Talk:Sima Nan

Jan 2012

I am deleting the following from the page, as it stands in violation of WP:V, WP:RS, and WP:BLP:

According to Christopher Hitchens, following Sima's criticism of qigong groups, he was denounced by Li Hongzhi, founder of the Falun Gong spiritual movement. Li claimed to have secretly implanted a swastika (falun) in Sima's abdomen that "revolves in the wrong direction", and predicted that "[Sima] will be punished by lameness and blindness."

This is an exceptional claim by all definitions, and would require multiple reliable sources to remain in the article. It is a "surprising or apparently important claim not covered by multiple mainstream sources" in that it originates from an interview with Sima Nan on a Chinese government websites, and was not widely reported in mainstream sources. It is also a "challenged claim...supported purely by primary or self-published sources or those with an apparent conflict of interest"—again, it was originally self-published by Sima Nan and Chinese government websites. Christopher Hitchens repeated the allegations after interviewing Sima, and Hitchens arguably had a conflict of interest as well (or is, at a minimum, a highly partisan source). Sima has never presented any evidence to substantiate the claim that Li Hongzhi said this, and in interviews with Chinese government websites, he essentially admitted that it was hearsay. Finally, it is a report "of a statement by someone that seems out of character, or against an interest they had previously defended," which is also "contradicted by the prevailing view within the relevant community... that would significantly alter mainstream assumptions, especially in ... biographies of living people." In a previous discussion in which this was hashed out, a Falun Gong editor noted that the notion of a falun "revolving in the wrong direction" is contradicted by statements from Li himself, who states that the falun naturally rotates in both directions, and is only provided to "genuine practitioners" of Falun Gong. Therefore, the the notion that Li would make the statements alleged by Sima Nan would fundamentally alter the understanding of Falun Gong's teachings, and possibly of Li's own character.

Moreover, per WP:RS on quotations, if we are quoting someone (as this paragraph does), the quote should be sourced to the person him or herself, rather than to their self-proclaimed antagonists. WP:BLP is very clear about this kind of thing as well.

I am also removing the phrase which states that Sima supported the suppression of Falun Gong because it is a fraud. It is not appropriate to make such statements in Wikipedia's voice. Homunculus (duihua) 15:02, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

• Whilst I agree that we perhaps ought to cite the statement directly to Sima (rather than Hitchins), many statements uttered by Li Hongzhi, and indeed many-a similar "religious" leader, are found to be contrary to their core or stated beliefs. That you might suspect it to be libellous is insufficient. So just because a cited phrase is out of character is not sufficient basis for sourced and attributed commentary to be removed. It is perfectly feasible for two individuals with such great and publicly declared personal animosity to make such accusations against one another. The statement you removed merely states a sequence of claims and does not seem to be 'fraudulent' as you stated. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 04:49, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Agreed. So long as we're directly repeating what is being stated (and making no independent observations or conducting synthesis), there's no problem with it. So long as we're sure it has relevance to the article, we can use it. — Huntster (t @ c) 05:04, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

From a previous discussion, here's the source of this claim. In an interview with a Chinese government website dedicated to propagandizing against Falun Gong, Sima stated the following:

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."

Essentially, Sima is saying that the statements allegedly made by Li Hongzhi were a matter of hearsay relayed to him in a (possibly anonymous?) letter. In other words, it is a self-published source making dubious claims about a third party without evidence. That's not good enough to warrant inclusion here. Again, according to people who actually have familiarity with Li Hongzhi's teachings, the allegations are inconsistent with fundamental Falun Gong beliefs. As to OhConfucius's suggestion that Li has a publicly declared animosity toward Sima Nan, I can't find any evidence of that. The website where all of Li's teachings are published contains not one reference to Sima Nan.[1] That Sima's claims about Li Hongzhi was apparently repeated by a partisan source (Hitchens) does not make it more credible or notable. (I am temporarily without LexisNexis access, so can't find the text of the Hitchens article to assess the context. Regardless, I understand the article was largely a profile of Sima, based on lengthy interviews with him). If Li actually said these things he is quoted as saying here, then they should be sourced directly to Li (not Hitchens, not Sima Nan) per WP:RS, which states:

The accuracy of quoted material is paramount and the accuracy of quotations from living persons is especially sensitive. To ensure accuracy, the text of quoted material is best taken from (and cited to) the original source being quoted. If this is not possible, then the text may be taken from a reliable secondary source (ideally one that includes a citation to the original). No matter where you take the quoted text from, it is important to make clear the actual source of the text, as it appears in the article. Partisan secondary sources should be viewed with suspicion as they may misquote or quote out of context. In such cases, look for neutral corroboration from another source.

The call for additional corroboration, particularly for exceptional claims (which this is), is also demanded under WP:V: "Any exceptional claim requires multiple high-quality sources." If you wish to take this discussion further, please engage with the relevant policies, rather than commenting on the unpredictability of religious leaders. Homunculus (duihua) 06:16, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

• In essence I agree that the article quoted from is not perfect. I would agree that the source itself is not of the highest order of reliability in the sense we know, but I wouldn't go so far to say that it was self-published. We often cite quotes and interviews appearing in journals, and I don't see why we should be overly strict here. The source article in question seems to be a verbatim extract of an interview with Sima published in a website for the centre for Cultic Studies. In my years of editing Falun Gong articles, I have had to source articles mainly from partisan (read 'propaganda') documents from both sides because "that's where the action is". In deciding whether it's worthy of citing, I usually ask myself if this equivalent article would be acceptably cited from if it were the Epoch Times. I am leaning to the conclusion that it is acceptable, but right now I would not vehemently insist that it should stay. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 07:34, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
• Homunculus, you fundamentally disregard a simple principle. If Wikipedia says this and that about Li, and it turns out to be false, then Wikipedia is liable for it. That is the purpose of WP:BLP. But if Wikipedia says that Sima Nan says X and Y about Li, then Sima Nan is the one who is responsible for the statement. So if Sima Nan says Falun Gong is a fraud, it doesn't mean WP is taking the position that Falun Gong is a fraud. No one is doubting that Sima held some polemical views, and some of these views were personal. If you take a look at the Christopher Hitchens page, it is full of his 'criticisms' of individuals. And since they are sourced to Hitches, he is the one ultimately responsible for the criticisms, not Wikipedia. Colipon+(Talk) 04:12, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Escalator

Can this idiot's tangling with an escalator (and losing) in the US be added? Thx. 218.103.114.186 (talk) 02:02, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

== interview in further reading ==

I have restored this interview:

• Jing, A (19 June 2006). "Sima Nan exposes the past of Li Hongzhi (interview)". Facts.org.cn (China Association For Cultic Studies).

where Sima explains why he dislikes qigong masters and why he specially dislikes the Falun Gong leader. If a reader wants to understand what Sima thinks, this is the sort of material that would be helpful for that reader. Despite the title, Sima also talks about qi gong masters in general.

Maybe someone wants to move it to external links because it's not strictly a secondary source? --Enric Naval (talk) 17:29, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

(by the way, my bad, facts.org.cn is not the Chinese equivalent of CSICOP, the actual equivalents are listed here. facts.org.cn is a compilation of information negative on Falun Gong) --Enric Naval (talk) 17:40, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

This organization is one of a number that was set up in the wake of the persecution to attack Falun Gong; part of the anti-Falun Gong "demonization" campaign (the words of scholars, not my own). What is the scholarly interest in linking to a strictly propaganda source? There may also be BLP issues here. [Update: I just went over to the BLP policy and found the EL section: "External links about living persons, whether in BLPs or elsewhere, are held to a higher standard than for other topics. Questionable or self-published sources should not be included in the "Further reading" or "External links" sections of BLPs, and, when including such links in other articles, make sure the material linked to does not violate this policy. Self-published sources written or published by the subject of a BLP may be included in the FR or EL sections of that BLP with caution; see above. In general, do not link to websites that contradict the spirit of this policy or violate the External links guideline. Where that guideline is inconsistent with this or any other policy, the policies prevail." The link added violates this possible as it is a highly questionable, self-published source set up solely to attack Falun Gong and Li Hongzhi. As such, I have removed the link pending further discussion. TheSoundAndTheFury (talk) 11:42, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

As well as deleting that, I put some quote marks and made some minor changes around a few other FLG-related parts. Not a comment on the relevance or appropriateness of inclusion. TheSoundAndTheFury (talk) 11:50, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Note that the above user has been banned under [2] for pro-Falun Gong activism, so his edits are removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.245.207.26 (talk) 15:18, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Well, since that is the reason you are citing for the revert, and it is incorrect, I am going to revert again. If you, whoever you happen to be, appearing at this moment, apparently knowing a great deal about this topic, had raised a content-based reason that the information be restored, I would not be removing it again and I would make a post to the BLP noticeboard to get an outside view. Since there is no challenge to the policy argument I made above, I'm reverting again. TheSoundAndTheFury (talk) 21:08, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Erk. I accidentally pressed the vandal rollback button... I meant it to be a normal revert. I'm not accusing you of vandalism. Sorry about that. TheSoundAndTheFury (talk) 21:10, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

I finally did a clean-up of this article. There was a bunch of irrelevant information, a lot of poorly written or noncompliant sentences, general disorder, etc. etc. I might do some more research and add some original content to this page and do further cleaning up. TheSoundAndTheFury (talk) 21:30, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

The Epoch Times is not a reliable source here

Sima Nan is a loudly pro-regime, anti-superstition pundit. For this reason, Falun Gong's newspaper The Epoch Times is not a reliable source here. He hates them and they hate him. Martin Rundkvist (talk) 11:58, 17 January 2014 (UTC)