Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Falun Gong/Evidence

message: Thanks for all this evidence, because it helps show that FG practitioners have systematically concealed the teachings "at the higher levels".  Those teachings include Li's assumption of god-like status, his promise to turn his disciples into gods and his warnings that unworthy beings--including everyone in the CCP, all it's helpers, and practicing homosexuals who refuse to give up their "bad behavior"--will be weeded out in his Fa-rectification.  A few quick points:
*Edits using Li's direct quotes on Fa-rectification and other "higher teachings" have been routinely deleted by FG practitioners from day one.  I believe that is in response to Li's directive:
::"So when you clarify the truth you absolutely must not speak at too high of a level. Right now when you clarify the truth you only need to talk about the persecution of Dafa disciples, how the evil party has been violating the human rights and the freedom of belief of the Chinese people, how historically the evil party has persecuted the Chinese people and the people of the countries belonging to the wicked Communist bloc, and how it is persecuting Dafa disciples today in the same way. And that's enough. As for high-level cultivation and gods, you shouldn't talk about those things." 
*Even if these quotes are not deleted because of Li's directive, their systematic deletion violates Wikipedia standards.  When a Li quote is introduced which is relevant to the topic, notable and well sourced, you are not justified in deleting that quote simply by arguing that the editor is presenting his "personal interpretation or understanding."   
*The importance of the Fa-rectification in Falun Gong teachings is proven by numerous quotes from Master Li himself. 
::"The Fa is immense, and the main purpose is the Fa-rectification of the universe." 
::"The Fa-rectification of the human world is on the verge of arriving. The world’s sentient beings will [strive to] repay the saving grace of Dafa and Dafa disciples. How wonderful. Wonderful. Truly wonderful!" 
::"No being knows who I am. Yet without me, the cosmos wouldn't exist. The reason I have come here is to save all sentient beings amidst the Fa-rectification at a time when the colossal firmament of the cosmos is disintegrating." 
*Li constantly talks about the role of his "Fa-rectification Dafa disciples."  It is impossible to understand the motivations for Falun Gong practitioners without having an understanding of what Li means by "Fa-rectification Dafa disciple."  In my edits, I have tried to accomplish that relying exlusively on Li's own words.  For example, Li states:
::"Once the current time period is over, the first large-scale process of weeding out sentient beings will begin. For a Fa-rectification period Dafa disciple, personal liberation is not the goal of cultivation: when you came, saving sentient beings was your great aspiration, and that is the responsibility and mission history has bestowed upon you in Fa-rectification.  Let go of human attachment and save the world’s people." 
*What needs to considered is why do FG practitioeners routinely prevent this material from appearing in Wikipedia? Cult experts here in the US provide one possible explanation by pointing out that a cult leader often claims to have special knowledge and supernatural powers, but typically has his followers conceal the inner teachings from the outside word.  And indeed, Li has said:
::"It is not allowed to casually disclose so many heavenly secrets to ordinary people." (Zhuan Falun)
It's not up to Wikipedia to make a judgment as to whether Falun Gong is or is not a cult, but surely it is the job of Wikipedia to report notable statments by the founder and leader of the Falun Gong.  That is what I have done all along.  --Tomananda 03:09, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Rebuttal to Asfdg's accusations

message: Yes, we have recently had a conversation about edits on Fa-rectification here: . Yet there continues to be important material from Li's teachings "at the higher levels" which you reject out of hand. Li says that his Dafa (translated as "Great Law")is "judging all beings" and that certain beings who are "unworthy" will be weeded out in his Fa-rectification.  That's a pretty straight-forward rendition of the teaching, yet you reject any wording that conveys that thought.  You also reject out of hand any and all edits which show, in Li's own words, that his goal for his disciples is to destroy the Chinese Communist Party. The problem is not on my side.  I have always said that it's the information I want reported in Wikipedia, not any one particular quote, and I've been quite accomodating on the selection of material...including suggesting alternative Li quotes. 
Concerning Li's prohibition against speaking about the teachings "at the higher levels" to ordinary people, you will recall that in previous discussion I asked you to declare that as a Wikipedia editor you would not personally feel obligated to obey that restriction.  You did not make that declaration at the time.  I am happy that you have now found a quote from Li which suggests that you can, in fact, talk about the higher level teachings.  But please read the entire quote in context. The Master reiterates his rule that "when you’re clarifying the facts, you must not talk about high-level things."  Then after some discussion, he modifies his rule in cases where a practitioner is talking with someone who is "especially good."
:"You might meet someone who’s especially good and who can accept it no matter what kind of high-level things you tell him, then you can go ahead and tell him about those things. It’ll be fine and there won’t be a problem there."
This means that unless you're willing to accept the idea that all readers of Wikipedia are "especially good," the Master's prohibition still applies to Wikipedia editing, doesn't it?  There's a simple way out of this predicament.  All you have to do is say:  "that rule does not apply to me as a Wikipedia editor."  Are you willing to make that declaration now, so we can move on?
Concerning your reference to NPA,  I find this charge rather ludicrous. You have called me  "inarticulate" and "paranoid."  Happy in General has called me "twisted."  Dilip has written to me personally to encourage me to refrain from my homosexual behavior.  And on top of that both Samuel and I have been the recipients of multiple slurs, many of which are homophobic in nature.   So who are the real personal attackers here?   --Tomananda 20:10, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Just for the record I call you "twisted" here because you have said that I said do "do not appear in the scriptures" which I did not. Let's not take things out of context again. Thank You. --HappyInGeneral 17:03, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Counter Response to Asdfg 

message: So now you are reduced to making snide comments about another editor's occupation?  Am I really supposed to be impressed with your academic degrees or think that because of that school work you somehow have more to contribute to the Falun Gong pages than Samuel?  --Tomananda 09:13, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Quick response to Olaf

message: You are not willing to declare your independence from Li's prohibition against talking about the teachings at the higher levels?  Frankly, that doesn't surprise me because no FG practitioner in Wikipedia has ever questioned a single word Master Li Hongzhi has ever said. But for you to say that there has not been a problem in reporting the teachings at a higher level is bizarre, given all the resistence FG editors have given to the inclusion of this material from day one. --Tomananda 09:13, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Quick response to Asdfg

message: I have noticed that the evidence provided by Olaf Stephanos and Asdfg12345 are way over the 1,000 word limit.  This puts Tomananda and me who follow the rules in disadvantage.  Could someone remind Olaf Stephanos and Asdfg12345 to follow the rules? --Samuel Luo 23:16, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Evidence provided by Falun-Gong-practitioner-editors are too long

message: I would like to know if there is a time table for these procedures. I have two reasons for this. First because I would like to have more time to prepare/compile my evidence and present it to you, this unfortunately goes pretty slowly because I have other stuff to do in real life, so for example I did not even read through all the evidence presented at this moment. Because of this I would like more time for these procedures.
On the other hand I placed a notice to the Biography board here: Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard Li Hongzhi and this seems that is stuck because the ArbCom case is open. I think this is bad because according to WP:LIVING section Remove unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material there is quite a lot to remove from that page as soon as possible. So I'm wandering if it is possible to do anything about this.
Thank You in advance for you response. --HappyInGeneral 16:30, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: HIG: It's not clear what material you object to and why.  I think you should make a list and explain why content on the Li Hongzhi page does not, in your opinion, meet Wiki standards.  --Tomananda 01:21, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Is there a time table?