Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Falun Gong/1
Falun Gong edit
- Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • • Most recent review
- Result: Delisted per neutrality concerns, and there have been no "keep" votes after three months Snuggums (talk / edits) 21:14, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
Looking at the user contributions of the GA reviewer, this is a very dubious GA review. I am uncomfortable with starting an individual assessment for this highly controversial article, so I am seeking community input for this. sstflyer 17:19, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
For such a lengthy article covering a multinational organization with millions of practitioners, there is actually NO controversy section, plus next to zero negative content. Such thing is almost unthinkable, considering the wiki page for most mainstream religions, big corporations and NGOs all have a section for controversies or criticisms.
IMO, the article, in its current form, fails to present the opposite sides of the story, which are easily dismissed because they are easily suspicious of propaganda of Chinese government. Looking at the edit history, aside from incidents of vandalism nature, there were multiple rejected attempts of adding Falun Gong related controversy to the article, from well reputed sources such as Britannica (3rd but good rep).
See Talk:Falun Gong for an expanded version of my POV, TLDR: censorship goes both ways, it impairs the validity of reporting or research on the matter, not just anti-FLG side, but also pro-FLG side.
Disclaimer: I will admit I am biased due to my personal experience with them. My mother and lots of neighbours were partitioners, and I have read FLG materials and its claims myself before the prosecution. Zebrasandrobots (talk) 16:32, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
- There was once a controversy section, but its contents were ultimately just integrated into the body of the article in relevant sections.TheBlueCanoe 20:44, 21 December 2015 (UTC)