Talk:Falun Gong/Archive 21

Archive 15

←

Archive 19

Archive 20

Archive 21

Archive 22

Archive 23

→

Archive 25

A more straightforward alternative to the "three-strike rule"

To be honest with you, the proposed three-strike rule seems extremely bureaucratic, although it has good elements to it. I understand that a frustrating situation requires drastic measures, but please let me propose an alternative. Don't reject it just because "an entirely new proposal at this time is somewhat distracting". I'm sure you can be convinced of its assets: it saves time, space, energy, and resources, and it's equally fair to all editors, not only those who are married with Wikipedia.

If we have to wait for five days every time we want to make a contribution, and the counter is reset every time someone disagrees, we'll encounter some major hindrances. The articles will stay in this broken state for a long time, and their evolution will be extremely slow. My proposal gives a certain flexibility to all editors, and if everyone agrees to it, edit warring shouldn't happen. My point is that all the statements must be backed up with outside sources that fully meet with Wikipedia standards, such as newspapers, scientific journals, etc. Basically, the articles should only report what different people have written about Falun Gong. In the long term, I think this is an excellent way of getting out of the current situation. No original research. Editors can impose a POV only if a third party has already stated it.

Let me suggest that we try my approach by immediately unprotecting all the Falun Gong articles. I don't think we have anything to lose. We've been discussing this matter with other practitioners by e-mail, and I think we've reached a consensus about it. No more blanking; if that happens, we'll agree to put on some peer pressure, and I hope you'll do the same. If this approach doesn't work, we'll protect the articles again, and then I'm ready to consider other means. However, if things start disentangling, the process will become a lot easier for critics and proponents alike. In addition, it doesn't consume so much of our time. Jsw663's paradigm would require constant attention from all parties. Following Wikipedia would become a full-time job. I know that some of you are very engaged with it already, but I really can't spend all my days commenting on your proposals. Maybe you'd have time for that, but a lot of people don't. That shouldn't rule us out as contributors.

I restate and amend my proposals here:

I. With the exception of self-evident and uncontested truths like "Falun Gong is suppressed in China", we should always provide a source that complies with Wikipedia standards.

II. The only thing that carries weight is the admissibility of the source, not the presumed veracity of the subject matter (or the lack thereof), because it could and would always be disputed. Even if something is said to originate from "the Chinese government" or "Falun Gong", but it's published by an admissible third party, the material is valid.

III. Any value judgments that are not found directly in the source material can't be interpolated. If the source doesn't speak of a "horrible persecution", we cannot say that. If the words "ridiculous lies" are nowhere to be found, we can't add them ourselves, either. This also applies to quoting Li Hongzhi directly. We can summarize, but the text has to adhere to the source in a strict fashion. If that's not the case, the opponents can add a "" tag. After two hours from placing the tag, the contested wording can be removed legitimately.

IV. If all the editorial requirements are met, there's no legitimate basis for removing an edit without discussion.

V. The only way to counter an admissible edit is to balance it by adding sourced material, not by removing it. Paragraphs with no value judgments on the editors' part should basically stay intact. The opponents can create a new paragraph with their antithesis. Meanwhile, a good tag is "".

VI. When the articles get too long, the editors will have to discuss about removing an equal amount of opponents' and proponents' material.

VII. All currently unsourced and contested statements will be marked with the "" or other appropriate tag. We will not remove anything at the moment. If the statements are not backed up after a certain period of time, they'll be snipped off.

VIII. If the admissibility of the source is contested, the edit is tagged with "" (for the lack of a better tag), and the discussion is taken onto the article's talk page. The editors will present their arguments by drawing upon the Wikipedia guidelines. In difficult cases the issue will be resolved by a neutral moderator who is not involved in the dispute. Before a decision is made, the edit cannot be forced out. If the source is deemed valid, the tag is removed regardless of factual disputes.

IX. All parties must enforce these rules and use peer pressure to keep their flock in control. An editor who violates these principles will be given a warning. After three warnings, actions to be taken have to include one of the following: consulting an administrator or sysop, or going to the ArbCom to have the user temporarily blocked. The length of the block is to be determined by the relevant administrator, sysop or ArbCom. If short blocks don't work, nor the longer blocks, then blocks ranging up to being permanently banned from Wikipedia will be considered. (thanks Jsw663)

X. This proposal will apply only to Wikipedia's Falun Gong entry and its daughter articles, including the article on Li Hongzhi, and not to any other related entry.

XI. These rules can be changed only by mutual agreement between all involved editors.

Please let me know what you think. This could work, don't you agree? ---Olaf Stephanos 21:14, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

I made some additions to make the rules even more clear and concise. We have to find a set of rules that applies to all parties in all situations. These principles, if not overstepped, would give us all the freedom to act. They would also protect the rights of casual editors and those who don't have time for a daily dose of Wikipedia. Talk pages would calm down and revolve around the admissibility of sources instead of factual disputes. Actually, I don't see how this approach wouldn't work with any controversial Wikipedia article, not only Falun Gong. ---Olaf Stephanos 01:08, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree with the general principle set by Olaf. Each editor should state briefly about their opinions and then vote on each article of proposal separately (Yes, no or comment/abstention -- after all, democracy is about each and every person having an equal weight in shaping decisions through voice and vote).

YES I II IV V VII VIII X XI

Abstention III VI IX

Comment Regarding III, strict and two are too vague; regarding VI, what does it mean to be too long?; regarding IX, although I agree that all vandals must be dealt with according to existing wikipedia policies (incl. blocking if necessary), what about legitimate users such as certain die-hard (with no personal harm intended) unenlightened users on both sides, or people using sock puppet after getting banned? Can you, Olaf, please explain it further? Btmachine333667 03:55, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Of course, we can make necessary modifications to certain minor details. Rule number IX was almost directly taken from Jsw663; it is the essential control measure of his "three-strike rule". The "die-hard" users would probably calm down after getting some space of their own. If they keep overstepping these boundaries, they'll be expunged, no matter what. "Strict" adhesion to the sources means that the summary shouldn't claim anything that is not found in the source material. This is a basic principle in all scientific writing. For example, if someone says that "Li has called mixed-race people 'defective'", a person opposing this statement could place a "" tag after the word "defective", because Li hasn't used such a word in his speeches. The best way to report a controversial passage would be: "Li has said in Teaching the Fa in ...:", followed by a direct quote. If another editor thinks that this quote does not suffice to explain what Li might have meant, he can't remove it; he has to add another quote to further contextualize the matter.

I also suggest that the introduction chapters of the articles will be left as "bland" as possible. Otherwise each party will try to flood them with their own material to get their highlights on the top of the page, and because the new rules don't allow the removal of well-sourced edits, the introductions would easily get too long. There isn't a simple way around this. Maybe we could apply Jsw663's approach here: a suggestion for an introduction chapter must always be posted on the discussion page and approved by both parties, keeping in mind this "bland" approach. No brutal pictures, no cute little girls practicing the fifth exercise, no controversial quotes that call for a large amount of background information. If we take a step back, we can easily distinguish what the other party wouldn't want to have in the introduction. I think that the freedom granted by this set of rules can make such co-operation possible as everybody's not fighting tooth and nail about every single edit.

Articles becoming "too long" is decided on the talk page. It shouldn't become an issue very soon. Sometimes blanking has occurred with the excuse of "cleaning up the chapter" or "chapter is too long". Such behaviour should be clearly forbidden. If and when the articles start getting huge, the editors of different parties can "bargain" about what they want to remove. Each party can only remove their own arguments, but the other party has to snip off an equal amount of their respective edits. This can also be achieved by summarizing quotes instead of removing any essential contents. By all means, all editors can suggest abridgements to any given text block. ("We see that you have a very long paragraph here. Could it be possible that you summarize it a little bit? As a sign of reciprocal goodwill, we could do the same with this paragraph of ours.")

Also, I think we should control against flooding: it just shouldn't happen that someone copies & pastes a full page of material from a single source. If there's a lot of things to say, the text should be summarized (in a strict fashion, of course), and the quotes should only be used in moderation to accentuate certain points. Do you think we could reach an agreement about this, maybe set a character limit for quotes? ---Olaf Stephanos 09:56, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

This all sounds good to me. I'm in support. I want to add that sometimes even when content is well-sourced, that's not always enough. It also needs to be relevent and contextual. Perhaps this problem is one that should be resolved through discussion after the edit is made. If a person considers someones edit as such, then they can say so and explain why on the talk page. If no response is given to the comment in a day, then perhaps the content in question can be removed. What do you think about that? Mcconn 16:57, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't think that would work. It's too much for a group of editors who've been brawling for such a long time. It would only lead to edit wars, protection of articles, and failure of this approach. Whether something is irrelevant or not is a question of POV. If the context is not good, we can only add supplementary material or place the thematic entity under a different subtitle. Little by little all the various topics stipulated by different editors will be included. Remember that all the rules we agree upon can be used both in favor of and against any given editor. ---Olaf Stephanos 17:16, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

I am in support of the proposition, but I just want to say why. I hope I made clear that basically my only concern with Jsw's was that the articles would be stuck or very difficult to edit, and that they would start from a basis of somewhat disputed content. I also made the comment that "However, if all edits were clearly explained and followed, maybe even cited when necessary, the relevant wikipedia policies, and everything was laid out clearly, then that would be another approach." This is to express that I think flexibility in editing is quite important, and that if content meets the editing standards it should be able to be simply included. Olaf also phrased in a better way another thing I tried to point out, what he described as the need for "blandness" in the introductions or summaries - I think I said minimal or skeletal. Anyway, if we stuck to these rules the articles would progress and after a while start to look quite okay. I think a great deal of the problems we have been having are the oppositions between the two sides, some degree of stubbornness, and the constant reverting. This prevents constructive editing behavior. If a simple set of guidelines can be followed by both sides then we have ways to get around those problems. So what I think is, if we followed the guidelines proposed by Jsw I think the articles in the end would come out how they should, but that the guidelines proposed by Olaf serve the same function but are more flexible and slightly simpler, plus do not require as much time spent or attention to wikipedia. I think many of us really do want the articles to read like neutral, encyclopedic articles with sourced content and unbiased writing, and as long as that is the case and we are all committed to that, these guidelines accommodate that. Interested in hearing what other editors have to say.--Asdfg12345 17:44, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

I have an adjustment to the "blandness" guideline: even if something is considered important, but has a "spicy" quality to it, it can't be added to the introduction. The introductions will become "demilitarized zones": they have to be so neutral that readers musn't be able to discern any implicit agendas behind the inclusion of individual elements. We'll still have to formulate them together on the talk pages; this is just to make cooperative editing a lot easier. We will have to find the lowest common denominator. In addition, it is the only way to keep the introductions from getting ridiculously long. As a rule of thumb, all controversial images, quotes, descriptions, and even figures have to be placed elsewhere. Because we can never reach an agreement about what exactly is the Most Important Thing about Falun Gong, it's no use to waste our time on that. I believe this is the best solution for all parties, because we won't be able to delete any material that complies with the standards. ---Olaf Stephanos 22:35, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

I am still waiting for your comments. The original proposal has been here for almost two days, but only three editors have expressed their opinion, despite the fact that I left a request on your user talk pages. ---Olaf Stephanos 10:23, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

I am in support of most of the propositions, basically I give a YES to all with the following comment.

Comment: First I would like to mention that we should revise these rules in 2 months after they were applied, because then we can see what works and what does not work.

Second: I would like to add that I strongly support Mccon suggestion about a text needing to be relevant and contextual. I’m not saying that we should delete immediately if something is considered otherwise. I’m proposing adding a tag to it and moving it to the talk page. If in max 3 days there is no response about how is this relevant and contextual, the text content should be deleted. If there are contradictory discussions about it being relevant or not, the text will stay and a neutral mediator will decide (or perhaps by voting, I don’t really mind), although I agree that the we should always encourage working towards a consensus, and ideally the goal should be to always reach consensus. So perhaps this should be rule nr. 12 (XII)?

I don’t agree with the following statement: No brutal pictures, no cute little girls practicing the fifth exercise. This is because there are pages where these are extremely relevant. One strong example would be the image of a tortured practitioner on the Suppression/Persecution page, so having that online then if there are disputes, having a mediator decide about it, I think it would be the best approach. About the cute little girl doing the fifth exercise, it would be nice to put it in the intro and also somewhat relevant, but not as strongly relevant and so I don't mind waiting for a mediator to decide on that. --HappyInGeneral 12:05, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

There are pages where such pictures are relevant, but they shouldn't be placed into the introduction. Otherwise, introductions would become a fertile ground for edit wars. I think we all have to make this compromise. We can, of course, decide upon the relevancy and contextual appropriateness of any given paragraph or picture on the talk page. It can be tagged and contested (could we create a new tag for this, as I was unable to find a good one? Something like "Contextual relevancy is disputed - see talk page"), but the edit shouldn't be removed without discussion. We have to find a couple of neutral mediators who can help us with admissibility disputes whenever necessary. ---Olaf Stephanos 12:37, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

So you are saying that the intro should be changed only and only after full consensus is reached upon it? While the rest of the article should be free for edit, by respecting the 12 rules mentioned above? I think I can agree with that as long as the image with the tortured practitioner is very visible. This is a well sourced fact and a very important one and very relevant to this Suppresion/Persecution page. Nobody should try to hide this. --HappyInGeneral 13:35, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes. By respecting the 15-step principles below. The Amnesty photograph of the tortured practitioner could be placed next to the chapter on different torture methods in China's detention facilities, for example. Anyone would have a hard time contesting that. ---Olaf Stephanos 15:50, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

No, no, no. I do not support any of Olaf's recent proposal that provides rules and regs outside of existing policy. Olaf complained about the earlier proposal being too "bureacratic"? His has grown into what looks like a government grant application, and with proposals like: "even if something is considered important, but has a "spicy" quality to it, it can't be added to the introduction" which seems to indicate (to me) an attempt to make the article another advert for FLG. Who decides what is spicy? FLG advocates? Simpler is better, Li Hongzhi's statements are indeed "spicy" (at least), FLG is demonstrably controversial and Wikipedia has policies in place to fairly report on these things, one of which is mediation when discussions break down. I support the earlier proposal, as a voluntary construct if we are to do anything, or am otherwise content to await mediation. --Fire Star 火星 17:50, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Olaf, your objection to the three-strike rule is that it requires constant attention? Is that actually a PROBLEM for a page that is subject to constant edit wars? What is too 'bureaucratic' about it?

Your proposal is immensely problematic because it doesn't establish just a few general ground rules. It leaves much room for interpretation and that is exactly what rules should NOT be liable to.

Now to consider point by point

• I. Disagree on what constitutes as self-evident truths. This is subject to interpretation, and should be discussed before editing.
• II. WP:Reliable_Sources already covers this ground. An encyclopedic article will also become a 'source war', with each party placing as many sources as they can find to support their case. This will not help in the compromise. What must be communicated in the FG wiki article are the points of contention, not volume of sources.
• III. Apart from the reason I gave for II., you will not find a smooth-reading, encyclopedic article if everything must be directly quoted. Context is required. It's funny you should say that it only takes two hours to legitimately remove a failed citation tag when you complain that my proposal requires constant attention of Wiki users. 5 days or 120 hours is there precisely so that constant attention is NOT required.
• IV. Disagreed because of disagreement with first three rules.
• V. Again, no. Editors like Asdfg have said that every non-pro-FG statement is lopsided. You will end up with another edit war with an article that has more tags than content.
• VI. This just prolongs the editing process. Such a dispute should have been made within content discussion beforehand. Objection should be on points of content, not just length.
• VII. Definitely not. Again, this should be discussed prior to editing the article. It will also cause edit wars as one disputes, in conjunction with your II, what constitutes as a 'valid' or 'reliable' source.
• VIII. This draws supposedly neutral and non-involved moderators into judging on content. This should not be the case. Moderators are not 'third-party-opinion enforcers' as Armedblowfish has previously pointed out. Thus this must be rejected entirely.
• IX. Although largely copied from mine, the responsibility to keep users under control should not be only within their own camp. This should be done anyway. The whole point of allowing people from all 3 camps to challenge is so that people won't have to be 'eternally vigilant' on Wiki - once again one of your supposed complaints against my rule.
• X. Completely disagree. The reason I said rules for now should stick only to FG articles is so that we can focus on editing one article at a time. If these rules are successful after implementation, then we can apply it to FG-related articles. Until then, we should focus on increments to make progress. We don't want to spend years of our lives on this matter, do we?
• XI. What constitutes an 'involved' editor? The reason I said any challenge can be allowed by any editor is in keeping with Wiki rules; limiting it to 'involved' editors would suggest that only a certain group of people are qualified to edit the FG Wiki article. This contravenes the spirit of Wikipedia in the first place.

So, Olaf, please respond on each of the 15 points above. I have posted by objection to each for what I deem are good reasons, but I await your reply / modification. Jsw663 18:27, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

• I. "Self-evident truths" are not a problem. If anything is written into the article without a source, it can be removed; however, things that are agreed upon by both parties (and believe me, such things exist, like "the crackdown on Falun Gong began on 20th July, 1999") are less likely to be deleted. If somebody contests these "truths", we will have to back them up with sources. The one who demands a valid source should always have the upper hand.

• II. and III. There have been major problems with sources. If everybody would have paid attention to them in the first place, we wouldn't have to be so strict on this matter. You are saying that we must address the points of contention; true. My proposal makes this possible, while at the same time putting a stop to original research. Maybe you don't want to admit that it's a problem, because a major part of the original research in the current articles is against Falun Gong. We want to get rid of it by tagging it all and demanding you to back up your claims. Let me quote Wikipedia policies: "Original research (OR) is a term used in Wikipedia to refer to material that has not been published by a reliable source. It includes unpublished facts, arguments, concepts, statements, or theories, or any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that appears to advance a position — or which, in the words of Wikipedia's co-founder Jimmy Wales, would amount to a "novel narrative or historical interpretation." Wikipedia is not the place for original research. Citing sources and avoiding original research are inextricably linked: the only way to demonstrate that you are not presenting original research is to cite reliable sources that provide information directly related to the topic of the article, and to adhere to what those sources say." Does your idea of a "smooth-reading, encyclopedic article" involve one of these things? Do you want to create a "novel narrative" of Falun Gong? In addition, waiting for two hours after tagging was just a suggestion. Please note that I did not consent to removal of any elements that are perfectly consistent with the source. Let me also remind you of the NPOV policy: "All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), representing fairly and without bias all significant views that have been published by a reliable source." What views can be represented in the article is not up to any clique of editors to decide, as long as the material fulfills these criteria. That's as neutral as it gets.

• III. I'm not saying that everything has to be quoted directly. However, all statements must be backed up with sources. Otherwise, we're talking about original research. That is the principal bone of contention of this article, whether you admit it or not.

• IV. I do not see how this principle would disagree with the first three rules. If all the requirements are met, that's it. No original research, all points of view have to be represented, and sources have to be verifiable.

• V. Some anti-FLG editors think that any pro-FLG statement is lopsided. We'll have to admit that. It's better to have an article with a lot of tags than too few of them. If a balanced thesis and an antithesis are put forth, we don't need this tag.

• VI. The content is controlled by Wikipedia policies. We'd rather have a long article that represents "all significant points of view" than a short one suffering from inadequate representation of all sourced POVs. We have to admit that both sides can find material that complies to all Wikipedia requirements but is not agreed upon by all editors. With your approach, it would never get in.

• VII. Definitely yes. If something is not directly backed up by a source, it is original research or a "novel narrative", and thus doesn't belong into Wikipedia. Do we need to ask Jimmy Wales about this? The guidelines are very clear, and I ask you to read them carefully.

• VIII. The neutral moderators will not judge on content; they will only help us evaluate the admissibility of the sources. I'm sure there are a lot of experienced people in Wikipedia who can help with this one. When it comes to what is OK and what is not, Falun Gong is no exception to any other articles.

• IX. I'm ready to adopt the control measure you suggest. You are right, it's better that the responsibility is not limited to one's own party.

• X. The Falun Gong article was originally only one. The daughter articles, with the exception of Li Hongzhi, were created because the article got very long. We shouldn't limit our efforts to one article only.

• XI. You're right, we need to think about this one. It's not fair to limit anything to "involved editors" only. Note that this principle was only about changing the rules.

In addition, I respond to the three points you made about the rewritten 15-step principles:

• VI. I'm ready to give up "without delay". In fact, I'd like to have a relaxed, unhurried atmosphere as well. Let's just say that after the tag has been placed, it's good to discuss it within a reasonable period of time.

• VII. This rule makes it impossible to use the sources as one pleases. We have seen it happen: something important has been omitted from the context, and another editor would've liked to add it, which has lead to edit wars. Anyway, if another party wants to exploit the same source, there shouldn't be a problem. If there's nothing to exploit, I don't see how anybody would append irrelevant text just for the fun of it.

• XI. I wonder why you oppose the introduction principle so much. What is wrong with a description that clearly doesn't try to force the readers' thinking into a certain direction? I couldn't be more clear in my proposal: "[The introductions have] to be neutral to the extent that readers musn't be able to discern any implicit agendas behind the inclusion of individual elements." We can make a test. Let's ask any outsider: "Why do you think this sentence/image is the introduction? Is there an implicit purpose behind its inclusion, or is it completely neutral? Is it there to advance somebody's agenda? Does it try to set a frame of reference for the interpretation of other content?" (We had a lot of exercises like this in high school.) No matter how "spicy" you deem Li Hongzhi's writings, there's plenty of room to exhibit them in the articles. We just want neutrality according to Wikipedia rules, not a puff piece for Falun Gong or its critics. We're trying to strike a compromise. If we evaluate different subjects by the media attention they have received, the Kilgour-Matas report[1] would be one of the first things on the Falun Gong main article. Do you want it into the introduction? What about the Amnesty photograph of disfigured Gao Rongrong?[2] Now that seems really important to me. I'm just suggesting that we demilitarize the introductions, and I see nothing wrong with that. ---Olaf Stephanos 19:57, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Olaf, I'm quite busy now but I promise I will give a full reply to your reply above. Meanwhile, I have addressed your (from what I can discern, two) objections to my proposal. Have you nothing to respond to this? I have already warned about not imposing any time limits at all in the section below (15 v 8 section). It seems that your 15 is infinitely more detailed than the 8 I proposed. This is why I can't understand why my rules cannot be passed first, before editing my rules accordingly to make it more detailed by incorporating yours (after agreement). It's just that if you ask me to consider your proposals in such detail + seriously, which I have, the least you could do would be to consider mine / reconsider your objections! PS I am not Fire Star.. (just a comment on the 'spicy' thing) - it's just that we happen to share the same opinion in this case. Jsw663 20:13, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Most of my points has been made in the section below. However, there are some specific points that ought to be dealt with here -

I - III. 'Self-evident truths' is problematic because it will lead to edit wars again. Admissibility of sources is not the only challenge available.

III. I agree that content has been the principal controversy, but allowing interpretations of sources to push an agenda is more problematic. Your rules leave this vague and merely justify any 'self-evident truths' edit; this is what led to edit wars on this page in the first place.

IV. Your rules allow edit wars. My rules seek to prevent it. Your rules restrict content. If this does not contravene existing Wiki policies or guidelines, why bother making extra ones? My rules restrict editors' behavior. This is not covered in unquestioning detail and is necessary to prevent edit wars on the page.

V. Actually I think the opposite is true - any non-pro-FG statement is viewed as anti-FG and thus a skewed interpretation. This was even the case when some editors quoted directly from Li's lectures. Since these are all backed by valid sources, what's to prevent an edit war? How do you determine when someone is pushing an agenda? Your policies don't seem to add anything to the existing WPs if this were true.

VI. With your approach, there will be constant edit wars. This will mean no progress. With my approach, the only way there will be no progress is if someone constantly challenges within the 5-day limit.

VII. Broad guidelines already exist on governing content, and you say your proposals fit in with Wiki rules but seek to add more restrictions. This means you are effectively reinterpreting Jimbo's policies - are you saying you know better than him!?

VIII. Admissibility of sources is not the mediator's job. They only propose compromises, but should not take any one side exclusively. If they do, they will no longer be neutral / non-involved.

X. On the whole, I agree we shouldn't limit policies to one page only. But getting the proposal passed on this page is hard enough. Besides, different pages have different content disputes, and your content-prohibiting rules may not be applicable to all pages. After all, if they were applicable to all FG pages, why aren't they applicable to all Wiki pages?

XI. I oppose the introduction part because progress is already being made in this direction. Why is there a need to add extra information specific to the intro? Note I am opposing this rule even if it said "no brutal persecution / pictures of cute little girls".

If you respond, again, please do it point by point. Jsw663 14:40, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

I have basically covered all these points in my reply below, and I hope we can keep this discussion in one thread from now on. Please do not try to avoid substantial issues this time. We don't need any of my ad hoc rules if you don't want them. You can rest assured that I will not consent to any arbitrary censorship of peer-reviewed or otherwise high-profile material. The bland introduction principle was meant to counteract edit wars, not to privilege either party. I thought it might have worked fine if everybody would've been ready to back off a little bit. Pro-FLG editors will, of course, benefit from the fact that well-sourced and widely publicized information that exposes the persecution can be placed into the introductions.

Do you know where the real problem lies? Many editors on this page have not acknowledged official Wikipedia policies to begin with. Unencyclopedic agitation has been sanctioned too often, which has lead into a vicious circle. Edit wars, mediation, and arbitration are logical results of corrupt procedures. Illegitimate edits have been forced in, and nobody has penalized the vandals, even though a brief look at the Wikipedia guidelines would've revealed what is acceptable and what is not. No doubt some administrators have quietly looked the other way because of personal opinions. I have come to dissect the root of the problem, and many things have been unambiguously proven to you, even if you don't want to admit them. The rotten state of certain articles substantiates my claims: their original research and weasel words are so blatant that they sear my eyes. ---Olaf Stephanos 00:10, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Although I disagree with you and note that you insist on imposing rules restricting content rather than editors' behavior, I'll reply in the section below. I note you insist on justifying 'self-evident truths', for example, as if my arguments merely bounce off you and has never really sunk in. Consider WHY I make these objections; they are not just made for the sake of it. Jsw663 19:11, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Another problem is, Olaf, that I for one don't believe your protestations of academic innocence. Indeed, since you've brought it up, I feel you sound like you are trying to push an "unambiguously proven" (really?) theory that the "real problem" isn't that Li Hongzhi is an insane religious megalomaniac, but that anyone who disagrees with you about him is guilty of a conspiracy of "forcing" edits, "rotten" articles and "weasel words"; a conspiracy to tarnish FLG's presupposed (by you) spotless reputation. From the other side, a better case can be made, simply from the article history function, that you lot as followers of Li Hongzhi are conspiring to use Wikipedia to advertise his books, at least. --Fire Star 火星 15:33, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Actually Fire Star, how about pointing out exactly what is incorrect in Olaf's proposal in accordance to Wikipedia policies. Right now all you are doing is using some unfounded words to carry out an attack. May I kindly remind you that you pointed out to me that WP:NOT#SOAPBOX. --HappyInGeneral 11:52, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

I think Fire Star is accusing Olaf of POV pushing, violating WP:NPOV. That should be more than obvious, HiG. Jsw663 12:36, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Basically you are saying that his rules proposed rules are POV pushing and yours are not? Are you sure that this is not your POV pushing? Anyway since we are on Wikipedia, how about following it's rules, there are plenty already. Please take a look to my proposal below.--HappyInGeneral 12:45, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't accuse Olaf of POV pushing, actually, I was commenting that his arguments could be turned on their heads to show the self-evidence of those he disagrees with, too, and consequently are not compelling. His arguments, his proposals, and the editing patterns of pro-FLG editors in general are always patterned, consciously or not, to make Li and FLG look good rather than contributing to a neutral, stable Wikipedia article in my opinion. They do not accept anything else. Since Li's teachings and FLG's history are indeed demonstrably controversial, that is where the pro- sensibilities and mine collide. That and the fact that the pro- editors are almost all single subject guys makes me suspicious of pro-editors, as their adherence to FLG seems to trump their desire to have a proper Wikipedia article every time. That is the problem I have with them in a nutshell. Since this is Wikipedia and not an organ of the Epoch Times, they are going to continue to have this problem with secular Wikipedia editors until they can sort it through. Some pro- editors are somewhat more reasonable than others, but any article where you have "True Believers" debating critics is going to have this impasse, hence the need for mediation, at least, because the huge amounts of discussion with them is largely fruitless, which is why I am mostly just waiting on the mediator. To be fair, I am also of the opinion that the anti- editors go too far sometimes, as I've noticed there are valid "critical" sources about the CCP's activities that are sometimes removed when they shouldn't be. --Fire Star 火星 13:02, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

What do you think of having a list with the infringements of the Wikipedia Policy rule. I think this way we can at least know who is breaking which rule. --HappyInGeneral 13:39, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

I've replied to HiG's proposal below, hoping that a more positive voluntarily-retraction method after a warning is better than playing a mudslinging blame game. Jsw663 14:01, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Fire Star, I know all people believe their own bias is more justified than that of others. Some editors even keep others amused by trumpeting their own "objectivity" and "neutrality". However, I'm not commenting on your martial arts trip and your crusade to "police the articles concerning somewhat less orthodox groups". All I'm asking is that we evaluate the content of these pages by the Wikipedia policies and guidelines. There are plenty of obvious violations that can be clearly demonstrated. I am definitely not opposing any POV, on condition that it's backed up, verifiable, not original research, and not infused with weasel words. Either you didn't understand what I said, or you simply don't want to admit certain things. Indeed, you haven't even commented on my essential points. I don't rate highly your ad hominem insinuations, but it could be that you don't know what else you'd say, as my criticisms were well and truly in order. ---Olaf Stephanos 14:38, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Olaf, if you have the time to accuse Fire Star of the above, why are you putting your reply to my concerns to your proposal on hold? Are you trying to avoid criticism in the hope it will be swept under the carpet? Jsw663 14:42, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Because I'm going to write you a long message, and it will take several hours to dig up all the necessary information and instances I want to showcase. Like I told you, I'm extremely busy and in North America until next Tuesday. This is just a random computer I can borrow for short periods of time. ---Olaf Stephanos 14:57, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

I'd also like to apologize to Fire Star for using slightly pejorative language. I will try to pay more attention to civility from now on. ---Olaf Stephanos 18:12, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

The "15-step principles" vs. 8 rules for three-strikes

This is an upgraded suggestion, taking into account the new proposals:

I. With the exception of self-evident and uncontested truths like "Falun Gong is suppressed in China", a source that complies with Wikipedia standard must always be provided.

II. The admissibility of the source outweighs the presumed veracity of the subject matter, because the latter could and would always be disputed. Even if something is said to originate from "the Chinese government" or "Falun Gong", but it's published by an admissible third party, the material is valid.

III. Any value judgments that are not found directly in the source material can't be interpolated. If the source doesn't speak of a "horrible persecution", this expression cannot be edited in. If the words "ridiculous lies" are nowhere to be found, they must not be added, either. This also applies to quoting Li Hongzhi directly. Summarization is allowed and recommended, but the text has to adhere to the source in a strict fashion. If that's not the case, the opponents can add a "" tag. After two hours from placing the tag, the contested wording can be removed legitimately or made equivalent to the source by any editor.

IV. If all the editorial requirements are met, there's no legitimate basis for removing an edit without discussion.

V. If the admissibility of the source is contested, the edit is tagged with "" (for the lack of a better tag), and the discussion is taken onto the article's talk page. The editors will present their arguments by drawing upon the Wikipedia guidelines. In difficult cases the issue will be resolved by neutral moderators who are not involved in the dispute. Before a decision is made, the edit cannot be forced out. If the source is deemed valid, the tag is removed regardless of factual disputes.

VI. If the contextual relevancy of an element is contested, it will be tagged but not removed. Each party has to present their arguments on the talk page without delay. Whenever necessary, neutral mediators will state their opinions. If the element is deemed appropriate, the tag is removed. If not, the element is removed. This rule also applies to material that is considered inappropriate for an encyclopedia.

VII. If a summary or a quote is deemed to omit significant elements of the source, other editors are permitted to append this material directly.

VIII. The principal means to counter an admissible edit is to balance it by adding sourced material, not by removing it. Edits with no value judgments on the editors' part should basically stay intact. The opponents can append text to an existing paragraph or create a new paragraph with their antithesis. Meanwhile, a good tag is "".

IX. When it is decided that the articles are getting too long, the editors will discuss about removing an equal amount of opponents' and proponents' material. The editors of different parties can "bargain" about what they want to remove. Each party can only remove their own arguments. This can also be achieved by summarizing quotes instead of removing any essential contents. All editors can suggest abridgements to any given text block.

X. All currently unsourced and contested statements will be marked with the "" or other appropriate tag. Nothing is removed at the moment. If the statements are not backed up after a certain period of time, they'll be snipped off.

XI. The introduction chapters will be left as "bland" as possible. A suggestion for an introduction must be posted on the article's talk page and approved by all parties. It has to be neutral to the extent that readers musn't be able to discern any implicit agendas behind the inclusion of individual elements. Introductions will be crafted in accordance with the lowest common denominator. All controversial images, quotes, descriptions, and even figures have to be placed elsewhere in the article.

XII. Flooding is not permitted. Excessively long quotes from a single source have to be summarized according to the aforementioned standards.

XIII. All parties must enforce these rules and use peer pressure to keep their flock in control. An editor who violates these principles will be given a warning. After three warnings, actions to be taken have to include one of the following: consulting an administrator or sysop, or going to the ArbCom to have the user temporarily blocked. The length of the block is to be determined by the relevant administrator, sysop or ArbCom. If short blocks don't work, nor the longer blocks, then blocks ranging up to being permanently banned from Wikipedia will be considered.

XIV. This proposal will apply only to Wikipedia's Falun Gong entry and its daughter articles, including the article on Li Hongzhi, and not to any other related entry.

XV. These rules can be changed only by mutual agreement between all involved editors.

VS.

The rules are:

• 1. If you propose an edit to Wikipedia's Falun Gong entry, it MUST be posted in the discussion board of the Falun Gong Wiki entry or one of the special and related talk pages (e.g. the FG introduction discussion page). Exceptions only apply to administrators or sysops when playing their admin / sysop function.
• 2(a) An edit by any editor here is defined as the alteration - addition or deletion - of content of the Falun Gong Wikipedia entry.
  • 2(b) Alterations of format, settings, including font size, etc., will be subject to direct approval by an administrator-level editor or above.
  • 2(c) The inclusion of pictures is subject to Wikipedia copyright rules, the approval of editors AND the direct approval of an administrator.
• 3(a)(i). This proposal has to be on there for a minimum of FIVE FULL DAYS (120 hours) without disagreement from any other editor, except those editors blocked by Wikipedia during that time for violation of this rule IN RELATION to this proposal.
  • 3(a)(ii). To prevent abuse of the term "five full days", aka 120 hours, the time that Wikipedia is down or not accessible (if more than 1 hour at any one time during those 120 hours), then the time that Wikipedia was down will NOT count to those 120 hours.
  • 3(b) If, during those five full days any other editor disagrees with the proposal, the five full day time clock is reset. A reset time clock applies to any edit of the main Falun Gong Wiki entry of the proposal's section(s).
  • 3(c) If, after five full days, there is no disagreement from any user, then the main Falun Gong Wiki page will be edited accordingly. Reversion of such an edit is not permitted unless another proposal is made, which must then adhere to the above rules.
• 4. Any deletion or addition of content of more than 25% by any editor who is not a non-involved (in content) administrator or sysop of any one section will constitute as vandalism, except -
  • a) The addition of more than 25% is to revert a deletion of more than 25% of the same content
  • b) Violation of the above rule shall be deemed in violation of WP:Vandalism and thus incur the same action(s) / penalty(ies).
• 5. If a user edits in violation of this, then they will be given a warning ('first strike'). Similar action will be taken if they do it a second time.
• 6(a) If the user edits the main Falun Gong page without discussion, or with discussion but with less than 120 hours for disagreement, or in violation of any of the above rules, and they do it three times, then BOTH sides will HAVE to agree to take action against this user.
  • 6(b) Actions to be taken have to include one of the following: consulting an administrator or sysop, or going to the ArbCom to have them temporarily blocked. The length of the block is to be determined by the relevant administrator, sysop or ArbCom. If these short blocks don't work, nor the longer blocks, then blocks ranging up to being permanently banned from Wikipedia will be considered.
• 7. This proposal will apply only to Wikipedia's Falun Gong entry, and not to any other related entry.
• 8. Any change of these rules is subject to a proposal in a similar fashion to the above.

Why is this section necessary? Propose any amendments to the above rules in the preceding section. There is no need to make two sections for rules that have received dissenting voices. Jsw663 18:29, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Because your set of rules is not fair towards all parties, like I told you, and they haven't been applied yet. You can't limit the contributions to those users who have plenty of time in their hands. In addition, the articles are not in a good state right now; their evolution would became very slow. Why do you think my principles would not work better? I used so much time for this that I expect to see some good arguments instead of a short rebuttal like that. ---Olaf Stephanos 18:41, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

My response for the added rules here (after the above 11 in the preceding section):

• VI - "Each party has to present their arguments on the talk page without delay" - I thought you were objecting to my rules because it required eternal vigilance of articles. This definitely does; even your 2-hour rule in the 11-rule thing in the previous section is dubious. My 5-day/120 hour rule by far does not.
• VII - too much room for interpretation. Should be discussed beforehand anyway.
• XI - No specific section-rules should be made on written content.

Olaf, I responded in the previous section. Your only objection to my principles were on two points - too bureaucratic + takes too much time, yet your rules has infinitely more bureaucracy + requires eternal vigilance with 'immediate response' requirements. Jsw663 19:10, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Moreover, Olaf, my response to your objections to my rules are simple. You say it takes up too much time yet you require 'each party to present their arguments on the talk page without delay '. This makes a mockery of your objection. From the 11 in the preceding section, you state the figure of 2 hours - that is substantially less than the 120 hour thing I proposed. So what is your objection really on this point!? On the other hand, putting no time limit isn't helpful either. Drawing out the editing process is of no use unless you have no interest in seeing a neutral version of the article on the page.

You then say it discriminates against users. However, your rule about only 'involved' editors being qualified to edit / object does precisely this; which users are being discriminated in mine? I am opening up discussion and editing to ALL editors, including possible vandals. I also notice your rules have nothing to prevent section blanking. Jsw663 19:11, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Replied to you above. What do you mean by "section blanking"? If it's sourced content, not original research, I don't see how anybody could blank it. I still think we should control against flooding. ---Olaf Stephanos 20:05, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

You asked me to comment on your set of rules. I will not do it formally step-by-step, but I will clearly explain why I think they are biased and ineffective.

First of all, who decides what is a legitimate disagreement? You have stated: "If, during those five full days any other editor disagrees with the proposal, the five full day time clock is reset. A reset time clock applies to any edit of the main Falun Gong Wiki entry of the proposal's section(s)." From now on, our party has decided to add content that is perfectly sourced and complies with the Wikipedia standards. There shouldn't be any disagreement about it. Your only chance to get it out is to contest the admissibility of our sources, and this is perfectly in line with the aforementioned Wikipedia policies of no original research, neutral point of view and verifiability. Many editors have distorted the idea of "neutral point of view" completely: what it means is that no significant views from a valid source can be left out. It has nothing to do with "arguments, concepts, statements, or theories, or any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that appears to advance a position" and has not been published by an acceptable source. Let me also remind you that "because the policies are complementary, they should not be interpreted in isolation from one another, and editors should try to familiarize themselves with all three. The principles upon which these policies are based are non-negotiable and cannot be superseded by other policies or guidelines, or by editors' consensus." Read the official policies carefully. A lot of material in the current articles is in gross violation of these principles. As concerned editors, our task is to expunge it. Mind you, we would have a legitimate right to remove these things immediately; because we want to cooperate with you, we'll give you some time to establish your ground on external sources. Therefore, we agree to tag all the dubious arguments with "", "", "" or other convenient sign. On a side note, I find it staggering that some editors have tried to pull this off. A lot of our problems would've been solved a long time ago by carefully scrutinizing the Wikipedia policies. There are a lot of interesting things I found out, but I will get to them later.

I asked you: who's to decide whether an edit should be postponed? A simple disagreement shouldn't do in case the material is well-sourced, right? We're also perfectly aware that the critics of Falun Gong on this page outnumber the pro-FLG editors. What if none of the latter could attend for a few days? I, for one, have my university degree, Falun Gong practice, music, friends, and badminton to attend to. I don't want to get hooked on Wikipedia out of necessity. I might stay away for two weeks or two months, but I will vehemently oppose to any material that goes against the Wikipedia standards. What if somebody could get it in just because none of the opposing party has been vigilant for a few days? What could we do about it afterwards, except watch somebody "reset the five full day time clock"? In addition, what about the heaps and piles of original research that are already there? Do you think they go with a NPOV? You can twist and turn this fact, but the rules are clear and concise. My 15-step principles, with slight amendments to time limits and other minor factors, are in the spirit of Wikipedia, like I have proven you by quoting the guidelines, whereas your proposals have no control over content aside from rule of the mob.

I am ready take this matter into ArbCom if necessary, explaining the general situation, demonstrating how the current articles violate the policies, citing all the relevant guidelines, and convincing them about the assets of my approach. I'm interested to know what Fire Star meant when she said that my approach provides "rules and regs outside of existing policy". In fact, the "three-strike rule" is a true redefinition of the spirit of Wikipedia. It has no control over the most basic foundations upon which an encyclopedia article is supposed to be built. I'm accustomed to the rules of scientific writing, and I don't want to see this article turned into a chaotic playground of ochlocrats. ---Olaf Stephanos 21:52, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

OK before I start discussion Olaf, you need to stay cool. I don't mind a good debate or challenge, but to hurl insults by labeling a proposal different to yours as a 'chaotic playground' or say that FG critics make up a 'majority' is simply not constructive. Just because more than half of the editors are not pro-FG does not automatically make them anti-FG.

First you ask "who decides what is a legitimate disagreement?" This is a question that Asdfg and Tomananda has raised before already. The whole point is that nobody decides what is legitimate or not. As long as there is disagreement, it is not finalized, unless those users are deemed to be vandals for other reasons. This is clearly not majoritarian (ochlocratic) rule but rather something that requires 100% consensus (or at least, no objections, much like how the UN Security Council works). This misunderstanding seems to form the basis of most of your argument by saying it contravenes the spirit of Wiki. I agree majority rule CAN contravene Wiki, even if majority rule actually applies to most Wiki pages; the majority threshold informally being set at 60%. Anybody having viewed many other Wiki pages instead of FG ones will be aware of this, including admins. But nevertheless, in the spirit of generosity, I have expanded it to allow disagreements by anybody. Why did I do this? So prohibitive rules are not seen to be too prohibitive, but rather reinforce Wiki policies.

Secondly, I have read WP:NOR in detail. It says that no original theories or ideas or arguments must be introduced, and that unsourced arguments cannot be made. Have you actually read the content on Samuel's website? Does it violate WP:NOR? Please give an example if you think it does - from what I've read it doesn't contravene WP:NOR outright.

Thirdly, WP:Verifiability. It is true that things should be sourced, but Copilon early made fun of this fact of excessive tagging. This is what I meant by an article not 'reading' smoothly. It is a highly relevant policy, I agree, but when taken to the extreme then it won't be an encyclopedia any more. However, I'm not contesting this point.

Fourthly, I am more than aware of that Wiki policies cannot be judged in isolation of one another. I agree they cannot be superseded by editors' consensus or any guidelines. But what's your point here? They would apply to anything in addition to the three main Wiki policies, whether it be my 8 rules or your 15. Is this an actual objection? Because I never once said that the rules I proposed supersede WPs.

Fifthly you say that the only challenge available is the admissibility of sources. This is simply not true; read WP:NOR and WP:Verifiability in detail.

Sixthly, you challenge the time of 5 days. But you were also the one who proposed even stricter time limits saying challenges could only be made in 2 hours. On the other hand, proposing no time limits at all is not good. This will mean progress simply cannot be made. You then say, well, if someone takes a Wikibreak for over 5 days they won't be able to register their objection. That is precisely why you can make another proposal challenging the status quo. But allowing an infinite amount of time for objection is as unhelpful to progress as very restrictive time limits.

Seventhly, I once again stress that even if FG neutrals and critics do outnumber the pro-FGers, that does not mean that there should be any 'majority' rule like I said before. FGers form a significant minority. But this does not mean that any proposal that does not allow outright vandalism is necessarily unacceptable to FGers because it was not proposed by a FGer. This is the attitude that must be corrected. It is NOT an us versus them situation.

Eighthly, I have said time and time again that your 15 principles impose far too many restrictions, essentially reinterpreting Wikipedia policies and guidelines. They are made with the clear intent of advertising pro-FG material. Such extensive additions cannot be accepted because then there will be no room for disagreement on content issues even if they are made by verifiable sources. It is true that Wikipedia is not a lexicon for 'truth', because there is no such rightness out there. This is why pushing a clearly pro-FG view whilst hiding under WPs is clearly unacceptable.

Ninthly, if you have a rule banning flooding, there must equally be a rule banning mass deletion of content.

Tenthly, you say "your proposals have no control over content aside from rule of the mob." I agree there is no control over content; it only seeks to restrict editors' behavior. Guess why? Because it is the content that is controversial. The rules do NOT allow the rule of the mob, unless you are referring to editors who will seek to destabilize the editing process by disagreeing just before every 120 hours is up. My rules also do NOT allow the rule of the mob because it prevents mass deletions. Does yours?

Eleventhly, the ArbCom. Similar cases to yours have been taken to the ArbCom before already regarding this page / related pages, and guess what the result was? The Arbitrators refused to take up the case. Read the reasons why they refused. If you take this matter back up there, you will only get the same result. This is why I specifically asked one ArbCom member, Blnguyen, to keep watch over this page, including over the proposal(s). However, he has not commented yet so we have been unable to move forward. If you disagree with this approach, then please go ahead - I think you're just wasting your time, that's all. I also note with interest you insist on passing your 15 rules despite objections from some people. If this is not majoritarian / ochlocratic rule, what is it!? My rules specifically allows the editors' consensus approach to allow for different opinions, in the true spirit of Wiki.

You may want to reconsider your wild accusations, Olaf. I await a response to my above points, which is a direct response to yours. Jsw663 14:21, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

1. "As long as there is disagreement, it is not finalized". Basically, inclusion of any controversial material would become impossible, even if it complies with all Wikipedia policies. The three rules of No original research, Verifiability, and NPOV are the principal standards of judgment. If the subject is controversial, it is even more important to follow them narrowly. Accepting a set of rules that regulates all content on the basis of arbitrary "disagreements" or "agreements" is in direct violation of these principles. I've been editing this page for almost two years, and even though I can only speak for myself, I can tell you that I've never removed content that conforms to all the necessary requirements, regardless of its agenda. On the contrary, just the other day I saw "critics" blanking quotes from peer-reviewed journals and a torture photograph published by Amnesty International. What if we tried to introduce this material but somebody "disagreed" just because he or she doesn't want to publicize such information? Wikipedia guidelines make it possible to add content that is controversial but adheres strictly to admissible sources. In fact, they are made to protect editors who want to do this. I already asked you: how does your set of rules make this possible?

2. I have read Samuel's entire website, and there is no doubt about it: it is a prime example of original research. You could tell that only by looking at the title: "The untold story of Falun Gong (Falun Dafa) and its Master". Of course, he is fully entitled to do this in a private domain. WP:NOR states: "Original research includes editors' personal views, political opinions, and any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that appears to advance a position. That is, any facts, opinions, interpretations, definitions, and arguments published by Wikipedia must already have been published by a reliable publication in relation to the topic of the article", and "[An edit counts as original research if] it introduces an argument, without citing a reputable source for that argument, that purports to refute or support another idea, theory, argument, or position". Without even getting to the other definitions of original research, it's patent that Samuel has been trying to expand his website into Wikipedia, creating an "unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that appears to advance a position". Looking back, I can see how our party has been desperately trying to remove these rants, knowing perfectly well that they don't conform to the standards, but lacking sufficient knowledge of the official policies to stand up for our rights. I was browsing through the Suppression page today, and even though it's relatively good at the moment, I was startled by the amount of illegitimate paragraphs and statements, not to speak of words to avoid. Of course, I made some modifications and put on some tags. I can only imagine how much "analysis or synthesis of published material that appears to advance a position" can be found from the Criticisms and Controversies, as I haven't even started with that one. I bet I could find a couple of "facts, assertions, theories, ideas, claims, opinions, and arguments" that have not been published by a reputable publisher. Do you suggest that we'd actually leave this waffle lying around until nobody "disagrees" about its removal?

3. Tags mean that there are disputes, and they are actually a good thing. Are you trying to make the visitors believe that they're reading uncontested truths? Our first task is to clearly point out which statements fail verifiability and NOR. Wikipedia is in the process of development, and the Falun Gong articles are still in their infancy, so of course there will be unfinished material. Maybe the tags serve to activate other Wikipedia editors as well.

4. I have shown you how the eight rules you proposed violate fundamental guidelines. Absolute consensus on article content is never a requisite in Wikipedia. What matters is the quality of the material, not a group's opinion. The current situation has come about because of vandalism and disrespect of common rules. I am not playing that game anymore, nor will I consent to any suggestions that would prolong this lawless corruption. Our aim is to purge the articles of unauthorized content, and I am assured that the Wikipedia community at large supports this undertaking. Did you know that "editors should provide a reliable source for material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, or it may be removed?" [3]

5. I would like to know which guidelines you are referring to. Admissibility of the sources is certainly one of the most important things in Wikipedia. I am aware of the fact that "it is important that editors situate the research; that is, provide contextual information about the point of view, indicating how prevalent the position is, and whether it is held by a majority or minority." [4] However, I also know that this contextualization must be sourced and adhere to the three basic principles. This is actually a good thing, as I can cite good secondary sources to back up my claim that "cultic studies" is not an acknowledged part of the scientific community at large, among other things.

6. I already backtracked on the two hours. Anyway, this tag would be placed only if the edit is not consistent with the provided source to begin with. In fact, it's no big deal whether the edit is adjusted by the editor who made it or someone else. I just thought that it would be nice to give the editor a couple of hours to correct his or her own mistake. You are confusing two entirely different cases here. Your five days is an inherent part of the editorial process. It would always be there, a real nuisance, impelling all concerned editors to log onto Wikipedia at least once every few days. Frankly, I don't understand your analogy.

7. It is not Us vs. Them, it's a group of heterogenous contributors that needs to be clamped down by official policies. We need to penalize those who don't let others do legitimate work. I'm against vandalism, not any particular group of people. I'm sure that each faction has editors who can behave and cooperate well. Let's put a stop to all original research and unverifiable sources. Let's get rid of behaviour that is "explaining why evidence supports one view, but omitting such explanation in support of alternative views; making one opinion look superior by omitting strong and citable points against it, comparing it instead with low quality arguments for other POVs (strawman tactics); not allowing one view to "speak for itself", or refactoring its "world-view" into the words of its detractors; entirely omitting significant citable information in support of a minority view, with the argument that it is claimed to be not credible; ignoring or deleting significant views, research or information from notable sources that would usually be considered credible and verifiable in Wikipedia terms (this could be done on spurious grounds); concealing relevant information about sources or sources' credentials that is needed to fairly judge their value." [5] I'd like to know how your approach tackles these problems.

8. My set of rules is not pro-FLG, and the only thing that differs from normal Wikipedia standards is the demilitarization of introductions. It was only a suggestion, because I feel there are people who're simply trying to force an inceptive frame of reference onto the readers. Otherwise, none of my rules essentially reinterprets Wikipedia policies. On the contrary, they put forth important guidelines that have been completely ignored by this batch of editors for quite some time. I know some of you would rather see an "exposé" than an encyclopedia article on Falun Gong. My set of rules makes that impossible, but it gives equal chances for all parties to exploit admissible sources, regardless of whether they are in favour of or against Falun Gong. Therefore, I don't understand why you call my set of rules a "clearly pro-FG view". We're just reclaiming our Jimmy Wales-given rights that have been hijacked from us. Actually, any approach will do, as long as it serves to give us these rights. It's also fine if we just start enforcing the official policies and put a halt to this trickery.

9. There is already a rule against blanking, see Wikipedia:Vandalism#Types_of_vandalism. There must be some kind of control over flooding as well, it's probably happened before. I will get to know the policies even better and tell you if I find one.

10. So you agree that your rules have no control over content. Nevertheless, such control is at the heart of Wikipedia. The users' behaviour is also controlled by Wikipedia policies. I heard you stating that "I never once said that the rules I proposed supersede WPs". No, you didn't say that, but why do I see a contradiction? I have unambiguously proven that some editors' repetitive violations of Wikipedia policies have never been constrained, and the current articles substantiate this fact with their illegitimate content. Your approach would seriously encumber our corrective measures.

11. In the end, whether we choose to adopt my 15 rules or not isn't the integral part of my demands. I want to start working with all the Falun Gong articles without constantly having to ward off harassment and anarchy. This isn't a conflict between "pro-FLG and NPOV", like Colipon put it; it is a conflict between vandals and responsible contributors to Wikipedia, no matter who they are. ---Olaf Stephanos 17:18, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Olaf, first of all you need to know why I want to pass rules limiting editors' behavior rather than content. I see that it still hasn't sunk in yet. You think that by limiting content, editors' behavior will be automatically limited. But this is either a) clearly not necessary, if it merely reproduces Wiki policies like you claim it does, or b) does not allow discussion of controversial content, which occupies a gray area in Wiki policies. I realize you want to exploit the fact that there are many more English-language sources that are sympathetic to FG rather than to the CCP/CPC point of view. But by your mere dismissal of 'cult studies' we can see that you are intending to force a POV on the Wiki page in itself. Why are cult studies any less valid than FG studies? Both fields have been done by academic experts as well as cult / health experts. Why are they not equally admissible?

Now I ask you why limiting editorial behavior "violates fundamental guidelines". Since you are such a fan of policies, rules and guidelines, quote one. As far as I can tell you have only made two, on the issue of five days (time), and that allowing disagreement on content is not OK because Wiki has been clear on what content is allowed. I have already responded on the first issue, that the time is arbitrary. Not imposing any time limits just means that the editing of the FG Wiki page will never end, and we don't want this. If a version is deemed unfair, a subsequent proposal can be passed to override it, again only after discussion. The whole point of Wiki is that there is no one, authoritative 'version' - it is an encyclopedia that can be edited by anyone. You are seeking to impose a strict version by flooding the Wiki FG page with 'legitimate sources' sympathetic to FG, and that in itself should not be allowed.

Now to the points -

1. This is exactly what I meant by different interpretations. You may see one thing as a clear violation of Wiki Policies such as removing pictures that you deem to be in line with Wiki guidelines, but others deem it to be a violation. What makes your interpretation better than someone else's? Are you going to say that content will be policed by people who thinks they are always right? And what if we always need a mediator or arbitrator to intervene? Such decisions on content are highly dubious, which is why there was so much controversy in the first place!!! So, examples like 'self-evident truths' is highly contestable because different people will regard different 'truths' as 'self-evident'. Moreover, Wiki guidelines have made it clear that there is no one authoritative version of the truth. If this rule is merely WP:Vandalism reproduced, then why bother writing it? Anyway the main point I am contesting is that that rule allows for different interpretations. Different interpretations will lead to edit wars as to 'who is right' about the admissibility of a source, whether it violates WP:NPOV, etc. This is what we do not want to see. Hence, my rules on limiting behavior, not controversial content.

2. I am well aware of WP:NOR no matter how many times you requote it. Also note the exceptions to the NOR rule. Is Samuel introducing any new arguments? His website consists of primary AND secondary sources, not just mere opinion. Can Samuel be deemed non-expert on FG despite his parents being actively involved in FG? Just because he may not have a PhD in FG does not mean he is necessarily not an expert. He may be deemed to have an agenda, but as long as he quotes directly from primary / secondary sources and places it in 'appropriate context' as you say, then what has it violated? This is also another instance of what I mean by controversy. You can clearly see that even Wiki Policies can be interpreted differently, because they are vague when it comes to defining content. I know you say they are specific in defining content, but if so, why bother with an extra 15 rules? I specifically want to limit editors' behavior, so that even after we have agreed on an Introduction, say, the hard work won't be undone by a POV warrior. Regarding your comment about leaving something on the Wiki page until somebody disagrees and proposes a removal, yes that is true. It is a shortcoming of Wikipedia we have to recognize. Remember, there is NO authoritative version for an encyclopedia that can be edited by all. If you want to correct it, do so by a proposal. If you go ahead and edit something on the Wiki page saying it was a 'self-evident truth' then guess what happens? Right, another edit war!!!

3. People reading Wikipedia should be aware that it does not state uncontested truths. This is why people quoting Wikipedia as an academic source, for example, is deeply worrying. But by placing a 'neutrality is disputed for this article' tag at the top, readers should be aware of this already. There will always be some part of the article that isn't perfect. Again, 'self-contested truths' is worrying; allows for multiple interpretations; does not prevent edit wars. That's why my rules seek to curb this behavior. It RECOGNIZES that different people have different interpretations of a controversial subject. Yours does not allow for this, and if it does, only seeks to polarize different camps, each with their 'justification' by a WP.

4. I agree 100% consensus isn't required on Wikipedia; I have already stated so in my reply, assuming you actually understood my critique rather than just dismissed it as wrong before reading it. My system doesn't "violate" any guidelines as you say because it is only widening the scope, allowing for different views on a controversial matter. Your rules does the opposite, it seeks to cause another edit war by polarizing both camps via WP justifications. If WPs were watertight there wouldn't be controversy; the whole point is that you are reinterpreting them to allow a flooding of FG sources and dismissing any anti-FG source as opinionated and thus in violation of WP:NPOV or a little too original, hence WP:NOR. I am sick and tired of edit wars and want to stop it; all you are doing is strengthening your side's case or justification for it.

5. I've addressed this at various points of my reply above.

6. What does imposing no time limit do? If you are really committed to progress on Wiki, you'll want to see it completed asap, not be drawn out in some fruitless argument and/or edit/war indefinitely.

7. Wow, I thought FGers were ones who opposed being 'clamped down' by any policies! Seriously though, no matter how many policies you quote, if you were truly neutral you will see that they can be interpreted both ways, for the pro- and anti-FG camps.

8. If you don't want readers to Wikipedia be 'misled' by the introduction, attach a neutrality is disputed tag to it at the top. Otherwise, your rules do little to add to WPs. I worry that you are opposing any critique of the FG article by dismissing them as opinions rather than legitimate concerns and in some cases, facts. This is another reason why I strongly object to your content-limiting proposals in the first place.

9. There is no rule against flooding on Wikipedia!?!? But like you say, if your rules merely reproduce WPs then there is no need for them.

10. Rules restricting editors' behavior on Wikipedia are extremely broad. Rules restricting content are also broad, but less so. Why do I want to restrict the former and not the latter? Because the content is controversial in itself. As a pro-FGer yourself, you dismiss any of Samuel or Tom's critiques as violating NPOV, NOR etc. But a case could also be argued that FG + Li Hongzhi's view on the CCP / CPC is also NPOV and NOR, and in some cases, outright fabrications. Is this not just a fancy way of saying the same thing Asdfg did before, that they are merely trying to 'correct any misrepresentation of the FG/FD', thus not preventing the other side from using a similar excuse not to have the FG 'misrepresent the CCP/CPC'??? Please read this section twice. This is at the core of my objections that your rules don't address. My rules deliberately allow leeway on content for discussion, but only seeks to restrict outrageous behavior. And if restricting outrageous behavior is 'violating Wiki guidelines', I'd like to see it.

11. As long as your intentions aren't too similar to Asdfg's previous declarations which he now has retracted, I appreciate your effort at putting a NPOV version of the FG page. However, I cannot allow abuse of WPs for any one camp's benefit, because this is what really contravenes the spirit of Wikipedia. Jsw663 19:52, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Olaf: If this is a conflict between responsible editors and vandals, we need to address that behavior, don't we? And right now we have an out-of-control edit warrior named Asdfg who continues to demand the right to do unilateral blanking and editing of anything he considers "falacious." In an environment where this blatant disregard for the consensus proces of Wikipedi done by a self-procaimed POV warrior isn't addressed, I don't see the point of our working on the fine points of any new understandings. IMHO, existing Wikipedia policy supports..in fact demamnds...that Asdfg's inappropriate editing behavior be addressed by an administrator. If it is not, what are the reasonable editors meant to do...seek arbitration? Start writing to Jimbo Wales? --Tomananda 03:28, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Asdfg12345 has obviously made a careless statement. He should read all the guidelines and learn what is considered fallacious in Wikipedia and what is not. Nevertheless, some major problems will be resolved by uprooting the rampant corruption on these pages. I am not surprised that very few editors have commented on my list of demands. ---Olaf Stephanos 11:54, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Tomananda I wish that you would read and respond to what I wrote on the discussion page about that material. I will write some more things now to clear it up further. Other users have also voiced there opposition to that edit. You have not responded to those things. I do not think it is right to say I am unilaterally blanking that material when other editors have expressed their disagreement with its inclusion and when I have also requested several times that you read what I have to say about it and respond, and you have not done so. I also think this page is not the best place to take up the discussion. Please address the issues I raised with the material on the appropriate page, point out any problems you see, and we can go from there.--Asdfg12345 15:28, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Asdfg12345 is right about this particular quote. Tomananda is not allowed to exploit a primary source and make his own interpretation about it: "Dafa refers to...", etc. That is a good example of original research, as defined by Wikipedia policies: "Any interpretation of primary source material requires a secondary source." [6] However, if this statement is published by a reputable secondary source, and the source comments on an alleged interrelationship between the Epoch Times and these words, anybody is entitled to report the existence of such allegations in the article and summarize or quote them directly. Of course, this doesn't mean that primary sources are altogether proscribed in Wikipedia. "Although most articles should rely predominantly on secondary sources, there are rare occasions when they may rely entirely on primary sources (for example, current events or legal cases). An article or section of an article that relies on a primary source should (1) only make descriptive claims, the accuracy of which is easily verifiable by any reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge, and (2) make no analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims. Contributors drawing on entirely primary sources should be careful to comply with both conditions." (ibid.) ---Olaf Stephanos 16:52, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Like I said above, I agree with the rule, but you can see that it can be interpreted with equal force by pro-FGers to anti-FG material AS WELL AS anti-FGers to pro-FG material. Jsw663 19:58, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Olaf, you are distorting the rules on original research for your own purposes. It is not original reseach to report Master Li's own definition of the Dafa...the Dafa is "the Great law of the cosmos"...it is simply reporting what Li says. I have done an entire post on this issue on the Epoch Times page which I ask you to read. What's truly outrageous about your accusation of "original research" is that I have repeatedly invited FG practitioner/editors to suggest their own edits which would convey the idea that, as Li says, "The Dafa is judging all beings." Even Asdfg has admitted that this material is relevant to an understanding of the mission of the Epoch Times (see his comments on that Talk page), yet no meaningful language is suggested.

Also, you failed to report part of the section on "Original Research" which has a direct bearing to your argument:

"Original research that creates primary sources is not allowed. However, research that consists of collecting and organizing information from existing primary and/or secondary sources is, of course, strongly encouraged. All articles on Wikipedia should be based on information collected from published primary and secondary sources. This is not "original research"; it is "source-based research", and it is fundamental to writing an encyclopedia."

So "sourced-based research" is not only allowed, it is encouraged. An excellent example of this is the section we wrote on homosexuality. It is virtually all "sourced-based research" meaning that it is a collection of Li's statments about homosexuality. Although commentators have characterized Li's writings about homosexuality as "homophobic" the Wikipedia article does not itself make that claim. Since you were one of the editors involved in the writing of that section (together with McConn, who actually made some changes), are you now suggesting that it is not permissible under Wikipedia guidelines for "original research"? --Tomananda 20:30, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

I'd love to reply both you and Jsw663 right now. However, I flew to North America yesterday, and I won't be back in France until next Tuesday. I'm extremely busy at the moment. In addition, it seems that I can use the Internet only in short periods. You deserve good replies instead of short summaries. Let's have a brief pause with this debate. ---Olaf Stephanos 00:01, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

I like this quote from Jsw: "This means you are effectively reinterpreting Jimbo's policies - are you saying you know better than him!?" How about taking the Wikipedia:Policies_and_guidelines seriously and applying them. Also administrator should only help enforcing these. We are on Wikipedia right?

I think that the only thing we need is a page where the list of violation of Wikipedia rules is kept track of and explained keeping in mind the assuming of good faith. People might not know all the policies but we should try to educate them. :) --HappyInGeneral 09:30, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

There isn't a place to list violations on every editor, outside of the history function. It would be unmanageable for starters, and would lead to a self-appointed secret police cabal in the end, IMO. We already have things in place to deal with policy issues. As for explaining policy, you really have the responsibility to find it out for yourself. See the Wikipedia:Topical index and dig in. We're editors, not babysitters. If the FLG crowd would go outside of the subject they are seemingly obsessed with, they would see that most of the "anti-" FLG editors do actually edit other articles and cycles of articles.

Jsw663 proposed some temporary self-policing rules, then Olaf popped up after a prolonged absence and sidetracked that productive discussion by proposing his set of rules with occasional weighting towards suppressing valid criticisms of FLG in the articles. Personally, I believe that was due to Li Hongzhi ordering FLG practitioners to obscure his actual teachings to the general public. Since most pro-FLG editors are single subject guys, here under orders from their leader to obscure his teachings, I'm going to be extremely critical of proposals from them about how I should edit. Since I'm on record many times as saying that I don't trust that situation one bit, I don't feel it is fair to use my administrative position here, outside of obvious WP:NPA violations and the like. I'm just another editor who will not allow these articles (or any articles on Wikipedia) to become simple adverts. But, as a long-time admin myself (I flatter myself that I know how things work around here, at least a little) I can say, in my opinion, that those are two very good reasons why this cycle of articles definitely needs an outside mediator. Since there is now an active mediator, who deserves all of our attention if we want to fix this mess (again, IMO), all of the above discussions for voluntary editing rules are moot. --Fire Star 火星 15:17, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Fire Star, you say: "There isn't a place to list violations on every editor" actually what I am proposing is a page like: Talk:Falun_Gong/Collection of Wikipedia Policy violations done on the Falun Gong pages. This would be a list that anybody can maintain, no admin required for maintaining it. Also it is a good place to point out what not to do, according to the WP policies. This way people who brake the WP policies will be informed and in the mean time educated about these policies because then they will have to read it. Also this way we can keep track of those who violate these rules. This is a very simple and WP fair alternative to the 8 point rule version proposed by Jsw, which if you take in consideration the sub points turns into 16 rule, and the 15 rule of Olaf’s, both of which I’m having difficulty keeping track of. --HappyInGeneral 12:24, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

HiG, if you do make a 'list' then it must also apply retroactively. But that is not the main point. All that does is much like what Olaf's 15 'rules' does - create further division, polarizing the pro- and anti-FG camps, causing incivility and edit wars. I don't see why it is a 'fair' alternative to justify a police-state on Wikipedia when Falun Gong has supposedly been campaigning against this treatment by the CPC. It is hypocrisy to the max. PS I thought Olaf's rules were to combat the need to be constantly vigilant on Wikipedia. Your proposal requires that we enforce this to the uppermost limit. Wikipedia is not a dictatorship! Jsw663 13:02, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

1. It doesn't have to be retroactive, but I agree that this would be ideal.

2. I would be imposing a dictatorship if I would ask that everybody do as I say, however I'm not even imposing to enforce the rules just yet, which would be how a country ruled by law would work, usually understood as democracy. I am proposing something even more lenient, like for babies. We make a note of everything that is wrong so we have a central place where we can point out and inform those who did wrong from the Wikipedia Policy point of view what was it exactly that they did wrong. Then as time passes and the baby is getting matured, he or she will no longer say that he did not know that rule this is why he/she was acting out of ignorance. Actually having the list might make it obvious enough for the wrong doer to back off and so administrator’s actions & ArbCom will not even be needed in most of the cases. --HappyInGeneral 13:49, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

My main concern, apart from this being a 'police state' (because we are all watching out for each other's behavior - this is not democratic), is also that it will lead to constant mudslinging by all parties concerned by laying blame on someone else. Why can't we take a more positive role? After all, although Omido engaged in section blanking and was warned non-stop, I dropped the mediation case against him as soon as his behavior stopped. I also warned Asdfg about declaring POV wars in the hope that he will retract it himself; indeed, he has done so. Privately I have aired concerns to Samuel about his editing behavior, but haven't received a response from him yet. This is what I mean by a more positive role. It allows people to voluntarily step back and have nothing against them on permanent record.

Whilst your proposal may appear valid, it fosters a very negative attitude. What achievement is there for making a record of who infringed what rule? Enforcement should be done, but tolerance should also be practised. This is why a warning rather than some permanent record, and allowing the user to voluntarily retract (thus avoid blame) rather than establish blame by the book may be more beneficial in the long run. Jsw663 13:58, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

There is no way to stop the parties from blaming each other, especially if they only have the impression that the other party was doing it wrong, without even measuring it up to the rules. However this way we can put some rationality behind that and we can at least see if is valid or not. Actually my main wish is that all parties get civil and involved knowing better the Wikipedia rules since we are on Wikipedia, and thus we are using at least some of Jimbo Wales money right now, which means that we should do things as he intended it to. --HappyInGeneral 14:35, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, let's get other editors' input on this matter first, okay? Jsw663 14:37, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Fire Star, I have no "leader", and I take no "orders". I'm going to show you concrete examples of original research, weasel words, and tendentious editing. In fact, I already told you that I don't mind whether my 15 rules are adopted or not. These articles contain plenty of inferences, interpretations, and weasel words that are not backed up by sources. I'll get back to you later. ---Olaf Stephanos 22:30, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Olaf, even if you deny you take orders, you can't deny you have a leader! Falun Gong practitioners abide by Falun Gong, whose one and only undisputed leader is Li Hongzhi - surely you acknowledge this! Don't stretch logic too far. Moreover, I am still waiting for a reply to my concerns about your 15 rules, regardless of whether they are adopted or not. But your objection to my 8 rules still rings hollow. Jsw663 12:55, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Olaf and me are reading the same thing. You can also read the same stuff since it's available on the internet for everybody. Nowhere in those scriptures are the words: "I order you to ...", those scriptures are just like a scholar book, the more you read the more you understand about everything. And now tell me this what is wrong in saying "STOP the torture and persecution against Falun Gong!"? Actually nobody deserves that no matter what they did! This is where I really don't understand you jsw and Samuel (who is trying his best to hide this on the persecution page). Also just ask anyone in China if they would dare giving out a flier which says the same thing as the Amnesty International [7]. We are all humans, and I strongly believe that no human should torture another, especially in this way. --HappyInGeneral 14:01, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

I thought I explained my stance very clearly before. The alleged torture and persecution made by the FG against the CPC has not been proven to a sufficient degree to justify a criminal charge, which requires proof beyond reasonable doubt. Unfortunately, at least the majority of allegations' "proof" definitely leaves enough doubt for one to wonder whether these claims are necessarily true. This is not muddying the waters or whatever; it is merely requesting that such allegations meet the burden of proof imposed on the accuser by law. As FG is a highly controversial issue, passing off these as facts when it has not been proven as facts make me wonder if there isn't a hidden agenda. The FG insists they are facts; the CPC insists that no such thing is happening. I'm just taking the "I wonder if it did happen?" middle-road stance WITHOUT deciding one way or another. Jsw663 14:35, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

This is a bit coincidental. May I draw all your attention to this page: Persecution of Falun Gong. Please also read the comments here. I hope you're all reading this. From right now I might just stop editing the pages and start collecting evidence of the rampant and flagrant violations that have persisted over these pages for who knows how long now. This latest by Samuel is a really good example. Unfortunately, it is also somewhat typical. Fire Star: this would be a great opportunity to step in as an admin and respond to this. Otherwise, I don't really mind waiting until all this is thoroughly investigated and the problem is resolved from the root. I hope you all understand what I mean. There are processes for all these things, we have nearly exhausted them. When it's all laid out for ArbCom to see I know how it will end up.

I won't touch that page again until this is sorted out, whether that is voluntarily or involuntarily. Since all the other pages are locked, I might take a break for a week or so, too, while we figure out the best way to proceed. --Asdfg12345 01:39, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

I forgot we had a mediator: what do you have to say about this, Armed?--Asdfg12345 01:43, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Asdfg, just a few thoughts.

• 1. That page is titled suppression of Falun Gong at present. Armedblowfish has proposed the CPC v FLG conflict as a title (or something like that). To insist it is still persecution despite a mediator's proposal consensus by all three camps (including, surprisingly, yourself) is POV-pushing. Do you see me go about insisting Falun Gong is a cult? At least restrain your POVs on Wikipedia.

• 2. Asdfg, the vast majority of us have probably tested some Wikipedia rule or guideline at some point during our discussions, but none of us have decalred POV wars before. If you want to accuse people of 'rampant and flagrant violations' then you have to match it with a more moderate tone in the previous sentences. Otherwise, you are not on any 'higher' moral ground yourself.

• 3. Asdfg, your content/POV pushing on the Suppression of Falun Gong page is also a little worrying. Labelling FG criticism as 'analysis' for the Tiananmen self-immolation incident, for example, is clearly NOT NPOV. Insisting that all sources critical of anything the CPC says is merely 'third-party', or the liberal use of the word 'some' to enforce your view, is also distinctly unencyclopedic. Remember, the WP is important to follow, but not to twist it out of context or logic. To insist pure criticism as 'analysis' (as if it were unbiased) as adhering to 'NPOV' is clearly NOT true, and qualifies as POV-pushing. I've taken these minor steps to correct it. I've deliberately restrained from editing any pro-FG substance (content) though. I hope you can learn from this in the future when contributing the pro-FG view to FG-related pages.

• 4. Picture flooding on FG-related pages recently is a little worrying as well. Sure, entries can be more attractive when illustrated, but Wiki is not a picture book. Moreover, almost all the pictures have been distinctly pro-FG. By all means choose a select few pictures that represent your cause, Asdfg, but do not flood pages with pictures, because Wiki is not a propaganda place for your cause exclusively.

• 5. Admins should apply each rule equally to all, but also practice tolerance if it is a viable alternative. Fire Star has been more than tolerant with pro-FG vandals such as section blanking, so to suddenly take a strict line on anti-FG on a disputed view would be bias in action. You aren't campaigning for unequal treatment, are you? Because if you are, there is plenty of evidence already to take your behavior to the ArbCom level. Practice a little more tolerance; it may win your cause more support.

• 6. My 8 rules were designed specifically to curb editorial behavior instead of content yet Olaf has insisted on opposing it. Well, your camp's loss in situations such as these, I guess, Asdfg. Jsw663 12:55, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Could you please point out the Wikipedia Policies for each point? Thank you. --HappyInGeneral 14:43, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

The delay by the more radical FG editors by seeking explanation on everything is quite ridiculous, but I have made it quite clear that my proposals seek further restrictions on editors' behavior, and are entirely voluntary until it is 'passed'. That is why I've allowed for objections. Olaf is the one who is saying his 15 rules only reproduce Wiki policies. If that's the case, then why the need for it? Jsw663 14:49, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Although Asdf already answered, I would still would like to point out to you that we are on Wikipedia and I want to know the policies and guidelines, I want to know my rights. If you decide to be critical you should back up your blame with the Wikipeda policies and guidelines. --HappyInGeneral 09:45, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

If you want to know your 'rights', read the Wikipedia policies yourself. The people who were being critical of my policies indeed should back it up with Wiki policies. How was I being critical, or how were my policies critical? You never answered the question. Are you opposing for the sake of opposing? Moreover I've already said that my proposed rules are in addition to WPs and are voluntary as they govern only editors' behavior, including yours, unless you have a WP objection. Well, I await your 'criticism'. Jsw663 12:30, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Firstly, I have not yet engaged in one of these discussions with numbered points and numbered answers, so I feel it is quite an honour. Let me respond now. I do not know if I am changing or you are changing, Jsw, but I feel quite distinctly that you are saying more reasonable things in a kinder way these days. I hope to make a disclaimer that I just want to let you know what I think, you are free to respond in kind, but I hope you will not take issue if at some point I choose not to respond. I will accord you the same comfort. I have seen these things spiral out of control before:

• 1. I am sorry and I agree. I will no longer refer to the conflict between the CCP and Falun Gong as a persecution on these discussion pages. That is what I personally believe that it is, however you are requesting that I adhere to the now consensual term, and I am happy to do so.
• 2. I am only recently realising what has been happening on these pages. There is plenty of evidence for this, and what I am saying is not at all unfounded. I am guilty too, I do not believe as egregiously, but I am making a very conscious and concerted effort to keep my edits above board. It is hard to do that flawlessly, all the time, and you have gently pointed out some problems -- I do welcome that. I should tone down my comments anyway, but I won't excuse these disuptive editing behaviours if they continue.
• 3. I agree with the change from "analysis" to "criticism", and I was not conscious of that bias myself. This is one instance where it is good that there are editors from opposing viewpoints who agree to work together; this is healthy. If they are third-party they should be called third-party. If they are presenting criticisms people will be able to work that out for themselves, or can we use “third-party critics”? I can openly declare that I have no intention of weaselling things in, like that “analysis” change, I agree with you and apologise for my oversight, so we can work these things out on a case by case basis and haggle over the best way to do things. This is not a fundamental problem. I have learnt from this, and in the future when contributing I will do my best to keep it in mind and try to police myself.
• 4. The page is for documenting the conflict between Falun Gong and the CCP, reporting what verifiable sources have written about it, and presenting that material in a neutral way. All pictures added were strictly documenting said conflict – there is a difference in that and going overboard with it, and I have no intention of loading up 10 pictures of dead practitioners and jamming them all over the place. (I may need to be corrected when I say things like “dead practitioners” – alert me to any euphemisms you would prefer.) The FAs have relevant pictures to illustrate their content, and your concerns are noted.
• 5. Thank you for this comment. I do need to practice more tolerance. I hope we can all be broadminded in dealing with our peers’ shortcomings, that we can forgive them, and that each one makes an effort to look within themselves in this process, improve their own editing, become more aware of their own bias, become more familiar with the policies and guidelines of wikipedia, and consciously try to behave better. Of course, there are ways of dealing with editors who have no interest in those things. Let’s see what the future holds.
• 6. Actually, I think with reference to the above point, that if each of us policed ourselves, accepted relevant criticism, and made an effort to abide strictly by wikipedia policies and guidelines, as well as accepting corrections when deviating from them, we would have no problems. In cases like these it is fine, too. If Samuel keeps doing it he’ll simply be blocked.

--Asdfg12345 17:41, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, the more you familiarize yourself with Wiki guidelines, the less I will have to lambast you for not adhering to them! Although I personally find your content still POV, in the sense that only one side's case is being promoted, at least there are fewer dubious claims involved. In other words, my 'noxiousness' is only a reflection of your own behavior - the more radical you get, the more 'noxious' I appear, and vice versa.

1. Well to really clear the air here, it would be better if you could strike out the 'persecution' term and replace it with the mediator-proposal term that has been agreed on.

4. I'm glad you don't intend to picture-flood entries. I also welcome your comment on another page of leaving some pictures after the introduction of that entry.

6. Hey, if we were all reasonable, I wouldn't have had to resort to proposing the 8 rules in the first place! It was just that I was fed up with all our discussions being rendered worthless by editors who section-blanked without any discussion, like Omido. But this will never be tested until these pages are unlocked again. Jsw663 12:30, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Proposing a structure for this article

Subsection title added by: HappyInGeneral 09:45, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Sorry for leaping into a very controversial page with substantial editing, and perhaps my concerns are as we speak being addressed by arbitration or efforts like Olaf's. However, this version of the Falun Gong article [and, to be clear: I am Buddhist, so I have some initial problems with FG; I'm also anarchist, so while I don't like the CCP and think that their repression of this group is disgusting and onerous, to whatever extent it does occur, I also don't like that many pro-FG people here seem to think that their path is the only way and are cultishly re-imagining some things their "leader" or founder said, instead of a) admitting that maybe Li is fallible and they've accepted onl part of the teaching or b) trying to provide contextual analysis from Li's own writings] seems to be very anti-FG is some key components. For example, the phrase "At the beginning, Li introduced..." seems to be slightly skewed, in that it implies that Li's position has changed, when he certainly would not claim that. (Also: "At age of eight" is not grammatical, a clear sign of a counter-edit to this, which is clearly not a way to proceed). The origins section discusses Li Hongzhi much more than the early movement's struggles and attempts. If there are alleged distinctions in the teaching from era to era, that should have its own page, which descriptions (NEUTRAL ones) similar to describing various eras and schools of Christian belief. "Responses open to interpretation" is a pseudo-neutral phrase that actually isn't: FG members would certainly claim the responses are consistent. There's also an oblique member to classic signs of cultishness unqualified with a source or with back-and-forth.

Primarily, I think that the main problem is that the article describes very little of the doctrine in the main article (yes, I understand nuances are externally linked). This becomes a problem because a good portion of the page becomes preoccupied with the CCP v. FG discussions and a myriad of other scandals and controversies. Yes, FG is known to some degree for this alone, but I'm sure both anti-FG and pro-FG people can admit that much would be gained from having the data about what it does neutrally described in a way that is neither a script for FG followers nor a caricature.

The research on health benefits, meanwhile, as some people here have noted, is quite awful. Pages on the benefits of acupuncture, chiropracty, etc. with infinitely more data (and much better mainstream science terminology and description) are filled with controversy. The data here to be remotely fair should be noted a) with at least some recognition that Buddhists, etc. would argue that FG is not the only religion to capture these benefits and b) that the scientific evidence here is tentative at best.

The ethics section is clearly apologia: Why only mention what Li has said about CRITICISM? Surely, FG practitioners might have more to say about vegetarianism, murder, sexual assault, etc. That section is both not informative, so it actually contributes to the ANTI-FG side of the debate, and deeply biased.

Under the Epoch Times area, I think "political slant" is too harsh. "Editorial focus" may be more neutral.

Is there some neutral descriptor everyone can agree upon for what FG is? It seems like they claim, like Tai Chi and Yoga, a physical and a spiritual component, and that they have taught many its components w/o relation to the broader spiritual corpus (arguably deceptively).

Also: In general, while I approve of Tomanada's general stance, the Fa-rectification discussion he is simply wrong about. The term should be presented as most practitioners seem to be discussing it. Even Tomanada admits that Forbearance, etc. are the STATED principles. A discussion under the belief section or maybe just a paranthetical comment here would THEN be inserted. It'd be like beginning a conversation about the Apocalypse by noting people's philosophical criticisms of it.

I think the vital pattern to avoid, and I hope people can summon some courage to do this, is to create an article that doesn't read schizophrenically. Neutrality shouldn't be about "He said, she said", especially when one sentence turns from positive to negative then back again without any explanation or qualification. It makes it sickening to read. I agree with the folks who have noted that incomplete and even maybe quite biased works would be necessary before reaching anything remotely resembling consensus. I would personally begin with a page that describes FG and its practice reasonably as a FG practitioner might describe in a friendly coffee-table style setting, then introduce some of the criticisms, depth and discussion. That is certainly the way other spiritual/religious groups have been treated on WP. ArekExcelsior 01:50, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your input, your time on these pages would be appreciated. Perhaps we should start a Talk:Falun_Gong/Basic Structure page, to present, discuss and agree upon it?. --HappyInGeneral 09:45, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, if starting another page or sub-section might help people find a way to discuss a) the page's layout and b) how exactly to proceed from a content format with editing, that may be quite helpful. I'm not heavily involved with FG, and even would lean slightly their direction because I am of a highly libertarian bent and, for example, find Samuel Luo's justifications of the CCP's atrocities and banning of them to be statist and disgusting, but I might throw in my two cents here and there. What I really think would be helpful would be if neutral or VERY slightly pro-FG people began the page basically from scratch, going through every section and writing a just basic informatively-toned piece (i.e. "Li Hongzhi exhorts Falun Gong practitioners to do X", "Li Hongzhi has claimed to be the source of the Fa but has demanded his followers adhere to free speech", etc., with LOTS of descriptions about beliefs, canon, etc. and maybe if this is possible discussing internal interpretations of the works held by some followers), etc., THEN throwing in some critical pieces. CERTAINLY the fact that Falun Gong has been referenced as a cult must be included. The fact that this criticism extends to Li Hongzhi potentially lying about his past and exaggerating his achievements, uncritical acceptance by some followers, etc. MUST be included. Some description of the FP/CCP antagonism MUST occur, and it will NOT come across the way pro-FG people would ideally put it, as it's quite clear to me that the group is at least ambiguous about their feelings about the CCP. Tomanada-style discussion of the Master's quotes must occur, but WITHOUT giving the authoritative declaration that it is a) FG dogma to follow the Master (since there has been some contention here about that very score) and b) that the Master's quotes inherently lean one way or the other (while I am convinced by Tomanada, people with far less ambiguity in their life, such as Hitler, have had massively complex dogmas - just try to get consensus among WW2 historians about the Nazi party's feelings about Christianity).

The Fa-rectification MUST be discussed as honestly as possible, and without the "Asdfg" type saying that it's just impossible for ordinary mortals to understand. Yes, people outside any religious group are unlikely to get the symbolism; Li Hongzhi himself has appropriated "karma", "Buddha nature", etc. to mean things MUCH different from Buddhist texts, and even Buddhism itself among practitioners, cultures and sects disagree as to some finer points of contention (such as the proper master-teacher relationship, exactly where souls may come from, what the reincarnation experience means and what the Bardo is like, etc. etc. etc.), but that has not stopped Wikipedia from having extensive articles on those topics. Honestly, what are you FG folks afraid of? If you honestly believe that your religion is indeed the obvious way for people to ascend in an upcoming cataclysmic era, you should have no fear describing the exact way this works: Christian advocates certainly have no fear discussing the Apocalypse. Now, to be fair to pro-FG people, I think what they were objecting to was Tomanada perhaps running a bit far with some quotes. But the solution to "bad" speech (or, in this case, incomplete speech) is not no speech, it's a balanced approach. The Fa-rectification might deserve its own page, with full description of the Master's predictions and discussions (ALL of them, with a note that the fact that a previously "averted Apocalypse" didn't occur made many even more skeptical of the religion), discussion about various interpretations, etc. ArekExcelsior 00:48, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Sounds very good, I hope more people will be involved. I see that Armed Blowfish is interested in getting this up and working, so should we wait until he is proposing where to start out this?

I mean the first thing which probably we should agree upon is the structure, pages and their subsections, then go into detail about what information in general should contain each subsection, then agree on the introduction of each pages, then start working on each subsection and where problem occurs discuss on the talk page.

The safest way is to do all this off the main page and place in the main page only stuff that we agree upon, however my current problem with this is that the main pages right now is very unbalanced.

So perhaps we should start with a clean up. Propose things to delete, delete them and then work our way to the complete article just as I described above.

This is a technical point of view on how I think we could proceed, basically this way enables us to work on these pages even if they are the whole time protected. Please let me know what you think. --HappyInGeneral 12:27, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Sure, if we create a new section to just address that in particular and that's linked for my convenience, I'll drop by and throw in my two cents. (Interestingly: I applaud both the pro-FG and anti-FG folks for surprising me by not immediately responding with attacks). ArekExcelsior 20:41, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi Arek, thanks for contributing. In the Wikipedian spirit, it is always great to see more constructive editors.

However, I note with concern that you say only 'neutral' and 'slightly pro-FG' editors should be editing. This would mean you support an 'elite' group of editors justifying their version of this article. This, naturally, totally contravenes the Wikipedian spirit. I agree that this means that efficiency and accuracy is probably sacrificed; however, we must take into account the reason Wikipedia was created in the first place - everyone's opinion is equal. This is why we are 'forced' to be more tolerant of the people who have stronger POVs - just something we have to accept on Wiki (and even some who plead ignorance despite wilfully disregarding Wikipedia policies is also something that is chronic and Wiki has done little to address, esp. by unregistered users).

I note with curiosity how your concerns are being 'addressed' by Olaf, yet you claim that you support Tomananda's stance. This appears to be a contradiction, as the former has been very critical of all aspects of the latter's arguments, and vice versa. Although you note with concern the 'cultish' nature of FG, you assume all their accusations against the Chinese Government are automatically true. Naturally I am not defending the Chinese Government here, but to make a balanced approach on a controversial subject, it is better to assume nearly nothing are 'facts', and make both sides' cases equally forcefully, and let the reader decide. We are on Wikipedia, after all. It is impossible to provide contrasting data in a 'neutral' way; the best way forward is thus to let both sides have their say. Note, though, that there is no Chinese Government official on Wikipedia to defend the Chinese Government view.

In the spirit of 'balanced' I note that you only cite a biased section of being 'clearly' anti-FG whereas the pro-FG opinions merely require 'improvement', and are just 'dubious' but not 'clearly pro-FG'. This would suggest that your anti-Chinese Government feelings are stronger than your anti-FG feelings. Moreover, 'editorial focus' for the Epoch Times also includes non-political views and is probably insufficiently accurate. However, I'll leave this last point for debate later on the E.T.'s talk page.

Bear in mind, also, that the current locked down version of the page is NOT what was last agreed upon. It was there merely to stop edit wars between the two sides. All sides have also already engaged in section-specific and content-specific discussions, e.g. the Introduction. These probably give you a better idea of what positive progress has been achieved so far. As such, whilst your ideas have a positive intention, they are not necessarily 'new', if you get my drift.

So, please don't be offended when I say your proposals don't really add all that much to what has been tried before, ArekExcelsior, because your intentions and proposals do have a constructive, forward-thinking ring to it. However, putting it into practice is where the tricky part comes in. I'm sure you'll have noticed that everything is temporarily being put on 'hold' with the current ArbCom case going on. However, once that is over, hopefully ArbCom will issue a few guidelines as to how editors should proceed with FG-related entries. And although this suggestion will be time-consuming, if you really want to weigh in seriously on the arguments on FG-related pages, please read the archives of discussions. Read both pro- and anti-FG sources, websites etc. in detail, and if possible, removing your personal opinions before reading it. Because without understanding both sides' perspectives, whatever you propose will be unacceptably biased to one side. I'm not saying this won't still be the case once you recognize each side's arguments; what I'm suggesting is that if you want to be a serious contributor then you have to do the groundwork.

Anyway, welcome to the world of a controversial set of entries! Hope what I just said hasn't put you off already, because that would be a shame. Persistence is the key. But to start off with, I'm wary of your suggestion to exclude certain editors. It's efficient, but it contravenes the reason why Wiki was set up in the first place. Jsw663 00:17, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your input Jsw663, please let me know what you think about the following:

I mean the first thing which probably we should agree upon is the structure, pages and their subsections, then go into detail about what information in general should contain each subsection, then agree on the introduction of each pages, then start working on each subsection and where problem occurs discuss on the talk page.

The safest way is to do all this off the main page and place in the main page only stuff that we agree upon, however my current problem with this is that the main pages right now is very unbalanced.

So perhaps we should start with a clean up. Propose things to delete, delete them and then work our way to the complete article just as I described above.

Also perhaps we should consider going forward with the mediation proposed by Armedblowfish. --HappyInGeneral 12:28, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Haha, HiG, you put me in a bit of a fix because what you are suggesting is exactly what my 8 rules propose to do! I also noticed you took advantage of this regarding the Li Hongzhi page where after a month or so nobody else replied so you had your proposal edit 'approved'. The fix arises because once an admin approves of one proposed edit, is their any rationale not to approve of another? Maybe a more positive way forward for this to work would be to briefly unlock that page - but then there will be edit wars.

This is why I've been very quiet outside ArbCom recently as I've preferred to put all these edits, etc. on hold until we receive further instructions from ArbCom. However, you've jumped the gun a bit and had one of your edits already approved. In the spirit of good faith, perhaps you can ask JS to temporarily retract your proposal? The thing is, it is good to put your view forward, and if that is where it ends I have no objections so far. But if you are doing it at the expense of the other sides and it has made them very unhappy then it is not a very 'positive' step towards constructive editing, as it erodes any good faith between the different parties.

And just a brief comment on the structure / Arek's proposals. Again, not necessarily a bad proposal, but it would be better if we waited for ArbCom's instructions. After all, we are only 'normal' editors and it is better to seek counsel from the more experienced. Jsw663 13:45, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't assume that ALL of FG's allegations are true. Undoubtedly some, maybe many, are fabrications. In fact, if you noticed, I adhered STRICTLY to what the CHINESE government is saying: Their rationale is that there's a public health reason to stop FSG, I think that's crap (it'd be akin to banning Christian Scientists) AND patently illegal (human rights laws would call the declaration of a religious group, whether "cult" or not, especially one with as many followers as FG, illegal a violation of essential human rights, particularly for as lame of excuses as the Chinese gov't is turning out). Any torture, abuse, etc. would be on top of that. But yes, the CCP's record combined with some compelling testimony says that it just has to be true that SOMETHING is going on. Note, though, that this is my opinion: The ENCYCLOPEDIA should note the CCP's stance and justification, reply with my sort of civil libertarian argument, then discuss FG's allegations of broader mistreatment, then CCP or neutral skeptic reply.

JSW, people can be in different camps in different areas. I've noticed Tomanada's content and attempt to take on FG by quoting the Master, and the case he makes is compelling. I have only been reading Olaf's attempts at creating some kind of editing coherence, which Tomanada has not been so involved with.

About an "elite group of editors": Wrong, JSW. I was saying the article should BEGIN from neutral editors' POV. If this article were any less contentious, I would agree that the identity of people involved would be irrelevant, but we are not dealing with an ideal situation: I think everyone here is at least accused of having poisoned the well, which means we have to not proceed from a state of innocence. After a very fair, neutral article in the vein of, say, an article about Xianity is done, THEN we can get back to the sniping war... but the base needs to be like that. If extreme editors WANT to get involved, fine, but in fact conflict of interest and other editing advice on WP says pretty clearly that they should VOLUNTARILY bow out. My concern was not efficiency whatsoever: Extreme voices belong and have a right to be heard. My concern was the validity of the article. In my view, the corruption of the article came when an incomplete piece about a religious and spiritual group/practice began to feature criticisms of said group to perhaps too large of an extent, which then gave fuel to pro-FG arguments and led to the back-and-forths. The way I can see to avoid this is to get a very literal description of WHAT FG SAYS. After that's done, then we can talk about the whys, wherefores, hows, finer points of dogma, controversies, criticisms, disagreements, etc, WITHIN the scope of a religious article. Note that I am saying that FG deserves the same treatment at least as, say, Rastafarianism or Taoism: Noting that people think that it should be described as a cult and the discussion there is necessary, but NOT what Wikipedia should classify it as.

Of course it is probably ludicrously difficult to make a totally neutral article: Some sort of unevenness will be present. But the current article is leaps and bounds outside of that very narrow exception to pure neutrality. The article should speak like one voice, describing everyone's substantiatable opinions charitably and fairly with equal presentation time and authority, as an ideal. It is CERTAINLY possible with reasonable editors to get to a model that is not schizophrenic but is simply an even-handed assessment, maybe with a bit of bumpiness.

I actually didn't expect any edit to be done, at all. Like I've said, I don't intend to be involved here to a substantial degree (I'll sacrifice SOME time, but I just wanted to try to introduce a new voice and see if that might cause people to shift camps some and be willing to concede some points strategically). I noted what I saw and expected that to be handled through successive iteration. I'm noting for everyone involved structurally how editors should proceed: If anyone wants to adopt that, that's their get-out, and I hope THEY express their agreement and explain why here so that others can discuss and respond. Go ahead and rescind any edits made by my advice, as the article nears completion I may become more insistent.

The only reason I did chime in, JSW, was because I DID read both sides, including Samuel Luo's piece. The opinions I'm expressing here are informed by that data. But my opinions are irrelevant, and in fact if I were completely unaware that should under WP rules be fine: All I'd need to do would be to see what the ensuing clashes came down to and note that those clashes should be represented in the article.

I know that my solutions aren't silver bullets, JSW, but I also know that sometimes a voice of reason can at least get people TALKING. "The devil is in the details", so to speak, but I went beyond sheer methodology and went slightly towards content compromises, which is where the discussion needs to center: Exact agreement on what content will be included.

My anti-CCP feelings are stronger than anti-FG feelings simply because of power and influence, not really quality. If FG were to start, say, butchering CCP followers and engaging in acts of wanton terrorism, my opinions would reverse mighty-quick. But it depends on the area, JSW: FG's cultishness (from what I've interacted) REALLY turns me off. I noted initially a lot of problems with FG, particular on points of doctrine.

Like I said, maybe my concerns are being addressed already. ArbCom obviously needs to get done first. But it's key that some notion of the structure be agreed upon here as well.

(Above reply written by Arek Excelsior)

My reply to A.E.'s -

Glad to meet another effective debator, Arek. I just have a few bones to pick with ya.

1. CCP reason for banning FG - I think the first and foremost isn't a health problem, but rather, the issue of social harmony, stability and national security. Now, I appreciate as a civil libertarian your princniples or beliefs run contrary to a more authoritarian system of government like the CCP's. But to place a civil libertarian argument of something like 'authoritarianism is disgusting' is highly inapplicable, and is a POV. The reason I personally feel that FG and CCP opinions should have priority over others' opinions is because they are the two main parties - much like the 'defendant' and 'prosecutor' in a legal case. Any opinion offered by NGOs such as Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch (that adopts a more radical civil libertarian argument, I think) can only come as third-party, and can only count as 'commentary/opinion'. I am also especially wary of third-party opinions supporting either side, as they can be abused to support one over the other (and let people, as you mention in your reply to Sam, to pre-determine whether they support/oppose FG before they even know what FG as a group claims to represent!). Therefore, 3rd party opinions may have its own section, but cannot be placed, IMHO, on equal terms as CCP's + FG's.

2. Introduction / 'neutral' editors - have you even read the debates that went on among all the camps regarding the Introductory paragraphs? They were largely agreed upon, and had a few relatively minor issues left to iron out. To have 'neutral editors' (which I don't think exist for this topic) re-write something will be causing even more trouble. It also IS a form of elitism, as you pre-determine any pro- or anti-FG editors as incapable of writing in a NPOV fashion. In essence, our opinions differ only in one aspect - I prefer debating before reaching a version; you prefer reaching a version before debating. As such, I am not truly 100% against your opinion; rather, I am saying it will be fruitless as one side or another will accuse it of being biased and revert it. This has driven away many 'neutral' editors before, and I don't want to see it happen again. As such, please read the Introduction section that was more or less agreed upon by the two extreme camps, that is NOT on the main Wiki article now (the link is near the top of this talk page). It has progressed more than you think.

3. Silver bullets / voice of reason / talking - I worry that you see your own opinion as a 'voice of reason' (as if to imply nobody else's was), and to think that there was no debate until you started it. The point is, all sides involved have engaged in fruitless debates for so long now that each knows what the other will say already, and have simply put the arguments on hold while the ArbCom case is being arbitrated.

Conclusion - I'll let Sam tell you how the FG does harm its own practitioners, justifying almost any action under a shocking amount of mind control. But please remember your civil libertarian stance isn't the 'right' stance nor is it the 'better' stance on Wiki - it is your own opinion. So, whilst your efforts at reconciliation + making a constructive and better article are appreciated, one must remember to keep one's own views at bay. Jsw663 02:55, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

           My reply to A.E.'s -

           Glad to meet another effective debator, Arek. I just have a few bones to pick with ya.

"1. CCP reason for banning FG - I think the first and foremost isn't a health problem, but rather, the issue of social harmony, stability and national security. Now, I appreciate as a civil libertarian your princniples or beliefs run contrary to a more authoritarian system of government like the CCP's. But to place a civil libertarian argument of something like 'authoritarianism is disgusting' is highly inapplicable, and is a POV."

I think that sounds more like Luo's points. The "social harmony, stability and national security" are all empty slogans every tyrant uses.

"The reason I personally feel that FG and CCP opinions should have priority over others' opinions is because they are the two main parties - much like the 'defendant' and 'prosecutor' in a legal case. Any opinion offered by NGOs such as Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch (that adopts a more radical civil libertarian argument, I think) can only come as third-party, and can only count as 'commentary/opinion'. I am also especially wary of third-party opinions supporting either side, as they can be abused to support one over the other (and let people, as you mention in your reply to Sam, to pre-determine whether they support/oppose FG before they even know what FG as a group claims to represent!). Therefore, 3rd party opinions may have its own section, but cannot be placed, IMHO, on equal terms as CCP's + FG's."

I absolutely disagree, both generally and specifically for FG. After all, it was agreed upon here that one primary reason people would come to research FG would be because they heard about it through Western media. Putting sources that Westerners would empathize with and discussing how the crisis has played out in groups like HRW would be fulfilling a key part of making the article noteworthy. (I'd concur with your impression of Amnesty being more about torture and HRW perhaps more radically CL, by the by).

Second, since outside verification and Western attention has been used by Falun Gong practitioners themselves, your own arguments would seem to describe why they have to be put into a Wikipedia article: HRW, Amnesty, etc. are sources for FG and FG supporters around the world.

Third, the way this debate is playing out is having ramifications as far as, say, US-China relations, and external opinion represents a good portion of the planets' response, which would be a pretty massively important viewpoint to take into account.

What I think you may be trying to do is try to keep outside sources from just overwhelming the direct combatants' description of the realities, which I think is vital, but if the CCP/FG viewpoints end up being larger than external views, it shouldn't be by much, IMHO.

Now, you do make a good point that outside sources can be used dishonestly, but that's not Wikipedia's concern. At most, that's HRW's and Amnesty's concern. Wikipedia only has a duty to describe neutrally the human knowledge around a topic. What happens because of that is beyond its proper scope. There is an intrinsic way to defeat this anyways: In the "third party" or "human rights organizations' response" or what not sections, include CCP and FG responses to the sources and reports. CCP denials should be given plenty of weight, since the FG responses will usually be support and approval.

" 2. Introduction / 'neutral' editors - have you even read the debates that went on among all the camps regarding the Introductory paragraphs? They were largely agreed upon, and had a few relatively minor issues left to iron out. To have 'neutral editors' (which I don't think exist for this topic) re-write something will be causing even more trouble. It also IS a form of elitism, as you pre-determine any pro- or anti-FG editors as incapable of writing in a NPOV fashion. In essence, our opinions differ only in one aspect - I prefer debating before reaching a version; you prefer reaching a version before debating. As such, I am not truly 100% against your opinion; rather, I am saying it will be fruitless as one side or another will accuse it of being biased and revert it. This has driven away many 'neutral' editors before, and I don't want to see it happen again. As such, please read the Introduction section that was more or less agreed upon by the two extreme camps, that is NOT on the main Wiki article now (the link is near the top of this talk page). It has progressed more than you think."

If the intro is done, that's fine. All I know is that the intro I read, and again this is why I originally prefaced all this by saying that this was only based on the locked page which is not the final draft, and the selection and coverage of the article had those problems. I also wish everyone here would not repeatedly try to blow my arguments and proposals to clearly ludicrous intents: Nowhere did I say anything remotely like the strawmen you described. I mentioned "slightly pro-FG" for a reason: Since it does seem no one involved in the debate is neutral now (even if they were before), choosing for as close to the middle but erring on the side of FG seemed to be the best way to proceed. What I have seen is that FG practitioners are up on the dogma and anti-FG people are up on the controversies. A simple division of labor to get the first up THEN the second up was all I was recommending. Nor was I declaring these to be ironclad ways to proceed irrespective of evidence. It does seem reasonable, however, to assume, especially given the pattern this article has taken (and I HAVE read probably 60% of the text on this Talk page), that both due to lack of information/consciousness and due to inevitable personal bias setting in, that pro-FG people will even when being reasonable lean towards a favorable account and anti-FG people will lean towards a critical account. Having each focus on areas where that slight directional bias is okay would seem to be simply logical. I was just noting the patterns and seeing what might be done to abort them. If you deny that those patterns exist or that they are relevant anymore or that this is a bad solution, reply with those arguments alone, but please don't continue taking the proposal itself out of context. If the article is farther along than I thought, then I'll adjust my advice. I'm just wondering if people here agree with making sure to have a totally accurate FG description before building up criticism sections, and with some of my content notes.

" 3. Silver bullets / voice of reason / talking - I worry that you see your own opinion as a 'voice of reason' (as if to imply nobody else's was), and to think that there was no debate until you started it. The point is, all sides involved have engaged in fruitless debates for so long now that each knows what the other will say already, and have simply put the arguments on hold while the ArbCom case is being arbitrated."

Well, apparently not so totally on hold, considering that my voice (which could just as well not have been replied to) could have been just let be at recommendations. But frankly, while everyone here clearly are passionate and informed, it's pretty obvious at a glance that at least in content I do bring a new voice to the DEBATE (I haven't seen people arguing for FG's human rights while noting that the organization may not be perfect). I'm not a monster of egotism: Reasonable people can BECOME unreasonable when getting into arguments (I can see how quickly it can happen with me and Sam replying to each other already), and then external voices can be quite helpful. People get stakes in the debate, which is why I've tried to remain uninvolved as possible. What I was trying to do, since the ArbCom will NOT be the end-all of the article (unless my understanding of ArbCom is drastically inaccurate), was facilitate agreement at least on a possible methodology and on possible contentious points of... content. Maybe this is just because of ArbCom, but I have yet to see no replies on this score, yet quite a bit about my own personal feelings on the issue.

"Conclusion - I'll let Sam tell you how the FG does harm its own practitioners, justifying almost any action under a shocking amount of mind control. But please remember your civil libertarian stance isn't the 'right' stance nor is it the 'better' stance on Wiki - it is your own opinion. So, whilst your efforts at reconciliation + making a constructive and better article are appreciated, one must remember to keep one's own views at bay."

Of course it is, one can be an effective Wiki contributor and be an outright fascist (indeed, it might make one a BETTER Wikipedia contributor since I'm sure fascist/Nazi Party viewpoints are underrepresented on Wikipedia, maybe more than is deserved). I was trying to return to the key point of this being, y'know, a Wikipedia article at the end of each of my points - I hope that wasn't lost in the fray. Keeping both Sam's criticisms, which while I find baseless are a) notable in that he is apparently somewhat well-known in anti-FG schools of thought and is citing people who clearly are noteworthy and b) contribute to the NPOV of this article, is vital, but one thing that was underrepresented both in the Talk debate and therefore in the following article was a description of the various ways human right and civil libertarians feel. A "shocking amount of mind control" could also describe the effective American media system of indoctrination, or perhaps Jesus camps in America, or the CCP's own behavior and actions. Saying cults are bad doesn't justify using the government to oppress them, obviously: There's an argumentative leap that Sam doesn't make and in fact implicitly undercuts by seeming to refuse to concede any CCP wrongdoing. One has to be willing to give the CCP or any other government broad discretion to determine what mind control is and to stop people's expressed choices. I can't see a lot of good things that come from that, but the gulags alone show the bad. Unless Falun Gong practitioners MAKE people stay in their seat with guns, they're not guilty of COERCION. They might be guilty of fraud, say in their misrepresentation of themselves to Western audiences (which would be a difficult but maybe not insurmountable case to make) or in terms of their medical claims, and there may be narrow legal grounds to attack them ON THAT GROUND ALONE. Note that this is the difference between banning an entire religion and attacking particular bad behaviors. It'd be as if the courts that have issued rulings against Scientology just threw their hands up and said "Let's just ban them from existing". ArekExcelsior 07:41, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Very lengthy reply there Arek. But before I start mine, please don't forget to sign your post (usually a bot helps me do it if I forget, but they seem to have overlooked this page with regards to your replies!). I'm going to split your above reply into points.

1a. The social harmony, stability, national security stuff isn't just what "Luo says" but rather what is said direct from the CCP (via its mouthpiece, the Xinhua News Agency). Whether you think this is only said by tyrants or not again is your own opinion. But if you think the CCP opinion should be aired in prominence then we simply must put down what they say, much like we must put down what Li Hongzhi says about FG. We don't have to agree with them; we just have to say what they claim / accuse.

1b. I also agree that most people who come on Wikipedia to learn about FG would have come via Western media exposure. This is why it is more important to stress what FG + CCP themselves say directly rather than interpreting on behalf of them, or giving little commentaries or pieces of opinion like "only tyrants would say that" (yes, I know you are only doing so here on the talk page, but still!). The troublesome thing is that Amnesty + HRW mostly support their pro-FG case with FG sources rather than 'neutral' or 'independently verifiable' ones, so whilst their opinion may be third-party, it is definitely not neutral or truly independent. Other sources such as the KM report suffer from its methodology and how all of the accusations are implications based on a collection of random pieces of information, which is far, far too vague to establish as fact by any means.

1c. External opinions vary, so if we are to put all of them down or give them more or less equal weight to FG's and CCP's opinions, then that is belittling both concerned parties' case, and also saying that external parties with their partial knowledge in the subject are the best judges of what is really going on. That would seem flawed in my opinion - after all this is not like a crime or rape trial where DNA can effectively settle a decision. The accusations of criminal acts all stem from unverifiable claims, which is why it is impossible to say either camp is actually correct for sure as a fact. Anyway this point will be discussed at greater length later once the ArbCom case is over.

2a. I know it's unreasonable to expect you as a newcomer to have read the entire talk page archive + this current one that is not archived. However, it's impossible to get a good picture without doing so, as what is not archived on this current page only represents a fraction of the wider picture. Sorry to have the state the obvious, but I thought I could give advice without having to read the whole thing first myself initially - I'm sure both sides will testify to that too.

2b. 'Totally accurate description' - Maybe you should rephrase that to "as accurate a description as possible from existing sources". I think the best way is to leave the FG case to the FG people and the CCP case to the CCP people, but there is a problem - there are NO CCP people on Wikipedia!!! (or at least none of them have identified themselves as one) So to combat the latter problem, I've tried to directly access Chinese embassy websites + newspaper statements to get their view by directly quoting them, without added 'commentary'. Naturally, by doing so, it will mean that the pro-FG case is infinitely longer than the pro-CCP one. This would lead to obvious bias on the FG entry - so do you have any suggestions?

3a. Like I said before, your opinion is highly welcomed and I did say at the start of my reply it was refreshing to talk to a newcomer. But please forgive me if you find my words too harsh; it's just that I try to put everything under scrutiny, just as I expect my own words here to be subject to it. So whilst some questions may appear testing, rest assured, they are only to ensure that there are no gaps or cause for further argument (as much as humanly possible!) in the future.

3b. ArbCom / content. This is also a problem. ArbCom traditionally refuses to judge on a content dispute, and leaves that to mediators. But to have no ArbCom guidelines is equally useless for a constructive way forward. This is why I've asked them to give guidelines regarding EDITORIAL BEHAVIOR - this way we can preserve the sanctity of the two camps + non-acidic atmosphere.

Conc: Once again I don't totally disagree with most of the reply, but note with concern about your opinion. Quite frankly, the FG and the CCP can make their case as strongly as they want to; as you said, we should only report it with as little commentary and interpretation as possible. However, why add that bit at the end about "banning the FG for existing" (you didn't say this, but it's your implication I guess?) since this is clearly not the case? The CCP actually did allow the FG to exist for a while if you look back into the early few years of the existence of FG in China. Anyway, glad to get your input, but as trite as it may sound, your opinion can be aired as much as you want here, but we must try our best to keep it out when writing about the FG article. This goes back to point 1c. - what the majority of Americans, say, think about FG is quite irrelevant. After all, what they know is only what they see and hear, and that is clearly not the full picture. To sum up my approach - take as non-involved a stance as possible. I think you agree with this but I dare not say so for sure. Jsw663 14:34, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

   Very lengthy reply there Arek. But before I start mine, please don't forget to sign your post (usually a bot helps me do it if I forget, but they seem to have overlooked this page with regards to your replies!). I'm going to split your above reply into points.

" 1a. The social harmony, stability, national security stuff isn't just what "Luo says" but rather what is said direct from the CCP (via its mouthpiece, the Xinhua News Agency). Whether you think this is only said by tyrants or not again is your own opinion. But if you think the CCP opinion should be aired in prominence then we simply must put down what they say, much like we must put down what Li Hongzhi says about FG. We don't have to agree with them; we just have to say what they claim / accuse."

I agree, and never denied otherwise: The motives they offer, as well as motives critics impute to them, must be noted, with a cross-section of back-and-forth arguments within reason. I'm just trying to undermine the claim being made then note that it does belong in the article, I again apologize if my dual-track approach here isn't clear.

" 1b. I also agree that most people who come on Wikipedia to learn about FG would have come via Western media exposure. This is why it is more important to stress what FG + CCP themselves say directly rather than interpreting on behalf of them, or giving little commentaries or pieces of opinion like "only tyrants would say that" (yes, I know you are only doing so here on the talk page, but still!). The troublesome thing is that Amnesty + HRW mostly support their pro-FG case with FG sources rather than 'neutral' or 'independently verifiable' ones, so whilst their opinion may be third-party, it is definitely not neutral or truly independent. Other sources such as the KM report suffer from its methodology and how all of the accusations are implications based on a collection of random pieces of information, which is far, far too vague to establish as fact by any means."

That seems to be your opinion, JSW. AI and HRW would certainly deny that (though the allegation should be mentioned), and like most human rights groups they do try to get people on the ground to confirm allegations. Their position is certainly bolstered by the fact that the laws explicitly mention long prison sentences and execution, and my perception is that the methodology used is probably the same as pretty reasonable surveys done by, say, Lancet.

" 1c. External opinions vary, so if we are to put all of them down or give them more or less equal weight to FG's and CCP's opinions, then that is belittling both concerned parties' case, and also saying that external parties with their partial knowledge in the subject are the best judges of what is really going on."

Then again, outside opinions are also forming a good part of the parties' case here, and pretending that people outside of the two contending groups don't matter also marginalizes a lot of relevant stakeholders. That's why I agree that FG/CCP should come FIRST and be heavily quoted, but external comments (especially from reputable human rights groups and studies that the FG themselves use) should be noted, as well as describing the furor in the West since that is what people come to the page for. There's a happy balance in there.

" That would seem flawed in my opinion - after all this is not like a crime or rape trial where DNA can effectively settle a decision. The accusations of criminal acts all stem from unverifiable claims, which is why it is impossible to say either camp is actually correct for sure as a fact. Anyway this point will be discussed at greater length later once the ArbCom case is over."

Which is why all allegations should be aired, even third party ones.

" 2a. I know it's unreasonable to expect you as a newcomer to have read the entire talk page archive + this current one that is not archived. However, it's impossible to get a good picture without doing so, as what is not archived on this current page only represents a fraction of the wider picture. Sorry to have the state the obvious, but I thought I could give advice without having to read the whole thing first myself initially - I'm sure both sides will testify to that too."

I have read a lot, that is why I posted at all. If I'm missing nuances, I'm sure I can be informed. So far I'm seeing that I have a pretty good grasp of what was being said.

" 2b. 'Totally accurate description' - Maybe you should rephrase that to "as accurate a description as possible from existing sources". I think the best way is to leave the FG case to the FG people and the CCP case to the CCP people, but there is a problem - there are NO CCP people on Wikipedia!!! (or at least none of them have identified themselves as one) So to combat the latter problem, I've tried to directly access Chinese embassy websites + newspaper statements to get their view by directly quoting them, without added 'commentary'. Naturally, by doing so, it will mean that the pro-FG case is infinitely longer than the pro-CCP one. This would lead to obvious bias on the FG entry - so do you have any suggestions?"

Right, I'm describing the ideal as far as 'totally accurate'. That was talking about the dogma/teachings: I think we can trust the FG to describe that pretty well.

On the bias issue: That's a rather difficult one. One is that direct quotes from the embassy, newspapers and so on will by necessity run somewhat longer than summaries, so that may balance the favor a bit. Another to note is that I'm sure that there are publically available articles that try to rebut FG claims, but what I'm afraid of as I think you are too is basically the "Well, the CCP just denies everything" problem. I think the case can be bolstered by arguments like Sam's that the actions are within the laws, describing justifications for the laws, describing the movement he argues has erupted of converted FG people, etc. We may just have to bite the bullet and have people try to as charitably as possible add to the direct quotes about the CCP and just rely on each other to beat back any possible hint of implied criticism. Going into detail with each separate allegation could bolster the article heavily.

" 3a. Like I said before, your opinion is highly welcomed and I did say at the start of my reply it was refreshing to talk to a newcomer. But please forgive me if you find my words too harsh; it's just that I try to put everything under scrutiny, just as I expect my own words here to be subject to it. So whilst some questions may appear testing, rest assured, they are only to ensure that there are no gaps or cause for further argument (as much as humanly possible!) in the future."

No problem. As you can see, I have a penchant for stridency and Socratic interrogation as well :) .

" 3b. ArbCom / content. This is also a problem. ArbCom traditionally refuses to judge on a content dispute, and leaves that to mediators. But to have no ArbCom guidelines is equally useless for a constructive way forward. This is why I've asked them to give guidelines regarding EDITORIAL BEHAVIOR - this way we can preserve the sanctity of the two camps + non-acidic atmosphere."

Sounds fair enough. I think that as we discuss we'll find that agreements here echo at least part of the ArbCom's final decision as well as start to buckle down on content.

" Conc: Once again I don't totally disagree with most of the reply, but note with concern about your opinion. Quite frankly, the FG and the CCP can make their case as strongly as they want to; as you said, we should only report it with as little commentary and interpretation as possible. However, why add that bit at the end about "banning the FG for existing" (you didn't say this, but it's your implication I guess?) since this is clearly not the case? The CCP actually did allow the FG to exist for a while if you look back into the early few years of the existence of FG in China. Anyway, glad to get your input, but as trite as it may sound, your opinion can be aired as much as you want here, but we must try our best to keep it out when writing about the FG article. This goes back to point 1c. - what the majority of Americans, say, think about FG is quite irrelevant. After all, what they know is only what they see and hear, and that is clearly not the full picture. To sum up my approach - take as non-involved a stance as possible. I think you agree with this but I dare not say so for sure."

And during the early years of the Nazis Jews were allowed to exist with escalating harassment, yet few serious individuals doubt the Nazis' intent to destroy them. The fact that the Chinese government let a political non-entity most of them probably never heard of clearly doesn't disprove, well, much of all, especially that NOW the Chinese are at least suppressing if not persecuting the FG.

Who's to say it isn't the full picture? I agree it isn't, but it may be, or it may be incomplete but still right. It's important to note various groups' impression of the FG (of course insofar as it can be substantiated, which probably is very little here). I think most people can agree that the majority of Western coverage has been overwhelmingly pro-FG, which seems to be relevant for a number of reasons I mentioned, especially in making an article that many people will find valuable and informative for what brought them to the site.

That having been said: Yes, I think this is important to note. The article really does need to give a full context. Ideally, someone who reads the article should walk away from it feeling informed about a) what Falun Gong says, b) a sense of what the movement argues is occuring, c) a sense of why the CCP may have proceeded the way it did (trying to make that seem as reasonable as possible), and d) what the furor in the West is about. ArekExcelsior 07:41, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

If anyone is interested, you can discuss FG articles on a private MediationWiki

I still do not feel it is possible to continue mediation during the Arbitration, but since some of you are trying to build a consensus, I would like to offer the private MediationWiki as an option. If it is possible to continue the mediation after the Arbitration, I would like to continue there anyway. If you'd like an account on the MediationWiki, please send me an email, with "Falun Gong" somewhere in the subject. If for some reason you would like a username other than the one you use here, be sure to note that. If email is a problem for you, let me know on my talk page an we'll work something out. Thanks, Armed Blowfish (talk|mail) 01:17, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
Cross-posting elsewhere

OK, very good, let's continue the mediation, but why on Media southportbeekeepers.co.uk? Any reason for that? Less downtime perhaps? --HappyInGeneral 11:44, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

The main idea is to keep mediation "safe", that is prevent it from being used as evidence anywhere. Actually, mediation is not permissible evidence anyway, but it is time-consuming to check to see if anyone accidentally used evidence from mediation, and there is always the risk that I will miss something or an arbitrator will see it first. You can also read WP:M#Why_should_mediation_be_confidential.3F, although I do not believe most of the reasons listed there are relevant to this mediation.

By keeping mediation safe, it might make it a bit easier to actually reach a consensus.

I do not think holding mediation and arbitration simultaneously is likely to work out. However, I noticed that you all have still been trying to build a consensus on certain things, and I hoped this would help. If you all do not like the idea, you can of course continue as you are.

— Armed Blowfish (talk|mail) 04:04, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing out WP:M#Why_should_mediation_be_confidential.3F, now I understand what you mean. I also sent you an email for requesting an account and with an initial proposal on how should we start to work on this pages. Hopefully this will help. --HappyInGeneral 12:34, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

I may not fully understand the advantages/disadvantages, but so far I do not think private mediation will benefit this project, so I would like to gently express my opposition to the proposal. Blowfish, we all appreciate the personal time and effort you are putting into helping us work all these things out. Let's see how the ArbCom results. I think as long as we can just get editors to moderate their behaviour and try to follow the rules a bit more--something not so hard in the first place--then there should not be any problems. That was the whole point behind this ArbCom case in the first place, as far as I understand. This project will go nowhere unless there is a big refocus of our attention and energy into productive editing that accords with wikipedia policies.--Asdfg12345 12:48, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your opinion.  : ) At the moment, I can't think of anything I can do to address your concerns. — Armed Blowfish (talk|mail) 21:45, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

My 2 cents - Good proposal; wrong time. This is an excellent idea, but is not suitable at this stage as we must clear the ArbCom hurdle first, and then there will be a massive debate initially about how to move forward. Maybe after that we can have 'private debates' instead. Jsw663 13:34, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks.  : ) The MedCom agrees that mediation during arbitration is a probably bad idea. However, since people have still be trying to reach consensus on the talk pages, I felt I should at least offer some form of help. Thanks for your opinion, Armed Blowfish (talk|mail) 21:45, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

edit request

{{editprotected}} Please add [[simple:Falun Gong]] to the interwiki. Thanks · Tygrrr^·talk· 22:02, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Done. CMummert · talk 02:07, 6 April 2007 (UTC)