Talk:Academic views on Falun Gong

message: So far, the text on Falun Gong being or not being a "cult" looks valuable to me.  However, it was kind of a long massive block of text that could lead to reader fatique.  It was also a bit of mishmash so I reorganized it by adding some subsection headings and reassembling related text together under those headings.  Each subsection could use a bit more introductory text to explain to the reader what the central theses of the section are. --Richard (talk) 22:11, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: There is an on-going discussion about this at FLGNEW. You may want to contribute. Colipon+(Talk) 21:40, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The FLGNEW page is about the suggested future structure of the Falun Gong main article, but I acknowledge that if we find a good, neutral, descriptive heading on one page we should probably reuse it on the other. Myself, I rather liked Asdfg's suggestion of "label", but that might be just as bad as "characterization" as you can both forcibly "characterize" someone as something they are not, as you can "label" someone as something they are not. You could even "claim", "contest", "declare" or "insist" on it. Not sure what a "neutral" adjectivized verb would be here.  / PerEdman 22:27, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Wait, why would the mainstream actually debate anything? Debates take place either between mainstream (established) ideas and non-established ideas, or between two or more ideas of which none are (yet) established. I'm trying to understand what you mean when you claim that we should not call "it" a debate because the debate is not between parties who hold the mainstream view, when that seems to be a self-contradictory requirement. If the mainstream view was that Falun Gong was a cult, we would still have to note the Mainstream view AND any notable objections to this, especially those which would be "non-mainstream".  / PerEdman 22:31, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Since no one has disputed my argument that the "cult of personality" section is problematic, most likely original research, and that the content does not match the title, I'm going to move the relevant stuff to the teachings page and move the bottom paragraph to the section above.--Asdfg12345 17:14, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: You might want to avoid removing anything, if we decide to integrate this material into the main FG text I would prefer it if we had as much material as possible here. As you know, Maunus wrote what many believe to be a very good segment on the question of cult status which may well take the place of anything we already wrote here.  / PerEdman 19:00, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Characterization of Falun Gong as a "cult"

message: I have gone bold yet again and removed this entire single-source section. If there are any objections or rewrites please voice it on the talk page. I see no relevance of this entire section and it is mostly fluff and jargon bordering on promotion of the practice. Colipon+(Talk) 16:40, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: There was a section like that in "Academic views..."? How strange. That should belong in Teachings, I'd say.  / PerEdman 17:01, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  I would say, regroup this large body of text, put it into an article renamed Teachings and Practices of Falun Gong, and then integrate it into that article. It most certainly does not belong here. Colipon+(Talk) 17:52, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeh, whatever. I actually put the section there. Couldn't for the life of me see the relevance of it in  Falun Gong outside mainland China, so I moved it. Ohconfucius (talk) 17:56, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Cultivation" 

message: The lead, as it stands in comparison with the contents of this article, has become increasingly inappropriate. It had two paragraphs before I boldly removed it. Paragraph one basically just said that Falun Gong has aroused academic interest in many areas - a frivolous and useless section. Paragraph two was a few out-of-context David Ownby quotes; it is difficult to gauge their purpose in the lede. If there are issues stemming from this change please discuss without resorting to disruptive editing. Colipon+(Talk) 05:10, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree with this move. Do the editing and revision, *then* rewrite lede according to what article's body says. Seb az86556 (talk) 05:15, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with you both. The article as a whole has had quite a few edits lately, so it was time for the lead-in to be adapted to the current reality. Good catch.  / PerEdman 11:25, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lede 

message: The article was created 21:07, 7 May 2006 Ed Poor (talk | contribs) (Three issues - off the top of my head - please fill in sources and details)
During the course of its life, this article has had the following moves:
*00:46, 31 May 2007 Olaf Stephanos (talk | contribs) (45 bytes) (moved Criticism and controversies about Falun Gong to Third party views on Falun Gong: See discussion on Talk:Falun Gong - all currently involved editors support this change.)
*06:45, 14 March 2008 Moreschi (talk | contribs) (45 bytes) (moved :Third party views on Falun Gong to :Third-party views on Falun Gong: basic grammar)
*22:57, 18 May 2008 PCPP (talk | contribs) (42 bytes) (moved :Third-party views on Falun Gong to :Academic views on Falun Gong: A much more contextual title than "thrid party")
:Ah, the time capsule. I'm surprised that the first suggestion for "Supression" was actually "Crackdown" but a few days later changed to "Persecution". Colipon+(Talk) 03:46, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  history 

message: *Support— V = I * R (talk to Ω) 20:11, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Support

message: * Oppose --HappyInGeneral (talk) 18:33, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Oppose