Talk:Teachings of Falun Gong

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Arbitration Committee has placed this article on probation. Editors making disruptive edits may be banned by an administrator from this and related articles, or other reasonably related pages. Administrators: when banning a user from an article, look up this article on the list of active general sanctions, select the relevant Arbitration case, and list the user under the Log of Bans at the page bottom; additionally, make use of {{User article ban arb}}.

Archives

1

[edit] Merger proposal

The two articles seem to cover very similar precepts under different names. If the copyvio content is deleted in both these articles, the merger can take place without any burden on article size. Ohconfucius 02:27, 13 August 2007 (UTC) letS —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.77.155.232 (talk) 20:20, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Overhaul

Hi, I just learned how to edit on Wikipedia. This page is currently a mess, I am working on a new version which I am going to replace soon. thanks. – — … ° ≈ ≠ ≤ ≥ ± − × ÷ ← → · § Randy1412Randy1412 (talk) 04:51, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

I think this is excellent, well done. I have made some small changes, and put some Chinese terms in. It needs a WP:Lead section, and I think some minor rearranging, but is definitely a very big improvement. --Asdfg12345 22:54, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] ref problem

The <ref name=kar /> is broken, could somebody please fix it? Thank You. --89.35.149.202 (talk) 07:46, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

It's totally weird that that ref is broken. I have looked at it carefully and tried to fix it, it's a complete anomaly.--Asdfg12345 12:17, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

OK, now it's fixed. A reference above it was not closed, and this impacted the next reference definition. --HappyInGeneral (talk) 12:28, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Tags

I've tagged this article for a few reasons:

1. It is almost devoid of wikilinks which would provide contextual help and help build the web.
2. It appears to be written from an advocative, rather then descriptive, tone.
3. The introduction is opaque to those who are unfamilar with the subject.

When these issues are addressed, the article should be untagged. Chris Cunningham (talk) 13:50, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

yeah someone just rewrote it. It would help to identify the parts which are advocative rather than descriptive. Specific instances are needed--please help.--Asdfg12345 15:55, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

I think point 1 and partially point 3 is solved. See here: [1]. --HappyInGeneral (talk) 16:24, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

We could still do with more work on point 1, I feel. I don't believe that the intro is clear enough yet. Chris Cunningham (talk) 17:20, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] some notes

apart from hearing what Chris has to say, which will be useful, some things I can think of:

• a proper, normal introduction according to WP:Lead, and explaining in more secular terms what Falun Gong is.
• making some sections into subsections, since this would categorise the ideas better
• thorough copyedit of language, style, tone
• general attempt to give more background/introduction to some of the concepts

um there are some other issues, and this is a tricky topic. A new editor seems to have written the whole thing anew. It's definitely an improvement, in any case. It may be easy both to allow an article like this to enter the realm of advocation, yet equally easy to mistakenly accuse it of such, simply due to the content itself, even if it were presented in a very neutral way. I think what's here now is a solid basis which can be trimmed up and polished. There are definite improvements. I want to do this sometime soon; we'll see how it looks in a week or so.--Asdfg12345 16:32, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

PS: I just see another editor has put in links etc., this is good. --Asdfg12345 16:32, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Yep, it's rapidly getting better. let's see how things work out. Chris Cunningham (talk) 17:20, 7 January 2008 (UTC)