Talk:Li Hongzhi/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

pov tag

This article consists of only positive views. Please stop from removing the tag till solved.--Jsjsjs1111 (talk) 03:27, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

When you added the template and said in the abstract "stated by other users in the talk page. please do not remove templates until problem are solved.", I checked the talk page and found there was nobody recently discussed about this on this talk page. So i canceled the template you added in. Now your rationale for the template has changed to "only positive views" not because of "stated by other users in the talk page" any more? Marvin 2009 (talk) 12:07, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

You need to offer specific, actionable examples of how this article falls short of NPOV (i.e. how it fails to fairly represent the balance of perspectives of high-quality, reliable secondary sources). If you cannot offer a satisfactory explanation of the neutrality problem, then other editors can certainly remove the notice. See [[Template:POV]. In the mean time, don't edit war. This is far too banal a thing to get sanctioned over.TheBlueCanoe 05:30, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

@TheBlueCanoe: I met User:Jsjsjs1111 at a Shenzhen Starbucks and he told me this was a point of contention. I read some talk page archives and articles and find it curious this page currently doesn't mention Li Hongzhi's beliefs in aliens. (this was brought up before here: Talk:Falun_Gong/Archive_40#The_founder_of_Falun_Gong_believe_that_aliens_invaded_earth)

• Dowell, William (1999-05-10). "Interview with Li Hongzhi". Time. {{cite web}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)
• "The aliens have introduced modern machinery like computers and airplanes. They started by teaching mankind about modern science, so people believe more and more science, and spiritually, they are controlled. Everyone thinks that scientists invent on their own when in fact their inspiration is manipulated by the aliens. In terms of culture and spirit, they already control man. Mankind cannot live without science."

Of course secondary source coverage of the alien belief is needed too. And so far I found this:

• Penny, Benjamin. The Religion of Falun Gong. University of Chicago Press, March 1, 2012. ISBN 0226655024, 9780226655024. p. 131.

• "In 1999, he gave one of his only interviews to a non-Falun Gong publication. In it, published in the web version of Time Asia on May 10, 1999 [...] Li spoke freely about how aliens from other planets and other dimensions have infiltrated society through science and technology, as part of their plan to take over the human race."

• Chang, Maria Hsia. Falun Gong: The End of Days. Yale University Press, October 1, 2008. ISBN 0300133170, 9780300133172. p. 71.

• "In an interview in 1999 with Time magazine, Li expounded further on the space aliens who have visited earth. Sounding like an episode of The X-Files, Li maintained that extraterrestrials first came to earth circa[...]"

Other books have discussed this issue. In your view, how much coverage is needed before a paragraph on Li Hongzhi's beliefs is warranted?

WhisperToMe (talk) 07:34, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

Li's views comprise the teachings of Falun Gong. It's a set of beliefs spelled out in thousands of pages worth of books and lectures. So the question would become which beliefs ought to be highlighted in his biography, and how to ensure that this is done in a manner that is proportional and representative of his teachings (as has been noted elsewhere, there are whole academic books dedicated to describing Falun Gong's history and beliefs, in which mention of aliens occupies only a couple paragraphs, if not just one or two sentences—it's evidently not central to the doctrine of Falun Gong). Editors who advocate highlighting Li's comments on aliens have never convincingly explained why they think this needs to be given prominence, other than that they find it comical or weird. This is not a compelling argument, especially when viewed with reference to NPOV policies. Anyway, bear in mind that there is an article about the teachings of Falun Gong, and that that is probably the more appropriate place engage in this discussion.TheBlueCanoe 17:01, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for the info! I am aware the Falun Gong template links to the beliefs of the organization, but I wonder if clarifying that "if you want to see the person's teachings/beliefs, see this article" might be something useful. The article on Jesus discusses his teachings in Jesus#Life_and_teachings_in_the_New_Testament, an as for Joseph Smith, Joseph_Smith#Views_and_teachings which links to a main article on his teachings.

The second thing is that I'd like to account for the number of pages dealing with aliens in both Penny and Chang. I did that for three works at Talk:Teachings of Falun Gong so editors can determine how to manage coverage. Penny used about three pages and Chang used about five. Chang also referred to that as a distinctive belief element.

Penny stated that while Li Hongzhi gets interviewed a lot, he is/was rarely interviewed by a non-Falun Gong publication. The 1999 one with the aliens was one of the non-Falun Gong publication interviews.

WhisperToMe (talk) 15:45, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Deceased? *This is not a venue for speculation*

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) Anthony Ivanoff (talk) 10:15, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

Sounds convincing. TheBlueCanoe 17:02, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

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)

Discussion

hello, User 101.98.207.182,about your edits[1].First, your edit seems not be found in your source. Second, pls view [WP:Biographies of living persons], and use 3rd-party reliable sources.Thank you, and pls discuess. Wetrace (talk) 08:44, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

hello, User 101.98.207.182，about your edit[2], First, your edit seems not be found in your source. Second, pls view [WP:Biographies of living persons], and use 3rd-party reliable sources.Thank you, and pls discuess. Wetrace (talk) 13:26, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

User 2001:288:C2C7:3:D55B:8DEA:D7A1:E6A1, about your edit[3], without any source. pls view WP:Biographies of living persons, and use 3rd-party reliable sources.Besides, the Chinese Communist Party regime is the persecuting party. Thank you, and pls discuess.

According to WP:Biographies of living persons,"Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) 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. Users who persistently or egregiously violate this policy may be blocked from editing."Wetrace (talk) 05:46, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

Why is the page semi-protected? And the article appears to present Li as a great master in his bio and omit the specifics of his controversial teachings

I see the Shen Yun posters everywhere and that made me interested in googling what it is about. So looked it up and found plenty of mainstream articles that talk about its founder. However much of what the media writes about him, I seem to find it missing in his Wikipedia article. I know that there are no shortage of american media reports in the past year and current, that criticizes Li and his beliefs. But I have also noticed that the pages related to falun gong, are being semi-protected and also recent edits that have been reversed: were of similar criticisms of falun gong that were well sourced and were wholly and in its entirety, deleted for being repetitive? That seems rather arbitrary. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/946101072

Regardless I like to add in the following edits. Firstly the wiki page of Shen Yun, be added in the "SEE ALSO" section as they are interconnected deeply. And also adding the info that Li himself stated that David Copperfield can really levitate off the ground, and that aliens introduced science in the world so that they could use human bodies. Such shocking info is currently missing in the current Wikipedia article. There are an abundance of reputed western media channels that back such info hence I think such significant info is not misleading and no valid reason to not add that in for the sake of full transparency of Li's teachings.

Also according to NBC, Li also taught that sickness is a symptom of evil that can only be truly cured with meditation and devotion, and that aliens from undiscovered dimensions have invaded the minds and bodies of humans, bringing corruption and inventions such as computers and airplanes. I like that info to be added in. Such major "need to know" info for the public, seems to not have been able to added to the article and also cannot, due to the semi-protected ban but there is no reason why it shouldn't be added in. Instead after reading the media articles of Li then reading his Wikipedia article right now. It actually seems to be presenting him as a great master wise in supernatural arts whilst also overwhelmingly leaving out the controversial stuff he teaches that NBC has reported on. https://www.insider.com/shen-yun-show-falun-gong-2019-3 and https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/tech-news/trump-qanon-impending-judgment-day-behind-facebook-fueled-rise-epoch-n1044121 Is the edit protection measure here to prevent criticism of Li? if not, then I feel there is no reason to add in the edits I have outlined above and request them to be added in by a neutral editor who can bypass the semi protection block. Gurnardmexico66 (talk) 15:50, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

Hi there, I can only assume that in the past the page would often get vandalized, so now it’s semi-protected. Falun Gong gets attacked a lot by trolls. The nbcnews article seems to be more of an opinion piece. The points you mention from the article are an interpretation of the teaching by the article’s author but without actually examining the original source, it’s difficult to say how accurate those are. The insider article also skews towards negative feedback of the show. What has put me on guard about this article is the prominent usage of politicized terminology that’s usually common to the communist party of China narrative. The article even touches on that towards the end. Berehinia (talk) 01:33, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

Specifically which part should not be added in? You simply made a sweeping statement that is vague and stating it's a bad biased source. It's not an opinion piece to say his views are anti-science, anti-gay and racist but based on facts. The Insider is a professional media and its article directly sourced Li himself in a Times interview, where Li egotistically claims that scientists and governments don't understand aliens and only really he does, so other people should follow him more. He described them physically as looking disturbingly like a human with a bone for a nose and it was these evil aliens who gave us science like computers and planes, in order to control us humans and we should hence reject their science and tech. He also states outright that David Copperfield was not doing some magic trick. But levitated for real.

Additionally in Falun Gong's own official website, it published Li's lectures. It explicitly says the same things and a lot more, that aliens gave us tech to control us and he is the one who can save people from them. And Insider article wasn't kidding about his anti gay, anti science and racist views.

https://falundafa.org/eng/eng/lectures/19980904L.html

In the link above, he lectures that aliens wanted to shake us from the gods and why they deliberately made different races to mix with each other and that helps them overtake us. And many mexicans, south americans, south east asians are rootless people as they had mixed heritages and no longer proper people in the eyes of god. Like seriously? That is blatant bigotry and racism. He also makes vile comments about homosexuals that “repulsive homosexual behaviour” bespeaks of a filthy, deviant state of mind that lacks rationality." http://web.archive.org/web/20150729102911/http://www.falundafa.org/book/eng/zfl2.htm The wiki article shouldn't defend Li for making such public explicit lectures that degrades mixed race people, homosexuality and scaremongers about the dangers of using technology and science. Because he claims that science were made by aliens to help destroy us. Such homophobic, anti race-mixing lectures and anti-science stances should be added in to wiki page and not hidden from the public and in a new section titled western media criticisms of Li, which is absent for no good reason.

Gurnardmexico66 (talk) 10:09, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

@Gurnardmexico66: I don't think we should add those edits. I agree with @Berehinia, that both of your articles are heavily influenced by the Chinese government’s disinformation campaign.

As for the “controversial” teachings, I would say that it is only your personal interpretation or your deliberate misinterpretation, and therefore they should not be added. It would not comply with WP: NPOV for anyone to write their own interpretations here. Nevertheless, there are some secondary sources, for example, https://scholarcommons.usf.edu/etd/1451/ for us to examine the issues. This researcher at USF says “Falun Gong might teach these things are not good, but they would not try to impose their beliefs on others”. Thus, it lacks all the negative aspects suggested by your accusations.

Also, on this page here https://qr.ae/pNrzZ1, a mix-blooded Falun Gong practitioner himself explains these issues. He says: “homosexuals can and do practice Falun Gong, even though Falun Gong teaches that it's immoral. There is just no exclusion of people for any reason.” According to these sources, it will be highly misleading to add your interpretations on this page.--Thomas Meng (talk) 23:48, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

I don't see how I would "deliberately" misinterpret the lectures and would ask you to not make such rude gas-lighting attempts at me, or I will report it next time to Wikipedia relevant channels and allow outsiders to judge who is clearly being biased here. But I will try to understand you nonetheless- is there any proof that those western media articles are even influenced by Chinese government disinformation campaign? Can you please be more specific instead of making such a rude accusations of me? Or your loose interpretation that I don't know what I'm talking about. FYI, those western media papers cited many sources and included literally a TIMES interview with Li Hongzhi himself and of Li's own article from Falundafa.org. And in your own logic, western media must have also "deliberately" misinterpreted the lectures and been influenced by chinese disinformation campaign as they share the exact same opinion as me, DESPITE they had transparently cited legit sources that are clearly not from Chinese government. Unless you think Times Magazine, Li hongzhi and Falundafa.org are solidly considered to be chinese gov disinformation sources. But you know they're not.

You even wrote to me yourself that Li states that homosexuality is immoral. That's basically my point. And my sources that I cited which is literally Li's very own articles, had clearly attacked homosexuality as something that lacked rationality. That is called hate speech to say that someone lacks rationality if they are gay. If you are uncomfortable, I don't mind not calling Li as homophobic and would accept a neutral tone but his views on homosexuality should not at all be omitted. Your own suggestion by an actual member insisting that gays can practice falun gong and also be taught that they are inherently immoral, nonetheless should all be added to a section on "LI's views of homosexuality" instead of trying to sweep it all under a rug. Gurnardmexico66 (talk) 04:31, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

Also it's not just Li's views on homosexuality that should be added. I mentioned a lot of things like his views on tech, his own statement that David Copperfield levitated, etc and the only reason people want to hide all that. Is because they are protecting him. And I read your own scholarly source and noticed that it talked about Li discouraging people to take western medicine but also not banning it. That info should also be added in. Is there a legitimate reason why it shouldn't be added in? Ben Hurley is an ex member of Falun Gong and he wrote how uncomfortable it is even for members to talk about some of falun gong's beliefs like to not try to take western medicine and then witness a member dying from curable diseases, even when there were only practitioners in the room. https://medium.com/@Ben_D_Hurley/-10677166298b

It seems like even Falun Gong's members are afraid of being transparent with their beliefs and worry about being judged so try to hide it from the world. Nonetheless it was your own cited scholar and source that wrote "Practitioners are not encouraged to rely on Western medicine, but are not prohibited from using it." That is one of Li's teachings and that should be added in to the article. There is no good reason to try and hide that from the world unless you also think your very own source is being biased and influenced by Chinese gov. https://scholarcommons.usf.edu/etd/1451/ Gurnardmexico66 (talk) 04:43, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

@Gurnardmexico66:, I didn’t mean to offend you, and probably you weren't deliberate either. I won’t make such a guess next time.

However, you will find that there are very different interpretations from yours, and nowhere close to that do they seem to possess the slightest “hatred” (as you implied) toward others. According to https://faluninfo.net/misconceptions/, “Gays, lesbians, and bisexuals are welcomed by the practice just like anyone else, and not accorded any different treatment. Whether they continue to live that lifestyle, or self-identify with that term, is solely a personal choice and not something anyone in Falun Gong would force upon the individual. Central to Falun Gong is the making of one’s own decisions.” Furthermore: “ Falun Gong’s teachings on this and other matters do not equate to a ‘position statement’ or ‘stance’ on some social issue” and that it simply offers its teachings on personal change to whomever is interested in its path to spiritual growth.” This is why adding these sections could be defamatory.

Also, as previously noted on this talk page by another user: Mr. Li’s teachings were written out in thousands of pages. The topics you wanted to add can only account for far less than 0.1%. As those topics are evidently not central to the doctrine (Truth-Compassion-Tolerance) of Falun Gong, adding these will not comply with WP:DUE, and will result in misrepresentations of the main teachings. One can't see the forest for the trees.

Also, it seems that adding these topics as you suggested would most likely incite hatred toward Falun Gong. It’s worth noting that the CCP brutally persecutes Falun Gong, and it uses such untrue claims as justifications. As investigative researcher Ethan Gutmann stated, the CCP has tried “alleging Falun Gong was anti-gay to ward off sympathy (Falun Gong teachings on this point are essentially indistinguishable from traditional Christianity, Judaism, Islam, and Buddhism)”. https://www.cecc.gov/sites/chinacommission.house.gov/files/documents/roundtables/2010/CECC%20Roundtable%20Testimony%20-%20Ethan%20Gutmann%20-%206.18.10.pdf

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Thomas Meng (talk • contribs)

This isn't the place that yields to political propaganda/public relations but only for the neutral solid sources and proper research. Warts and all. There is no excuse to involve CCP into this as some kind of relevant rationalization and then use it externally to justify the hiding of certain information if they are true. If you rather hide away Li's views on homosexuality, western modern medicine as being bad for practitioners etc and then tell people that they don't understand the thousand of pages he wrote. And that is how you cheaply "silence" them from trying to add it in by making such accusations. Then I simply can't agree with you there and this conversation is clearly not progressing.

Btw it's not defamatory. Does Li teaches that Homosexuality is immoral? yes or no? Your falun gong PR article basically avoided mentioning that and just skipped around it. Just as you avoided talking about the more serious parts of Li's teachings. Encouraging people to reject western medicines by scaremongering its dangers, is a serious and consequential significant topic. It matters not if they are not the central of Li's teachings but they matter a lot to society in general to know if that religions advocates such extreme advice to its members.

It is a very unusually politically active religion where it is strongly focused on having a good public image to garner maximum public support if you account for the excessive pro-trump and anti communist advertisements from Epoch times and even the Dance performances have strong political components. That is actually how I became aware of them from their vast amounts of advertisements/political messages as with many other people. They know that certain teachings will repulse the general public and hence I expect them to be motivated to hide it in Wikipedia edits DESPITE the western media already covers it regardless.

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/the-epoch-times/

https://www.sfgate.com/entertainment/article/shen-yun-cult-falun-gong-china-ads-show-reviews-13473328.php

What is troubling is not their homophobic tendencies. All religions have that to some degree. It's that Ben Hurley, an Australian who was a member of Falun Gong for a long time. Noted the many deaths of his fellow members who tried to listen to Li's sickness Karma test and reject western medicine. Only to die painful and regret-filled deaths. You had avoided discussing that. Do you think he is lying?

https://newrepublic.com/article/155076/obscure-newspaper-fueling-far-right-europe

Additionally Dr Heather Kavan had previously studied Falun Gong and noted "Members also said that Li does not discourage people from getting medical assistance. However, this claim does not tally with Li’s writings. He teaches that illnesses are caused by karma, and that by taking medicines or getting medical help one presses the karma back into the body. The sign of a true practitioner is to refuse medicine or medical care (Li, 1998b; 1998c; 1999; 2001a; 2003b)"

Those were his own words in his own articles. It APPEARS that even members are contradicting Li's written words as like you pointed out, they are too afraid it will backfire if the world knew about their religion is discouraging of western medicines. And hence try to scrub any mention of it, to avoid scrutiny from the public.

But you seem like a falun gong practitioner yourself given your assumed "see the forest and not the trees" expertise in the topic. Why don't you first add to the article on Li's views on homosexuality and western medicine/sickness karma tests yourself? You are clearly not biased against Falun Gong or Li so go ahead and do add it in via your own words. You can literally use Li Hongzhi's own published writings as sources. I would except I cannot only due to the current block affecting everyone except certain editors. I would use the scholarly neutral source below from Massey University that professionally cite sources from Li's work. But regardless if you do or don't. I don't agree with you in hiding real valid info in this article just because you are biased to not ruin public sympathy after informing the rest of the world, of the less appealing sides of falun gong.

https://www.massey.ac.nz/massey/fms/Colleges/College%20of%20Business/Communication%20and%20Journalism/ANZCA%202008/Refereed%20Papers/Kavan_ANZCA08.pdf Gurnardmexico66 (talk) 00:51, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

So the point about discouraging taking medicine in order to not press back the karma and then the point about it being a sign of a true practitioner. Those are Dr. Heather Kavan's interpretations, right? Is he a Falun Gong practitioner by the way? Given this is a religious or whatever teaching, it's probably best to examine the original texts and surrounding context.Berehinia (talk) 03:36, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

As a matter of fact, both authors - Dr Heather Kavan and Ben Hurley were members. One was a professional journalist who was in the religion and investigated the movement without political bias of her own but purely neutral. She LITERALLY read Li's writings and has no reason to lie about what she read and saw. Additionally Ben Hurley was not just a long time member but also was so involved that he also used to work at Epoch Times. Which btw is a paper that is undeniably a source of much misinformation https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/the-epoch-times/ He was a member of many years. Nbc media interviewed him as well https://medium.com/@Ben_D_Hurley

However it's pretty obvious that you are not willing to be netural here and doing whatever it takes to prevent actual legitimate information to be added to wikipedia. As a result, I will be making a proper official complaint to the Wikipedia Arbitration Comittee and will no longer be replying to you anymore as this discussion is constantly being stonewalled and I'm not phased by biased falung gong Pr TEAM who tries to waste others' time and block them from adding valid information to an article. The fact is I have solid sources including the one that you gave to me, to back my facts. I want the right to edit the article or the Wikipedia Arbitration committee to review the evidence and sources and give their official ruling. If they say I am wrong then I will accept it. But I don't believe you are neutral and hence do not see our conversation being able to progress to anything truly productive. My select sources among many are the following: https://medium.com/@Ben_D_Hurley/-10677166298b

https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/tech-news/trump-qanon-impending-judgment-day-behind-facebook-fueled-rise-epoch-n1044121 I wish you a good day sirGurnardmexico66 (talk) 10:30, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

This thread is too convoluted to follow, so I don't even know what material is being proposed for inclusion here. And I'm skeptical any time I see someone demanding to know why "controversial" teachings aren't included here. The proposition raises some important questions: e.g. why? Are these teachings important to those who embrace the practice? If so, how? And "controversial" according to whom? Religious claims always appear strange when measured against the standards of a secular, liberal ontology. I'd like to see a more serious discussion of these questions. Otherwise we just get puerile point-making and agenda-driven editing by people who've never bothered to interrogate their own assumptions.

On Heather Klavan: I don't think she ever practiced FLG. She's a communications professor who spent some time practicing meditation in a park with FLG practitioners as part of her "field work," and did some of her own readings. But by her own account, she was incapable of even communicating meaningfully with the subjects of her research because of the language barrier. She did not even know their names. I don't know how that passes as meaningful field work, given her inability to check her interpretations against the lived experience of the actual faith community. Methodologically, I have never seen a sloppier piece of research (she misspelled virtually every pinyin term in her paper!). Little wonder that serious scholars don't cite her work. She is, however, a favourite of the Communist Party's 610 Office, even appearing for interviews on their English-language website. Forgive my skepticism.

So look, if someone has a serious proposal for something that should be included in the article, bring it forward. But it should be well balanced, and grounded in something more than a primary source medium piece and a work and sloppy scholarship.TheBlueCanoe 17:27, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

I wasn't going to reply but this will likely be my LAST reply on this thread as I do not wish to go in circles. I put in a lot of work and gave thorough explanations and sources but there is no point if they are only read by people who are biased to hide information and try to seed in doubt that Heather Kavan was never a member of falun gong. But I just wanted to highlight a FREQUENT example of how editors practically stonewall others from discussing to add valid information. First they loosely discredit your source or writer by saying they are sloppy scholars or that they are corrupted by politics, without giving any evidence to back such statements. The above user does that tactic without giving any real proof that Dr Heather Kavan is not a well read professional. The Blue Canoe himself is actually the original person that I first raised concern on when I created this thread. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/946101072 Based on his edit history, he has extensive edits in the Falun Gong talk Page where he frequently obstructs anyone trying to put in valid information like Li warning the world of aliens, discourage listening to scientists, evolution, against homosexuality, discoruages western medicine, preaches dangers of race mixing, etc His reasoning to hiding such information overly seems biased to me. AS THIS is a leader claiming there are evil space aliens who created our science or that people should reject modern medicine in order to truly beat a disease. Such information has been verified and backed by multiple sources including even LI's OWN WRITINGS and articles and so multiple neutral western mainstream media has criticized the man for it. That is facts that cannot be denied by anyone and I try to reach out to the other editors that FREQUENT here but I feel the only solution to put this issue at rest is For the Wikipedia Arbitration Committee to read this thread and decided honestly who is correct here. My arguments summarized as below:

In 2019, INSIDER among many - they write "Didn't the founder of Falun Gong say something about aliens awhile back? - Yes. Li outlined some of his more eyebrow-raising beliefs in an interview with Time magazine in 1992. He said that David Copperfield can really levitate off the ground, that qigong can cure illness, and that aliens introduce science in the world so that they could use human bodies." http://content.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,2053761,00.html https://www.insider.com/shen-yun-show-falun-gong-2019-3

Such info came from purely neutral sources and literally from Li's own interview and his own words. Additionally he had undoubtedly published articles in falun gong's official sites, that back his very same words in the later years. IE here's an article where he preaches against race-mixing and claims that mixed raced kids are physically and intellectually incomplete. https://en.falundafa.org/eng/lectures/1996L.html

To continue to hide such information and allow biased editors to do whatever it takes to prevent the world from knowing these info about Li Hongzhi, is nothing more than bias due to the political role he plays. If western mainstream media have been able to talk about it, THERE are less and less reasons to hide it. Ben Hurley who was interviewed by western media, wrote about members dying from curable diseases because they tried to listen to Li in beating the disease without using medicine. His words below:

I can say confidently that anyone who has been involved with Falun Gong for more than a short length of time will have heard of — or directly witnessed — cases like this. But it’s an extremely delicate topic, uncomfortable even when there are only practitioners in the room. Any believing Falun Gong practitioner will hide this secret from non-believers. They’re not just hiding it because they don’t want their friends and family to know what a bizarre belief they have. They genuinely fear that by revealing it they will be giving someone a bad impression of the practice and damning them to hell.

A lot of medical professionals actually know about this, but for some reason it has escaped wider public scrutiny in the Western world. Maybe the noisy arguments between the Chinese Communist Party and Falun Gong have drowned out a more nuanced discussion of the half-truths and half-lies coming from both sides. I once met a nurse who had directly witnessed a dying Falun Gong practitioner refuse medication in hospital. And a while back when I sought some counselling on a few topics including this one, it turned out my counsellor, who was Taiwanese, had lost an aunt this way. She rode her cancer out to the end without palliative care.

That was from Ben Hurley and such info is verified by other multiple sources including the one that even a biased pro falun going supporter here has given me - https://scholarcommons.usf.edu/etd/1451/ it is a biased PRO-FALUN GONG source that still reluctantly and briefly mentions the discouraging of western medicine. That people are discouraged from western medicine as Li preaches that a true practitioner can only beat a disease by not relying on any medicine, Such teachings is dangerous and immoral and should be made known public on ethical info transparency grounds. There are no valid reasons to hide it anymore especially after the recent 2019 multiple sources on western media criticizing Li. https://medium.com/@Ben_D_Hurley/-10677166298b Gurnardmexico66 (talk) 05:21, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

There are several points that have to be made clear.

1. One is not trying to hide information if there is an undue weight WP:UNDUE. Saying otherwise would look like an attack WP:PA. Please stop labeling people of hiding information.

Since the Ben Hurley story is only one individual account, while there is no evidence stating the overall percentage of such cases among the entire population of practitioners, it is still WP:undue.

Obviously you do not think the info from https://faluninfo.net/misconceptions-avoiding-medicine should be used. I agree with this, as I only gave it to you as reference to another kind of interpretation. You also say that both Kaven and Hurley were former Falun Gong practitioners. If so, their accounts and interpretations should not be used either, in order to conform with WP:COI.

Plus, the individual account from Kaven is quite different from most other western scholars’ studies, when she made her own interpretations and accused practitioners of avoiding western medicine. To name a few scientific researches without personal interpretations here:

As per Dr. Trey’ from University of Southern Australia, “Findings revealed that Falun Gong respondents are more likely to report excellent health, little or no use of medication, and less medical and health expenses than their friends and family who do not practice Falun Gong.”

As per a published peer-reviewed article from a team of U.S. medical doctors and researchers, in their evidence-based pilot study on the effects of Falun Gong on gene expression and the role of neutrophils in Falun Gong practitioners, they found the superior gene expression, improved immunity, and longer lifespan of neutrophils in Falun Gong respondents’ bodies, compared to the bodies of non-Falun Gong respondents.

2. As you talked about Time reports in 1999, I am not sure whether you’ve read them in detail. Here is one report FYI. As per Time's Hongkong interview in 1999, “Sophie Xiao, a 32-year-old investment analyst in Hong Kong, is one believer. Xiao's enfeebled mother in Beijing had gotten well through Falun Gong. When she too experienced rejuvenation, she passed along the books to several friends.” “I finished the books in four days, says a neighbor, a Mrs. Hui. My husband came home and said, 'Why do you look so good?' For me, it's the philosophy. It's like finding the answers to all the problems in my life. Mrs. Hui's once-gray hair has turned black, ...." If such healing stories are so common among practitioners, then Ben Hurley’s story loses its credibility.

Therefore, putting the “avoiding medicine” interpretation/misconception on this wiki page, while not mentioning the lack of need for medications among practitioners will only turn this Wikipedia page into a piece of anti-FG propaganda that defies WP:soap. We should not use unsubstantiated personal stories (Kaven and Ben Hurley’s story), but rather evidence-based research.

I will follow up with more points.--Thomas Meng (talk) 13:43, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

It seems like when I state that I am requesting Wikipedia Arbitration committee to review the thread. Suddenly there is an increased lot of instant responder editors showing their faces who are invested in downplaying the info I wanted to add in. DESPITE i have given them plenty of chances to discuss the sources and info before but they give inappropriate excuses or evade it. Maybe now they have no excuses but to admit that I have a solid point.

Okay Mr Thomas Meng - Lets have a mature honest discussion and feel welcome to disprove my point. I wrote just earlier that Li is against race mixing and he made claims that mixed raced people are physically and intellectually incomplete and only he can help them avoid it if they convert to his religion. the source - https://en.falundafa.org/eng/lectures/1996L.html

Don't evade the question but that is hate speech to label the non fg mixed race people as physically and intellectually incomplete. Do you feel such information must also be hidden? Don't just go repeat to me with the same rehashed response about ccp or I don't understand his lectures or say that mixed race can join so it's completely harmless. I included the source and in another source -https://falundafa.org/eng/eng/lectures/19980904L.html he very CLEARLY and explicitly attacked mixed race people like South Americans, Central Americans, Mexicans etc as "rootless" people that is deemed lesser by the gods.

You then give a "peer-reviewed study" which sound good. Except it has clearly writes "Six (6) Asian FLG practitioners and 6 Asian normal healthy controls were recruited for our study." That is an unusually small sample size. No serious study can be based on such a small sample size and who chose the individual subjects and funded such a study that makes full conclusions on only 12 people in TOTAL? It also is a pilot study and so not a conclusive replicated results using the minimum full decent sample size. AND why even mention this study as if it's a relevant point? It has absolutely nothing to do with the information I wanted to add in.

And you are clearly grasping at straws in trying to discredit Ben Hurley's story by using an illogical argument. For one you wrote this yourself:

Xiao's enfeebled mother in Beijing had gotten well through Falun Gong. When she too experienced rejuvenation, she passed along the books to several friends.” “I finished the books in four days, says a neighbor, a Mrs. Hui. My husband came home and said, 'Why do you look so good?' For me, it's the philosophy. It's like finding the answers to all the problems in my life. Mrs. Hui's once-gray hair has turned black, ...." If such healing stories are so common among practitioners, then Ben Hurley’s story loses its credibility.

How so? How exactly does Ben Hurley's story loses its credibility because of that woman's unbelievable promotional story of grey hair actually turning into black. I don't see the logic of how that can actually disproves Ben Hurley's story in any direct way since it doesn't touch in any of the issues that Ben was referring to. The issue that Ben raised was that Li teaches the higher ideal way and true practitioner doesn't take medicines and peer pressure them to believe in his wisdom, albeit he can't actually force them. But it's brainwashing regardless.

In fact Falun gong and epoch times are just brainwashing and not known for their upfront honesty when it comes to stories. That is not defamation but true and don't go bring ccp into this. My sources are independant WESTERN OR FALUN GONG WEBSITE ITSELF. Epoch times have been constantly been writing conspiracy theories that have been well documented as false. https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/the-epoch-times/ And falun gong's official ARTICLES AND WEBSITE itself is claiming that their leader Li can literally fly, levitate, walk though walls, perform telekinesis and yet at the same time, they ALSO claim he is the master of raw honesty. That in itself is the VERY loss of credibility FOR Li and his backers.

And there is more but I apologize in advance if my tone come across as not the warmest. However I have before given you sources and information and instead of discussing it. You either evade it by bringing in ccp or just outright ignore it. That's why I feel you weren't neutral. If you have nothing to hide then for ONCE, really explain to me why Wikipedia must hide information like Li claims mixed race people are lesser beings than pure race people, OR any of THE INFO in the quote below. And be specific and not evasive. IF YOU CAN explain to me why the info in the quote below are lies and not true. I will listen to it and have an open mind however the wiki arbitration board will maybe read your reply and they will decide if your reply is deemed solid. But you need to actually make a valid reason why you think the info in the quote box below, is untrue. If it's factual, it should be added into wiki article.

Li claims supernatural powers, developed through training with spiritual masters in the mountains from his youth; his book, Zhuan Falun ("Turning the Law Wheel"), posits that he can treat disease more effectively than medicine, and can telekinetically implant the falun, or law wheel, into the abdomens of his followers, where it absorbs and releases power as it spins (other beliefs attributed to Li are that he can fly, that Africa has a two billion-year-old nuclear reactor, and that aliens invaded Earth about a century ago, introducing modern technology; one type, he told Time magazine, "looks like a human, but has a nose that is made of bone").

Li said all of that about aliens and stories of nuclear plants in africa billions of years ago, etc and such info should be added TO WIKI ARTICLE as they are just the facts of how egotistic and obviously dishonest he is. For wikipedia to protect him for this long, is just embarassing. http://www.stuff.co.nz/sunday-star-times/features/295092/The-gospel-truth-Falun-Gong Gurnardmexico66 (talk) 21:38, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

@Gurnardmexico66 Wow, there's a lot going on here but looking at the very last thing you mentioned, are you on some kinda vendetta against Li Hogzhi? Trying to prove him as “egotistic and obviously dishonest”? By the way as far as I know ancient nuclear reactors in Africa are as real as it gets. https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/guest-blog/natures-nuclear-reactors-the-2-billion-year-old-natural-fission-reactors-in-gabon-western-africa/ Berehinia (talk) 00:40, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

@Berehinia Thank you for mentioning that. Li Hongzhi indeed stated that the proof of Nuclear reactors billions of years ago, proved that intelligent humans had built them back then. He used kernel of truths and promotes conspiracy theories that he egotistically claim to be the expert on. He does this a lot. IE. In his 1999 times interview, he claims that American scientists have captured actual aliens. He says that David Copperfield is proof of people being able to actually levitate. He uses the smallest kernel of truths - something hard to completely disprove and then adds to it so to turn them into conspiracies.

But you are twisting the actual info of what he said and trying to hide Li's lies. THIS is what he SPECIFICALLY wrote about 2 billion year old nuclear reactors. He claimed they were MAN-MADE and hence disprove Darwin's theory of evolution and that there were intelligent human socieities smarter than ours, that created such nuclear plants.

I quote LI HONGZHI himself -

"To give another example of a more remote age, the Gabon Republic in Africa has uranium ore. This country is relatively underdeveloped. It cannot make uranium on its own and exports the ore to developed countries. In 1972, a French manufacturer imported its uranium ore. After lab tests, the uranium ore was found to have been extracted and utilized. They found this quite unusual and sent out scientists to study it. Scientists from many other countries all went there to investigate. In the end, this uranium mine was verified as a large-scale nuclear reactor with a very rational layout. Even our modern people cannot possibly create this, so when was it built then? It was constructed 2 billion years ago and was in operation for 500 thousand years. Those are simply astronomical figures, and they cannot be explained at all with Darwin’s theory of evolution. 

There are many such examples. ..Many bold scientists abroad have already publicly recognized this as prehistoric culture and a civilization prior to this of our humankind. In other words, there existed more than one period of civilization before our civilization. Through unearthed relics, we have found products that are not of only one period of civilization. It is thus believed that after each of the many times when human civilizations were annihilated, only a small number of people survived and they lived a primitive life. Then, they gradually multiplied in number to become the new human race, beginning a new civilization."

He said all that and more. Nobody can deny that, That is a CLASSIC example of brainwashing where he tells people that ancient human societies 2 billion years ago made nuclear reactors better than us and why evolution is not a real concept. - the source for his quote above - https://falundafa.org/eng/eng/pdf/zflus.pdf Gurnardmexico66 (talk) 06:49, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

Not a man made reactor

See Natural nuclear fission reactor. Doug Weller talk 19:07, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Possible inclusion of the other side of the story

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)

Niether of these are reliable sources. Both are hard WP:RS fails. :bloodofox: (talk) 21:02, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

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)

Restoring uncertainty to birth date

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.[4]

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".[5]

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)

Removing the NBC article

There are several problems with the NBC article:  

1. When the NBC article describes Falun Gong (FG), it avoids mentioning FG's fundamental principles, truthfulness-compassion-forbearance, but rather describes the teachings of FG by citing the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), which persecutes FG based on fabricated lies. It also describes FG by referring to a Chinese professor who openly defended the communists who had been accused of physically attacking FG practitioners in New York. But it does not mention how current FG practitioners themselves view their own belief. This clearly shows a predetermined and one-sided narrative in the NBC article when it describes FG and FG's founder.

2. This NBC article severely downplays the scale and brutality of the persecution of Falun Gong. In NBC's long article, it has only one sentence describing the persecution:"Human rights groups have reported some adherents being tortured and killed while in custody.” By saying "some adherents", the NBC article has dismissed the CCP's large-scale forced organ-harvesting crime done on FG adherents (as proved in the China Tribunal's Final Judgement).

The above two points make it clear that this NBC article has an intent of defaming FG and FG's founder (whom this BLP is for), and that the NBC article's narrative when describing FG parallels with that of the CCP's propaganda. Therefore, it is unsuitable for a WP: BLP, which has high standards on source qualities. So I'd like to delete the third paragraph in the lead section along with the last paragraph of this wiki article where it cites this NBC article again. Thank you.--Thomas Meng (talk) 01:47, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

You will do no such thing, there is consensus that NBC news is generally reliable per Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources. You will first need to contest that consensus, after you have contested and reversed that consensus *then* you can make your two points here. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 01:58, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

NBC is respected, considered a very reliable source. This attempt at removal is a bald whitewashing of the article, trying to remove the obvious and widely commented-upon connection between Falun Gong, The Epoch Times and Shen Yun. Other third party observers have published similar findings, so trying to get rid of NBC is ridiculous. Binksternet (talk) 04:30, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

On a personal note, Thomas, as an audio engineer I want to say I like your music work here on Wikipedia. But with the above request you lost a lot of goodwill, and you lost useful leverage power. What is strategic for you on Wikipedia? Is this it? Binksternet (talk) 04:33, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

@Horse Eye Jack: Thank you for giving me the link, and I totally understand your point. However, I'm not contesting the general reliability of NBC. According to WP: RSPUSE: "even very high-quality sources may occasionally make errors". So what I'm trying to do here is to point out specific problems of this single NBC article, and to consider wether it is still suitable for a WP: BLP. If you find any problems with the above two points, then please don't hesitate to discuss. If you agree with these points, then we will remove this specific NBC article.--Thomas Meng (talk) 18:08, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

Neither point is valid nor are the sub-points, none of your contentions stand up to even an iota of scrutiny. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 18:11, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

@Binksternet: Glad to know that we are interested in similar things!

I think we are talking about two different points here. In my above request, I did not try to sever the connection between FG, ET and SY, but only tried point out problems with this specific NBC article. I believe that this may be one of the occasional errors made by an otherwise reliable sourse. So let's focus on discussing the legitimacy of the above two points in my request.--Thomas Meng (talk) 18:08, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

Your complaint about NBC is trivial. You complain about how the NBC article fails to focus on some aspects. That's a decision by the writers who were interested in getting a particular story across. News stories should be tightly focused; news editors slash and cut to reduce the size of submissions. So the fact that the news piece doesn't contain some things is not only unsurprising but it is also a compliment to the writers Brandy Zadrozny and Ben Collins. Both writers are professional journalists. Brandy Zadrozny is an ex-librarian who has developed into an award-winning NBC reporter focusing on conspiracy. Ben Collins is an NBC tech writer who has been investigating The Epoch Times, viral deception, and Facebook fake accounts. These are legitimate reporters, working for a legitimate news agency, writing a perfectly good news piece.

Your request to remove NBC is unreasonable. Binksternet (talk) 18:39, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

@Binksternet: As award-winning journalists, they probably would have investigated Falun Gong from different angles. However, the NBC article spent 5+ paragraphs describing the teachings of FG from a one-sided perspective. Not a single word was included describing how third-party scholars who have an expertise on religious studies (David Ownby, for example) view FG's teachings, nor how current practitioners themselves view their faith.

On the other hand, there's a number of hoaxes and propaganda pieces that have been fabricated by the communist regime to demonize Falun Gong (the "self-immolation" hoax, so-called "1400 deaths" hoax, etc). Nevertheless, the NBC article still gives credit to the Chinese regime's narrative by citing the Chinese embassy in its description of FG. Since the Chinese government has a specific interest in discrediting Falun Gong, any piece that relies heavily on reporting the regime's perspective cannot be considered objective, especially when it's written by experienced journalists who know how to weigh different narratives.

And keep in mind that the writers composed this as a hitpiece to crticize its competing media--The Epoch Times, so it is unsurprising that their narrative is unsympathetic and defaming toward FG.--Thomas Meng (talk) 17:35, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

References

Lol, the Epoch Times isn't competition for NBC... It isnt competition for a wet paper napkin. Its a joke pseudo news organization of unquestionably low reliability. NBC is a WP:RS, The Epoch Times is WP:DEPRECATED. Nothing here has defamed FG, go home and take your bat with you. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 18:07, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

@Horse Eye Jack: Just a side note: AllSides states that "overall, The Epoch Times reporting is factual". Also, no WP:PA's.--Thomas Meng (talk) 23:03, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

AllSides analyzed the Epoch Times in August 2019, before the news site spewed QAnon nonsense about COVID-19 in May 2020.[[6][7] The coronavirus hoax stuff definitely cut into any media respect for the Epoch Times, pushing down the "factual" rating.

Wikipedia decided in December 2019 that the Epoch Times is a deprecated source. The difference between Wikipedia's assessment and the one from AllSides is probably because Wikipedia has seen so much more non-neutral pushing by Falun Gong activists who want to cite the Epoch Times. AllSides didn't look at that aspect, but Wikipedia is swamped with it.

Furthermore, the Epoch Times reporting on NBC's very damaging piece on the Falun Gong will never be neutral or factual. NBC hurt them badly; they were thrown out of Facebook and lost a bunch of money because of this exact NBC News piece we are discussing.[8] So we would never expect the Falun Gong or Epoch Times to be neutral about that; no, we would expect them to fight back hard. Which is what we're seeing here with Thomas Meng and Berehinia being so insistent. Binksternet (talk) 01:23, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

Don't want our digression to get too long, but I have to point out two things: 1. AllSides states in its report: "An independent review by an AllSides Staffer in April 2020 found that [...] overall The Epoch Times reporting is factual." 2. Do not put COI labels on anyone whose views do not conform with yours. We should focus on the logicallity of my arguments.--Thomas Meng (talk) 18:56, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

None of your observations are sufficient to remove the NBC piece. Publisher Stephen Gregory's defense of his own The Epoch Times is partisan, as he is very much involved. (I find it hilarious that he thinks The Epoch Times is a "competitor" to NBC News. The difference between them is vast.) Your Mediaite link does not question the validity of the NBC News piece, it just reports about the Stephen Gregory letter and how it was received. So NBC remains in this article. Binksternet (talk) 18:13, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

@Binksternet: I only used the Mediaite and WSJ articles to further demonstrate how NBC is not objective in its reporting and therefore can be considered a hit piece.

For example, the Mediaite article reports that The Epoch Times was asked by the NBC reporters in their interview (prior to the publication of this hit piece): "Do some Epoch Times interns, volunteers, or employees live in a shared home?" This shows the NBC reporters' will to discredit ET and FG by digging into their private lives instead of asking about issues related to journalism.

Stephen Gregory's being partisan does not equate to unreliability, as WSJ also has publication standards for opinion articles. Also, I said that they are competing media because they provide very different coverages for political figures. So my point is that they are ideologically competing, and that the NBC reporters wanted to discredit ET because of such a difference.

However, I only cited these articles as references, and those are not my main points. My main point is that NBC has relied on an oppressive Chinese regime's narrative but did not include any third-party experts' views, to which you have not given any meaningful answer. WP:BLP states that poorly sourced materials should be removed. If this NBC report relied on a frequently challenged Chinese regime propaganda narrative, then this alone can sufficiently prove the NBC article a poor source.--Thomas Meng (talk) 21:54, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

Your observation that NBC News did not investigate far enough is not our problem. It's not a problem at all. They performed a fair amount of investigation and reported on what they found. That's enough for us.

You will never get the NBC piece removed from this article. NBC News is a legitimate source for us; a very highly regarded one. They are one of the last best news agencies in the United States. Every word you use to try and remove NBC is another chip hammered out of your reputation here. Binksternet (talk) 22:10, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

@Binksternet: You've only dismissed my points by saying that "it's not a problem at all". This is not sufficient. Also, I've already addressed you NBC general reliability claim in my first reply to you and Horse eye Jack. Please pay respect to WP policies and all arguments mentioned.--Thomas Meng (talk) 23:22, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Why don't you perform the work yourself, comparing the NBC source to our Wikipedia:Reliable sources checklist? You will see that NBC in general is perfectly fine, and this specific NBC report is perfectly fine. You have no leverage for removal. Binksternet (talk) 23:27, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

The following is quite vague, additionally makes some bold accusations based on a single source. The NBC source has been recently scrutinized for its political motives. Seems to me like this isn't very appropriate to keep in the article. "Controversially, Li has been associated with a vast propaganda network that has pushed Falun Gong's philosophical beliefs, which include unfounded conspiracy theories, as well as right-wing and anti-China figures such as U.S. President Donald Trump." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Berehinia (talk • contribs) 04:32, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

NBC is a perfectly good source. You have nothing on their supposed political motives. Ridiculous request from above repeated again here. Ridiculous to suggest NBC should be removed. What I'm seeing is a double helping of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. But with NBC's respected place as a reliable news source, you have no traction. Binksternet (talk) 05:34, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

• Yes, NBC is a great source, and the story is described in detail in this section [9] based on the NBC and another publication which also qualify as RS. The only disputable issues are the following: (a) do we need such long direct quotation of the sources in this section? (I would say no, brief summary would be enough), and (b) how exactly this section should be summarized in the lead? (I would say it should be phrased differently and be shorter simply because the corresponding section is short). My very best wishes (talk) 22:41, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

So, I quickly fixed this for the sake of BLP neutrality. Welcome to fix this further if anyone wants. My very best wishes (talk) 03:23, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

"Unfounded conspiracy theories" on the summary is not neutral

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)

email address

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

Unrelated text passage under "Falun Gong"

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)

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)