Talk:Tiananmen Square self-immolation incident/Archive 2

GA status?

 * does anyone think we should submit this article for featured or GA status? How far off is it? I don't like a lot of the stuff in here, but it seems to be clearly written and frankly addresses the different claims. I am thinking that there could be more reshuffling of some sections, but as it is I don't know if it's so bad. Ideas? Hmm.. I also think that if all involved editors thought about the article in terms of 'how to make it get to featured status', rather than how to present a particular view, I think we'd edit more harmoniously together. I just thought of this. Okay, that might be tricky but it would be better. Anyway, featured or not?--Asdfg12345 12:33, 16 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Good idea! I have requested a peer review as a first step. Ohconfucius 01:31, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Two things should really be added. One is the template.  Which I can manage.  The other is that according to the false fire video the immolator was sitting with a wrong stance. Apparently practitioners are supposed to use half or full-lotus sitting stance.  Benjwong 03:40, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
 * He's probably wearing too much protective clothing to be able to adopt a full Lotus position. Haha! Ohconfucius 04:06, 17 September 2007 (UTC)


 * good first step in terms of peer review. In terms of bens comment, there is actually a huge amount more material from falun Gong that could be added. In a WOIPFG report they say that the CCP got different people to play Wang Jindong, and they provide a series of photos, some commentary, and claim some kind of voice testing analysis. About Liu Chunling there is a very important piece of information missing, which is the .gif of her being slugged over the head by a man in a miliatary uniform. This is common fare on all falun gong material on the subject. It is claimed that she died from that hit to the head rather than the burns. So those two pieces of information could also be added. We may also need to figure out some way of making distinctions between secondary analysis and either Falun Gong/Xinhua originated material, or somehow identifying very transparently who, precisely, is making what claims--perhaps with the use of colours and/or boxes. Let's see how it goes. Peer review may be a first good step.--Asdfg12345 03:47, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Ok I see you got some photos. Benjwong 20:26, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Cult suicide
I do not think User:Curt Wilhelm VonSavage was applying any value judgement on FG. The Tiananmen self-immo is listed as a possible/questionable "cult suicide", defined in the widest possible way, and the template he inserted appears to merely regroup the different 'cults' and the occasion of suicide attempts already listed in that article. I believe the tag actually has a vocation here. Whether you think the Tiananmenself-immo should be included is another debate better held on the talk page of the other place, but it seems that neither asdfg nor Dilip rajeev have challenged that inclusion. Ohconfucius 16:40, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't mind people calling FG a cult in the article. They are entitled their opinions.  What I do mind is a template passing around all the events and groups together.  All the Communist Party of China has to do is label any group they don't like.... a "cult", and they are practically in the same class as Heavens Gate, Branch Davidians via some template.  The template just legitimizes party opinions even if it is in the "questionable" row. Benjwong 17:22, 13 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Sorry, but that template is fucked. It is completely out of order here. We can discuss it further if necessary; I don't mean to use language negatively. I hope this will not become an issue. --Asdfg12345 03:09, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't mind it being included on THAT page, as a questionable cult suicide, since that is what the CCP alleges--but it is one step too far to have that template here.--Asdfg12345 03:10, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Yep I too am entirely against the template on this page. All the Communist party has to do is beat up an oppressed group and light them on fire.  And they are an official cult.  The template makes too much of a statement. Can't have it here. Benjwong 05:19, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I won't revert for the moment, but want it on the record that I oppose. The argument to remove the template holds no water, from what I can see. It is a totally ambiguous position: If you oppose its inclusion in the cult suicide article, and argue successfully (ie establish a consensus) to have it excluded from that page, then fine, there should be no template to link them. However, if you do not, and it appears there is a consensus to keep, the template should stay. It quite clearly lists the incident as a 'questionable cult suicide, so what is the issue? Why is it "one step too far"? Ohconfucius 03:05, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

The problem is not the word "questionable", but the word "cult". The template practically gives the CCP all the rights to kill and brand their oppositions as cults if you know what I mean. I am almost certain I can't convince that other page to call it a suicide template instead of a cult template. So the least we can do is get rid of it here. The equivalent would be like creating a template "people persecuted under CCP" and say "questionable". It carries too much POV. Benjwong 05:22, 15 October 2007 (UTC)


 * The template does not give the CCP all the right to do anything of the sort that you mention - it is territorial and internatational law which may (or may not) do that. You state it's a matter of interpretation of WP:NPOV, and you are quite right. However, I contend that my argument still applies: if you contest as you do, that FG is not a cult, then, logically, you ought to contest the reference to the Tiananmen self-immo as a cult suicide, questionable or otherwise. However, that does not appear to be in contention, which is why I have a problem with your opposition to including the template. Also, we have a consensus, which appears to be ignored here. Ohconfucius 06:22, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

That's an amusing comment, below. Actually, I just read several Evelyn Waugh novels, and I feel deeply that sarcasm is not the answer. Besides that, if there are some strident feelings maybe that page could be linked. I just think it's disgusting to have the template here; the communist party actually got some people, one evidently mentally unstable, to burn themselves so they could ramp up the persecution--and a child and a mother died in the process. Two of those are possible direct murders by the CCP... it's such a disgusting situation. To the extent that people can then see how vile the persecution of Falun Gong is, then it serves that purpose. I'd be happy to get it off the other page though. Is there a page for "Historical methods of minority vilification" or something--otherwise wouldn't it be better if it were deleted of that page too, is anyone against that? --Asdfg12345 11:08, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
 * The template is sending out all the wrong message for a historical article. Is about as legit as someone making a religion-sacrificial template with the First crusade, Second crusade, and the Tiananmen Square self-immolation incident.  Benjwong 18:15, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
 * The problem is that you both strongly believe that it was staged by the CCP, but the world has some doubt and is yet to share that view. As you both feel so strongly that there should be no link, I would suggest that you either amended the cult suicide template or took that template to TfD. That way, we could at least establish a consensus of sorts on the position as far as wikipedia is concerned. Personally, I don't think you'll get very far. In the meantime, the template should stay on this page. Ohconfucius 00:55, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

People are entitled their opinions based on their own research. I am not remotely going to try to go establish some kind of consensus across multiple pages. If people want to list FG as a cult, fine. If they want to list FG as a religious group, fine. If they want to list them as qiqong group, that's fine too. What is not fine is giving them a label in a historical article. Trying to come to a single consensus is not possible for something this controversial. Benjwong 05:23, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Reasoning of placement

 * Actually, I was merely following the established format of the other article at Cult suicide. But please do continue your conversation here - it looks like you are all making some headway with your discussion, above.  Curt Wilhelm VonSavage 10:31, 15 October 2007 (UTC).

Are Chinese this stupid?
So the self-immolators are CCP agents? Which Chinese is stupid enough to burn themselves and their children to death because the CCP told them to?--PCPP 07:32, 12 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I think anyone sincerely examining the evidence available, historically and contemporarily, about the history of the CCP, its persecution of Falun Gong, the peaceful nature of Falun Gong, etc., and the circumstances surrounding this particular incident, will come to the conclusion that the CCP had a hand in it, or orchestrated the whole thing. If you don't care to take such a considered approach, then who can help you?--Asdfg12345 08:24, 12 November 2007 (UTC)


 * If anyone sincerely examine all evidence, they can clearly see that this issue is still disputed. "History", "peaceful nature", and video "analysis" done by the FLG are all but circumstantial evidence, the same type of circumstantial evidence conspiracy theorists use to dispute the validity of the moon landings or the 9/11 attacks. One cannot reach any sort of definitive conclusions with these "evidence". I am sorry that you have been so twisted by your blind faith that you cannot see this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.97.219.94 (talk) 08:10, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Shouldn't really say the people are stupid. They have been neglected food, information and culture. Just look at the party history between 1950s to 1970s, and you wonder why the picture of Mao is still hanging at Tiananmen gate. I for one, actually liked what Jiang Zemin tried to do to help the economy and give the guy credit. But this event once again proves small events are constantly mishandled and turned into big problems. Or in this case big controversy. Benjwong 17:42, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
 * China is a huge country just coming out from under Maoism. Great inequities remain or are being created, but its leaders are a bunch of control freaks who just can't let go. I also believe use of the word "stupid" was inappropriate, but I'm not American, so I don't find "stupidity" such a great insult. People may do things for their own reasons. Usually, only people in desperation or with firm principles would do such a thing. Although I believe there is quite a lot of Reasonable Doubt about the true allegiances of the victims, I don't discount the possibility that the CCP has infinite ways of "motivating"people" Ohconfucius 04:07, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Remember the Buddhist monks who burnt themselves to death in 1960's South Vietnam in protesting against the government's crackdown? Hardly anyone in their right minds would call these people "agents of Diem"--PCPP (talk) 04:09, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Citation 31
Can somebody fix citation 31, the reference name is gittings which is defined, but I don't know why is it not rendering ... --HappyInGeneral (talk) 09:49, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Fixed it. Benjwong (talk) 17:31, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Thank You, although I'm still not sure why the ref by name does not work ... anyway good job :) --HappyInGeneral (talk) 20:06, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

sources ...
From RickRoss: http://www.rickross.com/reference/fa_lun_gong/falun261.html

"'I think Falun Gong has developed into a cult with anti-human and anti-society characteristics,' said Chen, a former music student from Kaifeng in the central province of Henan."

This does not make any sense to me. If this guy would have really been so devoted to Falun Gong that he set himself on fire to show his will, although he was not even asked to do this, then how is it that after he does the damage, he is the one who is calling Falun Gong a cult? ... Now really how much sense does this make? Isn't this like X calls himself citizen of Poland then goes shoot somebody in Germany, then Germany starts a war with Poland?

Anyway I guess the source is valid from WP:Attribution point of view, it is posted, it is somewhat third party, although I would call it copy/paste directly from the Chinese Communist propaganda, so I will not go in and remove it, but sorry, for me it just does not make any sense ... or to put it in another way it does show how that some of the sources are highly biased and base their story on lies.

This would be rather a problem for the neutrality of the article, since most of it is constructed on sources like this. --HappyInGeneral (talk) 13:02, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
 * The other twist of the event is setting fire to her own 12 year old daughter, it's quite an emotional cocktail, but ... come on, no way ... this school teaches compassion too.
 * And ok, I'll stop here because wp:soap. --HappyInGeneral (talk) 13:15, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

I have deep concerns regarding the way material is presented here. Any rational mind watching the video 'False Fire' can make out that the event was a staged one. It is clear the people are wearing fire resistant clothing and that a person is unmistakiably being buldgeoned on the head before he/she falls. Again the Time article which appeared at the height of propoganda by the CCP is repeated used as a "source" without providing any background to that effect. Also in the teachings it is repeatedly said that one must only used one's buddha nature - kindness, uprighteousness, wisdom, benevolence etc.. when letting others know about the persecution. Why is a particular sentence from an article being put completely out of context as if it implies use of violence? All teachings without exception urge practitioners to cultivate inward and to not bear any hatred or resentment towards anyone. There are countless articles written by practitioners on clearwisdom.net and all talk about cultivating compassion even to those who hurt us - pactitioners all believe in enduring personal suffering without any bitterness. And there have been many articles both by journalists and scholars that point out repeated use of such propoganda tactics by the CCP. We absolutely should not present material without the appropriate background - that is very likely to mislead the uninformed reader. Dilip Rajeev

116.68.66.174 (talk) 10:57, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

I think we must look into sources such as The Washington Post, National Review,Media Channel, Amnesty International, Reporters without Borders,etc for providing factual background to this article. When quoting sources such as 'rick ross' we must try our best to protect ourselves from the mistake of repeating propaganda statements without background. It may even sound legitimate and factual to an un-informed reader. Dilip Rajeev 116.68.66.174 (talk) 11:09, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

GA Review
I've started to look over the article, and overall it is very good. At the moment I don't have time for a full review, but there are a few things worth mentioning right off the bat. I only got about halfway through the article, so this only covers that portion of the text. I'll try and finish up in a day or two when I get some more time. As I said, overall it is very good - all of the issues I've mentioned above are fairly minor, except for the copyright statuses of the images. I can't stress that one enough. Anyways, I'll add any more notes when I can. Drewcifer 11:07, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Many of the images seem to be under questionable copyright status. This needs to be completely cleared up before GA status can be granted.
 * Explain what Xinhau is in lead.
 * Explain who Li Hongzhi is when he is first mentioned.
 * In the background section, in the second to last paragraph, about halfway through it says "However, the public changed from sympathising with Falun Gong to siding with the Government after the event..." After the immolation incident? Why is this in the background section? moved
 * This sentence is awkward: "The burn victims then underwent long treatment in hospital."
 * There is no source cited for the outcome of the victims.
 * Wikilink any full dates. For example: January 1, 2007  R udget talk 17:23, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
 * A few of the quotes give a POV slant to the article. Whenever possible cite the source of the opinion, unless a direct fact is being explained in the quote.  A few examples:
 * "The six-month campaign successfully portrayed Falun Gong as an "evil cult" which could unhinge its followers." By whose standards was it successful?
 * "reminiscent of communist political movements -- from the 1950-53 Korean War to the radical Cultural Revolution in the 1960s." Says who?
 * Citation #26 needs to be cleared up.
 * The citations go back and forth between first name, last name and the reverse. Choose one and stick with it.
 * I believe that articles with chinese writing in them typically have a disclaimer at the top of the article mentioning the chinese characters.
 * In general, there is a slight POV issue in favor of the Falun Gong. The article does a very good job of sticking to the facts, but there's a few cases where it seems as if the prose makes up the reader's mind about how to feel about it all.  For example:
 * "incited by propaganda in the form of human interest stories and accounts of so-called rehabilitation efforts of former practitioners." The use of the words "propaganda" and "so-called" kind of bother me here.
 * Thanks for your input so far. I have made the changes as you suggested, except for the dates. WP:MOS states that "Wikipedia has articles on days of the year, years, decades, centuries and millennia. Link to one of these pages only if it is likely to deepen readers' understanding of a topic." The line I take is that linking to date or year pages is overwikification. I feel this generally gets in the way of understanding of a given topic, so I almost never link. We have perhaps been too zealous in simplifying the phrases so that a phrase may appear to be unattributed or weasel, but it was felt that some could be removed when the phrase is immediately followed by a footnote. Anyway, I have put them in where you thought they were required. Looking forward to more critical comments from you. Cheers! Ohconfucius 06:05, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I added non-free/fair use rational to the image: [[Image:Selfimmowflag.jpg#Summary]] --HappyInGeneral 09:18, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Xinhua is already described as a news agency? Is that not good enough? There also seems to be plenty of sources citing the outcome of the victims. Benjwong 17:55, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I believe many of the issues I raised above have since been cleared up, including the two that you mentioned. Ideally, if anyone clears up the issues above, try and strike through the ones that have been addressed, to avoid confusion.Drewcifer 00:17, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

I read through the rest of the article, and here are the rest of my suggestions:

Hopefully all of the above doesn't seem like too much work. When you feel you have adequately addressed those points, please feel free to drop me a line on my talk page. Also, it benefit everyone involved to strike through points as they are addressed. I've put the article on hold, so you have something like 7-10 days to clear things up. Good luck! Drewcifer 00:17, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
 * What is WOIPFG? Please explain the first time it is mentioned.
 * The victims section kind of goes back and forth between present tense and past tense. In general, I think past tense is more appropriate.  The main examples of odd present tenses I found: "Time suggests that this is a "lack of solidarity" is contributing", "The Guardian comments that", "A New York Times article states that", and "It also notes".
 * Is "...to make a big event to show our will to the world." “We wanted to show..." the same quote/from the same source? Why is it split into two quotations? now unified
 * There is a Fact tag in the Liu Chunling section that needs to be cleared up.
 * In the same section, the last sentence kind of comes out of nowhere. Not only does it not have anything to do with Liu Chunling, but it is unsourced and comes across as very POV. deleted
 * The following passage is very problematic: "The state controlled media has attacked Falun Gong and Li Hongzhi on a daily basis, morning and night. Meetings have been taking place in factories, offices and universities; schools have been ordered to "educate" pupils about the sect. The Government announced that religious leaders from across the country have delivered denunciations. In Kaifeng, the post office issued an anti-Falun Gong postmark, and 10,000 people signed a petition denouncing the group." Again, it is unsourced, and the way it is worded is very POV. It may be POV, but it is almost a direct quote from the Tribune.
 * Finally, I would highly recommend adding an external links section of some sort.
 * Some more crossings off! Ohconfucius 02:35, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
 * The Chungling source is a FG defence statement. We can easily add that in.  The guy Charles A. Radin seems to be from Boston globe.  Except there is no single source that the Charles working for the globe newspaper is the one that made the statement.  At least that I have come across. Benjwong 06:17, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Ignore this last comment. Benjwong (talk) 17:32, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Also...
I should also mention that one of the GA criteria states that the article must be stable. The recent edit war makes it anything but, so despite the hard work dealing with the points brought up in my above review, the article is leaning towards failing it's GA nomination. I would urge you guys to figure this out soon, since the article's GA hold will expire at the beginning of next week I believe. For the record, my own 3rd opinion on one of the issues is that the quote about Xinhau being the world's biggest propaganda machine should be removed, as it gives the article a blatant POV slant against the Chinese government, despite the fact that it is adequately sourced. Sourcing an opinion does not mean that the opinion is valid, especially since an alternate viewpoint is not represented with equal weight, if at all. Drewcifer (talk) 10:05, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Well the statement "State owned Xinhua, called the worlds biggest propaganda agency by Reporters Without Borders " is more then just an opinion, since after all China is the biggest communist country in the world by far. But perhaps you have any other source? + this whole article is an image play, like it or not, see the source section above.
 * I'm not fond of edit wars, so I will not put this section back just now, even though it's quite interesting how this statement is not present on the xinhua page anywhere ... Perhaps we should ask Jimbo how to handle big propaganda machines, if even well sourced sources are not allowed? And yes, I do believe it's relevant here since you do need lot's of resources to make this self-imolation scene and it's aftermath happen like it did. --HappyInGeneral (talk) 13:17, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
 * If it belongs anywhere, it belongs on the xinhua page. It would be legitimate, as Xinhua is the main subject. The word "propaganda" already appears 5 times in this article, and in a legitimate context, and I think Xinhua's role is already made quite clear. Ohconfucius (talk) 01:24, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I guess my problem with it isn't whether or not it is true or not, but how it reflects on the topic. Ideally, this article should remain neutral to the whole "Was it faked?" question, since it appears that there is no conclusive evidence that it was, only controversy, opinion, and theories.  Albeit, I'd say the controversies, opinions, and theories are well founded, but they are still opinion.  That said, the placement of such a little phrase undermines any neutrality, since it automatically implies that the Xinhau version is propoganda, and therefore untrue or manipulated in someway.  Such a phrase would be completely acceptable in the Xinhau article, but here it only serves as opinionated commentary on the immolation event via an opinionated commentary on Xinhau.  In other words, it follows the following sketchy logic: "X says Y.  X lies."  Reading between the lines, that implies "Y is a lie." Drewcifer (talk) 02:28, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

I think there is a mistake here in keeping out sources and bits of info that are important to formulating an overall understanding of this incident. It is quite annoying that policy pages change over time, but I remember once reading on WP:A or whatever it used to be, that the reader has a right to know a thing or two about the sources being used. This is needed in evaluating the source. Xinhua can't be repeated as if it were on par with a respectable, neutral publication. It definitely isn't breaking NPOV to call that and explain what Xinhua is. Neutrality doesn't mean you accept Xinhua's view uncritically, nor does it mean you refrain from any critical commentary on it. I think giving RSF's characterisation of Xinhua is relevant in contextualising what Xinhua is, which is intimately linked with understanding this incident. It certainly does suggest that the incident was a hoax--but so what? It's not our job to stop the reader from coming to that conclusion, nor to try and steer them toward it. There should just be a neutral presentation of all the information associated with this incident, or more accurately, all the things people have said about it, since that's all it seems to come down to. There are many considerations involved in that process, but I'd definitely say it's valid to characterise xinhua as the party's mouthpiece, which it obviously is, and that's no secret. --Asdfg12345 08:29, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
 * We asked for an independent third opinion by asking for the GA review, so I think we should not ignore the advice lightly, or try and bend the rule to score some more points against the CCP. We all know what Xinhua is, and it is already mentioned or implied several times in the article (once very prominently in the lead section, I might add) that the news is not completely unbiased. The source of the RSF assertion was general, and did not specifically mention Xinhua as a propaganda machine in this particular context, and I understand that even putting it somewhere else in this article where it isn't so obvious would still violate WP:NPOV. Why don't we leave it for the Xinhua article? Ohconfucius (talk) 09:25, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I would also add that you were happy with the article before, so what changed your mind? Ohconfucius (talk) 09:26, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I have to agree with alot of what's been said above in the last couple posts: it is important to put Xinhau into some context, since it definately has some bearing on the incident. The reader definately does deserve to know where this information is coming from.  However, there is a big difference between putting things into context by saying "the official Chinese news agency" or "the state-owned broadcaster" (both of which are prominently in the lead) as opposed to "the worlds biggest propaganda agency."  Both approaches put things into better context, but the first two quotes do so through indisputable fact (that it is state-owned), while the other does so by mentioning an opinion (what Reporters Without Borders thinks).  Fact speaks louder than opinion, no matter whose opinion it is.  Related to the above point, I would agree with Ohconfucies in saying that Xinhau is already put into context quite frequently in the article as it is.
 * As for how happy I am with the article as a whole, I think it is a fantastic article: most of my previous comments have been numerous, but fairly minor in scope. I did have reservations about a slight Fulan Gong slant, however, but everything seemed within reasonable expectations for GA status.  The only reason I brought up the edit war was because it could throw the very delicate POV balance of the article way off, and that the mere fact that there is an edit war violates the GA criteria anyways.  My personal recommendation to you all, for GA and beyond, is to let things cool off until after I've promoted the article, then either hashing things out here, or going to WP:3O for a another opinion. Drewcifer (talk) 10:09, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm a pretty amenable sort of chap, or at least try to be. I think your explanation about stating it is a state owned broadcaster rather than the biggest propaganda agency is pretty good--I'm okay with confucius having reverted that. I hope readers will be able to realise that it is quite possible that many of the stories xinhua published related to this incident were in part or entirely fabricated. Anyway, it seems a small point to emphasise too much. --Asdfg12345 10:21, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Just to let you guys know, an article can only be on hold for 10 days. So, I wanted to give you fair warning that tomorrow I'll take another look at the article and pass or fail it. From a quick glance at the article, it seems like a few recent edits messed up some citations (#8, #24, #40), and while those in and of themselves might not mean disaster, you might wanna take a look. So now's the time for any last minute changes! Drewcifer (talk) 02:59, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

I have reverted one edit by another editor, who deleted two paragraphs. I endorse the removal of the Danny Schecter quote about opinion polls as being a generality and not specifically related to this article, and have not touched that. However, I would say that in general, as a courtesy to other editors and as a way of maintaining a sane working environment, all significant changes should be debated on the talk page. Ohconfucius (talk) 03:27, 27 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I checked the source and note there may be a problem of incorrect reference - could someone shed some light on where in the referenced citations does he write about "petition", "credibility" and "thwart attacks on China's human rights record"? The opinion attributed to Schechter is currently unsourced. Ohconfucius (talk) 06:55, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks to User:Rudget for taking the time to wikify the dates. But god, how I find those wikified dates annoying! I tend to believe that this interpretation of WP:MOS is unhelpful. Does anyone else feel the same? Ohconfucius (talk) 06:22, 27 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Even though it was my suggestion in the first place, I kind of have to agree with you. I just can't make up my mind can I? Either way, I won't hold that against the article. Drewcifer (talk) 07:34, 27 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the reminder. I was not aware that there was so much attention on the page, or I would have stated my rationale on the talk page.
 * Here's one of the paragraphs I believe do not conform to Wikipedia's standard:
 * "One western diplomat commented that the public changed from sympathising with Falun Gong to siding with the Government after the event, after succumbing to propaganda in the form of human interest stories and accounts of so-called rehabilitation efforts of former practitioners."
 * I believe it's not difficult to see some major problems with the paragraph. First off, I'm sure everyone of you would agree that wordings like "succumbing to propaganda" and "so-called rehabiliation efforts" are plainly unacceptable under Wikipedia's NPOV policy. Besides, it's ridiculous to guess how others are deceived, how others are blackwashed by propaganda - do we know we are deceived? No. What we could say is how the general public sided with the government, and how some believe the government to be spreading propaganda. But saying that the general public is succumbing to propaganda? Unacceptable. Second, the the source given doesn't even say that. The closest quote is "One Western diplomat said government propaganda was "evolving" towards that end and played down any immediate links between the Olympics and China's human rights record..." - and that's not even close to what the paragraph says. And third - I believe the paragraph does not assert its notability and fails WP:NOTE, as neither the paragraph nor the source states who the "Western diplomat" actually is.
 * I suggest the removal of the paragraph or, if necessary, a rewrite so that it follows what the source says. Comments? Aran|heru|nar 10:24, 27 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Strongly agree with the principle behind this comment; I also was not aware of this apparent misrepresentation of a source. "succumbing", if appearing in the source, should be clearly identified as such. That is obviously not neutral descriptive language. However, just looking at it, this language "so-called rehabilitation efforts of former practitioners", seems to be from another source but which is not acknowledged here. This could have happened as a mix up when things were moved. This description should be in quotes anyway, but I think it's the Chrandra Smith article. if not that one, then perhaps another one. I could be mistaken, but I think something like this is quoted already on the persecution page, and it seems very familiar. Alternatively, it might be from Ching, also on the persecution page. This could be a mistake, but I am not sure. Also, that schechter commentary about the petitions should also be referenced to his book, because I think a reffing mixup happened there too. This was originally referenced to the book, I believe, but was inadvertently lost amidst the unprecedented activity and genuine interest in improving this article by a range of diverse editors. The rigour being exercised here, I must say, is of the highest order; I think this article can only get better and better.--Asdfg<b style="color:black;">12345</b> 15:24, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I have modified the offending paragraph, however, I just want to chime in here about you contention per WP:N. I am not aware that every single fact or every single person quoted must satisfy that policy. In fact, I believe the mention of the western diplomat, even unnamed, is not a policy violation.  The relevant part of the policy states "The particular topics and facts within an article are not each required to meet the standards of the notability guidelines". The important thing is that the quote can beattributed to a reliable source. Now that the article says no more than what the source says about the matter, I hope this deals with the concern. Ohconfucius (talk) 06:56, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Simplification
I don't feel it's necessary to quote sources in their entirety. It is our job to pass on the message whilst being sufficiently concise. Specifically, "He opines that ... the "ready availability of fire-extinguishers and official TV teams and the lack of verification about the victims" raises questions about Falun Gong involvement" strongly implies it already, thus I feel stating "or whether the incident was staged" is unnecessary duplication. It isn't going to sway anybody, and the whole section is stronger without it. Incidentally, I think the opinion is downright wrong, but it has a right to be in the article - all the anecdotal evidence indicates the attempt has far from fallen flat in China. Ohconfucius (talk) 13:22, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

After a final look at the article, I've passed it's GA nomination! Though there seems to be some disagreement as far as some content goes, it looks like you guys are collaborating well to fix these things, so I don't see it as a hindrance to its GA status. In fact, there seems to be a very healthy sense of collaboration for this article, and I hope it continues. As the article currently stands, I think the article is actually very close to FA status, so hopefully you guys can fix the few remaining problems (namely a slight bias favoring Fulan Gong), iron things out a bit (the references are a little inconsistent in style), and nominate it very soon. Let me know when/if you do, and I'd be happy to lend my support. In the meantime, if you have any further questions or anything, feel free to drop me a line. Great job everyone! Drewcifer (talk) 22:50, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

IED quote
I still have misgivings about giving so much space to this direct quote which is not covered by any secondary sources. Furthermore, only one sentence out of the entire paragraph is directly related to the incident, whilst the rest is just an emotional diatribe against the Chinese govt which does not support its claim to its discovery, so it could potentially be shortened to "International Educational Development had discovered that a self-immolation cited by the Chinese Government as proof that the Falun Gong was an "evil cult" in fact had been staged" without weakening the context or the facts about the case. Ohconfucius (talk) 10:04, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Yeah i know. I feel similarly; though I wouldn't discount the realness of what they are saying about the persecution. Perhaps this could be condensed into one preceding sentence, like "IED condemned the persecution of Falun Gong, and said ..." Or whatever. Thanks for bringing that up, the quote is not quite right the way it is there now. I too noticed this and felt slightly uneasy about it, now that I haven't seen the page in a while, and have gained a bit of critical distance.--Asdfg<b style="color:black;">12345</b> 13:41, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Please discuss
In order to maintain the article's newly acquired GA status, and to avoid unnecessary edit wars, editors are kindly requested to discuss here all additions or deletions of substantial chunks of text before making them. Any which have not gone through a discussion process will be reverted on sight, irrespective of their merits. Thank you. Ohconfucius (talk) 03:50, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Victims
It also seems like the first three paragraphs of the Victims section could well be in the 'reporting and analysis', since there is no more connection in that commentary than the other. The Time speculations re the nature of Li's message is also repeated; this may be better combined, along with the alleged clarification by Falun Gong. --Asdfg12345 08:58, 27 November 2007 (UTC) (copied from Asdfg's talk page Ohconfucius (talk) 09:20, 11 December 2007 (UTC))

Disagree with Dilip's edi--Asdfg<b style="color:black;">12345</b> 23:58, 19 January 2008 (UTC)ts
This is a 'good' page now, we should discuss before making changes. In particular, putting that big motion image in the introduction seems to diminish the encyclopedic aspect of the article. Can you just make it a small image and put somewhere more appropriate. --Asdfg<b style="color:black;">12345</b> 19:48, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Goodness me, and those last sentences tacked onto the introduction should just plain be deleted.--Asdfg<b style="color:black;">12345</b> 19:50, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
 * It's redundant: there is that block of stills of the video already in the article. Ohconfucius (talk) 09:42, 17 January 2008 (UTC)


 * All the edits reverted. Refer to my comments above. Ohconfucius (talk) 02:51, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Edit warring by IP editor
I've once again reverted the edits by IP editor from Microsoft. I don't have a problem reverting you or Dilip (if that's who you are), and will do so again. You can float around using anonymous IP addresses all you like, Mr Microsoft. I'll send the 3R warning to Bill Gates if I have to. These incidents have been reported to the Administrators' noticeboard. Ohconfucius (talk) 08:36, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Asdfg/OConfucius,

I can understand you pointing out that a couple of sentences need to be modified or that the picture needs to go into the analysys section. Those are helpful suggestion. Reverts like this are in no way helpful when it comes to working towards a good encyclopaedic article - especially when a lot of relevant content is being removed.

This version has a lot of problems - The CCP version of the events are presented as "absolute" truths with no room for skepticism. Like - These are THE PEOPLE involved; these were 'THE FATE' of the victims etc. The animation is very relevant to the article, perhaps it should be in the analysis and reports section and not in the intro.

I donot want to violate the 3RR rule now. I would appreciate it a lot if one of you could help put the image in the appropriate section.

Dilip rajeev (talk) 09:05, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Look, nothing has been removed. You merely attempted to put stuff there which does not belong, both in my view and that of another FG practitioner. We have both worked extremely hard to ensure that the article at least conforms to the most important policies and guidelines here on wikipedia, and don't want to see any changes creeping in which may make the article lose that status. That doesn't mean that we are opposed to any change in the article. However, I had mentioned in the talk page that I would revert, and I carried out my promise as your edits were a pretty obvious threat to WP:NPOV. The reviewer already thought the article was slightly biased in favour of FG, and I do not want that bias to shift violently. As far as the video, I would add that its status is being challenged as it is undoubtedly a copyright infringement being used without a proper rationale - inserting it would immediately fail one of the criteria of a good article. Ohconfucius (talk) 09:19, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

There should be some netspeak for a groan. *groan*. Dilip if the video can be licensed properly it would be fine as a small thing somewhere in the article, and could replace that image sequence. They are basically the same thing in a different form. Please discuss any changes to this article before making them. Thanks.--Asdfg<b style="color:black;">12345</b> 21:37, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I guess Dilip won't be with us for a while (see here). Ohconfucius (talk) 06:18, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

I sighed, that's unfortunate, and unfortunately not inappropriate. Anyway, I don't see the point of the "Li Hongzhi told followers to freeze the evil scoundrels with supernormal powers." or whatever, I noticed this again just now. I had seen this before but forgot. It seems irrelevant. I propose dropping.--Asdfg<b style="color:black;">12345</b> 16:21, 18 January 2008 (UTC) Yeah it's quaint. It's totally irrelevant. --Asdfg<b style="color:black;">12345</b> 23:58, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't know where Time got that from, but it strikes me as a quaint caricature that could equally have come from FG as Xinhua. Its existence or otherwise doesn't much bother me now. Ohconfucius (talk) 02:22, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Bias?
After reading this article I find some extreme anti-CCP bias (as if there isn't already enough of that). Under the section "Reporting and analysis", the reader can see the blue box which contains circumstantial evidence (not one of the dot points are proof) suggesting that the CCP staged the incident. However, the blue box is presented to the reader as fact, and not speculation. There should be a note that informs the reader about the blue box, which is not conclusive evidence. Furthermore, dedicating so much of the article (roughly 50%) to supporting the blatantly ridiculous suggestion that the CCP could have orchestrated this is pretty silly. Next, the picture with this caption: "Three pictures broadcast by state-media, presented by Falun Gong as evidence purporting that Wang Jindong 'was played by different people'." If that is indeed evidence I'll eat my keyboard.220.238.65.191 (talk) 07:31, 19 January 2008 (UTC) As far as I can tell when this event is mentioned in media it is presented as a CCP hoax. This is the general impression I have. I would say there's a lot more availability of third parties debunking this as a FLG immolation, and with stronger arguments, than there are supporting it, and therefore supporting the persecution in general. The article will inevitably reflect this. This isn't called bias. This is what wikipedia does. You can read all about it at WP:NPOV.--Asdfg<b style="color:black;">12345</b> 00:04, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
 * You're right, to a degree. However, I believe it's all laid out as faithfully, and nothing's misleading except perhaps for a bit of undue weight. Most readers will see that it is far from conclusive that the Chinese govt staged it. Ohconfucius (talk) 15:40, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
 * The other thing was the NTD and Epoch Times mentions. I don't think these media should be falsely portrayed, but it seems clumsy to say "the pro FLG media" or "the FLG media", all the time. It's the same for Xinhua. Mention it, link it, and leave it. This seems more mature to me--ideas? It's not a big deal in the end.--Asdfg<b style="color:black;">12345</b> 00:04, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Essentially I agree, but it's quite common to introduce an important subject with 3 or 4 words at the very first mention in the article when the subject isn't obvious. By all means remove it if you feel strongly. Ohconfucius (talk) 14:59, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I am also perplexed by this article. It gives a great deal of effort to what people would call "conspiracy theories" in America, but then mentions that oh by the way we know exactly who all seven of these people are, we know they protested for Falun Gong, we've talked to them and been told they did it for Falun Gong.  Saying that one of them may not be the same person according to a Taiwanese intelligence agency's comparison of the video of his pre-burned and post-burned face just isn't convincing me, sorry.  If you really need to rag on China then ask how it is that somebody who is insane enough to try to burn himself half to death ends up on trial and getting convicted for a life sentence (for what?), but don't tell us a theory that doesn't make any sense. 70.15.116.59 (talk) 17:18, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Please come forward, I want to give you a barnstar for that. Failing that, I want to make that quote into a plaque and put it on the wall. Or perhaps I will put it in one of those quotation boxes on top of this page. ;-) Ohconfucius (talk) 01:27, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi,

Please take time to investigate the issue in more depth. There is much more to the topic than what the current article carries - in my opinion the current version is extremely biased and presents CCP's stories of "victims" and them being "imprisoned" as "facts" - completely ignoring the fact that it is merely the story presented to us, by the CCP controlled news, of an event suspected by many, including several independent investigators and journalists, to be a hoax staged by the CCP to gain traction for its persecution of Falun Gong.

''"In our investigation, the only deaths have been at the hands of the Chinese authorities; families have been broken up because family members have been killed by the regime; people have been broken down, not by Falun Gong, but by extreme torture, incarceration in mental hospitals with brutal treatment, hard labour in labour camps and other such practices. As was reported in the International Herald Tribune on August 6, 2001, the regime admits that it has officially sanctioned violence against practitioners in order to wipe out Falun Gong. The regime points to a supposed self-immolation incident in Tiananmen Square on January 23, 2001 as proof that Falun Gong is an "evil cult”. However, we have obtained a video of that incident that in our view proves that this event was staged by the government. We have copies of that video available for distribution."'' - International Education Department ( A U.S based Human Rights Agency)'s report presented to United Nations, Sub-Commission on the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights Fifty-third session, Agenda item 6 August, 2001

Also do look into the discrepancies pointed out by the 'False Fire' video ( from which the gif below-right was excerpted) and several articles written by journalists who had conducted independent investigations which are available on http://www.falsefire.com.

Dilip rajeev (talk) 22:47, 26 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm tickled that someone would offer me a barnstar but it seems strange that it's offered for a passing comment rather than for more substantial editing (e.g. Omar Osama bin Laden). Anyway, my IP has a User page and this account doesn't, and an IP with a barnstar is more amusing.


 * But on a more serious note, I wasn't trying to pass judgment on Falun Gong or the Chinese government as a whole in that comment. I don't deny that there are credible reports of human rights violations against Falun Gong practitioners - it's just that I don't see the logic behind some of the alternative explanations of this event.  What would it prove if one of the people who set themselves on fire were instead killed by a police truncheon?   What does that have to do with the circled scrap of cloth thrown around on the videotape you posted above?  (At least to me it looks like someone turned and shot the fire hose at him, knocking him down and sending a piece of burnt clothing flying)  How does this relate to the claims that these people weren't who they say they were or weren't Falun Gong practitioners?  If the government staged the event, they staged it how?  Do you mean that they only made it look like the Falun Gong people poured gasoline on themselves, or that they were ringers hired to claim they were Falun Gong before (and after) trying to burn themselves alive?  I might even consider a claim that Chinese intelligence kidnapped seven Falun Gong people and programmed them like in The Manchurian Candidate but using modern technology --- but I didn't see that idea raised, or any others that I could actually picture as a complete scenario, whether plausible or not.  By contrast it seems quite believable that Falun Gong like every movement has small radical subgroups that do things the mainstream believers don't sanction.  For the Students for a Democratic Society there were the Weathermen, for National Right to Life Committee there was Eric Rudolph, and so on. 70.15.116.59/Wnt (talk) 18:32, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Hey, interesting question. I find the issue strange too. No one who understood what Falun Gong taught would do something like this--the issue seems just a matter of language and definitions then. The circumstances seem to indicate that the CCP had prior knowledge of the incident, and were complicit in staging it. No one can stop anyone from learning the Falun Gong exercises and claiming they are a practitioner, then burning themselves and claiming that Falun Gong made them do it. It's a bit of a moot point, I guess. Falun Gong doesn't stand for this, and the CCP definitely had something to do with it. --Asdfg<b style="color:black;">12345</b> 02:57, 28 January 2008 (UTC)


 * The whole thing is an image play, and the CCP used this to vilify Falun Gong and to justify their insane genocide. --HappyInGeneral (talk) 11:47, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

pretty much.--Asdfg<b style="color:black;">12345</b> 01:22, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Regarding Copyright of the clip
Using the gif image in this article is, by no means, a violation of 'copyrights'. I am requesting the editors here to please add the image to the analysis section, since it carries content of high relevance to this topic. Perhaps, the image strip already in the article could be replaced with the gif.

According to US law Copyright Act of 1976, 17 U.S.C. § 107, there are 4 factors:

1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes; (This image is not for commercial use)

2) the nature of the copyrighted work; (The source is from Television news program, which has already been broadcasted to the public multiple times.)

3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; (the image is only several seconds of original work. If we use the whole video or substantial portion of it, then it may not constitute fair use.)

4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work. (Considering 2, and 3 above, there's not much effect upon the market value of original work since the original work is not for commercial purpose.)

Please refer to cases mentioned here .. http://fairuse.stanford.edu/Copyright_and_Fair_Use_Overview/chapter9/9-c.html

Dilip rajeev (talk) 22:03, 26 January 2008 (UTC)


 * See WP:Fair use for more about using images under this policy. In summary, remember that fair use is a U.S. legal interpretation, not a global one, and that Wikimedia has its own policy reasons that make them discourage these.  Legally this seems like a very fair use of fair use, but I can't figure out whether the guideline referenced is discouraging fair use images on talk pages or not.


 * On the other hand... is Chinese state media copyrighted? Wnt (talk) 18:40, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Initial reports
Phew, this is a tricky article to deal with, as the sources used are not always clear. Currently in the article we have a statement saying that the official news agency had a report of the incident on TV the same night. I have found nothing to support this. Indeed the first official press release seems to have been 7 days later. What I have found though is this which talks about a related incident on February 16 which was reported the same night. I suspect what has happened is that Feb 16 incident in the source (which is not clear, it has to be read carefully) has been conflated with the 23 Jan incident. Does anyone have a source which says that the Tiananmen Square self-immolation was officially reported earlier than the 30th?  SilkTork  *YES! 09:29, 11 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I appreciate the time you are spending on this. Yes, I believe you are correct. The mention of the Feb 16 self-immolation did get conflated at some stage during the article's history, and I am sorry I overlooked the mention about news on the 'same night', which I think may well have had dates conflated, because I may have been too. Indeed, almost all the press reports say nothing was reported to the Chinese people until Jan 30. Ohconfucius (talk) 11:13, 11 October 2009 (UTC)


 * The first paragraph of the source SilkTork linked above does say, "What could be more dramatic? People are setting themselves on fire in Tiananmen Square in the heart of Beijing. CNN is there. The police just happen to have fire extinguishers on hand, and the victims are rushed to a hospital after their agonies are thoroughly photographed for state television. While the government-controlled media uncharacteristically releases the story at once, it takes a week of production before video footage is aired." So Schechter at least claims there was an immediate news release, a week before the video images were broadcast. Let's be careful here that we get this right. -- JN 466  15:15, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Here is an article from The Independent, dd. 24 January 2001, quoting Xinhua: "Tuesday's attempted group suicide appeared to mar the largely peaceful image of the sect's campaign. The five, soaked with gasoline, set themselves on fire, according to the government's Xinhua News Agency and a camera crew from the US-based television network CNN, which witnessed the protest."
 * I believe SilkTork's concern was about this sentence (if it wasn't, please tell me; I can't actually find a sentence in the article claiming that Xinhua had a TV programme on the event broadcast on 23 January):
 * That sentence is sourced to Ownby p. 216 (not p. 215 as we say). Note that our wording is too similar to Ownby: if you talk to a copyright expert like User:Moonriddengirl or the editors who wrote WP:Plagiarism, they'll tell you that we can't use a 14-word direct quote like "a brief report of the events that very evening,[35] but only to foreign media" from a source without putting it into quotation marks. See WP:Close paraphrasing. -- JN  466  15:45, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm now comfortable that there are sources which say that there was a brief report on the same day to foreign media.  SilkTork  *YES! 08:45, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Which sources are reliable?
I'm looking to add some more information on the incident - there are details available, which gives dates and times of the preparations. However, I'm not sure which sources are acceptable to use, and how to present the sources (say "according to", define if the source is pro or anti-FG, etc). Here they are:
 * facts.org.cn
 * mingjing.org.cn
 * clearwisdom.net
 * chinahouston.org
 * clearharmony.net
 * people.com.cn
 * upholdjustice.org
 * china-embassy.org

Thoughts? Hmmm - I just noticed that the last one is the Chinese Embassy in the USA. I should think that one is acceptable.  SilkTork  *YES! 12:25, 12 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Here who's who:
 * facts.org.cn - PRC
 * mingjing.org.cn - PRC
 * clearwisdom.net - Falun Gong
 * chinahouston.org - PRC
 * clearharmony.net - Falun Gong
 * people.com.cn - PRC
 * upholdjustice.org - Falun Gong
 * china-embassy.org - PRC
 * I think they are acceptable, but please consider that the PRC will say that they where practitioners, and that Falun Gong is a destructive cult, while Falun Gong sources will say that this was set up by the government to defame Falun Gong. There are some other sources, however I think they should be both given 50% weight to keep it according to WP:NPOV. So far I see that the article inclines to present the victims as practitioners. Like saying in the table that "Female, music teacher, practitioner since 1997". Sorry, I really need to find some time to list all the issues and get a broader list of sources. --HappyInGeneral (talk) 12:58, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Just as reference here is an incomplete list: Talk:Tiananmen_Square_self-immolation_incident/Archive_5 --HappyInGeneral (talk) 13:08, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Speaking in the most general sense, I think it is appropriate if our article leans towards the theory that the victims were practitioners, because that seems to be the majority view of third-party (not Falun Gong, not PRC) sources. See e.g. Time ("Implausibly, the Falun Gong website insists the episode was set up by government provocateurs. Few were convinced by that line.") I haven't seen evidence that Falun Gong's view is anything more than a significant minority view here, held by itself and a small number of outside observers.
 * As for the table, the article does make clear that these are PRC state-media data.
 * @ SilkTork, I think all or most of the sites you list are cited already in the article. The only caveat I would raise is that in the context of this article, they are all primary (i.e. not third-party) sources. -- JN 466  14:35, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Since you mention one source, I guess you do appeal to common sense. Then how does the expertise of Time measure up to Karen Parker (the human rights attorney), accredited by the UN? Who states that this was a setup, see: ? Also I'm very sorry that I was not active on this page, but I'll try to find some time for it. --HappyInGeneral (talk) 14:52, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
 * @JN - As I work on the article, I'm thinking about the use of primary and other sources - this article really is quite tricky, as the main sources appear to use rather more rhetoric than facts. I note that commentators (such as Gittings in The Guardian) wish to state their own views and opinions on the situation, which doesn't aid neutrality. It could well be that this Wikipedia article ends up as the most informative neutral account of the incident!
 * @HappyInGeneral - I agree that there should be a balance of opinion so that the reader can see all aspects of the argument and be left to make up their own mind. I am keen to go carefully through the article and ensure that any rhetoric is quoted and sourced accurately or removed.  SilkTork  *YES! 16:19, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Sounds reasonable. Let me start with a /sources page where we can list all sources and group them as we like. --HappyInGeneral (talk) 17:14, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Martyrdom?
As you may see at /sources I added so far 2 links from the article, I'll add more shortly.

I am rather surprised and correct me if I'm wrong, but is it that some of you take "Jensen and Weston" words to the word and think that Li Hongzhi advocates martyrdom and promises 'consummation'. Can you please quote such works? They are all online.

Also it should be easy because are only a few articles between 1999 July 20 and 2001 January 23. It would be for example just a fraction of Ownby's book. So it is really manageable.

Question: Where in his writings does Li Hongzhi advocate martyrdom or promise 'consummation' to those who are killed? --HappyInGeneral (talk) 09:26, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Also bellow I list 2 analysis of 2 works: --HappyInGeneral (talk) 09:26, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Rationality August 9, 2000
Here is my analysis, as I understand it: It calls for practitioners to be calm, it makes clear that getting placed into a labor camp and sentenced is not the way to do things. "Stepping forward to validate the Fa using many different approaches is a magnificent act, but this absolutely does not mean that you have to be arrested by the evil." Where "Stepping forward to validate the Fa" means exposing the persecution and the injustice that Falun Gong practitioners suffer in China, however this must be done cautiously. Then it says that it is better to "demand the release of all those innocent students who have been arrested". Second paragraph is saying something to act normal, don't listen to "voices" which are fake Law Bodies. The third paragraph, goes saying that the world people must know about the injustice that is happening in China, and that is saving them. It does emphasize the method and that is these should be done Rationally.

Please let me know if you think that my analysis is fair and you may provide your own analysis. --HappyInGeneral (talk) 09:26, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Beyond the Limits of Forbearance, January 1, 2001
Since it was mentioned many times as the alleged root of the self-immolators actions, I think it is best to look into this source, rather then just reading its title.

The first sentence: "Forbearance (ren) is not cowardice, much less is it resigning oneself to adversity." in a sense this sums it up. The that is expressed here I think is that the injustice/evil should not be ignored, but the truth should be uphold, that is the true mercy of an enlightened being, without that everything would fail to chaos.

Second paragraph: "Going beyond the limits of Forbearance is included in the Fa’s principles." ... "Once told, it could create obstacles for disciples who are in the process of cultivating." => if you ask me this means that normally cultivators will always look inside and consider their own fault whatever happens outside, but under the current situation in China, Li Hongzhi made it clear that in that moment, upholding truth, exposing injustice it is what is most precious.

As I see it this is not "calls to arms", especially because Li Hongzhi states it clear that "much less is it resigning oneself to adversity", so it is not a path of suffering that practitioners should take. Rather this is a message to be prepared better and to expose the injustice. Considering the propaganda rain that poured down shortly after, I think this message was extremely timely.

Please let me know if you think that my analysis is fair and you may provide your own analysis. --HappyInGeneral (talk) 09:26, 13 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for that HappyInGeneral. As I am new to this, everything is helpful. I am assuming you are referring to the "Falun Gong and self-immolation" section. I'm not sure, but it looks like you want us to examine a text that we are not allowed to comment on directly. We can only report on what reliable sources have said about that text. If you wish us to include a comment that the text does not advocate martydom you would need to find us a reliable source which says that in relation to this incident. The section (which I've only read through, not closely studied yet) appears to be appropriately sourced, but I would welcome you pointing out alternative sources which support your comments above.  SilkTork  *YES! 10:21, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
 * OK, sure that is fine, I'll get back to work on the /sources. --HappyInGeneral (talk) 16:25, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Square closed off?
In the Incident section there is a statement that the square was closed off. It seems a reasonable statement, but the source used for this statement doesn't appear to say that. I've read it through twice and used a word search, but can't find anything. It's a minor thing - probably during editing the wrong quote has been used - but until a source can be found I'll remove the statement.  SilkTork  *YES! 15:17, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

"Following the incident, Tiananmen Square was closed off. "
 * That bit of text was first inserted here: . The source cited is here, and seems to check out. Note that Google Books has the author and title of the book in the blue horizontal bar wrong. The correct title is "DANGEROUS MEDITATION China's Campaign Against Falungong" The correct ISBN as given in the scanned book is ISBN1-56432-270-X. Correct author is Mickey Spiegel, publisher Human Rights Watch. We still cite that book; it is ref. 9 right now. -- JN 466  17:08, 13 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I thought the statement might have got lost from its cite. Thanks for that JN. I've looked at the source and am now wondering if the statement that the square was closed off should be reinstated or left out. The source doesn't say when the square was closed off, and I have read another source recently (but I can't think which one!) which gives some close detail on what happened in the square the next day. That a planned celebration went ahead, but that the police were on hand with extinguishers in case another attempt at self-immolation occurred. I think that a statement that the square was closed should be followed by a statement that the authorities allowed a celebration to go ahead on the square the next day - just to ensure the correct balance. I wish I could find that bloody source!  SilkTork  *YES! 19:59, 13 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Got it: Police imposed the tightest security in years around Tiananmen Square to head off protests by the outlawed Falun Gong sect a day after five members set themselves on fire. Hundreds of police patrolled the square, marring Wednesday's start for the Lunar New Year, China's biggest public holiday. Chinese tourists who visited the square to ring in the Year of the Snake were frisked and checked for identification by uniformed and plainclothes officers at all entry points. CNN's Beijing correspondent, Rebecca MacKinnon, reported that several Falun Gong members who tried to unfurl banners, were grabbed by police. Fire extinguishers were stacked at points around the area after Tuesday's dramatic protest in which a man and four women doused themselves with petrol and set themselves ablaze. I'm hoping to get my head around some of the sources and do some serious work on the article. But it's going to need a couple of hours uninterrupted work, so I'm leaving that for tomorrow.  SilkTork  *YES! 20:09, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Well done. Perhaps something less explicit (like "stepped up security") will do; although that almost goes without saying and probably adds little value. (I so know what you mean about having a source stuck in one's head and not being able to find it again!) -- JN 466  20:20, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Spare ref?
There are three refs for this statement:

"On 23 January 2001, the eve of Chinese New Year, five people on Tiananmen Square poured gasoline over their clothes and set themselves on fire; another two people were prevented from igniting the gasoline. "

The first two are sufficient (the Chinese government and CNN) - I don't see a need for the third, which is not used again anywhere in the article, and the contents of which in regard to this incident is very little.  SilkTork  *YES! 15:33, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Promoted to Featured article
Well done to all those involved - especially Ohconfucius. My involvement here was to tidy up issues in order to help bring this to FA status. I will finish off some of the things I still want to do, but now the article has achieved FA status I am stepping back. It's been interesting!  SilkTork  *YES! 09:14, 14 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Doesn't anyone beside me think that it is a bit premature to state that the current version of the article is of FA class since there are still statements like: "Female, music teacher, practitioner since 1997"? These things are serious, because those people who jump to the table will take for a fact the PRC version of the events. --HappyInGeneral (talk) 09:44, 14 October 2009 (UTC)


 * The short answer is 'No', it's no stalemate. The description is clearly attributed, and the reader is quite capable of making their mind up. Ohconfucius (talk) 09:49, 14 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I am glad to see that it is possible for a Falun Gong-related article to be promoted to featured status. Well-done, everyone, especially OhConfucius. Colipon+ (Talk) 09:55, 14 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Actually, I'd also like to give credit to Happy for allowing me to get on with the job. This would not have been possible if our habitual drive-by shooter(s) and filibusterer(s) had been around. Ohconfucius (talk) 10:04, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
 * HappyInGeneral, it does say "State media gave the participants' details as follows:" In an encyclopedic and NPOV treatment of the topic, we couldn't not reproduce this. -- JN 466  10:54, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Right. Still having it undisputed in a table ... I'm not all that comfortable with that. --HappyInGeneral (talk) 11:29, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

I understand your concern Happy. I intend to build on the "People involved" section using sources that we have discussed, and any others that come to light. I feel that readers would welcome more background information about the people involved in the incident. We can, however, only go with what the sources tell us. That information from some of these sources is disputed is discussed in the "Dispute" section. However, you are right to make sure that when we present information in the "People involved" section, that we word disputed information carefully. I'll do some work on it, and let me know what you think. As for the FA status of the article. The article was promoted to that status by User:Karanacs after this discussion: Featured article candidates/Tiananmen Square self-immolation incident/archive1. You may challenge the FA status - but, because current consensus is that the article has met the criteria, you will need to wait at least 3 months. If in 3 months time you still feel the article has issues that mean it does not meet the criteria, you may start a review here: Featured article review. I hope that helps.  SilkTork  *YES! 14:13, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, that is helpful. But first I need to find time to work on the /sources. Thank you again! --HappyInGeneral (talk) 14:19, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

New section titles
I don't think the new section titles are at all helpful. First of all, the 'Beyond the Limits of Forbearance' title got changed to Falun Gong and self-immolation, now it disappears altogether into a section called 'The dispute'. Let's not forget that Falun Gong disputes the who thing, but to get into a sensible analysis of it, we need to separate the story into two main discrete elements - that is to say the identity of the self-immolators and the video footage. The 'Dispute' section really needs to be changed back into the 'victims', self-immolators, or somesuch to bring the focus back on the individuals involved. Then, I think the role played by 'Beyond the Limits of Forbearance' is not insignificant, and needs to be reinstated as a section in its own right and not a sub-section of 'Dispute'. I know we are going through a thought process here, and I believe it will end up full circle again. Ohconfucius (talk) 01:55, 13 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree there needs to be a section on the people involved (not "victims" but people) - and that section should include the two who have been tried for their involvement in the incident but were not there on the day. The section that was named "The self-immolators" was about the dispute rather than the people involved - and (as I indicate above) not all those involved in the incident were self-immolators - so seems appropriate to give it a more specific title. Also, there are two main threads to this incident and article - the self-immolation itself, and the dispute arising from it. As the dispute is a major aspect of the incident, it seems not just appropriate but necessary that we have a section which deals with the dispute. The question is how we deal with it. After I read and then retitled the Dispute section I considered that the Falun Gong and self-immolation section is actually part of the dispute - Falun Gong are disputing that the self-immolation was done by Falun Gong practitioners "because" of what is said in the Falun Gong and self-immolation section.


 * My thinking at the moment is that the large chart, a very helpful and clear device to explain who is who, should be placed in a new section, possibly named "People involved", and that section should go into detail about those people already mentioned in the chart and the two others. There is additional information about them that is not currently in the article (such as their preparations for the self-immolation - visiting the site in advance, etc), and it would be helpful to trace them through from "planning" to trial/hospitalisation.


 * If the chart is to be called "people involved" perhaps the police close to the incident and those who video taped the original footage should be listed as well. Surely they were instrumental in the entire incident and were "people involved". Actually, I personally would rather see the section renamed with the use of the word "victims", e.g. "victims involved", as someone suggested early on. "People involved" is a sweeping statement.


 * AnnaInDC (talk) 10:49, 14 February 2010 (UTC)


 * In addition, the dispute section should be revisited to see if it can be presented in a clearer manner. Those of you who have been involved in this topic for years know what is going on, and what the arguments are - but as someone new to this I have been struggling to make sense of who says what and why. The dispute section should indicate clearly the claims made by the Chinese government, the counter claims by the Falun Gong, and then outside commentary on these claims - and advising readers of the stance and involvement of outside commentators. For example, Schechter is mentioned by name four times in the article, the first time we are told he is a "journalist", but then we are left to work out for ourselves who he is and why he is being quoted so much. In the dispute section it might be useful to explain who some of these major players actually are - especially if they have been named in the lead.
 * The aim is not just to make this a clear, readable, helpful and neutral article, but to bring it up to FA status, and at the moment an outsider who has worked closely on the article for a few days and been doing a considerable amount of background reading still feels a bit lost! The nature of the incident, and the awkwardness of the sources, means this is a trickier article than normal to work on, and I have a lot of admiration for those of you who have worked on this for years - especially Ohconfucius, who seems determined to be as fair, accurate and neutral as possible.  SilkTork  *YES! 09:39, 13 October 2009 (UTC)


 * OK, I see where you are headed with this. Yes, I've been involved with this article faaaar too long, and I saw the challenge to get it to FA was not only for the article itself, but with a mind to creating a modus operandum for all the FG articles (which, incidentally, have all been heavily conflict-ridden), but I realised that I am so heavily invested in this that I take many things for granted, which is where you come in, thank you. Trust has also been an issue: FG editors are like what you have read in, for example, Ownby and Kavan. Their defenses are at DEFCON4 if not 5. There have been belligerent FG opponents as well as FG supporters who have always made matters worse, as I have ended up fighting off both sides until I decided one day that I had had enough, but I digress. Anyway, to underline how the dispute runs right through this article, if we were to just talk about the CCTV footage, it is clear that False Fire deconstruction is a key opposing element. As to the individuals involved, the govt supplies history and background and epilogue for most of them, but FG doesn't really have much solid evidence that they were not practitioners (hardly surprising, the nature of the amorphous and diffuse FG 'beast'), thus they tend to fall back on the video evidence. Then, there are the third party comments/views. I for one have always shuddered at the overuse of Schechter, but it is a source which the FG editors insist upon, and I can see why: he is a journalist with some HR credentials, and, from having read everything I can obtain for free that he has written, he seems to regurgitate the Falun Gong line, whilst always adding his own flourish. For FG, he is highly credible spokesmen for their cause. However, I don't find Schechter particularly insightful (because everything he says appears in some FG publication or website somewhere) his flourishes send the WP:NPOV red light. I can cite, for example how Philip Pan wrote that Liu Chunling was "troubled", but after Schechter got hold of it, she became someone "with mental problems". Ohconfucius (talk) 10:38, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

FAC commentary post promotion
I think it is a bit premature to state that the current version of the article is of FA class since there are still statements like: "Female, music teacher, practitioner since 1997". This things are serious, because those people who jump to the table will take for a fact the PRC version of the events. --HappyInGeneral (talk) 07:31, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
 * The only thing I could think of to address your concern would be to add after "State media gave the participants' details as follows:", or after the table itself, something like "Falun Gong denies the participants were movement members". While I think the article gives sufficient context as it is, I would not object to adding something like this before or after the table.  JN 466  14:20, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you, for now I think I need to go back to /sources, as I know Karen (from UN) is not included and I suspect that there quite a few more sources out there. --HappyInGeneral (talk) 14:27, 14 October 2009 (UTC)


 * If you look back at an earlier version, you will see that another Falun Gong single purpose account decided to do away with the table of people involved because he considered it unreliable propaganda/slander. The fact that it was utterly pertinent, properly sourced and attributed mattered little to him, however, he hypocritically used the same rationale (ie properly sourced and attributed) when it suited him even when the relevance of his insertions were more problematic; he forced and bullied his way - I am not suggesting you, Happy, are like him in the latter respect. SilkTork perceived there was much in the article which 'forced views upon the reader' at every turn that FLG was not involved. Following his advice, I was emboldened to remove quite a few instances of FLG denials or similar which I had previously been reticent to touch for fear of adversely affecting the the neutrality that I perceived in the article at the time. Now I realise that it created an excessively convoluted article structure, with constant backwards and forwards. Neutrality does not mean truth, it just means views presented in an objective fashion. Please be reminded that we are writing for Wikipedia - this is not about 'truth, compassion and forbearance', validating or defending the Fa. Wikipedia is about verifiability and attribution over truth. Ohconfucius (talk) 02:22, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
 * As for the past we can bring up too many things (quick sample) but I don't think that we want to live in the past. Do you agree? --HappyInGeneral (talk) 11:22, 15 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree with what Ohconfucius says. Wikipedia is not like many other forms of publication - we do not originate material, nor argue nor persuade nor investigate nor do many of the things that people often associate with published articles. The aim is to reflect material that has already been published. We do not wish to comment on that material, either directly with editorial comments, nor by presenting it in a manner that implies we support or disagree with the material. What we want to do with this article is say: this event has been reported - this is what sources have said happened. And in doing that we want to be sure we are giving proportionate and balanced space to what sources have to say. In the process of presenting information on what happened, it is inevitable that we will present material that a Falun Gong member would object to as well as material that the Chinese government would object to. But we are not deciding who is right and who is wrong - we are letting the reader make up their own mind by giving the reader the information. Now, if a government source says that a person comes from a certain town, has a certain name, and belongs to a certain group, we report that. And then we report that some aspects of that information is contested. But we do need to first report what has been said. We cannot pick and choose which of the government information not to report. That would be wrong.  SilkTork  *YES! 09:48, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Well said SikTork, I definitely agree. That is why I started to work on /sources. Right now I believe that this is a powerful way to map out what is WP:DUE. What do you think? --HappyInGeneral (talk) 11:10, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I can see the fallacy straight away: we all know how prolific both Falun Gong and the Chinese authorities are on the subject... Playing arithmetic, except for mainstream media possibly weighted by the respective readdership (and even that is problematic), means very little. Ohconfucius (talk) 11:40, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
 * In the /sources list, I tried to deal with that from the start, placing sources into WP:SPS, secondary sources and high reliable sources. That is basically an attempt to give the source some kind of weight and categorization. Now if we have 100 links from one source saying 1 thing, that will still give it a weight 1, not 100, right? Anyway, for the moment, I think it's best to list all that we think are relevant. After that we can decide how to include them based on their WP:DUE. At this point I'm not sure why you claim fallacy over this. Maybe I understood something wrong? --HappyInGeneral (talk) 11:50, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Just quickly, after a brief scan, it appears that there are serious NPOV concerns with parts of the article in its current form. One thing that strikes me as particularly odd is the large table, drawn from CCP propaganda, which attempts to sum up the people involved and their alleged Falun Gong credentials, along with thumbnail pics etc. This totally violates WP:DUE. Chinese state media is not a reliable source on the topic of the persecution of Falun Gong, or on Falun Gong. The addition of propaganda from CCP sources should be done with circumspection, and done carefully, and be clearly labelled. Having a giant table gives the opposite impression, and makes these sources appear much more authoritative than they are. Suggest summarising the information in prose form, noting all discrepancies with other research (which are also sidelined in this format).--Asdfg<b style="color:black;">12345</b> 01:38, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

I read SilkTork's and OhConfucius's comments. Understood. A key point is still that CCP mouthpieces discussing this topic are not reliable sources. At the moment the way things are presented in the article gives the impression that the information is authoritative. This isn't an opinion, since there is a huge amount of literature about China's extensive propaganda and censorship system. Discussing this topic, one of the most sensitive for propaganda and public security officials in China, outside the context of the repression of Falun Gong and the propaganda war waged against it--all totally verifiable etc.--would be to warp the discussion and give undue weight to unreliable sources. Anyway, I think the devil is in the detail, really. When we talk about anything in the article, like the people involved, it should be with a mind to including all relevant information. We shouldn't present as authoritative the official account of the people, then group all the third party comments about the incident and the people and other issues together. Know what I mean? Every aspect of this is disputed, and on every point the range of views that have been circulated need to be conveyed (in accordance with to what extent they've been adopted by the various sources of course). So what I mean is, I suggest the part about the people involved not just take the CCP info, but be based on all the information available from various sources. Failure to do this would be to elevate an unreliable source as presenting facts, which violates wikipedia policies.--Asdfg<b style="color:black;">12345</b> 01:56, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

I am unable to find the actual context for the phrase "At the same time, though, Li repeated many times in his post-1999 writings that practitioners were good and moral people who "obey the law and the government."" added by this edit, in that I cannot verify whether it is indeed in relation to his post-1999 scriptures. Can anyone help verify this, please? The only bits in the book I can access through Google states "He insists over and over that practitioners are good people who obey the law and government. Their hearts are pure, and they have something to offer..." I think that regardless of this, Li clearly expects his followers to pay greater heed to his word rather than that of the authorities, so its place in this text is rather irrelevant and bordering on synthesis. Ohconfucius ¡digame! 08:31, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Page 190 is about the 1999 demonstration in Zhongnanhai: You can read on from there to page 191. I have a hardcopy of the book too, so if you need anything further that isn't in google books, just ask. -- JN  466  21:00, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
 * The long speech quoted on page 191 is from a news conference in Sydney on May 2 1999. If you have an amazon customer account, the book has a fully searchable preview in amazon. -- JN 466  21:10, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I cannot access the online sources. It would be great if you could email the scan of the two pages to me. Ohconfucius at hotmail. Cheers, Ohconfucius  ¡digame! 02:33, 23 December 2009 (UTC)