Talk:Tiananmen Square self-immolation incident/Archive 4

Protection
Following this request and evidence of revert warring, the page is fully protected for 7 days or until disputes have been resolved. CIreland (talk) 07:05, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Notice and reminder
I would remind all participating editors that this article clearly falls under the sanctions and remedies of Requests for arbitration/Falun Gong and that they should be mindful of this. CIreland (talk) 08:17, 11 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Please scroll up to "Issues numbered, for discussion", or similar title, and look at the points raised there. Please share thoughts about those issues. It looks quite poor to avoid this while the page is locked. Let's work through the above issues, and if there is another one that needs to be discussed, add it with a number and subsection for discussion. I added my thoughts already, but we ought to reach consensus on the changes.


 * On another note, I read through the page in its entirety recently and I think it's not that good. I don't think it's biased towards Falun Gong, or the other way around, but that the presentation of information is chaotic and unstructured. The key section is "reporting and analysis", with the other parts hingeing off it, but it seems like the arguments get buried. That's a separate issue, hopefully can resolve it. --Asdfg12345 01:05, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

1/ Whether the "victims table" (let's call it) should go or stay. - It is a legitimate piece of information, and serves as a central and visible reference and summary point for the article, as the names can sometimes be confusing, especially to a non-Chinese. I have no objection to it being clearly stated as having been sourced from Xinhua or wherever.


 * With the box I disagree because it adds little legitimate information for the amount of space it occupies - even the identity of the self-immolators are unclear - let alone the purported "outcomes".


 * Dilip rajeev (talk) 18:37, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

2/ Whether the NTDTV analysis should be in a box to the side, or in point form in the article, or how it should be set out - I personally didn't like it in the body of the text and do tend to think the box gives it a marginally undue bias. I was lazy with a C&P, but think that, if anything, we should consider summarising it in prose form in its own little paragraph of FG counter-allegations. Ohconfucius (talk) 06:42, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

3/ Whether the K&M should be summarised or stated more concisely - I hate "me too" citations. Yes, and the block-quote must be removed, IMHO, as it adds nothing of value by merely repeating what Amnesty said as well as repeating what has already been cited from Amnesty in the article. We don't need K&M to tell us what Amnesty said. A more direct citation from Amnesty is one option, or an existing citation can be beefed up, appropriately sourced. Ohconfucius (talk) 06:42, 13 May 2008 (UTC)


 * But if others have taken up and reinforced a particular argument, this shows the reception of this argument. It may be called "me too", but it's demonstrative and helpful for the reader to gauge the weight of the argument. Know what I mean? I though K/M summarise the situation well?--Asdfg12345 07:28, 13 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I think this point is problematic unless such views are universal, and in that case must be demonstrated as such. There may be a misconception that something is "more true" if it is repeated more often - it is not the case. I have a problem specifically with the paragraph cited as stated because I think block quotes should be used sparingly per WP:COPY, but all this does not imply I would necessarily disagree with some other paragraph which adds more value than just "me to". K&M wrote a whole bunch of stuff and the AI citation is just one of the building blocks, so there's bound to be material linking to AI which is more worthy of inclusion. Inclusion of purely "me too" comments is vulnerable to creation of an artificial or subjective consensus (Anyway, I don't think the comments from Amnesty really require endorsement by K&M, although it might not be the same in the other direction). It's a bit like Dilip saying Happy agrees with him on a given point, in trying to put down markers for "consensus". True consensus is far wider than us "usual suspects". In fact, we are not the consensus although we may represent it. Ohconfucius (talk) 02:13, 14 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I dont think the blockquote from the KM report should be removed - in particular because it provides a lot of background to the reader in a few words. They are indeed pointing out something very relevant there.


 * Dilip rajeev (talk) 18:34, 14 May 2008 (UTC)


 * If you insist, please find the original text and cite it. It is not acceptable in its current form. Ohconfucius (talk) 02:21, 15 May 2008 (UTC)


 * also, why was the table format removed? Ohconfucius (talk) 02:21, 15 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I think it's preferable to get the words directy from Amnesty, but I don't understand why it's unacceptable in its current form. I don't think that's true. If there is a policy or something I am not aware of, I would welcome looking at it.
 * Quotations are always better direct, and it was not adequately demonstrated why it had to be an indirect citation. Well, you highlighted the problem yourself : It now seems like the "quote" was a mish-mash of stuff from here and there, and we need to be sure who said what. Ohconfucius (talk) 04:15, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Okay, thanks. Yes, good point, and I see the sense.--Asdfg12345 11:28, 15 May 2008 (UTC)


 * The table was unnecessarily large, now the same information can be gotten across quicker and more simply--what did you like about the table?
 * Think that when there are several different pieces of info per line, it's better to have them in a box. It looks a bit scruffy, but I'm not hugely bothered by it as it is now. Ohconfucius (talk) 04:13, 15 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Also, what do you reckon we do with the False Fire box? keep it or put all those dot points in a subsection in the reporting and analysis section?
 * yes, can you perhaps do that? Ohconfucius (talk) 04:12, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Okay, no problem. Will do it next "wiki-session" (which I am trying to make time limits and firm rules about--something difficult to do, as you might know).--Asdfg12345 11:24, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
 * My perspective on this is that its 'ok' either way. Either way we convey the same information. The box does add a bit of structure - and to me keeping it boxed on a side is certainly more aesthetically pleasing than having a bunch of starred points in the middle of the article. It also does contribute to the "flow" .. a reader going through the main block needn't read through all these points unless he is particularly interested in knowing more about them.
 * Dilip rajeev (talk) 19:00, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

I think it looks better now with the subsections and stuff.--Asdfg12345 03:41, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

What says everyone about trimming down that "government actions" section a bit? Is going into this much detail relevant? To the reader it may just serve to show how absurd CCP's propagandistic actions have been - but beyond that it seems to serve little purpose. We certainly could shorten it and convey the same information in a much more encyclopedic manner. Dilip rajeev (talk) 18:20, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I believe a RfC is needed at this moment. Slowly and once more, your views are certainly not mainstream. As Ohconfuscius, I believe that it is simply pure hypocrisy that you mention that it isnt known what happened in this incident, but then use falun-supported or sympathsized sources ad lib as fact. Your continued discussion such as putting quotation marks around everything not consistent with your personal vendetta only fortifies claims about your political motivation behind these edits. EgraS (talk) 19:22, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Have you watched the video false fire: ; have you read: "Poisonous Deceit" available at ? Other then that, sure you can find any WP:RS and you can publish it. But perhaps after documenting yourself you will understand Dilip, which is when presented with facts (as in the video, or as in the points proposed in "Poisonous Deceit") you won't find as hard to do. --HappyInGeneral (talk) 00:07, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
 * What is unsourced here: ? --HappyInGeneral (talk) 00:12, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
 * What do you mean that Falun Dafa teaching claim to forbid killing? Have you read them? I did, I can tell you they do forbid killing. FYI:  --HappyInGeneral (talk) 00:16, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I can also post information from thousands of anti-Falun sources. But I'm not going to do that because it would be NPOV. Likewise, the sources are pro-FLG and state them as FACT not as opinion. Me and Ohconfuscius have been extraordinarily civil, but have been met with false accusations ranging from a fake checkuser to disrupt the discussion to edits which clearly do not meet Wikipedia's guidelines to outright derision at following WP's guidelines. A RfC will clear everything up once enough other editors pitch in. EgraS (talk) 01:25, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Please, initiate an rfc. Please don't delete the Washington Post paragraph again. The sources you seem to be objecting to are Washington Post, Amnesty International, and Kilgour and Matas. These sources are quite acceptable. If you have concerns apart from these, please let us know.--Asdfg12345 02:09, 17 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I was procrastinating on some work I had to do and I copied and pasted the text above, starting with Dilip's first entry, and ran a word count: there are 18,000 words above! Across the pages I think there would have to be hundreds of thousands of words written in discussion. that's heaps.--Asdfg12345 02:58, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

RfC

 * As the person who initiated this RfC, I believe that the root of this debate is simply if sources such as Amnesty International satisfies as a third party independent sources such that they can be counted as fact instead of opinion. EgraS (talk) 02:23, 17 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Please see WP:ASF: "Assert facts, including facts about opinions—but do not assert the opinions themselves. ... When we discuss an opinion, we attribute the opinion to someone and discuss the fact that they have this opinion." -- Including Amnesty International's comments re this incident is an example of this in action.--Asdfg12345 02:29, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
 * This RfC is incredibly fair. If the sources are independent, the article should stay the way it is. If it isnt, then they should be balanced by other views. You need to read about sources. What opinion did I give? EgraS (talk) 02:33, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
 * That is correct, although, unless we have a reason to doubt the Amnesty International sources, they seem acceptable. Happyme22 (talk) 17:50, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Amnesty international is generally a reliable source. Without studying the article, I cannot say whether what it says needs to be specifically noted as being from them; however, their general reliability with regard to human rights issues is well accepted.Ngchen (talk) 20:08, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

resources to add
"Falun Gong representatives from outside of China immediately contested the accuracy of the reports coming from the mainland. Over and over again, they insisted--correctly--that there is no sanction for violence in Li Hongzhi's writings or in Falun Gong practice, whether it be violence directed at someone else or at oneself. In addition, these diaspora practitioners--together with a certain number of sketpical foreign journalists--began to point out a number of anomalies which might lead one to wonder if the events were as straightforward as Xinhua portrayed them. For instance, why where the police officers patrolling the area equipped with fire extinguishers, allowing them to put out the flames relatively quickly? Fire extinguishers are not standard equipment for most police officers on the beat, in China or elsewhere. And how did xinhua manage to produce a report (for foreign consumption) so quickly, communicating the events to the outside world only a few hours after they occurred? Normally, the process of vetting and authorization takes considerably longer. These very basic questions suggested to some that Chinese authorities were ready for the events that transpired on the afternoon of 22 January.

(referring to Liu Chunling) "this is hardly a typical profile of a practitioner." Foreign journalists were not allowed to interview those recovering in hospitals, and neither were their relatives. Xinhua's and other official accounts of the events mentioned suicide notes left by certain practitioners (which rather strangely survived the fire), but were reticent about publishing more than a few sentences from document which, they said, sometimes ran to a length of several pages."

A later Falun Gong analysis of the film of the incident broadcast by Chinese authorities pointed out other questions or inconsistencies. Wang Jingdong, for example, appeared on close analysis to be holding a plastic bottle which remained intact in spite of the conflagration. Falun Gong's reconstruction of the footage seems to reveal as well that Liu Chunling was killed not by the flames, but by a heavy object striking her head. The group's analysis points out also that the interview with the twelve-year-old Liu Siying suposedly occurred on the heels of a tracheotomy, which would have made it very difficult for Liu to talk (she spoke clearly and even sang in the report). In short, Falun Gong's analysis suggests that the event was staged from the beginning to end: those who supposedly set themselves on fire were not Falun gong practitioners, they did not perhaps set themselves on fire (or did so imaginging that the flames would be put out immediately), and the voices heard in the supposed interviews from the hospitals were perhaps not those of the injured."

From David Ownby's "Falun Gong and the Future of China", 2008. --Asdfg<b style="color:black;">12345</b> 14:28, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

3rd opinion
As the article's original GA-reviewer, and the one that eventually gave it the stamp of approval some time ago, a user has asked me to take a look at the article once again, in regards to changes made since. Specifically, I was asked to comment on its neutrality. This is now the third time I have commented on the article, but I am by no means judge and jury on this, so take my opinions as you will. Below is a bulleted-list of issues I'd like to bring up, all concerning the article's neutrality. I also took the liberty of copy editing the article as I went through it. Lastly, please note that the article is kind of long, so I'm going to stagger my reading of it. I'll do my best to do so within a reasonable amount of time.


 * "Main article: Persecution of Falun Gong" As the very first thing in the article proper, this raises a big red flag (pun kind of intended) for me.  This is just one part of a larger problem:
 * The Background section is entirely from the point of view that the Falun Gong are victims. Though this does seem the case to me, it is not our job to make this assumption for the reader.  Additionally, by putting such assumptions in a section called "Background", the article assumes all of it as granted, and presents it as a foregone conclusion.  So, here is my simple solution: rearrange the background section into two separate sections:
 * Just-the-facts stuff about the political climate precipitating the self-immolation incident (remember, try and relate everything back to the actual topic at hand, not how bad Falun Gong has got it)
 * All of the persecution stuff.
 * Then put all of the persecution stuff into a subsection of some kind (perhaps labeled something like "Allegations of persecution"). The "main article" would actually make sense in this context.  The obvious problem with this solution is that the persecution-stuff far outweighs the other stuff.  However, this is a problem with the section anyways: of the 7 paragraphs in the section, 6½ of them victimize and are generaly sympathetic to Falun Gong.  This is MAJOR problem.  Beef up the just-the-facts stuff (a paragraph or two), and trim down the persection stuff (two or three well-thought out paragraphs should do it), and then you're in business.

That's it for now. I'll attempt to continue with my read soon. Drewcifer (talk) 00:05, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
 * "The ban and the associated persecution is considered "politically motivated" and a major violation of human rights by human rights organizations." By whom?  This is a very broad statement, particularly the first part.  The second part is also problematic: you must be much more specific with these kinds of claims.  The fact that it is cited is not enough: the prose itself must attribute such opinions to their source.  Who said it was politically motivated?  Which human rights organizations?  Also "major violation of human rights" is very broad.  A direct quote might be much better.
 * ""Much remains unclear and unknown about the circumstances surrounding the incident", including what took place in the week between the incident and when the "fully engineered news articles and television programs" were released.[3]" Needs to be attributed to its source, preferrably before the quote.  I'm assuming it's directly from Falun Gong, given the sentence before it, but it is not 100% clear.  The way it is worded presents it as fact that just happens to be part-quote.


 * Thank you very much for this. I have a few thoughts that you are welcome to address, related to your review.


 * Firstly, I think we clearly have to establish when "allegations of persecution" becomes "persecution." Let me give you an example of what I mean: the Holocaust articles says that it is "the term generally used to describe the genocide of approximately six million European Jews during World War II, as part of a program of deliberate extermination planned and executed by the National Socialist German Workers’ Party (Nazi) regime in Germany led by Adolf Hitler." -- it doesn't say alleged. So when does it go from "alleged" to "real". Related to that, it may be worthwhile to note that the significant literature on Falun Gong--such as books and journal articles by academics, reports by human rights organisations and the United Nations, and investigative journalism--say that Falun Gong practitioners in China are victims of persecution, and they go to lengths to document it. Not to mention the entire body of evidence collected by Falun Gong practitioners themselves (and it is formidable).


 * Another question is: how is it sympathetic to Falun Gong to simply report what reliable sources have said about it being persecuted?


 * How we understand these two issues is quite relevant. I would have thought that we simply follow the body of reliable sources, since theoretically we have no more to go on than that.--Asdfg<b style="color:black;">12345</b> 00:28, 5 July 2008 (UTC)


 * That is a very good point, one that I admit to not considering. My suggestion to address this issue of allegations and real-life persecutions is to still follow my advicee above about splitting the section up, but perhaps name the subsection "Persecution of Falun Gong".  Then, in the very first sentence, lead with the strongest and most neutral argument possible describing the government's actions as persecution from the most reputable sources at your disposal.  Or in other words, immediately point out the tons of literature from the UN/Amnesty Int/etc labeling it all as persecution.  That way you can ride the fine line between "alleged persecution" and "persecution".  Does that sound like a good solution? Drewcifer (talk) 00:38, 5 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Yep, sounds fair. On another note, I have a problem with the False Fire section. It has a giant paragraph from the Falun Gong broadcaster NTDTV, showing the inconsistencies in the state footage of the incident. Many of these have also been mentioned in reliable sources, but having the NTDTV full paragraph is unable to reflect this. I think this should somehow break into two parts, and preface one long sentence broken by semi-colons with the inconsistencies that have been repeated by independent sources, and then if there are any inconsistencies left over, either have NTDTV be the sole source, or just drop them. --Asdfg<b style="color:black;">12345</b> 01:15, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Government action not really about government action?
I've just moved a section added by User:Dilip rajeev to a more appropriate place instead of the top of the section but I still feel that it doesn't belong there. The government action is supposedly about (as per the title) actions done by the CCP government, but you also see half of the section giving opinions of other people on the actions themselves. Is that really appropriate? Shouldn't they go somewhere else and leave the government action to just that?

PS: This image's size, at 1.5MB (as shown on the page, as opposed to its original size, which is 2.1MB) is rather big and quite distractive IMHO. Can it be done using a static image instead? --antilivedT 11:08, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

fixing the page
just want to say I'm generally peeved off with Dilip's approach and all his changes to the articles; confucius is right to put the tag there, and I hope this page will get fixed. I hadn't even seen all these changes until just now. I've been afraid to look closely at the persecution page for over a month. As a first step, Dilip, why don't you reinstate the painstakingly agreed-to introduction, which was concise and balanced. If you wanted to be generous to other editors you could then consider any other big changes you've made and explain them. I haven't even read the page, I just glanced at the intro and that was enough. Time to say sorry.--Asdfg<b style="color:black;">12345</b> 01:58, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

What I also find particularly irking is the poor spelling and formatting that always appears when this happens. Looks so bad for an encyclopedia.--Asdfg<b style="color:black;">12345</b> 02:00, 6 August 2008 (UTC)


 * As the article's occasional outside opinion, I too am very disappointed by the recent edits. Since this seems to be solely the work of one editor, who I assume is acting in good faith, but seems to have not addressed such large changes here on the talk page, I recommend a hasty reversion of the edits as best as possible.  They largely seem counterproductive to the article's neutrality as well as the ongoing spirit of collaboration that I've seen happen on these pages.  Like I said, I assume good faith, but I ultimately would like to keep the best interests of the article in mind. Drewcifer (talk) 04:45, 6 August 2008 (UTC)


 * This has to stop. User:Dilip Rajeev is basically rewriting the whole article without consensus. --antilivedT 11:40, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

One thing occurs to me is that Dilip has a right of response. Since he has basically been left to his devices on this page, and no one has complained until now, it seems a little tough. I assume Dilip thought his edits were not problematic. Probably the best approach now is for 1) Dilip to restore at least the previous introduction, as a first step, and 2) for editors to discuss how much/which sections of the article should be wound back to their previous states, and then discuss the changes section by section. This is an idea for approaching it. To be honest I haven't given a thorough comparison to the versions, and I haven't read through this whole page. I'm finding it hard to find time for wikipedia recently, and I'm only now taking these guilty peaks out of a kind of compulsion. 20 minute sojourns (or "hits") are okay, but big contribution has to wait.--Asdfg<b style="color:black;">12345</b> 12:08, 6 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Actually, the precursor to these changes started some while ago. Admittedly, Dilip could have gone about this in a more constructive way, knowing how everybody felt about his proposals. But the important thing is getting the problems fixed. Ohconfucius (talk) 03:06, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I guess Dilip's judgement on how wikipedia should look is just rather different from other peoples'. Since he was left alone he just went for it. I don't know if there's a simple solution for this. The introduction should be put back, the deleted material should be put back, the numerous problematic construction of sentences, where certain analyses are made out to be foregone conclusions which totally goes against WP:NPOV, should all be repaired. It seems like there was information added from other sources, like RSF. This is okay. Adding research in a proper way is good, given context, but the changes go far beyond that. To be honest, I don't have time to engage in this kind of work, and I haven't looked closely enough at the article to decide whether I think it should simply be wound back and worked from the earlier version or not. --Asdfg<b style="color:black;">12345</b> 03:38, 7 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I have reverted the article back to the version before Dilip's edit rampage. I propose that all changes made during his rampage should be discussed on the talk page here first. The content of Dilip's changes can be viewed on Tiananmen Square self-immolation incident/Dilip's changes/. --antilivedT 07:01, 7 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Before labelling my edits as "rampage" I hope you will look at the sources i've used and the content i've added. This version sources a lot of commentary diretly form xinhua, while completely ignoring a lot of analysis from academics and journalists. I had done some edits without logging in ... they were from a shared IP .. other edits, not pertinent to this article, from it, are not mine.. this is a shared ip.. am accessing from another connection now.. which i just now realized uses a shared ip..
 * Dilip rajeev (talk) 08:21, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

I hope other editors will consider whether a wind back to the version before is appropriate - mainly because it removes a lot of very well sourced commentary. The second version, I believe, is much better structured too. Kindly look into the matter.

Dilip rajeev (talk) 08:21, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

I can see other editors having concers over matter of nuance in the intro. Kindly note that only xinhua has claimed that these are practitioners. Only xinhua - the very majority of 3rd party soures who analyzed the incident have been highly skeptial. When so many opine that this could have been a staged drama it is not acurate to opine that this is a genuine case of "self-immolation" - is it?. Hope you can appreciate what am trying to put across. I am requesting you to kindly allow me to put back the newer version - because i believe its much more structured - if it is lacking in certain aspects - we can work to fix it.

antilived had concerns on why i used "apprently attempted to set themselves on fire". How to phrase it properly was a dilemma for me too. I'll try to point out my concern - this is suggested by many analysts as not being a genune case of self-immolation - so if we are to do justice to that perspective - to do justise to the most likely possibility that the event was stages - can we characterize this as a self-immolation in the real sense of the word? did they rally "Set themselves on fire" or did were they themselves consciously a part of the staged icident - in that case - if they were wearing fire protective clothing and masks as suggested by the analysts - is it accurate to say that they set "themselves" on fire? Though it may seem a minor issue of nuance on the surface - its a very critical issue - we have to strive to describe things as accurately as possible and attempt to gain conformity to reputable 3rd party sources's perspectives to the greatest extent possible when we summarize things in the intro. When only the xinhua has claimed this to be a case of self-immolation how could we just follow suit and label it so ourselves? Dilip rajeev (talk) 08:50, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

As for why i didnt respond on the talk page earlier - i was largely unaware of this discussion going on here - tat is till early today morning. antilived - i would like to have this version here: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tiananmen_Square_self-immolation_incident&oldid=230246025 seen as my version.. coz i noticed the one u mention is missing commentary in the last section pertinent to intimidation of foreign corresspondts Dilip rajeev (talk) 08:27, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

The main issue is that the question of whether the people who engaged in the activity in question--whether it was a genuine self-burning or a staged attempt to look like one--were Falun Gong practitioners or not, or CCP-duped cronies or not, is up for debate. The different significant views on it all need to be addressed according to, and giving appropriate weight to, the best sources which state those views. There are a spectrum of views on the issue, and they all have to be represented. When this is done neutrally, the reader will be able to decide for themselves which arguments hold the most water. They will see which source is saying what, and who says what about other sources. E.g. Xinhua's view is given, but then so are high quality sources which rubbish Xinhua as pure propaganda and poke holes through the story. So reader's can decide for themselves whether they believe Xinhua or independent sources. This is how wikipedia is structured. You present the different views. WP:UNDUE means that we don't give elaborate explanations of Xinhua propaganda, but the significant views all need some coverage, and those scholars and writers get more airtime than Xinhua. By the way, I don't think provocative language or recriminations are very helpful. I think the article wasn't that bad before Dilip's changes. If it's just a question of adding or arranging information, there's always potential for that. For example, among many other things, Dilip deleted this: "CNN producer Lisa Weaver said she could 'smell burning flesh as the van slowly passed.'", which I reckon is okay to delete. I don't get the usefulness of that sentence. But when there's such massive changes that just blow apart any semblance of impartiality in weighing up the different arguments, it's just no good. Why not just go from the old version, Dilip, section by section, inserting information from good sources, and discussing removal of extraneous or inappropriate material. The fact that several people with different perspectives on this issue all feel the article is not at all neutral is probably a good indication that it's not neutral. Just a reminder: David Ownby addressed this incident in his book, and Clive Ainsley talks about it in the Red Wall documentary. These are two impeccable sources which aren't in the article yet and can be added. Then there's the RSF stuff. I think the key is to preserve the format of simply going from one point to another and letting the sources speak for themselves, rather than slanting the whole structure and introduction of ideas to one point of view as a foregone conclusion. This is the problem everyone has with Dilip's approach, including myself. --Asdfg<b style="color:black;">12345</b> 11:48, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Asdfg, i assure you wouldnt be saying all this had you read through the entire article and commented, instead of jumping to a quick conclusion after reading the intro alone..

I think my changes can be summarized as..

additional information from ( including, not limited to - all sources used have been of high repute):

1. clive ansley's statement from the CBC documentary

2. ian johnson

3. schechter

4. RSF

5. Beatrice Turpin of Associated Press

6. A much better structure and flow - compared to the previous ones where things were randomly blurted out here and there

The contents removed only included some highly unencyclopaedic, non-verifiable, utterly non-academic stuff like the purported relationships between and purported jail terms of the puropted victimes, their claims in quotes etc all from xinhua. This, invariably, every editor here, I believe, would agree is unencyclopaedic.

The namespaces- titles, subtitles, etc where chosen to accurately reflect the contents the corresponding sections carried.

There is also the commentary from david ownby that is very much relevant to the article. But i refrained form adding to keep the article down to a readable length

I agree with other editors we can work on the intro further - but as for the body if you patiently read through it you will see that it is essentially the same as before, merely substantiated with more academic sources.

Due to reasons i point out above, I am taking the liberty to be bold and restore the body of the newer revision while keeping the current lead. I am requesting other editors to kindly assume good faith on my part. I believe we could take an active approach to fix any minor problems in the newer, more structured version in which i had also added several paragraphs of critical and very relevant commentary. The body i beleive all editors here would definitely agree is more encyclopedic and carries more substance as well as a better structure. Dilip rajeev (talk) 16:23, 9 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I'll withhold judgement until I've had a good look at it. I don't like the lengthy section heads; it doesn't seem polished or professional. Why not just have one or two words? Second, all the stuff about what the CCP did with the footage was removed from the end. I wouldn't disagree with this being cut down, but removed entirely? I can't say until I've examined it, but I suspect there is still problematic language which orients the arguments to a particular conclusion. I noticed this before once or twice. This is the big no-no. I'll check out the rest properly when I get a minute.--Asdfg<b style="color:black;">12345</b> 12:11, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

A factual error in lead?
I just noticed that the lead claims "within hours" the footage was broadcast. This is factually wrong. It was over a week before the footage was aired. Please refer to Ownby or Schechter. Dilip rajeev (talk) 15:46, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Btw am not sure what the term "image" refers to there - I think, in the particular context, it suggests 'footage' more than anything else. Dilip rajeev (talk) 16:21, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

There were news reports the same night of the incident--if these did not include the footage of the event then we may have to change it to clarify that it was just a news report. It may have been until a week that they released their more, let's say, "comprehensive" production.--Asdfg<b style="color:black;">12345</b> 16:34, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, there was news the same evening - but the footage was not aired. According to Ian Johnson: "[the state media]..reported the victim's death with unusual alacrity, implying that the death took place earlier than reported or the usually cautious media had top-level approval to rush out electronic reports and a televised dispatch, The 7 p.m. local evening news, for example had a filmed report from Mr Tan's hometown of Changde, a small city in Hunan province. Most reports for the evening news are vetted by noon, so the daily broadcasts rarely carries reports from the same day, let alone an event that happened at noon and involved satellite feeds from relatively remote parts of the country."

Danny Schechter points out the state media 'uncharacteristically' released the story at once, while "it took a week of production" before the footage was finally aired. If I remember right, David Ownby states it was "over a week" before the video was aired. Dilip rajeev (talk) 17:03, 3 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I think Dilip as well as several other people want to use another POV-pushing source. Ian Johnson, nor most of the sources here can hardly be considered neutral. This article has lost GA status as a result. EgraS (talk) 06:13, 9 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I really don't get the point behind your rather confusing argument. Ian Johnson is a Pulitzer Prize winning journalist working for the Wall Street Journal. You said Amnesty is just a lobby group ( I remember you had support from one more editor who echoed your perspective that Amnesty International is just a lobby group or perhaps whose perspective you echoed) and your supporting-editor had made very similar accusations against Danny Schechter. Anyway, could you let us all know what your perspective on Danny Schecter as a source is? Just Curious. By the way, whats "Egra" meant to signify? The Latin for worker?
 * Dilip rajeev (talk) 14:38, 11 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Tags aren't to prove a point or make an argument. What in th article needs to be fixed, let's fix it. Don't start with a tag, though. Start with discussion and what needs to be fixed. I want the articles to be neutral, too. It's also silly to call Ian Johnson a non-neutral source. It shows great ignorance of the subject, to put it in a not-very-pleasant way.--Asdfg<b style="color:black;">12345</b> 11:54, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
 * The GA new reviewer has made it clear about the lack of neutrality of the article. The article has become significantly worse since you and Dilip edited it as the independent reviewer made clear. EgraS (talk) 21:23, 11 January 2009 (UTC)


 * You are seeking to make large scale changes without any discussion. It doesn't work like that. The article has been stable for a long while now, please discuss what you are doing. As I say, I also want improvements, so let's work through proposed changes in a peaceful and rational way. No more massive changes with a terse note on the talk page.--Asdfg<b style="color:black;">12345</b> 22:38, 11 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Tags are not a "massive change". Nothing I did is a massive change. An independent mediator will be requested if you revert again. EgraS (talk) 13:59, 16 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Yeah, I suggest you request a mediator. We aren't going to get anywhere if you keep trying to make sweeping changes to the article without a trace of discussion. If you discuss what you want to change, however, I think you would find that warmly received. It's a disputed topic, and the version here has been like this for months already. It's not clear where the major benefits lie in refactoring large portions of content. We can start with the lede.--Asdfg<b style="color:black;">12345</b> 16:33, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Really ?!?!?!?
From the moment this article introduced the event, the rest is attacking CCP China. Pretty frustrating to read. No i have no suggestions because there is only one's point of view, this article is impossible to fix. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.199.98.93 (talk) 01:13, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Considering the entire article is constructed using Western sources (which are more biased than they care to admit, and all Chinese sources are automatically "propaganda"), including Epoch Times, which itself is not exactly well-respected among the over-seas Chinese community, why is this surprising? Sinophobia's always been a part of Western media, and it'll stay that way. I'm not, mind you, saying anything about Wikipedia. It's just that since its articles can only be constructed using existing sources, which if you were to ask me all have serious issues regardless of their origins, there's simply no way to avoid bias on issues like these. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.149.158.81 (talk) 08:07, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Some sources for editors to use
I posted these previously elsewhere, not sure if anyone picked them up. I'm providing here for the editors of this page:

Porter, Noah. Falun Gong in the United States An Ethnographic Study. Dissertation. University of South Florida, 2003, pp. 104-105

"January 23, 2001, was when the infamous self-immolation incident happened. Five people showed up Tiananmen Square and set themselves on fire. Falun Gong practitioners have pointed out many suspicious aspects of the event, suggesting the Chinese government was behind it.  The Chinese Government was reported by practitioners to have fabricated such a report earlier (Clearwisdom.net 2000a). Since suicide is a traditional gesture of protest in China (Chang 1991: 89, 134; Rahn 2001b; Lindsey 2001: 2; ter Haar 2001: sec. 1; Li Cheng 1997: 168-169), it may seem reasonable to think Falun Gong members might protest in this way.  However, Falun Gong beliefs prohibit killing, which includes suicide (see Li Hongzhi 1999c: 27); therefore, I think that even if there were people who lit themselves on fire and considered themselves Falun Gong practitioners, they would not be representative of Falun Gong practitioners any more than Christianity as a whole is represented by people who shoot and bomb abortion clinics. While some have said that “the event was a public relations disaster for both Beijing and Falun Gong” (Lindsey 2001) and that “the [Chinese] state was quite angry at the Western media for publishing it as evidence of Falun Gong martyrdom” (ter Haar 2001: sec. 1), it should also be pointed out that there is some evidence that the Chinese government is divided on the issue of Falun Gong (Edelman and Richardson 2003: 320), and that “Public sentiment within China was decidedly opposed to the government campaign, at least until several [supposed] Falun Gong adherents—including a mother and daughter—immolated themselves in a January 2001 protest in Tiananmen Square” (Kindopp 2002: 261). Therefore, those the anger directed at Western media portrayal of the self-immolation may reflect divisions within the Chinese government; and, in any case, it is clear that Falun Gong took a much more damaging PR blow from the incident than the Chinese government did. In addition, convincing evidence has been provided that the events described by the Chinese media are at least deceptive, if not a complete hoax (Schechter 2000; Schechter 2001: 20-23; FalunInfo.net n.d.c)."

Rowe, Peter. "Beyond the Red Wall: The Persecution of Falun Gong," Canadian Broadcast Corporation: 2008. link, starting 16:00.

"Clive Ainsley: The Chinese media was used as a tool against them, and for a long period of time accusations of great evil against the Falun Gong appeared every day in the Chinese language press, both the print media and on television."

...

"Narrator: One of the most powerful images used in the media war between the Chinese State and Falun Gong, is the so-called self-immolation of practitioners in Tiananmen Square on January 23, 2001, five people set themselves on fire near the People's Hero monument. This infamous footage has been repeatedly shown on Chinese state television to underscore the government's claim of the suicidal nature of Falun Gong. A number of unexplained inconsistencies in the broadcast have led many people to believe that it was actually a hoax designed by the government to discredit the movement."

"Clive Ainsley: You've got Falun Gong people in this country, they've been oppressed over and over again, they've not been allowed to speak, they're not allowed to assert their rights as citizens, and the level of frustration must be terribly, terribly high, so I can understand people doing that. That doesn't mean the teachings of Li Hongzhi, the movement is evil, but ironically, we ultimately found out that it was a fraud anyway. It wasn't real, the people involved were not Falun Gong members, it was completely staged by the government."

Pan, Philip P. "Human Fire Ignites Chinese Mystery; Motive for Public Burning Intensifies Fight Over Falun Gong." Washington Post Foreign Service, 02/04/2001

"The state media have said little about why the five who set themselves on fire might have joined Falun Gong. Beijing denied requests to interview Liu Siying and the three other survivors, who are all hospitalized with serious burns. A Kaifeng official said only China Central Television and the official New China News Agency were permitted to speak to their relatives or their colleagues. A man who answered the door at the Liu home referred questions to the government. But Liu Chunling's Apple Orchard neighbors described her as a woman who led a troubled life and suffered from psychological problems. State media identified 78-year-old Hao Xiuzhen as her adoptive mother. Neighbors said they quarreled often before Liu drove the woman from their home last year."

"'There was something wrong with her,' said neighbor Liu Min, 51. 'She hit her mother, and her mother was crying and yelling. She hit her daughter, too.' There were also questions about how Liu supported herself and about the whereabouts of her daughter's father. Neighbors said Liu was not a native of Kaifeng, and that a man in southern Guangdong province paid her rent. Others, including neighbor Wen Jian, 22, said Liu worked in a local nightclub and was paid to dine with and dance with customers. None ever saw her practice Falun Gong."

Brady, Anne-Marie. Marketing Dictatorship: Propaganda and Thought Work in Contemporary China. Rowman and Littlefield: 2008, p. 86

"The horrific and graphic scenes of the self-immolations have been repeatedly shown on Chinese television as a justification for why Falungong should be banned in China. The images have been extremely effective in turning public opinion in China--which was initially relatively sympathetic to the group and its followers--against the spiritual movement. According to Falungong, the incident itself never happened, and was a cruel (but clever) piece of stunt-work worthy of Hollywood." --Asdfg<b style="color:black;">12345</b> 15:07, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

"Falun Gong and self-immolation" -- an original synthesis
This is just about the one section called "Falun Gong and self-immolation", which AnnaInDC removed. This section is a piece of propaganda; in wikipedia it's called a "Synthesis of published material that advances a position". The edict there is to "not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources." and "If one reliable source says A, and another reliable source says B, do not join A and B together to imply a conclusion C that is not mentioned by either of the sources." This section hovers between legitimate commentary and quotes, and synthesis/propaganda in its descriptions. I will write sentence by sentence, referring to the text. I thought it would be easier to present the sentence in italics first, then a starred remark.

Falun Gong stated that there had been no incidents of self-immolation among Falun Gong practitioners in the world before 23 January 2001.
 * Neutral statement.

However, the China Association for Cultic Studies published details of 3 instances of Falun Gong followers who they claim committed self-immolation prior to 2001, the earliest one in 1997, and 3 further instances said to have taken place subsequent to the incident in Tiananmen Square.
 * Propaganda--making this juxtaposition is not okay. It's not a reliable source to begin with, anyway. facts.org.cn is the CCP's very own attack web site. If you know Chinese, check the virulent original. Want to know more? Try searching "凯风" "610" site:gov.cn. It's a propaganda website which has no credentials to discuss Falun Gong.

Academics such as Chang (1991), Rahn (2001), Lindsey (2001) and Li Cheng (1997) recognised that suicide is a traditional gesture of protest in China; ter Haar (2001) postulated that former Buddhists may have brought with them the "respectable Buddhist tradition of self-immolation as a sacrifice to the Buddha".
 * Next it refers to academics who talk about suicide as "a traditional gesture of protest in China" (no mention of Falun Gong?) and ter Haar who postulates that "former Buddhists may have brought with them the "respectable Buddhist tradition of self-immolation as a sacrifice to the Buddha"." -- this is also totally irrelevant. That link is dead now anyway so we can't check, but there's nothing here that indicates any relevance to Falun Gong, so it's all a subtle original synthesis. By referring to a "traditional gesture of protest in China" and "former Buddhists" etc., it kind of implicates Falun Gong without doing so explicitly. A form of original synthesis. Update: the source was produced and it was shown that ter Haar mentioned Falun Gong specifically. My suggestion was then to expand on his analysis, since he's a recognised figure, and keep out the coatrack (sources above that make no mention or speculation of Falun Gong and self-immolation, or that don't pass RS)

"The Guardian commented that Li Hongzhi's new scripture released on 1 January 2001, Beyond the Limits of Forbearance, had confused his supporters.''
 * Next paragraph. I know Gittings is an old China hand. This could be attributed better though, and mentioned alongside other pertinent commentaries. These are cherry-picked opinions designed to give an impression, not a full representation of what commentators have said regarding whether it's likely they were practitioners or not.

Matthew Forney in Time magazine believed the message had spread into China via the internet and informal networks of followers, and reached more radical practitioners there.
 * Forney in Time; this seems okay, but what it's building to and the context it's placed in make it problematic.

Falun Gong headquarters in New York admitted ten days after the release of the scripture that "certain disciples had some extreme interpretations [and thought] we are going to resort to violence", and asserted that Li's message merely meant time had come to let the truth be known about China's atrocities.
 * The "headquarters" "admitted" could be better attributed or ommited, since these aren't the terms used by the entity referred to. I would suggest that in this context, they are words to avoid, or weasely. If they don't add anything (do they?) then why not just say what the Falun Dafa Information Center said, rather than what Falun Gong "headquarters" "admitted"?

Jensen and Weston remarked it was clear from Li Hongzhi's messages that he advocated martyrdom over prudence, and that "if the Chinese authorities lit the fire, Li just as clearly fanned the flames."
 * The use of this remark is misleading. The authors were not referring to self-immolation; in that remark they talk about "Li's speeches during the period" and how they are interpreted. They say that the incident itself "remains highly disputed", mention that Falun Gong thinks it a set up, and are inconclusive about whether they were "practitioners" or not ("Whatever the truth about the incident..."). But the way the remark is placed here, it makes it seem like the authors have come to the conclusion that the individuals in the immolation were Falun Gong practitioners. This is a distortion of the source.

''David Ownby believes that the brief message was "difficult to interpret": it somewhat resembled a "call to arms" against what Li described as "evil beings who no longer have any human nature or righteous thoughts". Ownby said nobody he talked to had seen it as a "green light" for violent action; "[b]ut a practitioner at the end of his or her rope in China could certainly see [the statements] as an endorsement for martyrdom, and perhaps choose his or her own means to achieve that."''
 * This is not all Ownby said about it. Using the final remark from Pomfret to give it the flourish of finality violates NPOV, which says that all points of view should be described fairly, and the article not try to lead readers down the garden path of which is true and which isn't. But in this section the readers are introduced to a series of specially chosen quotes, some of which are relevant, others not, to create the impression that the opinion of commentators is that those who apparently immolated themselves were Falun Gong practitioners. The reliable sources which dissent (Porter, Schechter, the remarks in Beyond the Red Wall) are left out, and the section is wrapped in the package of "Falun Gong and self-immolation" which itself violates synthesis. Google that phrase and you'll find it's not a subject of scholarly discussion, but appears only on wikipedia. In all the literature on Falun Gong, this does not appear to be a subject of discussion. All the material included under this section here relates to whether people think the individuals involved were practitioners or not, not how or whether Falun Gong is related to or includes self-immolation.

Suggestion: scrap the section as it is and reintegrate the material that's directly relevant to the matter at hand into a section which explicitly weighs up the question of whether the individuals involved in the event were practitioners or not. Something like "Disputed identity of individuals" or "Speculations on identity" or whatever, something that is neutral and has the breadth needed to be able to give all the opinions available (and there are more than what is just here) on whether the individuals were "practitioners" or not. The current section doesn't cut it, and provides a one-sided, cherry-picked set of quotes and syntheses to conclude that they were practitioners, which is not a reflection of the body of reliable sources available. Further, the section title is a synthesis, and half the first paragraph is propaganda/coatrack combo. For Ownby's view, his book would be the go-to place. He's decidedly inconclusive on the matter.--Asdfg<b style="color:black;">12345</b> 06:53, 16 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Here's the archived copy of the link from the WaybackMachine. --antilivedT 07:25, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, indeed. What Haar wrote was not only non-synthetic, it was highly relevant and centred on his work on the Falun Gong. Ohconfucius  ¡digame! 07:31, 16 February 2010 (UTC)


 * This does not seem to be a discussion, but mudslinging dressed up as rational argument. There are some pretty stiff allegations being rolled out to discredit the contents of this article, including a lot which is directly out of the Falun Gong playbook but using WP's own policies and guidelines. This comes as no surprise, as I have become used to seeing these sort of tactics in Falun Gong-related articles. I'm just surprised it hasn't come along sooner. I'm not saying the article couldn't be more NPOV, but the changes inserted by AnnaInDC were clearly from the blinkered 'Falun Gong is Good and we can believe everything they say but we can't trust anything which emanates from the Propaganda Department' school of thought - this is testified to in the comments she placed in this talk page. I may have the highest edit count here, but the coherence of the text with the underlying sources was scrutinised by several editors highly skilled in NPOV matters. If this were a sincere discussion, I would oblige. I won't do it today, but I will take a look at the sources in the next few days. Ohconfucius  ¡digame! 07:31, 16 February 2010 (UTC)


 * And now I see that the section has been completely removed - going a lot further than even what asdfg suggested to rework the material into the rest of the article. This is all very sinister indeed. Ohconfucius  ¡digame! 07:46, 16 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Yeah, super sinister. I think the devil himself might be behind it. I do not mean to have slung mud. That's not what I was trying to do. I looked at each sentence there and tried to refer to policy in pointing out where problems were. I don't think it's controversial to change the title of the section, or include all such relevant information elsewhere, along with a fuller account of the difference views. And by "fuller account of the different views" I do mean, like, all the different views (per RS). I read the ter Haar thing, it adds a useful perspective. Unfortunately we only get a soundbite of it that fits into the master narrative. That won't do. Someone like that is a good source, and should get more play for their piece of insight to develop a bit more. Basically, all I suggest is that things be unwound a bit, and the discussion (on the page) opened up. I mean that the question of whether they were Falun Gong practitioners or not, as it is addressed in the form of speculation/opinion by reliable sources (I'm not talking about Falun Gong video deconstruction or whatever), is an interesting and relevant part of this whole debate. The section that deals with this needs to be 1) longer and make better use of the reliable sources and points of view available; 2) not use an originally synthesised title like "Falun Gong and self-immolation" (search that, see what you find); 3) give more space for the themes to unfold and be explored, showing different sides (and a number of points of view are conspicuously missing from this analysis, such as that of Porter and Schechter) while concluding none, and giving the reader something they can make up their own minds about, rather than a pre-wrapped package. My analysis of those sentences is not meant to be an attack on you. I don't know why it passed NPOV, I won't speculate. I just pointed out the problems I saw when reading that section.--Asdfg<b style="color:black;">12345</b> 09:32, 16 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Actually, I noticed this section basically repeated some of the same information in the "The dispute" section above (that's a good name for it!). This is my suggestion for the best way to resolve this: move what was not in "The dispute" up there and integrate it; purge the repetition; drop the original syntheses and coatracking (that is, remarks not explicitly mentioning Falun Gong, for starters); group the arguments by theme; give the big names more space to expound; bring in some more diverse viewpoints (I can think of four already: Porter, Schechter, the WSJ editorial called like "what is Falun Gong is a cult?" and Beyond the Red Wall. I'll paste three of those below); and call it a day. This is just a thought, I'm sure it's not perfect, but I think it avoids the danger of making a synthesis, repeating arguments, and presenting a one-sided view. Also, I believe all or at least most of the remarks, snide or otherwise, about the scripture, or whatever else, be put here, too, and given a chance to be aired. Including Ostergaard's "gift" remark later on seems a bit cheap. Those sort of comments need to stand up to scrutiny. (Look how Ownby presents the scripture, for example. He puts it in the section in his book before the one about the self-immolation, and makes clear that "the form taken by such apparent militancy, beginning later in the spring of 2001, was that of sitting in a meditative posture and "emitting righteous thoughts." He does not link the scripture with the immolation, and that is worth a lot. There should surely be a diversity of views, but wikipedia requires that editors take their cues from the best sources, and frame things in a way that reflects the most reliable sources; when there is a dispute about the interpretation of the scripture, I think all the disputes should be grouped, and aired in accordance with their prominence. Including an unusual or fringe interpretation of it outside the context of mainstream interpretations, for example, doesn't seem quite on point.) Just some extra thoughts. I am not trying to pick fights.--Asdfg<b style="color:black;">12345</b> 10:28, 16 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I do not see how this section passed the NPOV requirement because the leading reference is not a WP:V source. There would not be a section without this reference: http://www.facts.org.cn/Feature/hand/Cases/200904/t90507.htm If you look at this website "http://www.facts.org.cn/", it is an "anti-Falun gong" website based in China. So, it's not a NPOV to begin with and not WP:V ("what counts is whether readers can verify that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source"). Also, as mentioned below, that site is not from the "Cultic Research Institute". Whoever put this section together wrote "Cultic Research Institute" and added a propaganda link that has nothing to do with the "Cultic Research Institute" and does not even mention said "Institute". Also, if you use Chinese "media" sources, how can you validate that they are just not fabricated? China's media standards do not allow for WP:V Where are pre-2001 news reports of the Falun Gong pre-2001 self immolation incidents? Why did these 3 cases of Falun Gong pre-2001 self immolation turn up (in that link/ref) only AFTER the Tiananmen incident in 2001? I suggest that this reference to "facts.org.cn" should be removed, it does not appear to be legitimate data and does not meet WP:V standards. The section should be deleted unless convincing news reports of FG pre-2001 self immolation turn up. AnnaInDC (talk) 23:35, 17 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Please see this synopsis in this link/reference from "The Human Rights Brief" (2001), a student-run publication of the Center for Human Rights and Humanitarian Law:

http://www.wcl.american.edu/hrbrief/09/1china.cfm "The Chinese Media's Propaganda Campaign against Falun Gong"


 * "While the government's campaign of violence endeavors to abolish the practice of and belief in Falun Gong, the propaganda campaign has been effective in gaining public support. The most common and seemingly most effective element of the propaganda campaign is recurrent broadcasting and reporting of the self-immolation of several alleged Falun Gong practitioners in Tiananmen Square in January 2001. By repeatedly depicting images of a young girl burning alive while asserting that Falun Gong preaches that such self-immolation will lead its followers to paradise, the Chinese government reportedly has succeeded in persuading many people that Falun Gong is an "evil cult." In response to the self-immolations, several unnamed Falun Gong spokespersons attempted to disassociate the movement from such events, expressing skepticism about whether those who set themselves on fire actually were Falun Gong members."

AnnaInDC (talk) 21:03, 17 February 2010 (UTC)


 * And on a lighter note, lets see what Ohconfucius has to say about removing data: "I do cleanups, and I'm not afraid to remove large quantities of text which are not relevant or compliant with WP policies and guidelines." From:http://wapedia.mobi/en/User:Ohconfucius :-)

AnnaInDC (talk) 00:11, 18 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I have difficulty believing it was not a sarcastic jibe at me, a subtle implication of hypocrisy, but I'll let it pass. Here is an example of my judicious pruning. Enjoy! Ohconfucius  ¡digame! 02:59, 18 February 2010 (UTC)


 * The actual writing in the article is quite good. However, I don't understand why you or whoever initially put this article together picked the weakest points from the various references when presenting the Falun Gong side. It does not read as being from a NPOV. For example, what sticks out first is the intro's because killing is "considered a sin". People may disagree but I think that sounds like fluff if trying to debuke the self immolation as Falun Gong related and not listed as the main points by FDI as to why they thought the incident was staged. There are other examples of a shakey Falun Gong perspective in this Wiki entry. Mostly, my issue is with the WP:V of media sources originating in China or mimicing China's media coverage of the self-immolation. Unfortunately, for all we know, those people could have beed bribed, drugged so the burning didn't hurt and then swapped for TV interview purposes, and even killed after their usefulness was up. What happened to them after supposedly being "sentenced" to jail? Somehow I think no one will ever know.. AnnaInDC (talk) 05:05, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
 * It's not the 'weakest' point, by any means. Looking at the link you provided, it is the principal philosophical argument from the FLG. The others are interpretations of the circumstantial evidence which FDI used to discredit the event as a 'setup'. In any event, these secondary arguments are taken up quite well in the secondary sources, NTDTV and Danny Schechter, and thus it was preferred to leave these to 'do the talking', otherwise, there would have been needless repetition and over-reliance on a primary source. Ohconfucius  ¡digame! 05:21, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't disagree with you about the reliability of the sources used in the article in the absolute, but they are "reliable" in the sense that they represent the FLG and the Chines government respectively - this is what WP:A and WP:V are about. Yes, I agree it is likely that some of the interviews and footages were shot with body doubles, and what is in the article is sufficient to allow readers to come to that conclusion too. Ohconfucius  ¡digame! 05:24, 18 February 2010 (UTC)


 * That is not clear in the way this information and sources are presented. An entire section "FG and Self Immolation" is created based on data found in www.facts.org.cn, which is not WP:V. You (or someone) created a whole section based on a source that is not WP:reliable or WP:V. If the point is to document what the Chinese government has claimed it should be presented that way rather than using their unverifiable data as fact. The result is a creation of a stream of thought for readers  based on potentially fabricated sources through WP:OR. Remember most people accessing the link will not spend this much time digging into the issue, carefully weighing all the evidence.AnnaInDC (talk) 16:11, 18 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I just checked the WayBack Machine and
 * this reference is not archieved there. There seems no way to determine when it was published as it is not dated. In my experience, references that can not be dated with non-WP:V data are not legitimate. AnnaInDC (talk) 18:03, 18 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Anyway, who decides? I think that section should go unless verifiable news/data about self-immolation before 2001 is presented.The main reference from www.facts.org.cn does not hold up as legitimate and isn't worthy of being cited in what is supposed to be a fact based encyclopedia which readers can rely on. AnnaInDC (talk) 16:11, 18 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Consensus decides on Wikipedia. And we have bad experiences of trying to reach consensus with pro- and anti-FG propagandists. Martin Rundkvist (talk) 18:46, 18 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Okay, well this reference used to create the "Falun Gong and Self immolation" section is not traceable or dated, and not found in the WayBackMachine. I fear to suggest that it's actual date is in the link at "200904", around the time this section "Falun Gong and Self immolation" was included into Wiki and the link was created for inclusion into Wiki? Please quell my concerns if that is not the case. Anyhow, it does not hold up as a legitimate reference for basic reasons: 1. it's from a propaganda website and 2. it is not dated. So, please remove the section, it does not meet the WP:V, WP:reliable, WP:NPOV, no WP:OR requirements.AnnaInDC (talk) 19:54, 18 February 2010 (UTC)


 * So..I preened through the history and found that this strange reference was added on 10/11/2009 not too close to "200904". Maybe someone was just careless and did not inspect it carefully. Sorry. AnnaInDC (talk) 02:59, 19 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Note: if no cogent reason is given as to why the useful info in this section shouldn't be integrated into the "dispute" section, with the coatracking and irrelevant information deleted (as in, that which doesn't mention Falun Gong at all and only serves the original synthesis), and the reliable sources expanded on, then I'd suggest that be done? At the moment I'm not sure where the discussion is, but it seems that idea hasn't really been disputed, and the problems in that section will remain until its fixed. --Asdfg<b style="color:black;">12345</b> 15:12, 20 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Who says the change is not disputed? There is more than one way of disputing something without edit warring, you know... Much valid sourced text was removed on the pretext that one of the sources was a 'Chinese government propaganda site' in absolute disregard to the my objection. It is just plain obscene to remove text just because it happens not to conform to the FLG view of the world. The text is as necessary and required as anything which came from any FLG source, so it's pretty clear to me the deletion was partisan and unwarranted.  Ohconfucius  ¡digame! 02:05, 22 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Well, that note was basically an invitation to keep the discussion going, and to voice any complaints. I disagree with the simple removal of the section, as I said earlier--though it's not the same as vandalism. Please see the note on questionable sources, in RS: "Questionable sources are those with a poor reputation for checking the facts, or with no editorial oversight. Such sources include websites and publications expressing views that are widely acknowledged as extremist, or promotional in nature, or which rely heavily on rumors and personal opinions. Questionable sources should only be used as sources of material on themselves, especially in articles about themselves. Questionable sources are generally unsuitable as a basis for citing contentious claims about third parties." -- the website in question is associated with the work of the 610 Office, and is well-known as a partisan anti-Falun Gong hate website. Please explain if you disagree, hopefully bringing some evidence. The use made of these extremist sources in this article is troubling, and violates both NPOV and RS. It's quite unclear how that text (from facts.org.cn) is necessary and required as anything from a Falun Gong source; in the article currently, it's function is purely propagandistic. The CCP's anti-Falun Gong claims regarding this incident are outlined clearly enough in reliable sources; we don't have to rely on propaganda to explain these things, and the purpose of this page is not to vilify Falun Gong in the same words as the CCP's mouthpieces. All I've proposed is that the good information in that section be integrated into the "dispute" section above, and the coatracking, original syntheses, and sources that fail RS be removed. That's it. I wrote a detailed analysis of the paragraphs in question above, too, and the notes I wrote haven't been rebutted. I don't see why we can't just fix this and move on? It will basically just be an improvement of the page--I don't see the problem? --Asdfg<b style="color:black;">12345</b> 06:15, 22 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Well, your disagreement with wholescale section removal didn't stop Anna from repeatedly reverting me, essentially refusing to accept my arguments and made me feel I was being ganged-up against and dragged behind the bike shed. It also reminded me of tactics once prevalent in FLG articles which I ranted about. The decent thing to be done was to simply leave it in its existing state and tag it NPOV, but oh no... I just didn't know what to say.


 * If it's any consolation: if I had the powers to edit, I would have reverted her. I think just above is the third time I stated direct disagreement with the approach of straight out removing the material, which as we've seen over these last few years, just antagonises the situation. I don't know what more I can do than advocate the best way I see of resolving it (as above). --Asdfg<b style="color:black;">12345</b> 06:49, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh, I know you weren't responsible for that rather aggressive, tendentious editing. I merely stated how I felt about being handled in that fashion. Ohconfucius  ¡digame! 07:39, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I was not handling you Ohconfucius. I simply edited the article in a way I thought was appropriate; by removing the "Falun Gong and Self Immolation" section. The only reference for creating that section is dubiously not WP:R or WP:V as it does not have a date, not found in the WayBackMachine, and is posted on a propaganda website (of a country with limited or no media freedom, i.e., they can just make stuff up. For those not upto speed simply google the words: China media freedom). Can we all agree that this reference is not suitable for an encyclopedia? Also, the section as whole comprised WP:OR based on this "faulty" reference. According to Wiki policy and your own words on your user page, there is nothing wrong with cleaning up articles by removing large amounts of text, something you do yourself when you see fit. Please advise this new editor what would you have done if you were my shoes? AnnaInDC (talk) 23:15, 22 February 2010 (UTC)


 * It may help to focus very specifically on the content issues at hand, and not on the personal ones. Another reference discussing the concept of that section was the ter Haar one (and while not nearly as weighty as would a published text, like a book, or what have you, I guess it's something). But one reference does not a section make; the rest of the information was not about that subject, and ter Haar's observations could just as well go into the "dispute" section to avoid the whole POV fork etc. They are, after all, just his speculations. I don't think even Professor ter Haar should get his own section to ponder on this topic, when everyone else has to squabble over their views in the "dispute" section. AnnaInDC, a more conciliatory approach would be to go ahead and try to incorporate the information into the "dispute" section, and see how it goes. 2 cents. --Asdfg<b style="color:black;">12345</b> 00:22, 23 February 2010 (UTC)


 * As I said above, the decent thing to be done was to simply leave it in its existing state and tag it NPOV, tag the link with dead link, and then start a discussion here, but oh no... Removing the whole section on the premise you stated above is downright tendentious editing.   Ohconfucius  ¡digame! 01:48, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
 * There is some confusion here. The dead link should properly go in for current ref.3 used several times in the "Incident" section. I can try to do that. The removed section was one created from WP:OR and a faulty article from a propoganda website. I don't think it's proper to just create sections based on made up material. AnnaInDC (talk) 03:22, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

"Falun Gong and self-immolation" -- an original synthesis
This is just about the one section called "Falun Gong and self-immolation", which AnnaInDC removed. This section is a piece of propaganda; in wikipedia it's called a "Synthesis of published material that advances a position". The edict there is to "not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources." and "If one reliable source says A, and another reliable source says B, do not join A and B together to imply a conclusion C that is not mentioned by either of the sources." This section hovers between legitimate commentary and quotes, and synthesis/propaganda in its descriptions. I will write sentence by sentence, referring to the text. I thought it would be easier to present the sentence in italics first, then a starred remark.

Falun Gong stated that there had been no incidents of self-immolation among Falun Gong practitioners in the world before 23 January 2001.
 * Neutral statement.

However, the China Association for Cultic Studies published details of 3 instances of Falun Gong followers who they claim committed self-immolation prior to 2001, the earliest one in 1997, and 3 further instances said to have taken place subsequent to the incident in Tiananmen Square.
 * Propaganda--making this juxtaposition is not okay. It's not a reliable source to begin with, anyway. facts.org.cn is the CCP's very own attack web site. If you know Chinese, check the virulent original. Want to know more? Try searching "凯风" "610" site:gov.cn. It's a propaganda website which has no credentials to discuss Falun Gong.

Academics such as Chang (1991), Rahn (2001), Lindsey (2001) and Li Cheng (1997) recognised that suicide is a traditional gesture of protest in China; ter Haar (2001) postulated that former Buddhists may have brought with them the "respectable Buddhist tradition of self-immolation as a sacrifice to the Buddha".
 * Next it refers to academics who talk about suicide as "a traditional gesture of protest in China" (no mention of Falun Gong?) and ter Haar who postulates that "former Buddhists may have brought with them the "respectable Buddhist tradition of self-immolation as a sacrifice to the Buddha"." -- this is also totally irrelevant. That link is dead now anyway so we can't check, but there's nothing here that indicates any relevance to Falun Gong, so it's all a subtle original synthesis. By referring to a "traditional gesture of protest in China" and "former Buddhists" etc., it kind of implicates Falun Gong without doing so explicitly. A form of original synthesis. Update: the source was produced and it was shown that ter Haar mentioned Falun Gong specifically. My suggestion was then to expand on his analysis, since he's a recognised figure, and keep out the coatrack (sources above that make no mention or speculation of Falun Gong and self-immolation, or that don't pass RS)

"The Guardian commented that Li Hongzhi's new scripture released on 1 January 2001, Beyond the Limits of Forbearance, had confused his supporters.''
 * Next paragraph. I know Gittings is an old China hand. This could be attributed better though, and mentioned alongside other pertinent commentaries. These are cherry-picked opinions designed to give an impression, not a full representation of what commentators have said regarding whether it's likely they were practitioners or not.

Matthew Forney in Time magazine believed the message had spread into China via the internet and informal networks of followers, and reached more radical practitioners there.
 * Forney in Time; this seems okay, but what it's building to and the context it's placed in make it problematic.

Falun Gong headquarters in New York admitted ten days after the release of the scripture that "certain disciples had some extreme interpretations [and thought] we are going to resort to violence", and asserted that Li's message merely meant time had come to let the truth be known about China's atrocities.
 * The "headquarters" "admitted" could be better attributed or ommited, since these aren't the terms used by the entity referred to. I would suggest that in this context, they are words to avoid, or weasely. If they don't add anything (do they?) then why not just say what the Falun Dafa Information Center said, rather than what Falun Gong "headquarters" "admitted"?

Jensen and Weston remarked it was clear from Li Hongzhi's messages that he advocated martyrdom over prudence, and that "if the Chinese authorities lit the fire, Li just as clearly fanned the flames."
 * The use of this remark is misleading. The authors were not referring to self-immolation; in that remark they talk about "Li's speeches during the period" and how they are interpreted. They say that the incident itself "remains highly disputed", mention that Falun Gong thinks it a set up, and are inconclusive about whether they were "practitioners" or not ("Whatever the truth about the incident..."). But the way the remark is placed here, it makes it seem like the authors have come to the conclusion that the individuals in the immolation were Falun Gong practitioners. This is a distortion of the source.

''David Ownby believes that the brief message was "difficult to interpret": it somewhat resembled a "call to arms" against what Li described as "evil beings who no longer have any human nature or righteous thoughts". Ownby said nobody he talked to had seen it as a "green light" for violent action; "[b]ut a practitioner at the end of his or her rope in China could certainly see [the statements] as an endorsement for martyrdom, and perhaps choose his or her own means to achieve that."''
 * This is not all Ownby said about it. Using the final remark from Pomfret to give it the flourish of finality violates NPOV, which says that all points of view should be described fairly, and the article not try to lead readers down the garden path of which is true and which isn't. But in this section the readers are introduced to a series of specially chosen quotes, some of which are relevant, others not, to create the impression that the opinion of commentators is that those who apparently immolated themselves were Falun Gong practitioners. The reliable sources which dissent (Porter, Schechter, the remarks in Beyond the Red Wall) are left out, and the section is wrapped in the package of "Falun Gong and self-immolation" which itself violates synthesis. Google that phrase and you'll find it's not a subject of scholarly discussion, but appears only on wikipedia. In all the literature on Falun Gong, this does not appear to be a subject of discussion. All the material included under this section here relates to whether people think the individuals involved were practitioners or not, not how or whether Falun Gong is related to or includes self-immolation.

Suggestion: scrap the section as it is and reintegrate the material that's directly relevant to the matter at hand into a section which explicitly weighs up the question of whether the individuals involved in the event were practitioners or not. Something like "Disputed identity of individuals" or "Speculations on identity" or whatever, something that is neutral and has the breadth needed to be able to give all the opinions available (and there are more than what is just here) on whether the individuals were "practitioners" or not. The current section doesn't cut it, and provides a one-sided, cherry-picked set of quotes and syntheses to conclude that they were practitioners, which is not a reflection of the body of reliable sources available. Further, the section title is a synthesis, and half the first paragraph is propaganda/coatrack combo. For Ownby's view, his book would be the go-to place. He's decidedly inconclusive on the matter.--Asdfg<b style="color:black;">12345</b> 06:53, 16 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Here's the archived copy of the link from the WaybackMachine. --antilivedT 07:25, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, indeed. What Haar wrote was not only non-synthetic, it was highly relevant and centred on his work on the Falun Gong. Ohconfucius  ¡digame! 07:31, 16 February 2010 (UTC)


 * This does not seem to be a discussion, but mudslinging dressed up as rational argument. There are some pretty stiff allegations being rolled out to discredit the contents of this article, including a lot which is directly out of the Falun Gong playbook but using WP's own policies and guidelines. This comes as no surprise, as I have become used to seeing these sort of tactics in Falun Gong-related articles. I'm just surprised it hasn't come along sooner. I'm not saying the article couldn't be more NPOV, but the changes inserted by AnnaInDC were clearly from the blinkered 'Falun Gong is Good and we can believe everything they say but we can't trust anything which emanates from the Propaganda Department' school of thought - this is testified to in the comments she placed in this talk page. I may have the highest edit count here, but the coherence of the text with the underlying sources was scrutinised by several editors highly skilled in NPOV matters. If this were a sincere discussion, I would oblige. I won't do it today, but I will take a look at the sources in the next few days. Ohconfucius  ¡digame! 07:31, 16 February 2010 (UTC)


 * And now I see that the section has been completely removed - going a lot further than even what asdfg suggested to rework the material into the rest of the article. This is all very sinister indeed. Ohconfucius  ¡digame! 07:46, 16 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Yeah, super sinister. I think the devil himself might be behind it. I do not mean to have slung mud. That's not what I was trying to do. I looked at each sentence there and tried to refer to policy in pointing out where problems were. I don't think it's controversial to change the title of the section, or include all such relevant information elsewhere, along with a fuller account of the difference views. And by "fuller account of the different views" I do mean, like, all the different views (per RS). I read the ter Haar thing, it adds a useful perspective. Unfortunately we only get a soundbite of it that fits into the master narrative. That won't do. Someone like that is a good source, and should get more play for their piece of insight to develop a bit more. Basically, all I suggest is that things be unwound a bit, and the discussion (on the page) opened up. I mean that the question of whether they were Falun Gong practitioners or not, as it is addressed in the form of speculation/opinion by reliable sources (I'm not talking about Falun Gong video deconstruction or whatever), is an interesting and relevant part of this whole debate. The section that deals with this needs to be 1) longer and make better use of the reliable sources and points of view available; 2) not use an originally synthesised title like "Falun Gong and self-immolation" (search that, see what you find); 3) give more space for the themes to unfold and be explored, showing different sides (and a number of points of view are conspicuously missing from this analysis, such as that of Porter and Schechter) while concluding none, and giving the reader something they can make up their own minds about, rather than a pre-wrapped package. My analysis of those sentences is not meant to be an attack on you. I don't know why it passed NPOV, I won't speculate. I just pointed out the problems I saw when reading that section.--Asdfg<b style="color:black;">12345</b> 09:32, 16 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Actually, I noticed this section basically repeated some of the same information in the "The dispute" section above (that's a good name for it!). This is my suggestion for the best way to resolve this: move what was not in "The dispute" up there and integrate it; purge the repetition; drop the original syntheses and coatracking (that is, remarks not explicitly mentioning Falun Gong, for starters); group the arguments by theme; give the big names more space to expound; bring in some more diverse viewpoints (I can think of four already: Porter, Schechter, the WSJ editorial called like "what is Falun Gong is a cult?" and Beyond the Red Wall. I'll paste three of those below); and call it a day. This is just a thought, I'm sure it's not perfect, but I think it avoids the danger of making a synthesis, repeating arguments, and presenting a one-sided view. Also, I believe all or at least most of the remarks, snide or otherwise, about the scripture, or whatever else, be put here, too, and given a chance to be aired. Including Ostergaard's "gift" remark later on seems a bit cheap. Those sort of comments need to stand up to scrutiny. (Look how Ownby presents the scripture, for example. He puts it in the section in his book before the one about the self-immolation, and makes clear that "the form taken by such apparent militancy, beginning later in the spring of 2001, was that of sitting in a meditative posture and "emitting righteous thoughts." He does not link the scripture with the immolation, and that is worth a lot. There should surely be a diversity of views, but wikipedia requires that editors take their cues from the best sources, and frame things in a way that reflects the most reliable sources; when there is a dispute about the interpretation of the scripture, I think all the disputes should be grouped, and aired in accordance with their prominence. Including an unusual or fringe interpretation of it outside the context of mainstream interpretations, for example, doesn't seem quite on point.) Just some extra thoughts. I am not trying to pick fights.--Asdfg<b style="color:black;">12345</b> 10:28, 16 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I do not see how this section passed the NPOV requirement because the leading reference is not a WP:V source. There would not be a section without this reference: http://www.facts.org.cn/Feature/hand/Cases/200904/t90507.htm If you look at this website "http://www.facts.org.cn/", it is an "anti-Falun gong" website based in China. So, it's not a NPOV to begin with and not WP:V ("what counts is whether readers can verify that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source"). Also, as mentioned below, that site is not from the "Cultic Research Institute". Whoever put this section together wrote "Cultic Research Institute" and added a propaganda link that has nothing to do with the "Cultic Research Institute" and does not even mention said "Institute". Also, if you use Chinese "media" sources, how can you validate that they are just not fabricated? China's media standards do not allow for WP:V Where are pre-2001 news reports of the Falun Gong pre-2001 self immolation incidents? Why did these 3 cases of Falun Gong pre-2001 self immolation turn up (in that link/ref) only AFTER the Tiananmen incident in 2001? I suggest that this reference to "facts.org.cn" should be removed, it does not appear to be legitimate data and does not meet WP:V standards. The section should be deleted unless convincing news reports of FG pre-2001 self immolation turn up. AnnaInDC (talk) 23:35, 17 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Please see this synopsis in this link/reference from "The Human Rights Brief" (2001), a student-run publication of the Center for Human Rights and Humanitarian Law:

http://www.wcl.american.edu/hrbrief/09/1china.cfm "The Chinese Media's Propaganda Campaign against Falun Gong"


 * "While the government's campaign of violence endeavors to abolish the practice of and belief in Falun Gong, the propaganda campaign has been effective in gaining public support. The most common and seemingly most effective element of the propaganda campaign is recurrent broadcasting and reporting of the self-immolation of several alleged Falun Gong practitioners in Tiananmen Square in January 2001. By repeatedly depicting images of a young girl burning alive while asserting that Falun Gong preaches that such self-immolation will lead its followers to paradise, the Chinese government reportedly has succeeded in persuading many people that Falun Gong is an "evil cult." In response to the self-immolations, several unnamed Falun Gong spokespersons attempted to disassociate the movement from such events, expressing skepticism about whether those who set themselves on fire actually were Falun Gong members."

AnnaInDC (talk) 21:03, 17 February 2010 (UTC)


 * And on a lighter note, lets see what Ohconfucius has to say about removing data: "I do cleanups, and I'm not afraid to remove large quantities of text which are not relevant or compliant with WP policies and guidelines." From:http://wapedia.mobi/en/User:Ohconfucius :-)

AnnaInDC (talk) 00:11, 18 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I have difficulty believing it was not a sarcastic jibe at me, a subtle implication of hypocrisy, but I'll let it pass. Here is an example of my judicious pruning. Enjoy! Ohconfucius  ¡digame! 02:59, 18 February 2010 (UTC)


 * The actual writing in the article is quite good. However, I don't understand why you or whoever initially put this article together picked the weakest points from the various references when presenting the Falun Gong side. It does not read as being from a NPOV. For example, what sticks out first is the intro's because killing is "considered a sin". People may disagree but I think that sounds like fluff if trying to debuke the self immolation as Falun Gong related and not listed as the main points by FDI as to why they thought the incident was staged. There are other examples of a shakey Falun Gong perspective in this Wiki entry. Mostly, my issue is with the WP:V of media sources originating in China or mimicing China's media coverage of the self-immolation. Unfortunately, for all we know, those people could have beed bribed, drugged so the burning didn't hurt and then swapped for TV interview purposes, and even killed after their usefulness was up. What happened to them after supposedly being "sentenced" to jail? Somehow I think no one will ever know.. AnnaInDC (talk) 05:05, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
 * It's not the 'weakest' point, by any means. Looking at the link you provided, it is the principal philosophical argument from the FLG. The others are interpretations of the circumstantial evidence which FDI used to discredit the event as a 'setup'. In any event, these secondary arguments are taken up quite well in the secondary sources, NTDTV and Danny Schechter, and thus it was preferred to leave these to 'do the talking', otherwise, there would have been needless repetition and over-reliance on a primary source. Ohconfucius  ¡digame! 05:21, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't disagree with you about the reliability of the sources used in the article in the absolute, but they are "reliable" in the sense that they represent the FLG and the Chines government respectively - this is what WP:A and WP:V are about. Yes, I agree it is likely that some of the interviews and footages were shot with body doubles, and what is in the article is sufficient to allow readers to come to that conclusion too. Ohconfucius  ¡digame! 05:24, 18 February 2010 (UTC)


 * That is not clear in the way this information and sources are presented. An entire section "FG and Self Immolation" is created based on data found in www.facts.org.cn, which is not WP:V. You (or someone) created a whole section based on a source that is not WP:reliable or WP:V. If the point is to document what the Chinese government has claimed it should be presented that way rather than using their unverifiable data as fact. The result is a creation of a stream of thought for readers  based on potentially fabricated sources through WP:OR. Remember most people accessing the link will not spend this much time digging into the issue, carefully weighing all the evidence.AnnaInDC (talk) 16:11, 18 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I just checked the WayBack Machine and
 * this reference is not archieved there. There seems no way to determine when it was published as it is not dated. In my experience, references that can not be dated with non-WP:V data are not legitimate. AnnaInDC (talk) 18:03, 18 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Anyway, who decides? I think that section should go unless verifiable news/data about self-immolation before 2001 is presented.The main reference from www.facts.org.cn does not hold up as legitimate and isn't worthy of being cited in what is supposed to be a fact based encyclopedia which readers can rely on. AnnaInDC (talk) 16:11, 18 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Consensus decides on Wikipedia. And we have bad experiences of trying to reach consensus with pro- and anti-FG propagandists. Martin Rundkvist (talk) 18:46, 18 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Okay, well this reference used to create the "Falun Gong and Self immolation" section is not traceable or dated, and not found in the WayBackMachine. I fear to suggest that it's actual date is in the link at "200904", around the time this section "Falun Gong and Self immolation" was included into Wiki and the link was created for inclusion into Wiki? Please quell my concerns if that is not the case. Anyhow, it does not hold up as a legitimate reference for basic reasons: 1. it's from a propaganda website and 2. it is not dated. So, please remove the section, it does not meet the WP:V, WP:reliable, WP:NPOV, no WP:OR requirements.AnnaInDC (talk) 19:54, 18 February 2010 (UTC)


 * So..I preened through the history and found that this strange reference was added on 10/11/2009 not too close to "200904". Maybe someone was just careless and did not inspect it carefully. Sorry. AnnaInDC (talk) 02:59, 19 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Note: if no cogent reason is given as to why the useful info in this section shouldn't be integrated into the "dispute" section, with the coatracking and irrelevant information deleted (as in, that which doesn't mention Falun Gong at all and only serves the original synthesis), and the reliable sources expanded on, then I'd suggest that be done? At the moment I'm not sure where the discussion is, but it seems that idea hasn't really been disputed, and the problems in that section will remain until its fixed. --Asdfg<b style="color:black;">12345</b> 15:12, 20 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Who says the change is not disputed? There is more than one way of disputing something without edit warring, you know... Much valid sourced text was removed on the pretext that one of the sources was a 'Chinese government propaganda site' in absolute disregard to the my objection. It is just plain obscene to remove text just because it happens not to conform to the FLG view of the world. The text is as necessary and required as anything which came from any FLG source, so it's pretty clear to me the deletion was partisan and unwarranted.  Ohconfucius  ¡digame! 02:05, 22 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Well, that note was basically an invitation to keep the discussion going, and to voice any complaints. I disagree with the simple removal of the section, as I said earlier--though it's not the same as vandalism. Please see the note on questionable sources, in RS: "Questionable sources are those with a poor reputation for checking the facts, or with no editorial oversight. Such sources include websites and publications expressing views that are widely acknowledged as extremist, or promotional in nature, or which rely heavily on rumors and personal opinions. Questionable sources should only be used as sources of material on themselves, especially in articles about themselves. Questionable sources are generally unsuitable as a basis for citing contentious claims about third parties." -- the website in question is associated with the work of the 610 Office, and is well-known as a partisan anti-Falun Gong hate website. Please explain if you disagree, hopefully bringing some evidence. The use made of these extremist sources in this article is troubling, and violates both NPOV and RS. It's quite unclear how that text (from facts.org.cn) is necessary and required as anything from a Falun Gong source; in the article currently, it's function is purely propagandistic. The CCP's anti-Falun Gong claims regarding this incident are outlined clearly enough in reliable sources; we don't have to rely on propaganda to explain these things, and the purpose of this page is not to vilify Falun Gong in the same words as the CCP's mouthpieces. All I've proposed is that the good information in that section be integrated into the "dispute" section above, and the coatracking, original syntheses, and sources that fail RS be removed. That's it. I wrote a detailed analysis of the paragraphs in question above, too, and the notes I wrote haven't been rebutted. I don't see why we can't just fix this and move on? It will basically just be an improvement of the page--I don't see the problem? --Asdfg<b style="color:black;">12345</b> 06:15, 22 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Well, your disagreement with wholescale section removal didn't stop Anna from repeatedly reverting me, essentially refusing to accept my arguments and made me feel I was being ganged-up against and dragged behind the bike shed. It also reminded me of tactics once prevalent in FLG articles which I ranted about. The decent thing to be done was to simply leave it in its existing state and tag it NPOV, but oh no... I just didn't know what to say.


 * If it's any consolation: if I had the powers to edit, I would have reverted her. I think just above is the third time I stated direct disagreement with the approach of straight out removing the material, which as we've seen over these last few years, just antagonises the situation. I don't know what more I can do than advocate the best way I see of resolving it (as above). --Asdfg<b style="color:black;">12345</b> 06:49, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh, I know you weren't responsible for that rather aggressive, tendentious editing. I merely stated how I felt about being handled in that fashion. Ohconfucius  ¡digame! 07:39, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I was not handling you Ohconfucius. I simply edited the article in a way I thought was appropriate; by removing the "Falun Gong and Self Immolation" section. The only reference for creating that section is dubiously not WP:R or WP:V as it does not have a date, not found in the WayBackMachine, and is posted on a propaganda website (of a country with limited or no media freedom, i.e., they can just make stuff up. For those not upto speed simply google the words: China media freedom). Can we all agree that this reference is not suitable for an encyclopedia? Also, the section as whole comprised WP:OR based on this "faulty" reference. According to Wiki policy and your own words on your user page, there is nothing wrong with cleaning up articles by removing large amounts of text, something you do yourself when you see fit. Please advise this new editor what would you have done if you were my shoes? AnnaInDC (talk) 23:15, 22 February 2010 (UTC)


 * It may help to focus very specifically on the content issues at hand, and not on the personal ones. Another reference discussing the concept of that section was the ter Haar one (and while not nearly as weighty as would a published text, like a book, or what have you, I guess it's something). But one reference does not a section make; the rest of the information was not about that subject, and ter Haar's observations could just as well go into the "dispute" section to avoid the whole POV fork etc. They are, after all, just his speculations. I don't think even Professor ter Haar should get his own section to ponder on this topic, when everyone else has to squabble over their views in the "dispute" section. AnnaInDC, a more conciliatory approach would be to go ahead and try to incorporate the information into the "dispute" section, and see how it goes. 2 cents. --Asdfg<b style="color:black;">12345</b> 00:22, 23 February 2010 (UTC)


 * As I said above, the decent thing to be done was to simply leave it in its existing state and tag it NPOV, tag the link with dead link, and then start a discussion here, but oh no... Removing the whole section on the premise you stated above is downright tendentious editing.   Ohconfucius  ¡digame! 01:48, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
 * There is some confusion here. The dead link should properly go in for current ref.3 used several times in the "Incident" section. I can try to do that. The removed section was one created from WP:OR and a faulty article from a propoganda website. I don't think it's proper to just create sections based on made up material. AnnaInDC (talk) 03:22, 24 February 2010 (UTC)