Talk:Nangpa La shooting incident

Old unsorted talk from 2008
I think that this page may be found highly contriversal (especially by anyone sideing with the Chinese), and should be watched closely for vandalism. Politicalnerd08 (talk) 22:48, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

I'd be grateful if someone could complete the timeline and add an image. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Nangpa la (talk • contribs) 12:24, 21 October 2006.

I too would be grateful if someone could somehow post another relevant photo or two, visible on the page; the whole operation with adding photos being too complicated for a non-experienced Wiki user. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by YakWrit (talk • contribs) 22:21, 29 October 2006.

Any photos added need to have the relevant permission from the copyright holder(s). See Wikipedia image use policy: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia%3AImage_use_policy —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 80.249.48.109 (talk • contribs) 10:01, 11 November 2006.


 * Please use this page for requests, discussion. Also see guidelines on using images if you want to add pictures. The following was moved from the main article: —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Nangpa la (talk • contribs) 10:21, 11 November 2006.


 * EDIT November 3: Great shame someone felt the need to REMOVE the video-link to "YouTube". It was especially requested by several exiled Tibetans to make the video available through YouTube as well, seeing how they experienced (technical) problems using the ProTV.ro original. They couldn't watch it. Several of them said so in comments on the ProTV.ro websites, beneath any of the five related webpages there. It may even have been ProTV itself who made the video available for viewing on YouTube. So now that this Wi(c)ki user demonstrated his aversion over YouTube, I kindly invite him to restore the original video-link and put it back in the list with "External Links". —The preceding unsigned comment was added by YakWrit (talk • contribs) 12:12, 3 November 2006.


 * If you can find a legally reproduced version of the video, then feel free to link to it. Sorry you feel persecuted, but this is just some internal housekeeping wikipedia has got to do to keep the website legal. ---J.S (t|c) 02:03, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Comment posted by YakWrit 14:43, 29 November 2006 (UTC), in view of the Nov. 26 "Controversy"-addition to the article. QUOTE Controversy There are some question, which according to experts, are not easily answered for the video.

Cho Oyu pass is a common escape route for fleeing Tibetans, and thus the probablity of a Chinese guard seeing fleeing Tibetans is very high. Therefore, if this incident is real, why has a similar incident not been reported by Tibetans in the past?

The Type 81 Assault Rifle rifles which are utilized by the PAP are automatic weapons with a maximum effective range of 500 metres and with only a moderate accuracy. Based on this, the accuracy at such a long range is unlikely. Why is there one clean shot, followed immediately by a Tibetan falling, then another clean shot, then another Tibetan falling, so on?

If the PAP was at a closer range to the Tibetans, then why did more than half of the refugees manage to survive there survivors? An automatic rifle would be very effective in killing or injuring anyone within the effective firing range.

Even a long-range weapon such as a Dragunov sniper-rifle or a copy thereof does not have such a long range. So, why is the gunshot and the fall at the same time? The Dragunov bullet travels at 830 m/s, while sound travels at 340 m/s (but would have been slightly slower in the cold temperature). The climbers said that they were one kilometer away, which means that there was approximately a three-second delay before they heard the actual gunshot. This would mean that in order for the Tibetans to have been seen falling at the same time as the gunshot, the PAP was 2.49 kilometers away from the Europeans in any direction, which also means that the nearest the PAP could have been was 1.49 kilometers, and this is assuming that the PAP could shoot through the mountain. Such a range is well outside the range of either the Type 81 or the Dragunov.

Lastly, why did the refugees continue at the same pace after the first 'victim' fell? It seems rather improbable that they would not run away from the gunfire. UNQUOTE

Questions/Comments for "BogdanM02"

1. What experts are you referring to? Have these experts (all) gotten in touch with the ICT, HRW, AI and possible other organizations officially investigating these killings? How and where did you learn of such "expert questions" in relation to the video footage?

2. Cho Oyu is not the pass. The pass is Nangpa La.

3. As to probability of seeing refugees: contrary to other groups of Tibetans escaping Tibet, this group trekked in daylight. Reason given for that decision was a.o. the large number of children that belonged to the group of refugees.

4. As to reportings in the past: there are "tons" of such reportings. What's new and what made this incident get media-coverage worldwide, is the fact that this time (western) mountaineers A] spoke out ; B] were able to provide photographs in line with eye-witness statements ; C] were able to provide video footage, again: in line with eye-witness statements.

5. Just exactly where, how, when and why did you learn about the weaponry used by the PAP?

6. As for your other questions under bullet # 2: was this the first time ever in your life, that you saw a video (or film) of a shooting incident filmed by only one cameraman and with only one camera?

7. Re. bullet # 3: please clarify first sentence. Re. 2nd sentence: on the ICT (Save Tibet) website under News, you'll find the page with the many additional photos, including the statement that the weapons fired single shots, not automatic salvos, at the time of the incident.

8. Re. bullet # 4: First part of the paragraph: please see my remarks about the one camera and the one cameraman. Are you familiar with the meaning of the notion "editing" where it comes down to films and videomaterial? Did you ask these questions to the ProTV.ro mediacompany in Romania? Because that's where they'll know who did the editing of the raw material. Re. 2nd part under bullet # 4: there is no such thing ever reported as "The climbers said that they". There are differences among the several eye-witness statements. First and foremost due to the (large) differences in their exact geographical position on Cho Oyu (either in basecamp, in ABC, or even higher up on the slopes of the mountain). Also, they did not all report on the exact same few minutes. Some reported about events later into the incident. And others even managed to confirm that on Sunday October 1, again Tibetan refugees were shot at by the PAP but this time not injuring (or killing) anybody.

9. Re. bullet # 5: A] Tibetan refugees know that if they stop running away, chances are they'll be caught (by the Chinese), imprisoned for many years, and while imprisoned: TORTURED. Possibly the children of this group have been less aware in particular of the TORTURE PRACTISES IN JAIL. That plus their age (less prepared for and decided on an escape-strategy) and smaller legs, may well be responsible for the fact many of the children fell into the hands of the PAP borderpatrol that day (i.e.: were unable to escape). B] Clearly you have very poorly researched the subject before submitting your questions, or you would have been aware of several personal statements by members of this group of refugees of how they were forced to leave the dead bodies behind. I recommend you check the "External Links"-section of the article. And your imo poor research makes your comments about so-called experts who question the video footage even more interesting. What did your "experts" ever truly study about the incident? Only the Chinese claim about self-defence? Please clarify. C] As to "continuing at the same pace": please find yourself a glaciated pass at approx. 19.000 ft altitude and where the snow is chest-high for yaks. And then start running, and report back here how you managed.

Over to you, BogdanM02.

. Posted by YakWrit 20:35, 30 November 2006 (UTC) - Communications with the ICT (Intl. Campaign for Tibet) meanwhile make clear that there is a considerable number of inaccuracies in the information supplied in this Wikipedia-article. The ICT is investigating the Nangpa La shootings of Sept. 30 ever since that news broke. So a number of corrections is expected to follow here soon.


 * EDIT December 14: YakWrit 02:07, 14 December 2006 (UTC) FYI here is a copy of my third comment today on the Wiki-page that tries to deal with "uncertain copyrights". Reason: they threatened to delete the photo in this article, saying "This image has an uncertain copyright status and is pending deletion."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Possibly_unfree_images YakWrit 01:58, 14 December 2006 (UTC) ctd. Dec. 14 - Back to the "disputed" image in the Nangpa La Killings-Wikipage: also I MUST say (checked some files meanwhile) that ever since that page was started (I know extremely well who started it, and when) there has ALWAYS been a clear reference beneath that photo of the soldiers and the Tibetan children in Cho Oyu basecamp about WHO SUPPLIED THE PHOTO: Pavle Kozjek, a mountaineer present in Cho Oyu BC. It was there all the time, that information. So who changed it into A THREAT to delete the image due to an "uncertain copyright status", as the page said untill I edited it? Some Chinese intelligence agent? Some Chinese national who doesn't believe in the plight of the Tibetan people and how they're more than on Sept. 30 only being MASSACRED if they try to flee their country over the Himalayas? Whó is responsible for deceiving Wikipedia-users? Who is trying to play down the Nangpa La massacre? What tools does Wikipedia.org have to determine the political agenda of those who edit and influence articles around here? How can readers as well as contributors AVOID to become the victim of foul play here? Because, as said, copyright-information as to the origin of that particular photo HAS NEVER FAILED HERE, untill someone must have deleted it!

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Possibly_unfree_images"


 * Copyright information is not the same as copyright permission. For an image to be used on Wikipedia, it must be released under the GFDL or GFDL-compatible license.
 * I'm asking for permission following the procedure outlined here: Requesting copyright permission. I'm also the one who added the copyright-uncertain tag, IIRC. Please don't make false assumptions about people's motives. -- ran (talk) 21:39, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

why is the chinese border guard wearing tennis shoes in a snowy mountainous terrain?

Posted by User:jimknock 05:00, 03 May 2008 (UTC)

In the form I found it, this article was heavily slanted to portray the incident from a Chinese POV. The most egregious statement gave a list of people who were simply "missing". There was no mention of the obvious fact that there have been numerous inquiries about each of them and the Chinese have obviously refused to provide any information about the people they rounded up and led away. It is not confusing that since the snow was chest high people were not able to move more quickly when the Chinese opened fire. The children presented the smallest targets and were undoubtedly moving through snow that was over their heads.

The article said that the people were "illegally crossing" or some such nonsense. They were, in fact, leaving China and were fired upon by Chinese guards. This is a boarder crossing that is often used for trade. Usually groups of this kind cross in the dead of winter or at night in order to avoid the guards. This is really China's Berlin Wall.

The article failed to mention that the people were pilgrems going to Darmsala to see the Dalai Lama. The issue of religious freedom or a pilgrimage was not mentioned.

The article said that only one person was killed, another was wounded in the leg and one died in the hospital from a "lack of oxygen". Some observers said they saw seven dead. In fact, many are missing. I think it is reasonable to assume that they were shot at the time, or executed later. The youngest was seven.

I searched for other articles with the keywords of "China" and "Tibet". I found that others had been similarly written or revised to slant everything from the Chinese point of view. So, since I am not an informed student of Tibetan or Chinese history, I wrote to several Tibetan interest groups asking them to review Wikipedia articles and to try to correct the BS found here.

Today I checked an article regarding a different international dispute between Korea and Japan regarding Dukdo island. I found it was politically very nutral and was under some kind of special watch by Wikipedia editors to try to insure political neutrality. It would be nice if similar actions could be taken regarding this and other issues concerning the "face" of China. There is ample evidence that the Chinese government launches campaigns to scrub the web of negative information wherever possible. Unfortunately Wikipedia is uniquely vulnerable to this kind of ruthless misinformation.

Jim

I see Tibetan zealots have taken over this page. We can definitely say 2 people were killed and the rest either arrested or later released (in fact, I definitely recall reading one article about a boy who was beaten on the legs and later released, according to his own testimony). By writing the ludicrous garbage about the "missing, presumed dead," it just shows that people who feel they have a just cause feel they should lie and twist the truth to their own end. Dishonesty is never acceptable. The ends do not justify the means. In fact, what's implied here is a little racist and hateful. Isn't the Tibetan side supposed to be about embracing your fellow humans? Honestly, do you believe that these chinese border guards (or the authorities who took them into custody) killed these 7-14 year old kids? Really? If you do, then you display a level of hatred for them that denies them any humanity.

The Crossing is illegal. BBC "Each year an estimated 2,500 Tibetans make the dangerous and illegal crossing through the Himalayas into India." 199.246.40.54 (talk) 13:38, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

NPOV
this article is biased towards the tibetan side, wikipedia is neutral. but the article was clearly written by a pro-tibet side person Btzkillerv (talk) 10:56, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

See this video clip and decide for yourself what actually happened: < http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mv-FOHeoHXM&feature=channel_page >  —Preceding unsigned comment added by OptionM45 (talk • contribs) 07:17, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

The Nangpa La shootings or Nangpa La massacre was a fictional incident created from a fake China-bashing video widely distributed on the internet sites such as Youtube. It is proven to be a lie after careful examination. This video showed two instances of "dead man" walking in the course of this footage. It was actually the "prostrating pilgrimage" taking place. Both were errors by the editor attempting making a China-bashing video. In the original video, one can clearly see the so called pilgrims who were "shot dead" rose again and walked away. —Preceding unsigned comment added by OptionM45 (talk • contribs) 07:37, 24 April 2009 (UTC)


 * AstroHurricane001, there are actually edits above on the talk page on the subject, even if they could be worded in a more constructive way. Personally, I have no opinion on the inclusion of the new "evidence", as I have not bothered watching it. Please, come with a reason why the link to the video is removed. It must be difficult for OptionM45 to argue for the video, when it is removed again and again without any written motivation.
 * When it comes to the list of names, it seems reasonable to remove it, as the source is questionable and unverifiable. An organisation called "Students For A Free Tibet" is hardly objective. One could consider adding a "source needed" flag, but I doubt anyone can find another list with the same names. Mlewan (talk) 22:22, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

what i'm saying is that it is biased towards the tibetan side, we should make it neutral, stop going off topic. Btzkillerv (talk) 10:56, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Article name change suggestion
I just finished reading Murder in the High Himalaya (2010) by Jonathan Green (journalist) published by PublicAffairs. It is the most complete and reliable account of the incident. Green has spent the past 4 years investigating, interviewing 100s of people and traveling to the locations involved. No one knows more about it than Green. In the book, Green shows only one person was killed, seventeen year old Kelsang Namtso. A few other people were injured, none seriously. Rumors of other people being killed proved false. Obviously the Chinese were trying to kill them all, given how many rounds were fired, and would probably have, except for the distance and poor weapons for sharpshooting. In any event, only one person was killed. Does this merit an article title of "shootings" or "massacre"? These are highly charged and POV given only 1 person died and a few minor injuries. I suggest we rename the article. One suggestion is the Nangpa La shooting incident or even just the Nangpa La incident. Another idea is to focus on Kelsang Namtso, since it really is all about her death. Call it Killing of Kelsang Namtso or Death of Kelsang Namtso or Kelsang Namtso shooting. Other suggestions and thoughts welcome, thanks. Green Cardamom (talk) 06:29, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

(ps. in case anyone notices the connection between Jonathan Green/Green Cardamom - purely coincidental, no relation. I'm also of Caucasian descent, a native of USA, and never traveled east of Europe - I like rice pudding, and have no personal connection to the incident, in case these things matter to anyone.) --Green Cardamom (talk) 06:34, 7 April 2010 (UTC)


 * You wrote that "Rumors of other people being killed proved false." What about the fact that several people are unaccounted for after being arrested by the Chinese police? Where are they? Alive and well? If not, then wouldn't that be tantamount to killing? You even give the same book by Jonathan Green as the reference for people being unaccounted for, if you are the person who entered that reference into the Wikipedia article.
 * Skol fir (talk) 19:08, 8 April 2010 (UTC)


 * There was a very specific rumor circulating among the western climbers that 7 of the detained refugees were shot execution style and thrown into a ditch about 24hrs after the initial incident. This proved to be false, according to Green who investigated it. There was only one person killed at the shooting incident, Kelsang Namtso. As for the rest of the captured refugees ultimate fate, that will probably never be known for sure. However, one of them, Jamyang Tsetan, did eventually find his way out of Tibet, and he has told his story what happened to him, a fate probably similar for the rest of them - he was tortured, put to hard labor, and then let go and sent home since it was his first offense escaping. There is simply no evidence anyone else was killed, other than a lack of evidence, but that is normal in Tibet, where there is a total lack of information about anything in general. Also in Green's book we meet other people who had been captured at the border and eventually let go, with a warning if they are caught a second time they would be killed. Nobody talks in Tibet, just because there is no evidence doesn't mean they are dead - but it doesn't mean they are alive either. Either way, dead or alive, we would expect there to be no information. Only if they escape Tibet would we find out, like Jamyang, and even then, only if they are willing to talk and risk hurting their family back home to repercussion from the Chinese.  Green Cardamom (talk) 19:32, 8 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Thank you for clearing that up. So you agree that of the 18 that were captured, some are missing as far as we know, and they could be alive or dead. All I was saying is that just because that shooting incident involved only one person "succumbing to her fatal injuries," I would venture an educated guess that several others could have been killed indirectly as a result of this particularly brutal attempt by the Chinese to stop this group of Tibetans from reaching sanctuary from their obvious persecution in China.
 * I found a recent summary [26 Feb. 2010] of the events surrounding this one day in Sept., 2006. It is written by Francesca Eldridge of www.mountainz.co.nz. In it she states "The majority of the refugees managed to escape over the pass but some were captured and brought into ABC [Advanced Base Camp] by the soldiers. Around a dozen of those captured were children and they were later released to their families after a period in custody, upon their parents paying a fine. The International Campaign for Tibet, a 20-year-old organisation that reports on China's rule in Tibet, intervenes on behalf of political prisoners and supports Tibetans in exile, later reported that all the refugees over 16 years of age were beaten and tortured with batons and electric-shock prods while in detention." Also "American Luis Benitez was working as head guide on Cho Oyu that season for New Zealand's biggest guiding company, the Wanaka-based Adventure Consultants (AC). [He] was disturbed by rumours among Tibetan staff that another seven refugees had been shot further up the pass, their bodies dumped in crevasses."


 * I would not put it past the Chinese border guards to target more refugees, as they escaped from the actual site of the original shooting incident. Don't forget that "According to eyewitness reports, the shooting went on for at least 15–20 minutes." A lot can happen in that space of time when ruthless guards armed with what appeared to be AK-47 rifles continue shooting at anything that moves. "Witnesses described the guns as AK-47s, but weapons seen were more likely to be Chinese Type 81 Assault Rifles (copies of the AK-47 Kalashnikov, designed for short-range engagements), the principal automatic rifle used by the People's Liberation Army;" (from Tibetan children in Chinese custody after shooting at Nangpa Pass). Also, when night fell, the guards could have easily disposed of the bodies, and no one would know of their whereabouts.
 * I just think that this whole situation was an atrocity because these people were leaving a country that was not treating them with dignity or respecting their culture. They deserved to be free from oppression, just as the citizens of former E. Germany deserved a better fate, before the Berlin wall fell in 1989. They had to choose between death and a miserable life. That only shows the true face of the dictatorial apparatchiks who still reign over 1.3 billion people, and deny a small group of 2.6 million ethnic Tibetans within China their basic human rights. It is atrocious, and China should not be allowed to get away with it.


 * As Marcellus says in Hamlet, " Something is rotten in the state of Denmark."
 * Skol fir (talk) 02:44, 9 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Your welcome to make educated guesses on what happened, but also tell the truth what happened, and don't get the two confused :) Green Cardamom (talk) 03:32, 9 April 2010 (UTC)


 * If you read this Norwegian's eyewitness account, it seems like my educated guess was not so far off after all.


 * When Chinese border guards shot and killed a nun on her way to the land of Dalai Lama, Geir Lysfjord, aged 59, saw the whole incident from nearby. Together with the mountaineer Jan Arve Andresen, the Norwegian was a witness to the bloody drama that unfolded on 30 September this year [2006].
 * A few hours after the shooting that left dead bodies on the glacier, 25 Chinese soldiers entered the base camp armed with automatic weapons, says Lysfjord.
 * The following day they returned, this time with ten Chinese police officers.
 * They went out to the dead bodies on the glacier. As far as I could see they tried to bury the bodies, but they failed, says Lysfjord to TV 2 News.
 * The next day the bodies were removed. At the same time the base camp was searched in pursuit of more refugees.


 * What surprises me is that the author of the book Murder in the High Himalaya did not bother to check with the Norwegians.
 * I remain skeptical about any persons who wish to downplay a clear breach of international law.
 * Skol fir (talk) 07:28, 9 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Green probably did check with the Norwegians. Green spent 4 years investigating and 100s of interviews. There were a lot of rumors passing around soon after the indent, those early accounts are not reliable individually, they have to be looked at as a whole and weighed for their reliability - you can't accept one account while ignoring another that is contradictory. Most people reported one dead. The Norwegian account can be easily explained because there were "bodies" on the glacier, but the others were injured. The burying thing makes no sense - the Chinese tend to go to great lengths to retrieve bodies in other incidents, and how can you bury a body in frozen rocky glacier ground, in full view of dozens of western climbers, as if they want to hide the evidence? And don't forget, Jamyang Tsetan, who was captured that day, and later escaped to India, did not see anyone else killed. The 20 some refugees who escaped that day did not report anyone else killed. No one is trying to "downplay" anything, just trying to arrive at the truth. If you try to "up-play" it, you actually harm the cause and come across as an unreliable shrill activist and the whole incident becomes mired in he-said/she-said and people don't like that kind of thing and ignore it. Green Cardamom (talk) 15:17, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Category of Popular Culture
Green Cardamom, at "allwords.com" the definition of "popular culture" is given as "the prevailing vernacular culture in any given society, including art, cooking, clothing, entertainment, mass media, music and style." These two items that you included in that section don't really fit that definition, since I do not think that either of these accounts of the Nangpa-La incident are currently "popular." They might be in the future, depending on how much exposure they get, and how many people care to view/read them. Merely belonging to a category of art, mass media, book publishing, etc., does not make something popular. This topic of the potential abuse of human rights in Tibet may get the attention of the masses only when it makes prime-time news.

I don't think that the majority of people make a conscious effort to educate themselves about specific issues through reading books or going to local film screenings for limited-release documentaries. Notice that the documentary was made by a partnership between the BBC (limited to Great Britain viewers for television) and an Australian company. This does not mean that mainstream America is viewing it. In this regard, another definition of "popular culture" is "frequently encountered or widely accepted; commonly liked or approved."

I would rather see these two items listed under "Further reading and viewing," as you already created a section for "Further Reading," which has now become partly redundant. Let's not prejudge whether these items are popular, because they may well not be! Skol fir (talk) 23:02, 17 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I understand what your saying. It's standard procedure on Wikipedia to have a "Popular culture" section for books, films, etc.. See for example WikiProject_Popular_Culture and Popular_culture. It's pretty standard if you look around at other articles. See Kargil War for example. If you want to rename the section to "Depictions in the arts" or something like that, it's be OK with me, I know the term popular culture causes some problems. Green Cardamom (talk) 00:31, 18 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I'd like to see it as a distinct section because they are major films and books solely about the incident and we need a place to discuss them on Wikipedia. It's written in prose form and can be expanded upon with more details. They can also be listed in the further reading section, but it's normal to also have a section that also discusses them - ie. who directed, produced, expanding on the content or special information, etc.. this really is normal procedure in Wikipedia articles. Green Cardamom (talk) 00:37, 18 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I suggest a new heading for this section, "Portrayal in the arts", as the word "depict" is in first order a term specifically used in the Fine Arts/Visual Arts—it derives from the Latin depingere, depict- : de- + pingere, to picture—while "portray" has broader connotations. How about that? Skol fir (talk) 14:39, 18 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Sounds good. Green Cardamom (talk) 15:21, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Shot in BBC Video appears same Moment as shot person falls down
I just got a simple question on whole report of BBC. I saw it, and i recognized that the shot in the report appears the same moment,when the tibetan falls down. I really don/t know from which distance the cameraman is filming, but i think it must be about 2000 metres, and as much as i know, the sound needs 6 seconds on that distance to appear. So how can the sound of the shot be heard same moment ,when the shot tibetan falls down. Must there not been a time difference of 6 seconds, and why is there no 6 seconds in original video? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.119.32.77 (talk) 19:14, 20 May 2012 (UTC)


 * The BBC didn't film it. Pro TV did.  Ask them, not here, it's not a forum.  Or alternatively, try READING the rest of this talk page where it's already been referred to.  Seems most likely it was edited to save on broadcast time, as all footage is when used by news agencies. 62.255.248.225 (talk) 09:32, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Recent Changes
In 2008 I watched a movie, I think it was "The Cup". An episode in the movie involved religious people being smuggled from Tibet to refuge in India. Using Google maps, I tried to find how and where they had crossed the Himalayas. In my search I stumbled into this article.

The article had obviously been propagandized by Chinese agents. Every aspect of the outrageous incident had been reduced to drivel. I essentially rewrote it. Some people jumped on me, but most of the changes stood the test of time and critical Wikipedia review. It was very gratifying.

In the last few days I noticed things about Chinese hacking of the New York Times and the Wall Street Journal. I remembered the changes I had made, and the fact that around the time I made the Wikipedia changes, my desktop had been infected by an unknown virus. At the time, I saw no connection. I used every virus removal tool I could find to get rid of the virus. Nothing worked. Eventually I dug into the details of how the virus worked and removed it myself. It was very educational.

Today I saw the connection and decided to see how this article had transformed over the years. I had an idea that if the article was offensive to Chinese "internet sanitizers", they would have persisted in trying to modify the article to cover the "face" of China. I was right. There were essentially two contributors who worked energetically to change the article to be less critical of China. They were successful.

I have revised details to make them somewhat more neutral. I could not resist the temptation to make some of the changes provoking.

I love China. But much more than that, I love transparency and honesty. If they want to hack my system again, let them try. Jimknock (talk) 01:20, 2 February 2013 (UTC)jimknock


 * Lol, I am not a "Chinese censor" and the odds the Chinese took the time to hack your personal computer system because of your Wikipedia edit activities is an unlikely story - people get infected with computer virus all the time is the simple explanation. You said "I could not resist the temptation to make some of the changes provoking." What you're actually doing is making WP:POV edits for the purpose of provoking a fight, please stop it. Wake up from the fantasy world and try to make edits that are WP:NPOV and can be sourced to reliable sources. BTW I went back and looked at the version of the article you said you wrote . Not only is it completely unsourced, it contains numerous outright factual errors, most notably saying multiple people were shot and killed - in fact there was only one. This article still suffers from a lot of problems but it has come a long way since, please don't regress by introducing unsourced POV. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 06:23, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Copy edit
This article needs copy-editing. The grammar and wording are awkward. I tried to do a bit, but it is not my forte. --Voidvector (talk) 18:01, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Improve References
I came here to do some copy-editing and removed the copy edit tag from the article. However, there are a number of facts in the article that are not properly referenced. During my copyediting, I preserved the information that was in the article. But I lack expertise on what actually occurred. Adding more citations would increase clarity here.Magic1million (talk) 07:37, 13 November 2017 (UTC)