not on the Master. Distortions run throughout the article. Sources stating Li Hongzhi had been nominated four years in a row, by 6 different countries, for the Nobel Peace Prize has been repeatedly blanked and replaced with other much less relevant content. "He Zuoxiu"'s baseless attacks are aired in the article, while what Ian Johnson, Schechter, etc said on teh topic has been repeatedly blanked. The repetead blanking of positive content and promotion of a negative POV, is not only just in violation of WP:LIVING but is almost 50-cent-ish. Dilip rajeev (talk) 07:01, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Problematic editing

I've left another remark on Mrund's page, urging him not to edit in this way. Dilip has raised some concerns above; why not address them? Since this is an article on a living person, I think when Dilip reverts your blanking, and if you revert again, there may be scope for sanctions on that sort of behaviour, since this is both an article under probation, and a biography of a living person. See the Falun Gong arbitration case for guidelines about these pages. I think Mrund has made a mistake with that edit and should undo it himself. I'm not talking about the merit or otherwise of all parts of Dilip's edit, I'm talking about about blanking sourced, relevant material with no explanation while failing to engage in discussion. --Asdfg12345 13:28, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

• Oh, how very droll that Dilip's back, and that you referred to Mrund's editing as "problematic", as if throwing around these labels, plus your veiled threat will get him sanctioned. You are certainly wise enough not to want to stand behind the merits of Dilip's edit. As to his "concerns" - and I am talking generally - it seems that any use of a Chines government source is "propaganda" and cannot be relied upon, quite irrespective of whether it is used to demonstrate the government's own position or assertions. Pffff! Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 02:02, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

No, I have not suggested that. I have made clear that I believe the CCP's view should be used to demonstrate its own position or assertions. That is legitimate and fair. But when it is used as a source of facts about Falun Gong, as you have repeatedly used CCP sources--even the most virulently anti-Falun Gong propaganda, run by an agency which gets in on the brainwashing classes--it is no longer legitimate. I do not suggest the CCP's position not be stated. I suggest one 1) if secondary sources can first be used, that is best. In most cases there is no problem with using secondary sources. 2) if CCP sources are to be used, if necessary, the context and how they are structured needs to be quite clear. That's it. And it should not be overdone. In this case secondary sources should be sufficient to relay the CCP's claims against Li. However, whether they belong on this page or not I am not sure. The claims were made in the context of the persecution and anti-Falun Gong propaganda campaign. Probably it would make sense to mention that Li was targeted in that fashion, and elaborate on the details of the propaganda in the appropriate section dealing with that, presumably on the persecution page or main page. Primary sources and extremist sources are not useful for making claims about third parties; the existence of such views should be noted, however. I don't think we differ.--Asdfg12345 03:38, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

On a lighter note, what are you still doing here anyway!? Couldn't help it, could you?! --Asdfg12345 03:39, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

this kind of thing is a bit sad. Just seems like a bitter crusade now in spite of policy. "If that POV pusher Dilip wants to add some nice stuff, I'll show him!" I do think a claim like that needs a better source than an opinion column. I thought there were high standards for inclusion in BLPs, but this is bizarre. --Asdfg12345 22:28, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Violation of WP:BLP

I removed the Christopher Hitchens reference; such nonsense attributed to Sima Nan has never been found in any source that is directly quoting Li, and this is a biography of a living person. ✔ Olaf Stephanos ✍ 23:46, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

There are many other sources that corroborate this. I agree that Christopher Hitchens is not the best source. The story went something like this (Source: Yan Xiwu) - Sima Nan was against all forms of 'fake qigong'. Li Hongzhi boasted that Sima had spoken against all forms of qigong except for Falun Gong, because he'd planted a Falun that spins in the wrong direction. Li boasted that this proved that Falun Gong was the only 'true' form of qigong, even to qigong's critics. Days later, Sima went on BTV's Beijing Express program to criticize Li Hongzhi - saying that he never intended to 'spare' him of criticism. Falun Gong practitioners then went to the TV station to protest the 'slander' against Li Hongzhi, and in a compromise, BTV fired the host of the show. Sima Nan was enraged by the host's firing, and said that Falun Gong practitioners shouldn't be targeting the innocent, but should come to him directly instead. In his response to Falun Gong, he reiterated that his true enemy wasn't qigong (or Falun Gong), but those who claim supernatural powers and harm the public.

Li's quote on Sima Nan is given as follows by Mr. Yan (I don't know if this is just a paraphrase or an actual quotation):

“ 司马南谁都敢反，就是不敢反我。你们知道为什么吗？是因为我在他的肚子上遥距安了一个法轮，我让这个法轮时刻都在逆转。- Translation: Sima Nan is opposing everyone, but he does not dare to oppose me. Do you know why? Because I implanted a Falun in his abdomen from afar, and this Falun is constantly revolving in the wrong direction. ”

The portion that Olaf deleted, thus, should be rephrased, and better sources be located. But outright removal of it is unwarranted. Colipon+(Talk) 01:11, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Please, could you cite the original source in Chinese, for confirmation of the quote? We should also attribute the quote to the original Chinese source, with Crichten being only the guy who has reported the same thing in English. I tried rewording it but I didn't know how. --Enric Naval (talk) 08:22, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

This quote is so poorly fabricated (by Sima or someone else) that it's preposterous. What wrong direction? In Zhuan Falun, Li Hongzhi says, "While rotating clockwise, it can automatically absorb energy from the universe. Additionally, it can itself transform energy to supply the energy required for transforming every part of your body. Also, it emits energy while rotating counter-clockwise, releasing undesirable elements that will disperse around your body. When it emits energy, the energy can be released to quite a distance, and then it will bring in new energy again." [1] And, in China Falun Gong, "They will also rotate in reverse at the appropriate time. The mechanisms rotate in both directions; there is no need for you to work for those things." [2]

Actually, we have discussed this before, and the same logical contradiction was brought up back then. Sima Nan can say just about anything, because nobody in China is demanding verifiability for his comments about Falun Gong. ✔ Olaf Stephanos ✍ 10:56, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Hummm, I think I found the source: "Sima: In 1995, Li Hongzhi once bragged in a Falun Gong conference, "There is a Sima Nan in Beijing who scolded many people except for me. Why doesn't he dare scold me? Because I installed a wheel of law in him and the wheel is reverse. He will be blind in this year and lose his legs in a car accident next year. Once he wanted to make trouble in my conference, I added an idea onto him and he bent over like a dog immediately." Li Hongzhi's braggart was later reported to me in a letter and I was warned to be cautious because it was said that Li Hongzhi was powerful." Interview with facts.org, January 2008 [3]. --Enric Naval (talk) 12:54, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Let me get this straight: Sima claims that he received an anonymous letter from somebody who says Li Hongzhi said in a certain occasion something that, in a closer view, directly contradicts what is said in Zhuan Falun and Falun Gong about the wheel turning in both directions? And it is published on the Chinese government's anti-FLG website? And you think it belongs to a biography of a living person? ✔ Olaf Stephanos ✍ 13:08, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

wp:blp says, among other things: "Be very firm about the use of high quality references. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion." I'm going to remove the offending text right away. It seems obvious that it contradicts that policy. Homunculus (duihua) 14:00, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

1. not an RS. 2. still violates BLP which is extremely strict. Ohconfucius just decided to put that stuff in out of spite for Dilip's return. And Mrund deleted a bunch of other material that actually had a good source and wasn't libellous. I hope Olaf restores that soon too. --Asdfg12345 06:20, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Let's be absolutely clear here. The source originally attributed was Christopher Hitchens and the Nation newspaper. The latter is, without question, a RS. The source does not say that Li said these things about Sima Nan, what the source says, and what Wikipedia reflects, is a statement from Christopher Hitchens. Now the reader just has to decide whether or not to believe Hitchens - something that Wikipedia does not take a position on owing to its policy of NPOV. If there are many other sources that also say the same thing, Wikipedia can present it as such, without making a judgment on whether or not Li Hongzhi really said it. The BLP policy was introduced because libel was going up on people's pages and the people had a legal right to contain false information about them. However, when Wikipedia presents that Christopher Hitchens said it, and attribute it to The Nation newspaper, it is clear that the liability for slander, if there is such a thing, lies first on The Nation and then on Christopher Hitchens. The debate that we should be having here, then, is not whether or not this violates the BLP policy, but rather whether or not Li Hongzhi's remark about Sima Nan is given undue weight, or some other similar encyclopedic concern. Colipon+(Talk) 14:34, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't really understand this logic. Good scholarship is about following the audit trail. It seems clear that those claims come from facts.org.cn (apparently titled as such without a hint of irony), and in that sense may have been totally made up. It's natural that people like Christopher Hitchens will bear a grudge against Chinese spiritual masters who make claims to be saving the world - I don't blame him - but I would never rely on such dubious claims in any professional research.

Olaf Stephanos further problematizes the issue with quotes from the 'horse's mouth' that contradict the source, too. And wp:blp tells us how this encyclopedia is not a tabloid. It just seems to me to be an inaccurate cheap shot from a bad source, rather than a thoughtful discussion. Ben Penny's article is referenced here; what a much better document to refer to. Homunculus (duihua) 14:56, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

I absolutely agree with you, Homunculus. Following the audit trail of that quote leads us to more and more obscure sources that seem to rely on hearsay only. I'm happy to see that new, reasonable editors are now interested in this topic area. The articles are in need of some major scrutiny. It would be good to compare some diffs from the last summer to the current versions. You will see that a lot of high-quality information from academic sources has been replaced with dubious anti-FLG propaganda. I will continue to challenge all of that, and this time rational discussion will be unavoidable. ✔ Olaf Stephanos ✍ 15:29, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Just a note. Facts.cn did in fact, seize on these comments unfairly. They do not present the comments neutrally because facts.cn is obviously an anti-Falun Gong website with lots of propaganda, probably produced by the Chinese gov't, so we should be careful of what it says. The only reason I seem adamant about this suggestion is because I have heard these remarks long before the Chinese gov't's propaganda war against Falun Gong even began. I know that it is not a fabrication - I just need to find the right sources for it. It's just that Chinese language sources that discuss this issue often get called "communist propaganda" by the group of Falun Gong editors here so I sometimes wonder if it's worth the effort. Colipon+(Talk) 21:30, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Sima Nan has been against qigong even during the so-called 'qigong boom', and Falun Gong had other opponents, including qigong masters who had been stripped of their fat revenues in the advent of a free-of-charge practice system. We know this from research. An anonymous letter maligning Li Hongzhi that just "happens" to find its way into official publications should arouse anyone's suspicions, especially since it wantonly contradicts Falun Gong theory about the wheel revolving in both directions and being only installed into genuine practitioners' abdomen. We don't write biographies based on agenda-driven hearsay. ✔ Olaf Stephanos ✍ 22:35, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Using Li Hongzhi qiren qishi as a source

The reference [12] was sourced to an anti-Falun leaflet published by the Research Office of the Ministry of Public Security. We shouldn't use propagandistic primary sources in a biography of a living person. The CCP's point of view can be explained through the use of academic secondary sources. Also, even though the previous reference is to Penny, I took a look at the original writing and saw that Penny attributed this information to exactly the same source: Li Hongzhi qiren qishi. I didn't remove it, though - we can certainly use Penny to route the claims of the CCP. However, James Tong describes the CCP source and these allegations in detail, so I inserted some words from him. On a side note, I don't think this article should be turned into a battlefield of discourses; we should probably keep it concise. But I will wait for wider input and hold back for now. ✔ Olaf Stephanos ✍ 23:25, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

The source is actually used by Benjamin Penny to describe the Chinese government's views on Li (as you noted yourself). I sourced the primary source for it to have a more direct means of tracing. If you are genuinely concerned about the use of Li Hongzhi qiren qishi as a source, we can easily modify that source to Benjamin Penny. Colipon+(Talk) 23:30, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

I wouldn't say there is any problem in using B. Penny as a source on the PRC's viewpoint. I have taken a look at Olaf's recent edits, as well as yours. It seems he left Penny intact and simply added some commentary about the original source used by Penny. You reverted everything. Just my opinion: this dispute doesn't belong to Li's biography. We are better off moving it somewhere else. In this case, the PRC source seems to tell more about the PRC than about Li. —Zujine|talk 01:30, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

I might weigh in on this... Colipon is right in the sense that qiren qishi is a clear representation of the views of the CCP. But at the same time, I think the level of qualification needed to properly contextualise these claims - that it was a report compiled by the research branch of the PSB in accordance with the post-7-20 political requirements of Jiang and the Politburo - makes them more relevant in a discussion of the CCP's propaganda campaign than as a useful commentary on Li himself.

Apropos, someone over at Ching Hai made a good point: "The way it looks to me, if no quality sources are available in a BLP, the article should be stubbed. We must not put in a bunch of weaselisms, gossip, innuendo, guilt by association and all the other stand-bys of poor journalism and say, "Gee, that's all we could find.""

I tend to agree. These are a similar set of sources which told us of how Li was alleged to have visited brothels, and compared him to Hitler. We're not going to have that in the Wikipedia page but it's all a matter of degree, and there's as much evidence for the tamer claims as there is for the openly humorous ones. They were fabricated for political purposes. In that sense, Zujine is right that these sources tell us more about the CCP's media imperatives than about the subject of the attacks. I'm shifting all the information over to the History page, where I think it belongs. The Sound and the Fury (talk) 02:01, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

This is probably the most sensible solution. I think I remember reading something about how the Falungong came out with their own qiren qishi counter-propaganda, against Jiang. I doubt that would get any airtime on the Jiang Zemin page. Noting it as an example the Falungong's use of media to get their message across would make sense, but I imagine Wikipedia would look dimly upon anyone trying to include it on the Jiang page. Homunculus (duihua) 10:41, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

There is an entire paragraph of Falun Gong's criticisms against Jiang in his article (I recall inserting some of the material myself). Indeed, that piece was named Jiang Zemin qiren qishi, and is taken as a direct "reply" of Falun Gong against Jiang (The CCP and Falun Gong sometimes operate in very similar ways in their media wars - Falun Gong also calls the CCP "a cult" in their "nine commentaries of the Communist Party") Should we take that out of the Jiang article as well, then, per BLP? Colipon+(Talk) 14:33, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Agree with Colipon. The Epoch Times is not a good source for the Jiang Zemin article. I removed the paragraph and suggest that we go looking for a good secondary source that describes the tension between Falun Gong and Jiang. —Zujine|talk 15:50, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Recent edits by Olaf

Here we see that Olaf has made three changes to the article. The third one was minor, so I won't be dealing with that. In the second change, Olaf outright removed Chinese gov't-compiled source Li Hongzhi qiren qishi. While I agree that Chinese government sources are not reliable when it comes to discussing Falun Gong per se, they should be used as a reliable source to discuss their own views on Falun Gong. The passage that Olaf removed clearly stated that the views were that of the Chinese authorities, and thus leaves the reader to judge whether or not that is believable as per NPOV. The Noah Porter reference that Olaf tried to insert is in itself questionable - and even if it wasn't, it's misplaced. This is becoming eerily similar to Olaf's actions before his six-month topic ban - the CPC's propaganda tactics should be discussed where it belongs; it should not be brought out every time there is anything to be said that remotely paints Li Hongzhi in a negative light. This is, after all, an encyclopedia, not a battleground for both sides to have a 'right-of-reply' to the other.

As for the first edit, I am a little hesitant about the wording. I think it dilutes the reality of Li's position of power in Falun Gong. But I will not delve into that now, because I think there is a degree of justification for modifying that part of the intro. Olaf's treatment of it is still not neutral, but it will suffice until someone comes up with something better. Colipon+(Talk) 23:27, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

I am not against academic representations of Falun Gong, no matter what their point of view is. I was topic banned for being sarcastic, and it doesn't take away from my professional, methodical treatment of sources. This is not an article about the Chinese government's views on Falun Gong, but a biography of a living person. Primary source material that might be valid elsewhere isn't automatically acceptable here. Some outside editors have already expressed their concerns about the state of these articles, and I believe my changes may be justified in their eyes as well. As you see, I am not edit warring or reverting, merely inserting well-sourced material and contesting dubious references. I said in my previous comment that the text should be kept concise. Through adding some transparency to the sources that have been appropriated, I encourage other editors to make informed choices about developing the article further. I am by no means endorsing this version. ✔ Olaf Stephanos ✍ 23:39, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Olaf, when I was doing research on this topic, I occasionally glanced at what was going on with these articles. You write well and know your sources, but you did create unnecessary tension by acting like the rooster in a henhouse. If you can tone down your acrid language, which you may have already done to some degree, I think your contributions will be very much valued by the community. It will be less straining for you too, believe me. —Zujine|talk 01:56, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

My only input here is that 'holds definitional power' is obviously more neutral than 'wields near-absolute influence.' The verb wields is hyperbolic, and 'near-absolute influence' is not the reserved assessment one would expect from a creativity-stifling professional encyclopedia. Noah Porter's thesis is a good source. If Li's position within the Falun Gong cosmology could be better explained that would also be good. The Sound and the Fury (talk) 02:08, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Birth date controversy

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

I see a user has partially reverted, and thus made the section incomprehensible again. It now reads "According to Li, his date of birth had been misprinted as one of the pervasive bureaucratic errors of the Cultural Revolution, and he was merely correcting it. He called it a "smear" from people trying to destroy him." He called what a smear? The meaning has been completely lost, yet again. Also, can someone explain the objection to just quoting Li Hongzhi? That quote has been used in full in multiple reliable sources, it's not excessively long, and it's the clearest articulation of Li's own position on this. Paraphrasing the quotations means we risk obscuring or misrepresenting the meaning, and that seems to be what happened here.Homunculus (duihua) 18:15, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Citizenship / Nationality

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.[4] 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.[5] 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)

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)

Sigh. I am quickly realizing that you are neither familiar with the scholarly literature on Falun Gong, nor with immigration processes. So I will explain one more time.

• Nothing I have said is original research
• My assessment that Palmer and Ownby are superior sources is not my POV. It derives from the fact that they are established experts in this field. They have both written books on Qigong and Falun Gong in prestigious academic presses. By contrast, Encyclopedia Britannica, while a good source, is written by on-staff generalists. If there is a factual disagreement between these reliable sources, we should defer to what the highest quality RS say. In this case, the better sources and the majority of sources say Li obtained permanent residency in 1998.
• You say that Palmer and Ownby are "not valid" sources. Care to explain? The books (not links — you may actually have to go to a library) are David Palmer, Qigong Fever: Body, Science, and Utopia in China (Columbia Univerity Press, 2007), and David Ownby, Falun Gong and the Future of China, (Oxford University Press, 2008). I already quoted the relevant passages above. But again, these sources (and many others) say that Li moved to the U.S. in 1996 and gained permanent residency in 1998. Specifically, he obtained an investor visa in 1998, giving him permanent residency. They do not say that Li ever sought or gained citizenship.
• If you want more sources that disprove the citizenship claim, look at the TIME magazine article you cited. It says Li decided to apply for U.S. immigrant status in 1997. He would not have done that if he was already a citizen of the United States.
• If you know anything at all about U.S. immigration (I suspect you don't), you would understand that one does not go about obtaining permanent residency in a country where one is already a citizen. Therefore, the claim that Li obtained citizenship in 1996 is simply an error, and is inconsistent with the vast majority of reliable sources.
• If a person gains citizenship in the United States, they are no longer referred to as a permanent resident. These are not generic terms; they refer to one's legal status in the United States. The majority of reliable sources (and Li himself) describe Li as a U.S. permanent resident. If he were a citizen, they would not continue to refer to him as a permanent resident. This is not my opinion. It is a fact.
• You say that "Chinese is the name of nation". Not in any maps I own. In any event, I have little cause for optimism when it comes to convincing you that nationality does not necessarily refer to the name of state in which one resides. So how about we get rid of the 'nationality' field, and instead have 'ethnicity' and 'country of residence' ? Homunculus (duihua) 23:29, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Well, without the context, now we both just look mad. Thanks for stepping in.Homunculus (duihua) 17:17, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

If Li has a Permanent_residence_(United_States) then he can't be a US citizen. And I don't see any source saying that he lost his Chinese nationality. If he earned US citizenship, then he would have double nationality (US and Chinese). I don't see any source making such claims.

Also, Britannica is a tertiary source, and we shouldn't be basing our articles on what it says. It only makes us repeat its inaccuracies. --Enric Naval (talk) 11:25, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Propose to add Li Hongzhi's status as wanted in China

I would like to add this following fact: http://www.china-embassy.org/eng/zt/ppflg/t36563.htm Li is wanted by the Chinese government is a relevant fact, and announcement to the effect from the Chinese embassy is a reliable source for this fact. Bobby fletcher (talk) 21:02, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

This information is already in the article, but it is sourced to the BBC, not the Chinese government. Also, calling someone a 'wanted fellon' [sic] when they have never been convicted of a crime (let alone a felony) is a violation of Wikipedia's policy on biographies of living persons. This applies even if you do so on a talk page. —Zujine|talk 23:30, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Please cite the relevant wikipedia policy, thanks. Anyways, I'm agreeable to what fellow editors would agree to. As I searched the article for the word "wanted", I do not see the fact he is wanted in China anywhere.

Bobby fletcher (talk) 08:10, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Chinese government as RS?

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)

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)

I agree with Sean. BlueCanoe's rationale is just gaming the system. STSC (talk) 17:01, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

->Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Use_of_primary_sources_making_inflammatory_claims Sean.hoyland - talk 20:36, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Porter

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)

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)

Zhongnanhai appeal

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)

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)

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)

Li is wanted

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)

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)

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)

“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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)