Talk:Falun Gong/Introduction

message: I suggest that the current third paragraph on the article should simply be cut and explained later. Colipon+(T) 05:40, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Number of practitioners

message: Since the article is split into three main sections after the intro, the historical, the pro-FG then the anti-FG, I suggest we cover the historical paragraph in the same fashion as the intro.  The pro-FG and anti-FG sections will then be discussed at length by both sides.  This will take a long time but it should result in a fairer outcome.  However, when I talk about discussion, I refer specifically to general parameters, e.g. length, depth, etc.  The content will obviously be written by the different sides themselves.  I know I'm probably two steps too far ahead, but any thoughts on this?  We can then have more sub-pages for each of these sections, then finally arriving at a Wiki entry - and a sigh of relief whenever that will be!  Jsw663 13:32, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think you have proposed the right approach.  Assuming the content on the main page is sourced, NPOV and not original research (and for the most part it already meets these standards), the only remaining issue is the overall weight (length and depth of content) given to the "pro" and "anti" FG positions.  It seems to me there can even be some horse trading here.  For example, if there's going to be yet another attack on what I condsider to be a modest (in terms of length and depth) summary of the Criticism and Controversy page, I will demand that for balance we need to delete the entirety of the Reseach into medical benefits page for reasons of balance.  Thus we could wind up with a zero sum game in which the main page is even shorter than it is now.  Alternatively, if both sides are willing to compromise on issues of length and depth, the main page will come out much better. --Tomananda 19:46, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  About length, on the Falun Gong it is like this: "5 Research into health benefits" has 464 words; "6 Criticism and controversies section" has 466 words which means that they are pretty balanced. So all we need to do is to drop the Criticism_and_controversies_about_Falun_Gong page which has 9191 words and it will be nicely balanced. Right? --HappyInGeneral 16:37, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  HiG, your proposal is so radical that I'm not sure it warrants a reply.  Maybe we should drop the Teachings of Falun Gong page, and any other pages that promote FG as well, because you outrageously insist that one separate page on criticisms is too biased!!  What are you trying to promote here?  Jsw663 13:34, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

text:  Actually, you can write all you want about the studies done on the benefits of Falun Gong. Give it a good 100,000 words or so. Leave the Controversies article as it is, please. Colipon+(T) 03:37, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

text:  The Criticism_and_controversies_about_Falun_Gong on the main page is over weighted. That seems the only section with subsections on the main page. Please give a reason. Otherwise, I would remove all subtitles and integrated as other sections. Fnhddzs 03:04, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Let's not jump to changing it ourselves right away. This discussion was initiated on the talk page here, but as you can see it was ignored. Perhaps we can try to rekindle this discussion by copying it and pasting it at the bottom of the talk page, and writing some new posts. How about that? Mcconn 03:53, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  What to do after the intro