User talk:Tomananda

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome!

Hello, Tomananda, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!  —Kf4bdy ^{talk contribs}

Contents 1 Reversions 2 The revert war 3 Falun Gong Criticism page 4 Wikipedia:Avoid personal remarks 5 Self-published sources may never be used as sources of information about another person or topic. 6 Falun Gong 7 Li_Hongzhi 8 Falun Gong 9 Like this 10 Falun Gong article, Criticism section 11 vandalism 12 Request for mediation 13 Talk:Falun Gong 14 Arbcom 15 Request for Mediation 16 Falun Gong mediation 17 You have been blocked 18 Unblock conditions 19 email address 20 Proper English plase 21 Genocide 22 Proposed three-strike rule 23 Bay Area Reporter Article 24 A new approach to the Falun Gong article 25 Samuel Luo has been taken to ArbCom 26 Arbitration statement length limitation 27 A brief note about the disputed definition 28 Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Falun Gong 29 Discussion on the Falun Gong evidence page

[edit] Reversions

Since under all of their verbiage the other editors still don't seem to want to have Li's positions simply reported; you should know that we are both entitled to revert 3 times in 24 hours, the WP:3RR. That is not the best way to go forward, but the inability or unwillingness of true believers in Li Hongzhi to see outsider's descriptions of their religion as having value often make such things necessary. Unfortunately our watching for their reversions may be the only way to deal with this situation until another admin steps in to mediate. I have put FLG in at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Religion and philosophy, but we may need more if this continues. --Fire Star 21:51, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The revert war

I am truly sorry for some people expressing such an emotional load and not putting in an effort to work towards a consensus in the spirit of good faith and cooperation. It would be so much easier for us all without this childish struggle. But we must also remember that there are Wikipedia newbies involved in the discussion. You shouldn't talk about "practitioners" in general; if you browse through the discussion pages, you can see that there are lots of FLG practitioners who truly give room for others' opinions. I think we should all hold back our aggressiveness even if we feel our justified viewpoints are being trampled upon. I'm trying to do that, I know you can do it too... and I've tried to e-mail someone about these issues (let's not point fingers at anybody), but there's no reply. ---Olaf Stephanos 00:35, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Your recent edit to Falun Gong was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to recognize and repair vandalism to Wikipedia articles. If the bot reverted a legitimate edit, please accept our apologies – if you bring it to the attention of the bot's owner, we may be able to improve its behavior. Click here for frequently asked questions about the bot and this warning. // Tawkerbot2 19:26, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Falun Gong Criticism page

What sections of the current article do you want to pull out and make that breakaway page? I'm thinking of starting a talk page for it with those bits as the starting point for discussion. CovenantD 21:02, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

At least five existing sections should be moved to a new page with a title such as:

• Critisicm and controversies about the Falun Gong

• Difference between Falun Gong and Qi Gong
• Li as savior or supernatural entity
• Claims to historical significance
• Questionable (or Debatable) significance of Falun Gong awards and recognitions
• Falun Gong and sexual orientation

--Tomananda 22:32, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

If, and I stress if, the criticism page becomes too large (>32k) are you willing to consider breaking it up into smaller pieces? We keep going round and round without any kind of resolution. I'm willing to let it be a single page if you'll give some consideration to the size in it's final determination. CovenantD 23:50, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Sure, I would be the first to say at that point it should be broken up. But if you go back and read the discussion exchange I've had with Fnhddzs, you'll see he either doesn't get the concept of each side having equal time (often by having different sub-sections on the same topic) or if he does get it he refuses to make a committment to honor that approach. If we are ever going to get past this impasse there must be some common buy-in to the idea that some sub-sections will focus on criticism and should not be vandalized merely because that criticism makes FG practitioners feel bad. The Falun Gong awards and recongitions section is a good example. There already are more or less equal sub-sections written about this topic, but we don't seem to get agreement that the criticism section should be allowed to stand. --Tomananda 02:02, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

One step at a time :) I'm gonna start copying stuff over to the Criticism article talk page. CovenantD 02:25, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Hi, Tommy. Fuzzy wrote a pretty nice "bare bones" summary of the disputes. You wanna give it a chance? It's all up to you ... --Eddie 19:55, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

No way! The main page now looks like a Falun Gong promo piece. For reasons of balance, all subections of the criticism page must be listed on the main page with a brief summary. By the way, my name is not "Tommy". --Tomananda 20:22, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Okay, and sorry about the name thing, Tomananda. --Uncle Ed 20:27, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Avoid personal remarks

Try to avoid directly accusing other contributors of deliberate wrong-doing. I deleted, struck out, or reworded some of your remarks at talk:Falun Gong.

I'm not "building a case" against you. I have no intention of bringing an arbcom action. But I've seen other contributors banned for a pattern of statements which attacked other contributors. You'd be better off deleting the marked up comments, even apologizing for them.

Criticize the action, not the person. I know that's hard, but you've got to do that, or you will never make any progress with controversial topics here. I've been around for more than four years, just because I'm not an active Mediator doesn't mean I've forgotten the principles this web site is based on. Please, work with me on this. You can be a valuable contributor if you put a check on your temper. --Uncle Ed 19:27, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Seconded. You make it a bit too personal at times. CovenantD 20:26, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Self-published sources may never be used as sources of information about another person or topic.

As I mentioned a while ago, xys.org is a personal website hosted by the biochemist Fang, Shimin [2] or Self-published_sources.

Self-published sources in articles about themselves

Material from self-published sources, and other published sources of dubious reliability, may be used as sources of information about themselves in articles about themselves, so long as:

* It is relevant to the person's notability; * It is not contentious; * It is not unduly self-serving; * It is not contradicted by reliable, third-party published sources; * It does not involve claims about third parties, or about events not directly related to the subject; * There is no reasonable doubt about who wrote it.

Self-published sources may never be used as sources of information about another person or topic.

A Wikipedia article about an unreliable newspaper should not — on the grounds of needing to give examples of their published stories — repeat any claims the newspaper has made about third parties, unless the stories have been published by other credible third-party sources.

I removed all words citing xys.org about other people than Fang. You should NOT call this an attack. You may notice that I did not remove steve ? 's quotes about himself although they are from his own website. You are not reasonable by madly doing personal attacks. You should be sanctioned. Keep in mind that Nobody owns wiki articles. Fnhddzs 00:00, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Falun Gong

You are in danger of violating the three-revert rule on Falun Gong. Please cease further reverts or you may be blocked from further editing. You can consider this a last warning as you have already reverted four times, thus violating WP:3RR. Revert again, and you will be blocked. AmiDaniel (talk) 08:37, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

I saw your message to AmiDaniel and have brought up that paragraph on the Falun Gong talk page. CovenantD 19:01, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Li_Hongzhi

Dear Tomananda,

You made a revert on this page with the following motive: "Rv to Tomananda: The essence of Li's teaching is Fa-recfitication and his role as savior and you know it. By constantly deleting this material you deceive the public about your core mission." Actually you may read the article and you will see that your remarks are still in that page with some minor changes, about which if you have any questions I will answer it. -- HappyInGeneral 17:28, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Falun Gong

Got a suggestion. If you look at the article, you'll see that the Criticisms section is broken up into a lot of small sections with a lot of headings. I'd like to see it more along the lines of Scientology, where there's a single heading and a pretty substantial summary. I think it would look better, flow better, and allow for more space to expand the summary. It would also make the Table of Contents look a lot cleaner :-) Since you're pretty invested in that section, I thought I'd run it by you. What do you think? CovenantD 06:16, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Okay, lets handle the technical part first. In addition to the inline reference,^[1] there's a code in the References section that looks like this^[2], which tells the software where to put the references.

[edit] Like this

1. ^ Rahn, Patsy (2000) "The Falun Gong: Beyond the Headlines", Cultic Studies Journal, volume 17 pages 168-188[1]
2. ^ <references/>

I like this method because it automatically updates the References list based on the what's actually in the article, rather than what was there 500 edits ago. CovenantD 18:58, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Oh yeah, check out Wikipedia:Footnotes and Wikipedia:Citing_sources/example_style for more info. CovenantD 19:00, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

There was a space missing and the year was in there twice, but other than those minor things (which I've fixed) it looks good.

1. This type of footnoting will ensure that anything referenced automatically shows up in the References section. If being done manually, then yes, the book or article referenced should be detailed in every article it's used.
2. I haven't actually used the "ref name=" coding in multiple places yet, so I'm not sure exactly how it works. Give me half an hour or so and I'll get back to you :D
3. Just for clarity you could continue to use the AuthorName (Year) formula in the text of the article, just before the ref itself. I don't believe it's necessary, but still prefered for more scholarly works. It also would be good to include specific page numbers when you cite books or journals. CovenantD 20:07, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Regarding the "ref name=" tag - it's actually very simple. I've set up the second Rahn citation as an example. Just use this format <ref name="Singer" /> when you want to use the Singer ref, <ref name="Rahn" /> when it's the same Rahn, etc. Once the text of the reference is set in the first use, they all point to the same numbered ref at the bottom of the page. CovenantD 20:23, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Re: small References - Sure, I'll go do that now. CovenantD 00:41, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Falun Gong article, Criticism section

Is there a difference between reference 7, 9, 13 and 14 in this diff?[3] If not, they should be combined. CovenantD 15:30, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

I can't seem to get it to work correctly either. I don't understand it. Maybe later. CovenantD 19:53, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

I got it fixed. I think the problem was in the first <ref name="Rahn2002"> bit. Once I retyped that, the rest of them worked fine. CovenantD 17:48, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

I have some bad news. Samuel's insisted that no new summaries be posted without full discussion first. I've had to pull yours and post it to the talk page. Hopefully we can get this over with and back up ASAP. I'm really sorry it had to happen. CovenantD 22:06, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] vandalism

Revert any edits that are offensive. You don't have to ask anyone for permission. You are the editor, remember. ackoz 23:15, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Request for mediation

A request for mediation has been filed with the Mediation Committee that lists you as a party. The Mediation Committee requires that all parties listed in a mediation must be notified of the mediation. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Falun Gong, and indicate whether you agree or refuse to mediate. If you are unfamiliar with mediation, please refer to Wikipedia:Mediation. There are only seven days for everyone to agree, so please check as soon as possible. --Fire Star 火星 14:03, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Talk:Falun Gong

You know what a cult usually entails? It's that the people who are trapped (and yes, I say "trapped" for a good reason) inside it make themselves believe that whatever "the master" says is true, and whatever people outside of their spiritual circle say is immediately wrong or fabricated.

Falun Gong is obviously not a cult. :) Colipon+(T) 22:00, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

PS. thanks for the comments.

[edit] Arbcom

Informal mediator WikieZach| talk is preparing to move the Falun Gong mediation case to the Wikipedia:Arbcom. I have been asked to alert concerned (to the best of my knowledge) editors about this matter. Thank you. --Fire Star 火星 22:51, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Request for Mediation

A Request for Mediation to which you are a party has been accepted. You can find more information on the mediation subpage, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Falun Gong. For the Mediation Committee, Essjay (Talk) This message delivered by MediationBot, an automated bot account operated by the Mediation Committee to open new mediation cases. If you have questions about this bot, please contact the Mediation Committee directly.

[edit] Falun Gong mediation

Hello, I'm sorry it's been awhile, but I recently agreed to mediate that case. I don't know if it's a stale issue, so it would be good if a few of you let me know whether or not mediation is still needed. Since there are so many of you, I'm going to assume that all of you agree to me mediating until and unless I am told otherwise. I'm also going to assume public mediation is fine, unless someone asks for private mediation, or I come to think private mediation might be better. I would, however, appreciate it if you just said something there to let me know if you are still around. Also, assuming you are still interested in mediation, please watchlist the page if you haven't already. Thanks! Armedblowfish (talk|mail) 02:57, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] You have been blocked

Due to some suspicious circumstances, an IRC Checkuser was contacted, and it's apparent that this account is a sockpuppet of User:Samuel Luo. With that in mind, I've blocked it indefinitely. Sorry. Luna Santin 08:04, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Per your email to unblock-en-l, I've now tagged this account as the master account and have indefinitely blocked Samuel Luo (talk · contribs) instead. Since you have been perpetrating this gross breach of the trust of the Wikipedia community since the end of March this year by blatantly violating the Wikipedia:Sock puppetry policy, I'm extending your block to two months. --  Netsnipe   ►  08:25, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

unblock/reason

Luna: Nothing could be further from the truth. Samuel and I live together and share a networked computer. I am a 62 year old retired man, and Samuel is in his 30's. This can be verified by a recent BAR article which quotes both Samuel and I about the Falun Gong. There's also a SF Chronicle story with Samuel's picture and I'd be happy to send you mine. You can check it out the BAR article at: [4] and the SF Chronicle article at: [5]

I am not the kind of person who would use "sockpuppets" to cheat on Wikipedia.

Please rectify this mis-understanding ASAP.

tomananda

[edit] Unblock conditions

OK. Luna Santin (talk · contribs) and I have reviewed the situation and have decided to unblock both of you. We had initially assumed that this request was an attempt at block evasion in violation of the Wikipedia:Sock puppetry policy when it fact the request was made by Yueyuen (talk · contribs). We were also unaware of your disclosure that you are both living together back in July. However, due to Wikipedia:Sock puppetry concerns, we will have to impose the following restrictions that we also apply to married couples who jointly edit the same articles on Wikipedia.

• You must publicly disclose that both of are editing from the same residence/IP address on your respective userpages so that other editors are aware of any potential conflict of interest in relation to both your accounts.
• The Wikipedia:Three-revert rule will apply to both of you jointly and should either one of you be temporarily blocked from editing Wikipedia, the other editor must not make the same edits to the same articles on behalf of the other until the block on the original user has expired.

We must enforce these conditions so that you can plausibly deny colluding as "sockpuppets" to sidestep Wikipedia policy. --  Netsnipe  ►  09:20, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Luna, thanks for responding so quickly to my inquiry about the sockpuppet block. As you asked, I have posted a disclaimer on my user page and will abide by the rule you cite above concerning reverting. --Tomananda 19:25, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] email address

asd at mm dot st--Asdfg12345 21:11, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Also, I want to contact him not just read his email to you --Asdfg12345 21:12, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Proper English plase

Man, you can't even speak or write proper English. I suggest you go back to school and forget the Wiki editing for the time being. Your user page is a darned joke!

AnnyAppleDancer 15:32, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Genocide

Genocide is a term defined by Article 2 of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (CPPCG) as "any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnic, racial or religious group, as such: killing members of the group; causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life, calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part; imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group; and forcibly transferring children of the group to another group." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genocide

Please stop saying that what is happening to Falun Gong is not a genocide. That is a direct lie. That is an obscene, vile lie. You are allowed to disagree with the teachings, and you are allowed to think Falun Gong is bad, or think whatever you like. You are doing something quite different when you say the genocide is not true, or when you downplay it. --Asdfg12345 05:58, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Sadly there is genocide in the world, and we all know about Darfur as one example. But the so-called "genocide" of Falun Gong practitioners in China is a fabrication coming from a group which will stop at nothing to discredit the Chinese government. Your lies are outrageous. Even when you have the opportunity to correct false claims...such as the absurd organ harvesting claims at Sujiatun...you fail to do so. In order to have credibility, you must stop so obviously fabricating stories. Your dishonesty in the name of the Dafa is truly outraegeous. Your lies are pervasive and your vicous attacks on critics here in the United States are tiresome. Please stop posting these ridiculous mesages on my talk page. --Tomananda 06:25, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps Asdfg's comment on here can go some way to highlighting his real stance and commitment to Wikipedian policies. Jsw663 19:48, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Proposed three-strike rule

Hi Tomananda, I've proposed a three-strike rule to govern editors' behavior on the discussion page of the Falun Gong Wiki entry. If you can contribute, please air your opinion and/or agreement / disagreement to the proposal. Thanks! Jsw663 18:36, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Bay Area Reporter Article

Hi, I read the article. Are you Thomas Brown? Colipon+(T) 22:35, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

What did you think of the article? Yes, I am the Thomas Brown referred to by the reporter.

Mr. Brown, nice to meet you. My name is Gordon Fang (you can read about me on my talk page), it's a pleasure. Exposing Falun Gong, more importantly Li Hongzhi and not the practitioners themselves, through journalistic means is a great idea, and a cause which I support. I have e-mailed the local newspapers, the Calgary Herald and the Edmonton Journal on the situation before, although every time the newspaper deemed my commentary on an issue much too sensitive. In the next few months, perhaps during the Chinese New Year season, I might take the initiative to contact the Saskatoon StarPhoenix, published in a city known for its blind support of Falun Gong groups (see Falun Gong outside China). Here in Canada there is a certain nobility associated with supporting Falun Gong as it is deemed righteous to protest against a "foreign authoritarian regime that is torturing an innocent spiritual organization". What many Canadians fail to realize (David Kilgour being the leading figure) is that Falun Gong's ban in China and its ensuing persecution has nothing to do with justifying the legitimacy of the group itself. Li Hongzhi's aims have turned from differentiating from Qi Gong to earn a name for himself, to turning Falun Gong into a money-making scheme, to turning Falun Gong into a semi-political organization, to turning Falun Gong into Falun Dafa and subsequently entering the international scene trying to deviate all the attention to the group's persecution.

To me, Falun Gong's ban in China has one obvious reason. Jiang Zemin was afraid Li Hongzhi could control people through his Falun Dafa much better than the CCP could control people through their revised and problematic version of "communism". It is the same kind of control today that Li is using to lead his international followers in the obviously political struggle against the Communist Party of China.

I completely agree with you when you say, time will tell the truth, and a lot of truth has already surfaced here in the west. Thus all this defence going on at Wikipedia. But you have to give Li Hongzhi the credit for being so brilliant. I know if you and I were asked to fuse Buddhist and Taoist traditions along with Confucianist norms to create a new-age QiGong healing cultivation system that extends a person's moral character and helps define the philosophy of life with a bit of quantum physics and aliens to spice things up, we wouldn't even know where to begin, let alone fail horribly after we try to convince people what we are saying will bring salvation. Li Hongzhi, having gone this far, achieved something very incredible, indeed. That, I think, gives me justification for calling him "master Li". Colipon+(T) 02:15, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] A new approach to the Falun Gong article

Hello Tomananda, please see the Falun Gong talk page and state your opinion about my proposal concerning a strict source policy. I think it's worth serious consideration. You know that the situation is tense, so we really need to find a common set of rules that is absolutely fair to all parties. In my opinion, the three-strike rule requires too much devotion to Wikipedia, and thus discriminates against a large group of editors. ---Olaf Stephanos 21:46, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Samuel Luo has been taken to ArbCom

Hello, I have filed a request for evaluating the consistency of Samuel Luo's behaviour with the Wikipedia policies. Please have a look: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Samuel Luo. We have gone through his edits from the past year, and if the ArbCom accepts this case, we can provide them with a list of his worst violations in reverse chronological order. If you want, you can give your comments on the aforementioned page. ---Olaf Stephanos 00:04, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Arbitration statement length limitation

Thank you for your contribution to discussion of a pending case on the Requests for arbitration page. However, it is requested that opening statements on whether or not a case is accepted should not exceed approximately 500 words. Your statement appears to be over that limit. Could you kindly edit your statement to reduce its size to 500 words or less. If you do not do this within 24 hours, an arbitrator or clerk may edit or remove your statement. Your cooperation will be appreciated by the arbitrators and by me as an arbitration clerk. Please be assured that if the case is accepted, you will have an opportunity to present a more detailed statement and evidence. Thank you. For the Arbitration Committee, Newyorkbrad 01:49, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] A brief note about the disputed definition

I saw that you've been discussing the insertion of the following passage: "The term Dafa refers to Li’s “Great Law of the cosmos” which offers salvation to those beings who are worthy, while “the dregs of humanity and degenerate world that are left behind will be weeded out” in a process he calls “Fa-rectification.”[6] I'd like to point out that the words "Dafa refers to", "Fa-rectification", and "those beings who are worthy" are not found in the cited source. Any interpretation of primary sources is not allowed; you can only state exactly what is said there, and you must also show its relevance to the respective article without original research.

Another point is that you cannot make a definition based on a primary source. For example, if I say that "the term president refers to a man in the United States" and cite a primary source that mentions George W. Bush, I still cannot define the word "president" this way. True, George W. Bush is (unfortunately) a president, and he lives in the United States. However, the term "president" has a broad meaning, and I can't casually define it like that. In Wikipedia, every controversial definition must be backed up by a secondary source, and one can simply state what the source says without any alterations. ---Olaf Stephanos 02:49, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Olaf: Two of those footnotes were in error. I had corrected them some time ago, but the erroneous version seems to keep cropping up due to all those deletions you guys do to conceal any meaningful reference to the teahcings at the higher levels. As to the meaning of the words Da Fa, they translate directly to Great Law. Do you object to the addition of "of the cosmos"? If so, you should complain to Li Hongzhi who has used that formulation multiple times. Here's one instance: [7] Here's the full sentence:

"Or, to put it plainly, [think about] what kind of a being is worthy of salvation by the Great Law of the cosmos?"

This leads me to a question: how would you answer Li's question in the context of your role as a Fa-recification Dafa disciple? --Tomananda 05:46, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

--Tomananda 05:42, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

This is a standing question posted on the "History attempt page" about your intentions during the ArbCom regarding the disputed material we are discussing:

Also, am I to understand that you refuse to remove the content?--Asdfg12345 04:29, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

I am on stand-by.--Asdfg12345 05:40, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Falun Gong

Hello,

An Arbitration case involving you has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Falun Gong. Please add any evidence you may wish the arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Falun Gong/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Falun Gong/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Thatcher131 05:06, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Discussion on the Falun Gong evidence page

Hi, I suggest that we move all discussion onto the project's talk page. The evidence page should be kept clear and concise. I did this on my part already. ---Olaf Stephanos 13:24, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

The latest piece of evidence you provided is perhaps the clearest of them all. The fact that you yourself provided it would suggest you don't even realise what you are doing. That I was not a part of that debate makes no difference. ArbCom is going to look at the diff and the lecture and they will see very clearly. You don't need to be an "expert" on Falun Gong to see what is going on there. So what if Mcconn didn't oppose it?--Asdfg12345 11:24, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Tom, can you please make sure the evidence you presented on the page is an assertion / dispute on editorial behavior rather than content? I know it's hard to distinguish on the whole, but it's important you make it clear. In general, ArbCom have been very reluctant to judge on content, as far as I am aware. Jsw663 15:32, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Asdfg, you amaze me. At the time McConn and I worked on the homosexuality edit, there were no other objections and we moved on to other topics in the Criticism page. Sorry for being naive about this, but I thought the whole spirit of Wikipedia editing is to work cooperatively with other editors. Some time later, Olaf and you came in with more debate about the homosexuality content here: [8] Rather than attacking me, why don't you respond to the issues I present? In the case of the reporting on the Switzerland speech, you make a grand pronouncement that "you don't need to be an expert to see what is going on here." Well, what is going on here other than trying to reach agreement on controversial material? As to Li's teaching on homosexuality, it is clear to any reader of the Switzerland speech that Li believes his teaching of the "upright Fa" will lead to homosexuals giving up what he considers to be inhuman behavior. Here's the whole section:

Question: Why is homosexuality considered immoral?

Teacher: Think about it, everyone: Is homosexuality human behavior? Heaven created man and woman. What was the purpose? To procreate future generations. A man being with a man, or a woman with a woman—it doesn’t take much thought to know whether that’s right or wrong. When minor things are done incorrectly, a person is said to be wrong. When major things are done incorrectly, it’s a case of people no longer having the moral code of human beings, and then they are unworthy of being human. Let me tell you why today’s society has become how it is. It results from there not being an upright Fa to keep human beings in check. This Dafa is taught right in the most chaotic environment, at a time when no religion can save people, and where the circumstance is that no god takes interest in people anymore. The Fa is almighty. The best time periods wouldn’t require such a great Fa to be taught. Only in the worst time periods can the power of the Fa manifest. There are other reasons, too.

And later, Li is even clearer about his message when he says: "Let me tell you, if I weren’t teaching this Fa today, gods’ first target of annihilation would be homosexuals. It’s not me who would destroy them, but gods.” Notice that Li says it's his teaching of the Fa which will prevent the elimination of homosexuals by the gods and that the Fa itself is something that keeps human beings in check.

Given these words, and Li's other teachings on Fa-rectification, do you really think the edit on the Switerland speech is incorrect? Certainly McConn accepted it as accurate. Later on Olaf came along and obscured the meaning of this edit, suggesting that the Fa-rectification somehow will accept the existence of homosexual behavior in the higher realms. If you believe that is a fair reporting of Li's teachings, please say so now so we can discuss it. --Tomananda 19:55, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't really understand what you expect me to respond to. I know you could argue about this all day. The evidence is there for everyone to see on the ArbCom page and it is crystal clear. I won't bother talking any further about it. As for your question you wish me to respond to: I won't play your games. I have told you repeatedly that I am not under any kind of restrictions in any way from any one, and that I intend to see a full and complete explication of all aspects of the teachings by the time this thing is through. I also said I will strive to fully conform to wikipedia policies in every way. I will also no longer tolerate other editors wilfully breaking and flaunting them.--Asdfg12345 22:40, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Tomananda, let me tell you my personal understanding of this issue. I think both of your interpretations are wrong. Please note that I'm just explaining in my own words what Li might have meant.

Gods do not approve of homosexuality; it is not something that exists at the higher levels of the universe. It is a postnatally formed notion, a very human thing indeed. The gods would punish homosexuals because all of them have enlightened to their own principles that they consider the highest - as such, they're closer to the absolute truth, which is Zhen-Shan-Ren. They are aware of truths that surpass the human level. However, human beings are supposed to be in delusion, and all levels have deviated from the Fa to a greater or lesser extent. Even the gods are not aware of the extent of this deviation - indeed, they're part of it themselves. That's why their opinions don't count in the Fa-rectification. The deviation of the cosmos has to be solved from the root, from the highest to the lowest, from above to below. Li says/thinks/opines that his Fa-rectification will provide benevolent solutions for all sentient beings who don't oppose it, and who don't give their support to the most evil thing in the universe, the entity that dared to persecute the Buddha Law. At the same time, the Fa-rectification is repositioning all beings according to their moral character or mind nature, gauged against Zhen-Shan-Ren. The chances for reaching high levels via cultivation are relatively better for the time being, because the delusion is the greatest, and cultivation can only take place in delusion. When the Fa rectifies the human world, a certain amount of this delusion will disappear; what is the original standard for beings on this level will become apparent for everybody. The true nature of all beings will shine through as if they were waking up from a dream. The universe will return to its original, purest state, and even though all levels will still exist, they are in natural harmony with their respective manifestations of the universal Law.

Now, don't get angry. You're entitled to believe whatever you want, and I'm not trying to make you renounce anything. If the Fa-rectification is a process of natural awakening to what is already there, it's not a question of coercion or imposing someone's personal moral standards on others. Li has never said that all homosexuals who haven't renounced their behaviour before the Fa rectifies the human world will be weeded out. This is your own interpretation, and it's not consistent with other teachings of Falun Gong. I've always said that you can't understand these things out of their larger context. I think that such inconsistencies are the chief problem in the eyes of many pro-FLG editors. It has nothing to do with "concealment". We disagree with your representations, because our understandings of Li's teachings are honestly different. ---Olaf Stephanos 02:00, 13 March 2007 (UTC)