Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Falun Gong/Evidence

Where to present the Evidence, what is an Evidence ... ?

May I ask: for evidence that may require explanation to identify why it is evidence against another user's conduct, should that explanation be given on this page, by setting up a corresponding section? Or on the main page?

Or, if evidence needs to be explained, does that basically disqualify it from being evidence, and pushes it into the realm of content dispute? There seems to be a blurry line between how the two should be characterised. For example, if User A adds some text which is disputed by User B as POV and OR, (it may cite sources though, for example), and User B removes the text in question, with User A reinstating it, continuing this way, thus ending in a revert war -- who is in the wrong? Is it the burden of User B to prove that the addition is POV and OR with reference to the sources and argumentation, here, where we give evidence for ArbCom? If this is not the case, and there is not to be any investigation of whether the substance of an edit violates NPOV and OR, how is it to be determined whether the removal was justified, or merely repeatedly blanking legitimate material? I imagine the question of the degree and quality of discussion on the talk pages may be telling in this regard -- but it is quite possible to maintain groundless arguments indefinitely, I am sure we all know that. Basically, I am asking about what happens when it may not be immediately clear whether the dispute is content or violation of policy. I guess there are some obvious things like the tone of the writing, its placement, prior statements made by the user's involved, the edit summaries -- all this can be gleaned by any reasonable person without needing to understand the content. Is that the process of ArbCom judgement in an area like this?

More importantly, who has done the wrong thing -- User A who added the disputed (possibly POV, OR, etc.) material and edit warred at its removal, or User B who removed it and edit warred at its replacement? Who counts as the edit warrior? Both? Perhaps the factors cited above play a role? I am sure there is not some formula here, but I could use some guidance on this. If this is not answered I will copy it onto one of the clerk's talk pages.

Thanks.--Asdfg12345 02:06, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

I'll split my response to the three paragraphs that you brought up.

1. The evidence you provide is suppose to show how a user violated policy (for example, inserting unexplained POV section without explanation). You shouldn't need to explain most of it (as most of the time the evidence would be self-explanatory.)
2. The case you mentioned in the second paragraph really depends on the actual circumstances (for example, if one party tries to communicate via talk page and the other side ignores it). The ArbCom does have the right to look at the editor(s)'s edit history and make assessments from there. Rest assued, ArbCom took this case, so they do believe that it's not just content dispute anymore.
3. In this case, I believe that both A and B will be penalized for edit-warring at least. (You can't clap with just one hand). The punishment handed down may vary, but a decent amount of cases result in both ends getting same punishment.

Hope that helps. - Penwhale | Blast the Penwhale 07:56, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Can I get a clerk or some official-type opinion on this, to supplement Penwhale's useful notes?--Asdfg12345 13:07, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

I actually agree with Penwhale's first assertion. Keep your response within the guidelines for ArbCom Evidence in general. It's hard to resist the temptation to argue against accusations which you feel are untrue; however, remember this page is not for FG discussion. Jsw663 12:49, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Penwhale has given some reasonable advice. In general, remember what is the purpose of the evidence page: to give the arbitrators the information they need to decide the case. The arbitrators are experienced editors but they may have no background on the particular issues involving this article or group of articles. Ask yourself, if I were the arbitrator, what would I need to know in order to make an informed decision what to do here. Your evidence should make it clear what you think the problems are with the user conduct on the article and why. As for another question you asked, this is not a formal legal proceeding, and I don't think the term "burden of proof" is used, but I would like to think that AGF means that every user starts with a presumption of innocent, so the person urging remedies against another user would have the burden of showing why they would be necessary. Hope this helps. Newyorkbrad 01:17, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Evidence presented by Olaf Stephanos

I object to the body of evidence that has been thus far introduced by Olaf. Not because it's untrue, but because it's incomplete. The subject of this arbitration has obviously been changed to Falun Gong, yet he is still treating it as a personal RfA against Samuel. As an unbiased editor who used to informally mediate the Falun Gong debacle (until I recieved my first block as a result of efforts to maintain honesty in the discussions), I see this as all-too-typical of the tactics employed by both sides. It's very much an "Us versus Them" mentality amongst the core group of editors, and every party is guilty at some point or another. This RfA, this series of articles, needs to move beyond the finger-pointing and demonizing. Let the editors either adopt Wiki ideals or move on. CovenantD 10:43, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

I appreciate your comment, CovenantD, but I had only collected evidence against Samuel. Besides, I can only provide 100 diffs, and I've already used about 70. I still need to truncate my overall text by about 30%. You can be assured that more evidence will be digged up eventually, but I can only help others collecting it.

Let me also thank you for the mediation attempts you were involved in. It was a pity to see you quit. I hope you would still participate in the discussion. ---Olaf Stephanos 00:01, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

May I suggest that you cut back on the Samuel evidence and diversify? It would go a long way towards showing an understanding of the real problem and mitigate the impression I recieved from looking at your evidence, which is that you have a grudge against him. I completely understand the frustration - I went through it with many people on those pages (although not you, as I recall).

I really do owe everybody an apology for my abrupt departure from the articles. As I've now explained, but was unable to articulate at the time, the block really soured me on Wikipedia for a while and caused me to become far less involved. I curtailed my participation in all discussion to the point it was almost non-existent (which led to my second block). I also felt that the block had compromised my integrity and I had no right to continue as mediator. I should have said something.

Thank you for the kind words. I walked in knowing nothing and learned a lot from all of you. I still pop in from time to time, and I may become more involved in the future, but be warned that I am still as ruthlessly neutral as ever - if it's POV or badly sourced, it needs to go ;) CovenantD 07:56, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi Covenant D. It seems as if you are only bent on improving pro-FG evidence without giving the same treatment to, say, Samuel's evidence which can be improved as well. How can any editor involved in this matter who knows enough about Falun Gong possibly say they are 'unbiased'??? That is simply untrue, unless one holds no beliefs politically or in religion - an impossibility in itself.

Your refusal to accept my apology (or make it known you accept it - there is a difference between forgive and forget, and I'm only asking you to forgive) also makes me wonder about your 'neutral' credentials.

As for Olaf, do I need to remind him of the rules at the top of the Evidence page? "Long, rambling, or stream-of-conciousness rants are not helpful. As such, it is extremely important that you use the prescribed format." Maybe it is time he followed it.

And I advise Samuel to break up his evidence into several assertions. It makes it much clearer.

Therefore I can provide a balanced critique and account to both sides. I won't have any delusions about neutrality or unbiasedness because that is simply impossible in a matter as controversial as this. Jsw663 12:49, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I haven't examined the Evidence page since you and Olaf submitted your evidence. I'm reluctant because, well, I find Tomananda to be overly verbose and decyphering his comments often takes a while. (Sorry Tom.) The vast proliferation of responses, replies and rebuttals has further muddied the waters and made any further comments from me superfuous. I'm waiting for a clerk to clean it up before deciding whether or not to wade back in.

Your apology only revealed to me the assumptions that you are making about editors that don't share your views. You made assumptions and accusations about me without even doing the most basic research, such as actually reading my talk page. I declined to respond because you made it clear that you were only apologizing for not doing proper research and thus misrepresenting my record, not for the underlying assumptions you made, which you tried to present as reasonable. That's not an apology, it's an excuse. CovenantD 19:54, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I did not have a preconceived idea of whether you had a pro-FG bias. I did say that just by a quick look at your talk page WITHOUT looking at any other pages, that one can only conclude that since you got banned right after Samuel and Tomananda were established to be different people, that you were reacting to it (why would they 'decline' your POV-pushing otherwise - TWO admins?)

As long as I do not continue to hold those previous assumptions, I fail to see how that is just an 'excuse' and not an apology, or why you should take such an adverse reaction to an accusation that I have already struck out AND apologized for. I merely tried to explain why I did what I did, but I have changed these misconceptions since. If this is not a sincere apology, please tell me what is, because I am not aware of a mediator who does not accept an apology in the form I have made already. I am willing to learn, so please instruct what is a 'proper apology' according to you that can ensure you will 'forgive' me. Seriously, tell me.

Moreover, I don't see why I can't be entitled to defend my views, PROVIDING I am not so stubborn that I am not willing to compromise. My edit history tells the tale of one who is more than willing to compromise on content, not just on FG-related pages. However, I cannot give way to just a few exceptions, such as Olaf's 15 rules. And you are using this assumption to try to smear my record and say I am a bigot? I suggest you revise your views also. Reconciliation has to be mutual, after all. Jsw663 21:16, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Once again you perpetuate falsehoods about the block I received and show evidence of not having actually read the relevant section on my talk page. Your timeline is wrong (the revelation about Tomananda and Samuel came out afterwards), the number of admins involved in it is wrong and your account of admin reaction is wrong. Show me ONE place where an admin said I was POV pushing - ONE. On the contrary, the first reaction was from an admin stating that, in his view, the block was undeserved.

But I'm done with this. It's not worth the stress. Now that this has finally made it to ArbCom I have little doubt that many of the editors on both sides will be sanctioned for their actions. That may actually allow these articles to become more than a platform to praise or condemn Falun Gong and it's founder. CovenantD 21:47, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Cov D, perhaps you misunderstand. I was merely explaining WHY I PREVIOUSLY held the MISTAKEN view that you were biased. I am also saying that I NOW NO LONGER hold such a view. This is why I apologized in the first place; if I didn't change my view I wouldn't have bothered apologizing, right?

This is also why I don't understand why you view my apology as just an 'excuse' that you cannot forgive, or that I am some kind of POV-bigot. You accuse me of not reading your page properly yet you don't seem to understand my point here. I am CHANGING my view, NOT 'perpetuating falsehood', because I no longer hold such a mistaken view. Can you see the difference?

I have no desire to get into an argument with you either. Wikipedia is too full of arguments already as I am sure every mediator is aware of. But I do place setting the record straight as a high priority. After all, I don't want you and I to have a negative attitude of each other simply because of a misunderstanding. Hope you can see the difference. Jsw663 16:12, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

CovenantD has been neutral in his edits on Falun Gong related pages. He has a genuine desire to improve these pages and he tried hard. I respected him so much that I nominated him to be the mediator and he was accepted by all editors that were involved. He left us suddenly due to an unexpected reason; I can say with confidence that if he had been around there would not have been so much chaos on these pages. Jsw663 is another neutral editor whom I came to respect; I hope you guys can stop this line of argument since it does not address the matter at hand here. --Samuel Luo 07:56, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

A rebuttal of Tomananda's accusations

(this section is moved from the project page)

I'm sorry, I've exceeded my space on this evidence page, but I'll still have to respond. (Maybe all replies that don't introduce new evidence in a clear and concise manner could be moved on the talk page?) I don't want to go into any doctrinal disputes, but it's simply nonsensical to claim that Li Hongzhi would've given any "directives" for "concealing" the "higher level" teachings of Falun Gong. What does "clarifying the truth" mean? Right, it means informing people what the CCP is doing to us and our fellow practitioners. We respect people's own convictions, and we're not on an evangelical mission. We think it's enough that people don't support the persecution in any way and clearly distance themselves from it; otherwise, we believe they're in danger and may meet with harrowing retribution. Falun Gong practitioners are not concerned with the lifestyles of other people; cultivation must be 100% voluntary. You do and believe what you want to. Nevertheless, you should respect our rights in this regard as well. We do not come pushing our views to you. Neither are we concerned with your personal mores.

If somebody wants to learn the metaphysical side of Falun Gong, that's great. If not, we can have an entirely secular dialog concerning the human rights and freedom of belief in China. Having seen the approach of some practitioners on the street, I can comprehend why Li Hongzhi has mentioned this issue. I understand it as a statement against zealotry. You know, all Falun Gong material can be freely downloaded on the websites; there are no "core teachings" that would be revealed to an "inner circle". Anyone can read everything online, and all practitioners are private, individual people without any hierarchy to tell them what to do. Everything they do is self-motivated. I know how real cults operate. What has been imposed on Falun Gong and its supporters is nothing but a dirty political label. In addition, the anti-cult movement is the only one who calls its members "cult experts". They have never been acknowledged as such by the scientific community. I have a degree in religious studies myself, and I know what I'm talking about, even if we're all biased in our own ways. If your point of view is as valid as you claim it is, why don't you find some good secondary sources instead of drawing on the original research of a San Francisco massage therapist.

In addition, the quote from Zhuan Falun has nothing to do with what you're claiming. I've noticed that you never quote the entire chapter [1], maybe because it would reveal how you take Li's words out of context, contorting their meaning to suit your own needs. However, I agree that you have good points, and of course we must mention all important aspects of Falun Dafa on a Wikipedia article. There should have been better cooperation to begin with. I've always said that we should add and contextualize material instead of blanking it. We still need to resolve the issues concerning POV pushing. For example, if the lead chapters are meant to shortly summarize the article, general definitions based on combining different primary sources are clearly a problem. What will be emphasized and why? I agree with Asdfg12345: Tomananda has been playing with popular stereotypes, and he'd rather oversimplify, insinuate and implicate than provide an adequate background for a more holistic understanding of what is meant by a given statement or a concept. This is one of the most important moot points, and I believe it is what Asdfg12345 meant by "misrepresentation" of Falun Dafa.

I don't even bother to elaborate on your allegations of user page vandalism and sockpuppetry. We would never do such things. A simple CheckUser will suffice to prove you off target. ---Olaf Stephanos 22:24, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

A quick answer to Tomananda: I'm definitely not against anyone's occupation. That said, Samuel Luo has been called a "Falun Gong expert" in several instances, including the radio show "Guns and Butters". The whole anti-cult movement is largely based on similar insincerity. Many people with no academic competence whatsoever portray themselves as the crème de la crème of "cult experts", and that's why they're opposed by the scientific community at large. Others keep hanging onto theories that have been falsified and are not supported by anyone in mainstream science, such as the "mind control" theory of Margaret Singer. [2] I'm well aware of these issues, not only because of my education. However, I never said that I would be more entitled to contribute to the articles than Tomananda or Samuel Luo, nor did I even implicate that. It is original research that has no place on these pages. Samuel has nothing to do with academic Falun Gong experts like David Ownby or Noah Porter. As long as he continues to characterize himself as an "expert", his audience should be reminded of this fact.

Wikipedia explicitly forbids "concealing relevant information about sources or sources' credentials that is needed to fairly judge their value." [3] If somebody wants to have Samuel's personal website in the external links section, it is more than fair to mention his occupation, maybe even the fact that he's a Wikipedia editor. In my opinion, these are all relevant information "to fairly judge" its value. ---Olaf Stephanos 10:35, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Olaf, Dr. Margaret Singer had done ground-breaking research on the brainwashing of Korean and Vietnam War prisoners. She advised the military and FBI on everything from the Oklahoma City bombing to how to pick fighters who best withstand pressure. She had also given expert testimony to help jail dozens of bunko artists who bilked oldsters of their money and counseled more than 4,000 current and former cult members. For her work, she has been threatened by cults that most people would want to avoid. But this frail lady stood firm. While she is respected by the public, many cults and their followers hate her. It would only surprise me if you did not try to put her down.

It has been clear to me that you have a grudge against me—something I do not care to respond to. But, I thought you should know that the public seems to find my website useful. It is now rated #14 and #16 on the Google and Yahoo search engines.[4]

To people reading this discussion, I wish to make this important point clear: the critics are not here to condemn the Falun Gong and its founder; we are here to reveal the core teachings of the Falun Gong and claims of Li that have been concealed by Falun-Gong-practitioner-editors. As my evidence shows, some of the most heated revert wars have been fought over material directly sourced to Falun Gong websites. --Samuel Luo 07:59, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

You can puff Margaret Singer as much as you want, Sam. I know she's eulogized by your peers. I'm talking about how she's perceived by a significant part of the scientific community, and I backed up my statements with independent sources. I'd like to you elaborate a little bit on what you said and tell me how The Oxford Handbook of New Religious Movements, or The Journal of Church and State belong to these "cults and their followers". Can you find any peer-reviewed journals praising the ACM?

Maybe there wouldn't have been so many problems if you weren't "blind to your POV", like you stated in one of the edit summaries in my evidence. ---Olaf Stephanos 10:25, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

These groups do not hate Dr. Margaret Singer, your reading skill is disappointing. --Samuel Luo 07:33, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Response to Tomananda from Asdfg

(relocated)

See [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10] for just some examples of frank discussions about the content of Falun Dafa lectures, and about putting that material into the articles. Those just involve me; there are many more involving other editors. Furthermore, Li Hongzhi has also said things like "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."[11] Though this is really a non-issue and Tomananda's response only exemplifies the point made in my evidence statement. Also, I'd like to draw attention to the fact that Tomananda and Samuel have frequently broken WP:NPA across the talk pages, and even now in this ArbCom request. --Asdfg12345 18:27, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

There are no rules or prohibitions I need to declare myself immune to, Tomananda. There has never been any issue of actually trying to conceal the teachings of Falun Gong. Nor did I call you inarticulate. I think you articulate yourself well. I told you that "When you abandon your paranoia that im trying to cover things up we'll work better together." -- and that statement stands.

Your "pretty straight-forward rendition"--which is no more than your own, selective interpretation of the lectures (sometimes even contradicted directly by them, as in the "goal to destroy the CCP" example above)--conviction that you have got it right, dedication to revealing the "dark side" of Falun Gong, and consequent rejection of alternative proposals as "deceit" and "concealment" are precisely the problems we have encountered in these articles. Your continued, emphatic declarations only make the point more salient. --Asdfg12345 02:02, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

There's no prohibition in the first place.--Asdfg12345 20:01, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Tomananda responds to Asdfg and Olaf

Rebuttal to Asfdg's accusations

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." [12]

• 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." [13]

"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!" [14]

"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." [15]

• 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." [16]

• 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)

Counter Response to Asdfg

Yes, we have recently had a conversation about edits on Fa-rectification here: [17]. 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)

Just for the record I call you "twisted" here[18] 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)

Quick response to Olaf

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)

Quick response to Asdfg

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)

Response to Olaf

Your response is so full of non-sequitors that it's hard to know where to begin, but let me try:

• You have demonstrated an attitude of superiority towards Samuel and other editors on several occassions. When I was young I, too, had mis-placed pride in my academic achievements. In the tradition of yoga, pride--which might be defined as attachment to one's ego--is the biggest obstacle to enlightenment. Yet I find a great deal of egoism across the board in the behavior of Falun Gong practitioners: Look at us, we are "good" and how dare you criticize us because we are also perscecuted in China (which is "bad").
• Samuel Luo is most certainly a Falun Gong expert. He has written extensively on the subject, given multiple interviews and presentations. For you to denegrate his work because he does not have a "scientific" background is especially absurd given Li Honghzi's own rejection of "science" in the western sense.
• Your own academic background seems to be in Philosophy and Religion, neither of which are part of the "hard" sciences, meaning they do not rely on empirical evidence as a standard for truth. Yet despite this obvious limitation on your part, you frequently denegrate the work of others because it is not "scientific."
• You seem to have conflated the term "Falun Gong expert" with "cult expert" in your post above. As I said before, Samuel is most definitely a Falun Gong expert by virtue of his own family experience (that is he has experienced and continues to experience the exploitative nature of the Falun Gong first hand due to his parents' status as disciples) AND his research on the subject, which is extensive.
• Your dismissal of the work of people involved in "cultic studies" as "insincere" or somehow invalid because they do not meet your standard of academic qualifications is laughable, but again reflective of your sophomoric biases. I find it particularly telling that you would point to the published thesis of Noah Porter (that was a Master's thesis, wasn't it?) as a standard, while at the same time dismissing the work of Dr. Margaret Singer who spent her lifetime working in the area of cultic studies.
• Finally, and I think this may be the most important point, you, Asdfg and other practitioners have a long established practice of attacking your critics rather than responding, honestly and fully, to the arguments your critics make. This kind of evasiveness is called apologetics and you guys are past masters at it. For example, I have asked Asdfg a simple question that deserves an answer: as a Wikipedia editor, is he willing to declare that he will not be bound by Li's prohibition against not talking about the teachings at the higher levels? That's a question which deserves a straightforward answer, yet Asdfg blows me off. Most people would answer the question. Since Asdfg does not, how can I not conclude that he is bound by Master Li's prohibition, but does not want to admit it? --Tomananda 19:12, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

• This is not a question of pride. We're playing on my scholarly domain, and I know how it approaches these questions. That's a neutral statement. On the other hand, I don't know massage therapy. I don't know that much about chemistry, either. What I know are the methodological approaches of cultural studies, their epistemological and ontological assumptions, as well as their relative position in the philosophy of science. When I see people who define themselves as "experts" of these phenomena without any background in genuine research, even demanding public acknowledgement of their "expertise", it is only natural that I'm somewhat concerned. Of course, I know that philosophy, history, religious studies and similar fields of research are not "hard" sciences, but they certainly have their own standards for what constitutes good research. Why do you think it's inappropriate to mention Samuel's profession for the sake of averting any misunderstandings? Isn't it better that the public knows what kind of "expert" he is - not an academic expert, but a self-learned partisan whose family members are involved with the thing he opposes? These are facts, so why should we cover them up?
• I'm not even trying to claim that Li Hongzhi's writings are scientific in the commonly accepted sense of the word; I consider them metaphysical. The article is about Falun Gong, so it's not a problem. If we have an article about Samuel Luo, it doesn't matter whether his statements are accepted by the scientific community or not. Surely you don't assert that Samuel's original research relies on some transcendent legitimation?
• Talking about Samuel's parents arouses my suspicions, because they've never had a word in this. You can say whatever you want about them, and they're not here to give their version of the story. I've understood that they don't know English very well, so maybe we can ask a Chinese speaker to send them e-mail and ask what this family conflict is all about in their view.
• I've also done extensive research on Falun Gong. Do you consider me an expert? If you say there's a conflict of interest, doesn't this apply to Samuel as well because of his family relations?
• Both Margaret Singer and the anti-cult movement have received sweeping criticism. Journal of Church and State (Vol. 47, Issue 2) states: "Over the years, the CCP has also become more sensitive to international criticisms concerning China's human rights record. In this context, the anti-cult movement and its ideology have served as useful tools, helping efforts by the party to try to maintain a delicate balance and create the illusion that the rule-of-law has been upheld, even as actions in violation of international customary law are being taken against the Falun Gong. The social construction of the cultic threat posed to Chinese society and the rest of the world, the subsequent government's response to that threat, and its lax definition of the term 'cult' has armed the CCP with the weapons necessary to attack any religious, qigong, or sectarian movement its sees as a potential threat to its authority. By applying the label and embracing theories that posit passive followers under the mental control of a dangerous leader, the government can aggressively destroy the group, all the while claiming to be protecting religious freedom. In this respect, the Western Anti-Cult Movement has served, unwittingly or not, as a lackey in the party's efforts to maintain its political dominance." Center for Studies on New Religions wrote in Margaret Singer's obituary: "Singer's decline started with the rejection of a report of a commission she had chaired by the American Psychological Association in 1987, and with the ruling in the Fishman case in 1990 excluding her testimony on brainwashing as not part of mainline science. Still lionized by the anti-cult movement and by some media, she was increasingly criticized even by "moderate" anti-cultists, and appeared increasingly irrelevant to the "new" cult wars of the late 1990s." [19] You can also find the "mind control" theory debunked in an article published in The Oxford Handbook of New Religious Movements. [20] If you know some French, you can browse through a very good article named Le 'sectisme', une nouvelle forme de racisme? by Lorraine Derocher. [21] The truth is, Margaret Singer was a very controversial figure whose ideology became increasingly unpopular. She even sued the institution who rejected her theories for "defamation, frauds, aiding and abetting and conspiracy" (and lost the case). [22] She might have worked her lifetime "in the area of cultic studies", but she wasn't even accepted as an expert witness anymore in the later years of her life. [23]
• An article named Pseudoscience and Minority Religions: An Evaluation of the Brainwashing Theories of Jean-Marie Abgrall, published in Social Justice Research (Dec1999, Vol. 12, Issue 4), might interest you as well. I can quote its abstract and provide more information as necessary: "An analysis of Jean-Marie Abgrall's cultic brainwashing theory shows that the theory is essentially identical to the pseudoscientific theory that was developed first by the American CIA as a propaganda device to combat communism, and second as an ideological device for use by the American anti-cult movement to rationalize efforts at persecution and control of minority religious groups. The CIA theory has been evaluated scientifically in research in several contexts (i.e., communist coercive indoctrination of Western prisoners, the CIA's attempted development of brainwashing techniques, and with American new religions or “cults”). In each context, it has been shown to be ineffective in coercively changing worldviews. Because of this pattern of disconfirmation, testimony based on brainwashing theory has been opposed as unscientific by relevant professional academic organizations and repeatedly excluded from American legal trials. Consequently, neither legal decisions nor public policy with respect to minority religions should be based on Abgrall's appropriation of this pseudoscientific theory."
• Don't get me wrong: I know perfectly well that destructive cults exist and cause serious harm to people. The problem with the Anti-Cult Movement is that it's generally blind to the political misuse of the "cult" label (as indicated by the quote from Journal of Church and State), chiefly because it is more interested in safeguarding the boundaries of "orthodoxy" and "heresy", as well as "center" and "margin". It is, first and foremost, a hygienic movement that aims to purge the social body. On that account, the abovementioned article comparing "sectism" (or "cultism") and the social construction of these "menaces" with racist ideologies is quite thought-provoking. Anthropologist Mary Douglas' theories of purity and danger carry some relevance here.
• I don't think Li's suggestion about not clarifying the truth on a "too high level" has anything to do with Wikipedia. This is my understanding. Seriously, I think this statement has had nothing to do with the real reasons behind the edit wars. ---Olaf Stephanos 20:45, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Olaf, you can attack Dr. Margaret Singer all you like... but that does not negate the fact that she is a recognized authority on cults and during her lifetime accumulated academic credentials beyond your own favorite academic, Noah Porter. When I last checked a PhD in Clinical Psychology out ranks a Master's degree in Anthropology. The fact that Singer's theory of brainwashing is controversial and was rejected by some of her peers is information that can be (and in fact has been) reported in Wikipedia, but it does not constitute grounds for dismissing her as a notable expert in the field of cultic studies.

More broadly, I think you need to sort out where you yourself stand on some of these issues before you start casting aspersions at others. First, as to "brainwashing" itself. You ridicule Dr. Singer for her attempt to define "brainwashing" as a real psychological phenomenon, but are you also willing to ridicule Li Hongzhi for his belief in "brainwashing" as well? It seems to me you need to be consistent in your criticism. If Singer was wrong, then so, too, is Li Hongzhi when he says:

Having been ruled by the CCP for decades, today’s Chinese people have been thoroughly brainwashed. The words that Mainland Chinese people use, the way they think, and how they look at things are all brimming with what the CCP has instilled in them. Teaching the Fa in the City of Chicago (June 26, 2005) [24]

Are you willing, right now, to declare that Li Hongzhi is in error when he accuses the CCP of brainwashing its citizens? If not, why not?

Olaf, you also need to be more honest in the way you represent Li's teachings on Wikipedia. For example, you state above that: “ I don't think Li's suggestion about not clarifying the truth on a "too high level" has anything to do with Wikipedia. This is my understanding.” Suggestion??? Li does not “suggest” to his disciples that they not talk about the teachings at the higher levels, he says they absolutely must not. The irony here is that once again I am more accurately reporting Li’s own teachings than you are, yet you seem to reserve for yourself the mantel of legitimacy as a commentator on the FG by virtue of being a FG practitioner.

Attacking the credentials or sincerity of critics is not a defense against the charges of abusive practices that have been launched against Li Hongzhi by numerous writers and commentators. In fact, an ad hominem defense is no defense at all.

Both you and Asdfg have dismissed my concerns about the effect of Li’s prohibition against talking about the teachings at the higher levels. Asdfg says it is not a prohibition at all. But what does that mean? I have asked repeatedly for a simple declaration from FG practitioners that they will not be limited in their editing by Li’s statement that practitioners “absolutely must not” speak about the teachings at the higher levels. Can you say that? If you can’t, why not?

Even more broadly, this debate is about how Falun Gong practitioners represent their beliefs and practices to the general public and how those representations seem to be contradicted, directly, by what Li Hongzhi himself says. Time and again the critics of FG point to examples where Li says one thing, but the practitioners say something else. If we introduce an edit which directly quotes the Master on a “controversial” topic such as Fa-rectification, it is predictably rejected for spurious reasons (eg: out of context, POV, etc.) As you know, Olaf, it took many months of endless discussions to reach a tentative truce on the edits on Falun Gong and homosexuality and even those edits, once the Criticism page is unlocked, are bound to be attacked by aggressive apologists for the FG.

Thank you, Olaf, for acknowledging “that destructive cults exist and cause serious harm to people.” I wish you could take that recognition one step further and acknowledge that the concerns of FG critics about Li’s authoritarian relationship to his disciples are legitimate concerns that need to be addressed. As long as the FG continues to rely on a strategy of attacking its critics in response to all criticism this debate will continue. --Tomananda 21:51, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

"I have asked repeatedly for a simple declaration from FG practitioners that they will not be limited in their editing by Li’s statement that practitioners “absolutely must not” speak about the teachings at the higher levels. Can you say that? If you can’t, why not?" -- Tomananda, what I am saying is that there is no such prohibition, there is no such thing. So of course I won't be restricted in any way and by any one about my editing on wikipedia. I am here as a wikipedia editor and I will strive to fully conform to the policies and guidelines of wikipedia. I have always said that, and I have no intention whatsoever of concealing any aspect of the teachings. I have always resisted your attempts to define the teachings on your own terms, how you want to, using them in a way to back up your own theories, taking them out of context, even saying things contradicted by them sometimes, and so on. You have repeatedly made it clear that you are here with a mission, revealing the "dark side" of Falun Gong, using wikipedia as your platform and continuation of all the other anti-Falun Gong activities you have become involved with, claiming you are doing it right and that we are "deceiving the public." This is the problem. I would actually, really like a thorough, clear, and complete exposition of all aspects of the teachings, including about the Fa-rectification, the CCP, salvation, weeding out, etc.. The problem is, you are preventing that with the repeated, aggressive inclusion of your own wild interpretations and theories about Falun Gong and rejection of other formulations with claims of "suppression" and "deceit."

In fact, most of the evidence you presented is about Dilip, Omid and Fnhddzs, right? Well they do not even appear to be active anymore. All you have shown about me is resistance to your clearly tendentious editing, which is backed up by numerous talk page statements. And even with that, I stopped doing it and bowed out of the contest once I actually learned the rules. So who is doing the wrong thing here? Who is the one abusing wikipedia? Did you read through the large body of evidence against Samuel? In response, he rails allegations of sockpuppeting--I welcome a checkuser. Your response to the evidence against you was only that it proves your point! Wow. In the meantime, we have been through this debate millions of times. This is the last word from me about it. We'll see what ArbCom has to say about this whole debacle. --Asdfg12345 23:22, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Asdfg12345, you said "most of the evidence you (Tomananda) presented is about Dilip, Omid and Fnhddzs, right? Well they do not even appear to be active anymore." I think you are Dilip and Omido. You are using sockppupetts. --Yueyuen 19:47, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Asdfg: Just one quick question before you leave in huff. Are you willing to modify your delcaration above to read "So of course I won't be restricted in any way and by any one, including Li Hongzhi, about my editing on wikipedia." ? --Tomananda 23:39, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

You already had your answer, I'm sure that it was given in a good faith, why do you keep insisting on this? Please read article Wikipedia:Tendentious editing. Thank You. --HappyInGeneral 17:35, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Evidence provided by Falun-Gong-practitioner-editors are too long

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)

Is there a time table?

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)

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)