Talk:Falun Gong/Archive 18

message: Please add simple:Falun Gong to the interwiki. Thanks · Tygrrr·talk· 22:02, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. CMummert · talk 02:07, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  edit request 

message: I've said it before and I'll say it again, the criticism summary on the main page is too long. While other sections have at most two subsections on the main page, it has 6, including its intro. It's not as though it is any longer than the other pages either; the teachings and overseas pages are about the same length and with about the same number of subsections, but they are not accorded this special treatment. I suggest that this page's summary be reduced to a single paragraph to fit in with the rest of the page. Mcconn 16:17, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It should be as long as the other sections, I reckon. Probably I think a good way to order this page is to have a section for every branch page, like "teachings", "criticisms", "conflict with the CCP", etc. I think blowfish will only start getting involved again when the arbcom is finished. I would like an article that strongly references the wiki article guide and the stuff about how to make featured articles. I also think eventually that criticisms page will need to change to "third party views", and it will have to hold both positive and negative third party views on Falun Gong. Each point of contention can clearly lay out the pro and con views using neutrally presented reliable sources. It's far from that now. If no one else objected, for now I would suggest culling this section so it is the same size as the others. Please speak up any editors that disagree, or if this is stepping into revert-war territory. I don't have time now to spend on wiki. Since there are probably going to be large changes on several of these pages, maybe the way it will have to be done to avoid a lot of problems is to draw up a kind of plan for how each page should eventually look, a very rough guide, then go from there. --Asdfg12345 22:42, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

text: I didn't respond yet because of the pending ArbCom case about how to move forward regarding future edits.  To say the criticism section should be as long as each section of the rest of the article promoting FG is yet another example of twisting rules to justify shortening criticisms.  I'm not saying the criticism section should be as long as the section as the informative one.  But the line between informative and propaganda has been crossed far too many times.  This is yet another idea to make sure FG is received in the best possible light whilst sweeping any concerns under the carpet - not exactly the mark of a true 'democratic society' (at least FG is opposing CCP because of curtailing freedoms, but it seems they only want to replace it with an authoritarian system benefiting FG practitioners).  Nevertheless, I'm not going to engage in serious discussion about this now with the ArbCom still not having arrived at a decision yet.  Insisting on anything now would seem to indicate you wanting to promote something before you are (possibly) placed on revert parole.  Why can't you wait?  Jsw663 11:37, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

text: I'm not sure what kind of discussion you'd want with most of the anti-FG camp banned or on parole, and only half the pro-FG camp on parole.  It cannot be balanced anymore when anyone accused of being a Chinese Communist Party member is banned, yet editors making these wild allegations only get a slap on the wrist.  I already answered you on the issue of length, but did not on content.  This is because I do not know enough about FG to form an opinion on content so far, and I'd require time (not something I have an abudance of now).  Jsw663 13:49, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Criticism Section