Misplaced Pages

15 July 2009

• curprev 10:5710:57, 15 July 2009 Olaf Stephanos talk contribs 64,881 bytes −48 'Spiritual discipline' is preferred over 'religion'; as a term, it's the lowest common denominator that everybody can agree upon. The 'illegality' of FLG is discussed in the fourth paragraph.

14 July 2009

• curprev 23:4923:49, 14 July 2009 Simonm223 talk contribs 64,929 bytes +41 No edit summary
• curprev 21:3121:31, 14 July 2009 129.174.113.29 talk 64,888 bytes +7 No edit summary

10 July 2009

• curprev 21:5521:55, 10 July 2009 Asdfg12345 talk contribs 64,881 bytes −1 →History: moving to a more neutral location, sheesh.
• curprev 21:4521:45, 10 July 2009 Asdfg12345 talk contribs 64,882 bytes −5 →Reception: swapping order. im concerned this kohn quote is a little too positive though, it seems unwarranted?
• curprev 21:4221:42, 10 July 2009 Asdfg12345 talk contribs 64,887 bytes +551 →Reception: i've looked at this source again. the removal was a mistake on peredman's part. See just the conclusion of the article
• curprev 12:2012:20, 10 July 2009 Simonm223 talk contribs 64,336 bytes +22 Several users have brought up repeated POV concerns on the talk page. I understand that you disagree but that does not change the fact that there is a legitimate concern. Please leave up.
• curprev 00:3800:38, 10 July 2009 Asdfg12345 talk contribs 64,314 bytes −22 pls come up with some realistic ideas; drive-by tagging is rather ill-advised at wiki. the talk page is the best channel right now

8 July 2009

• curprev 22:5022:50, 8 July 2009 Asdfg12345 talk contribs m 64,336 bytes −1 →Beliefs and teachings
• curprev 22:4422:44, 8 July 2009 Asdfg12345 talk contribs 64,337 bytes −46 →Academic attention: academic attention isn't what a subsection shoudl be called, it should be theme based, not source based.
• curprev 06:3406:34, 8 July 2009 Olaf Stephanos talk contribs m 64,383 bytes −8 →Academic attention: removing a duplicate word

6 July 2009

• curprev 21:3721:37, 6 July 2009 SmackBot talk contribs m 64,391 bytes +15 Date maintenance tags and general fixes
• curprev 19:2319:23, 6 July 2009 Simonm223 talk contribs 64,376 bytes +9 see comments on discussion page for reason this is NPOV do not remove tag
• curprev 18:4218:42, 6 July 2009 HappyInGeneral talk contribs 64,367 bytes −10 Undid revision 300636917 You did not name it on the talk page, before inserting this flag please have a reson for it.
• curprev 18:0218:02, 6 July 2009 Simonm223 talk contribs 64,377 bytes +10 There are serious npov issues with all the FLG articles. This tag is well deserved.
• curprev 09:4409:44, 6 July 2009 HappyInGeneral talk contribs 64,367 bytes −10 There is a difference between I don't like something and I feel that there is a problem and so I slap on a tag, and between the actionable items on the talk page (see Talk:Falun_Gong#NPOV )
• curprev 05:3105:31, 6 July 2009 Colipon talk contribs 64,377 bytes +10 I wrote an entire paragraph about this on the talk page. And I was afraid it would get removed. and it ''did'' get removed.
• curprev 02:4602:46, 6 July 2009 Asdfg12345 talk contribs 64,367 bytes −23 I'm saying that the tag needs an explanation. if the article has a problem we should identify and fix it. pls take it to talk. there are policies on this. tags aren't for slapping on and leaving
• curprev 02:2602:26, 6 July 2009 72.80.202.253 talk 64,390 bytes +23 Put back the NPOV tag. Are you really going to claim that the neutrality of this article isn't disputed? Look for ten seconds at the talk page.

5 July 2009

• curprev 20:3020:30, 5 July 2009 Asdfg12345 talk contribs 64,367 bytes −23 tag is unjustified

4 July 2009

• curprev 23:0423:04, 4 July 2009 SmackBot talk contribs m 64,390 bytes −723 Date maintenance tags and general fixes
• curprev 20:5520:55, 4 July 2009 Colipon talk contribs m 65,113 bytes +8 No edit summary

3 July 2009

• curprev 21:3221:32, 3 July 2009 Dilip rajeev talk contribs 65,105 bytes −262 →Academic attention: Rick Ross not being a valid source here has been established several times on talk. Please refer to talk discussions.
• curprev 21:0021:00, 3 July 2009 81.84.240.140 talk 65,367 bytes +4 Spelling and grammar.

2 July 2009

• curprev 17:5817:58, 2 July 2009 Dilip rajeev talk contribs 65,363 bytes −307 Academic sources ought to b given much higher priority according to wikipedia - esp on academic topics like these. His opinion conflicts with mainstream scholarship and is not supported by any study
• curprev 17:5117:51, 2 July 2009 Dilip rajeev talk contribs 65,670 bytes +270 You are deleting a lot critical info - regarding the persecution from teh Lead - It is not KM alone who has published reprots on this. And there is no namedropping involved here.
• curprev 17:3617:36, 2 July 2009 PerEdman talk contribs 65,400 bytes −270 Dilip, Kilgour and Matas found the evidence. See my edit of "Live organ harvesting allegations" as well. No bias, just WP:V.
• curprev 17:3117:31, 2 July 2009 PerEdman talk contribs 65,670 bytes +307 Cunningham's OP piece is valid; see WP:SOURCE and talk page. I apologize for not adding to Talk on this subject before.
• curprev 17:2317:23, 2 July 2009 Dilip rajeev talk contribs m 65,363 bytes −1 I still consider this lead inferior to the previous. But I think I should wait until other editors pass a judgement on the issue.
• curprev 17:2117:21, 2 July 2009 PerEdman talk contribs 65,364 bytes +262 Undid revision 299919869 by Dilip rajeev (talk) Accusations of criminal behavior is illegitimate. This is already on talk.
• curprev 17:2117:21, 2 July 2009 Dilip rajeev talk contribs 65,102 bytes +274 It is not one report but several independent reports See article. It is innaccurate and biased to claim "one report found evidence of organ harvesting" .
• curprev 17:1817:18, 2 July 2009 Dilip rajeev talk contribs 64,828 bytes −262 Ex- Criminal Rick Ross, it has been established several times on talk discussions, in not a quality source in this context. If you must add this stuff in please get consensus from other editors.
• curprev 17:1617:16, 2 July 2009 Dilip rajeev talk contribs 65,090 bytes −307 I had raised the issue of Cunningham on talk and had received no response there. Please see talk.
• curprev 17:1217:12, 2 July 2009 Dilip rajeev talk contribs 65,397 bytes −14 this has been discussed before - no need to claim "controversial" in lead
• curprev 17:0717:07, 2 July 2009 PerEdman talk contribs 65,411 bytes +66 →Live organ harvesting allegations: Please see WP:SYNTHESIS regarding why I removed the claim that Kilgour & Matas was "corroborated" by Allison, when in fact, Allison ''references'' K&M.
• curprev 16:5016:50, 2 July 2009 PerEdman talk contribs 65,345 bytes −58 Remade Matas/Kilgour section. I feel we are giving some WP:Undue here, but allegation is serious enough. Deleted namedropping.
• curprev 15:4315:43, 2 July 2009 PerEdman talk contribs 65,403 bytes −549 Removing Edelman/Richardson for reasons explained in detail on the talk page, heading "Richardson/Edelman". Please take discussion there before editing.
• curprev 15:2715:27, 2 July 2009 PerEdman talk contribs 65,952 bytes +307 Cunningham's article is WP:RS, published in reliable 3rd party. For any valid criticism, please go to Talk page before reverting again.
• curprev 15:2415:24, 2 July 2009 PerEdman talk contribs 65,645 bytes +442 Undid revision 299801370 by Dilip rajeev (talk) See talk heading "PerEdman's New, shorter lede".
• curprev 15:1315:13, 2 July 2009 PerEdman talk contribs 65,203 bytes +263 Adding Rick Ross source back in, please see talk page under "Rick Ross..." heading for further details before reverting this change.
• curprev 01:0601:06, 2 July 2009 Dilip rajeev talk contribs 64,940 bytes −1,297 Am restoring the old lede - seems a lot more balanced and comprehensive. Touches upon all major aspects while refraining from getting into minutae. This was done over a period ot time. Discuss changes
• curprev 01:0201:02, 2 July 2009 Dilip rajeev talk contribs 66,237 bytes −1 No edit summary
• curprev 01:0201:02, 2 July 2009 Dilip rajeev talk contribs 66,238 bytes +856 This paragraph, recently removed, is central material. Please discuss such changes on talk before making them.
• curprev 01:0001:00, 2 July 2009 Dilip rajeev talk contribs 65,382 bytes −26 Rick Ross - is not a RS for an ENCYCLOPAEDIA. Not from any perspective. Also we cannot indescriminately every book review(discsd on talk)- esp material directly conflicting with scholarship(wp:undue)
• curprev 00:5300:53, 2 July 2009 Dilip rajeev talk contribs 65,408 bytes −5 There is a specific wikipedia policy against having "criticism" sections Academic perspective encompass it all.
• curprev 00:0800:08, 2 July 2009 PerEdman talk contribs m 65,413 bytes 0 Small typo.
• curprev 00:0700:07, 2 July 2009 PerEdman talk contribs 65,413 bytes −816 Shortening lede drastically. Names of referents not required in lede, it is enough that the claims are well sourced. If you disagree, just Talk or add it back in. :)

1 July 2009

• curprev 23:4523:45, 1 July 2009 PerEdman talk contribs 66,229 bytes −634 Removing unsourced claim, quote. Edelman/Richardson article quoted is about PRCs adoption of ACM terminology. The quote was definately taken out of context, which is worrysome for a non-URL link.
• curprev 23:3723:37, 1 July 2009 PerEdman talk contribs 66,863 bytes +354 Dilip rajeev, regardless of your agreeing, follow the guidelines. Ross is a non-academic authority on "the subject at hand" as per WP:RS. Read also about opinion pieces.
• curprev 23:2323:23, 1 July 2009 PerEdman talk contribs 66,509 bytes +311 Dilip, Cunningham's "book review" is still scholarly attention, JapanTimes is a reliable, third-party, published source. Heading "Academic attention" is very non-wiki; should be "Criticism".