Talk:Tiananmen Square self-immolation incident/Archive 5

NPOV tag
I respectfully ask all users to respect the NPOV tag on these articles. As the piece looks right now it is very similar to the Falun Gong promotional pamphlets in the mail and nothing short of FLG propaganda. Please do not take it off without further discussion. Colipon+ (Talk) 17:48, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Colipon, I hope you understand that at any point in time you can say that "very similar to the Falun Gong promotional pamphlets" even if it's the best sourced article on Wikipedia. Please provide a more substanciated reason for the tag. --HappyInGeneral (talk) 21:31, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I dispute the neutrality of this article. There, done. Martin Rundkvist (talk) 21:36, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Why? On what ground? --HappyInGeneral (talk) 21:38, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Because it is an extremely long and convoluted attempt to show that the suicide attempts were part of a government conspiracy to make FG look bad. Reminds me a lot of Kennedy assassination and 9/11 conspiracy theories. Martin Rundkvist (talk) 21:44, 8 August 2009 (UTC)


 * And why would you be ignoring all the sources presented? Some substantial reason ought to be provided for adding NPOV tags than "respect NPOV tags" and words mis-characterizing articles.
 * Dilip rajeev (talk) 07:36, 9 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree with Mrund. The article is clearly an advocacy piece against the Chinese government and heavily favouring Falun Gong. I suggest that we revert to an earlier version which was nominated for Good article. Until we can agree on this neutral version, the tag must go back. Colipon+ (Talk) 08:52, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm the one who placed the NPOV tag, so perhaps I should elaborate on my reasoning. On a summary level, I agree with Mrund. You don't have to read very far to know it's hopelessly biased in favour of the Falun Gong. In fact, you don't even need to scroll down at all. I'm very familiar with the whole story, so please quit being the disingenuous. The case is wholly circumstantial with enormous doubts on both sides, and the lead alone makes it appear like a done-and-dusted setup of the Falun Gong by the CCP. But scrolling down just a wee bit further, we have an enormous section about how the CCP has it in for FG. Firstly, such a long section is rarely needed when the section has a tag referring to the main article. What's more, what have arbitrary detentions and torture got to do with this article? This is a classical WP:Coatrack with the aims of painting a picture of nasty CCP (to make the FG look like meek and mild group of people doin Qigong), as if it were not a well known fact that the Chinese govt is a wiked one-party dictatorship. Then there's the rest. I'll start cleaning it up tomorrow. Ohconfucius (talk) 15:27, 9 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I have now restored the article to a previous version which was deemed a Good Article by User:Drewcifer3000 in 8 July 2008. The tag is therefore gone, by implication. Ohconfucius (talk) 03:52, 10 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Nicely done. With some mechanical changes and if we avoid any more disruptive editing, this is on its way to WP:FA soon. :) Colipon+ (Talk) 03:58, 10 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I noticed a few problems with the version reverted to and checked the history. It appears that the WP:GA tag of this page above indicates that version 174360297 of 28 November 2007 was the actual one declared a Good Article, so I have wound it back there. Ohconfucius (talk) 04:20, 10 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Are there similar GA revisions over at "organ harvesting" and "persecution"? If so, should revert those too. Colipon+ (Talk) 04:22, 10 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Persecution never got to GA, but asdfg and I believe we nearly got it there, before the effort ran out of steam. Organ harvesting has always been a disgrace but it was never cleaned up in any meaningful WP:NPOV way that I am aware of. Ohconfucius (talk) 04:25, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Dilip rajeev's cabal accusations
Dilip rajeev said about this article: "''Another major concern I have is what Olaf points out here. An activity, which, as far as my limited understanding of Wikipedia policies can tell, is in blatant violation of WP:CABAL. And the activity is happening on articles placed on probation by the ArbCom. There have been very serious and problematic issues in editing of these editors, in terms of content removal etc. One such very recent instance is here, a revert of a stable article to 1 year old version, on the basis of demonstratably misleading claims, in the process deleting several paragraphs of content sourced to mainstream academia, a centrally relevant image, and adding material from CCP propaganda sheets." Please note that the stability was a direct result of the article being controlled by a single user or group of users to the exclusion of objective views. There is nothing "misleading" in the current version, which reverted the clearly biased notion that it was a setup by the Chinese Communist Party. This is the least biased version I could find - on record as having been declared Good Article in late 2007. Ohconfucius (talk) 04:02, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Dilip's accusations are completely groundless. There's been very solid NPOV work done on this article. The record speaks for itself. Ask any non-involved editors to compare the two versions and it will be very clear which one is more NPOV. Colipon+ (Talk) 06:11, 13 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Let's also knock the cabal accusation on the head - asdfg and I are largely responsible for the current version of the article. It was worked out between the two of us, as the edit history will clearly show. It's quite unlike the 'undone' non-WP:NPOV compliant version, which was reworked almost exclusively by Dilip rajeev. Ohconfucius (talk) 06:17, 13 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I'd suggest that interested editors look through the differences between the current (reverted) article and the previous one of disputed neutrality, and make sure any material from reliable sources is not missing.--Asdfg12345 17:18, 13 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Asdfg, what is your opinion of dilip's unfounded and disruptive accusations against good-faith editors? Would like to hear your view. Colipon+ (Talk) 17:39, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Carification from Dilip
What made me concerned and lead to my post, pointed out above, were these comments.


 * Seb az86556 on Ohconfucius' talk page: "you did well in keeping the this Olaf-guy at bay, and I can see now why the Falun Gong thing you emailed about will be "total war"..."


 * Colipon on Edward130603's talk page: "Anyway, do you have e-mail?"


 * Colipon on Mrund's talk page: "I'd sent you an e-mail today. Please check! :)"


 * Ohconfucius on Mrund's talk page: "I'm glad you're back. Drop me an email, I'd like a private chat with you."

If you can offer an explanation for these comments, I'll only be glad to sincerely apologize and withdraw my comments. These were not meant to be "accussations" - but were genuine concerns on my part. I am completely willing to assume good faith and am looking forward for an explanation.

I obviously am not saying these editors are all part of some cabal or anything. Mrund, for instance, just had such comments made on his talk - and beyond that there is really no evidence of his involvement in any "cabal" activity.

In fact, what caused me the most concern was the statement from Sebaz86556 to Ohconfucius: I can see now why the Falun Gong thing you emailed about will be "total war."

As regards the revision of this article to an almost two years old version - it esssentially ignored several pages of discussion that resulted in the newer article (which can be seen here:), and also that the later article stayed essentially stable for over a year.

The information and sources that got blanked out in the revert includes:


 * Clive Ansley's statement from the CBC documentary
 * Ian Johnson
 * Danny Schechter
 * RSF ( Reporters Sans Frontiers )
 * Beatrice Turpin of Associated Press
 * Ownby
 * A centrally relevant image (which was part of the article for years).

The contents added back by the revision to the version in nov 2007 included some very unencyclopaedic, unverifiable, and completely non-academic stuff like a prominent table with the purported relationships between and purported jail terms of the puropted victims sourced to xinhua ( the stuff has been pointed out as concocted propaganda by 3rd party analysts including Schechter, several others (including Baatrice Turpin, Ian Johnson, etc.) have pointed out several descrepancies in CCP's claims).

As for the single good article comment - lets review the elements that make it so, and if it be found missing in the newer one( in terms of info sourced to academia, the new article was only a superset of the old article ), incorporate it through the process of consensus and discussion.

Dilip rajeev (talk) 09:14, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

@Dilip rajeev
The fact that this article has been 'stable' for a year is that nobody bothered to engage in edit-warring with you over your changes. The silence does not imply you had consensus. The radical changes you put through were all done within a period of about a week, and there was no discussion to speak of. This exchange shows clearly how you railroaded your changes against all other opinions, including that of asdfg. The information about the victims you chose to have deleted was just one of many very overtly biased changes you made to the article. That information was sourced from Xinhua in much the same way as your stuff sourced from Faluninfo, and has every right to exist in the article. To omit it introduces undue bias. Furthermore, of the material which I "blanked", there was considerable repetition. We only need samples of representative opinions, and there is no rhyme or reason why we need to collect each and everybody's opinion. Below, I have a collection of the significant diffs where the unacceptable bias has been introduced, comments and objections, as well as your accusing EgraS and me of engaging of sockpuppetry:
 * article declared Good Article
 * asdfg expressing dismay at biased edits by Dilip (January 2008)
 * this series of edits introduces very obvious pro-FG bias.
 * asdfg expressing dismay at biased edits by Dilip (August 2008)
 * GA reviewer expresses disappointment "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."
 * citing his favourite FG-aligned journalist
 * removal of text 'Later reports' without summary
 * added one partisan text and cherry-picked another
 * deliberate introduction of weasel words without changing attribution/refs
 * this series of edits introduces very obvious pro-FG bias.
 * revert of Egra's edit "EgraS / Oconfucious. Stop vandlaizing the pages. You cannot accusse material from reporters such as Ian Johnson of being "biased" and stop misusing the NPOV tag. " (note Ohconfucius' last edit dates to 6 August 2008)

You last revert is therefore COMPLETELY UNACCEPTABLE. I will undo it immediately. Ohconfucius (talk) 09:48, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Ohconfucious, You avoid discussing the content - while engaging in these roundabout arguments and personal attacks. Asdfg had made his stance very clear on your revert and that he clearly opposes it) in discussion above and which version he preferred. Readers on the page had commented that any "bias" carried by the stable article is merely that of western scholarship.

What you ignore in trying to make the case for yourself is that you reverted a stable article to a year old version and are working against any attempts to restore it or to address concerns using the BRD model - further, completely ignoring that you have ended up blanking out a lot of centrally relevant information and images.

What I am saying is we discuss things from - include from a two year old version what merits inclusion - not bluntly revert back a stable article to it. You also fail to address concerns regarding blanking of several centrally relevant academic sources which I point out above in my comment above.

Also, I'd like to hear from you regarding your comments I point out above - since shortly following the comments, you engaged in the same pattern of editing and removal of sourced information all related pages. Remember these are pages placed on probation by the ArbCom and you might want to consider obtaining consensus before doing things like reverting stable articles to two year old revisions. Dilip rajeev (talk) 10:40, 21 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm not interested in any wikilawyering or filibustering. This is not the first time you've done a radical revert which destroys days of peoples' work. I object to you saying that I avoided talking about content - It's plain as day I was talking ONLY about content, not you and your innuendoes and accusations of cabal. If you have specific substantive points about the content, let's have the detailed list. Ohconfucius (talk) 10:47, 21 August 2009 (UTC)


 * ..."radical revert" to a week old stable version restoring a large amount of centrally relevant material from Western academia which was blanked out in a revert to a two year old revision. Editors can compare the two versions for themselves.
 * Dilip rajeev (talk) 10:51, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Sutherland
Judith Sunderland is cited in the article. The citation is. However, I suspect that the title and ISBN could be wrong. My search on HRW indicates Sutherland wrote 'From the Household to the Factory' about Guatemala, and '"Dangerous Meditation: China's Campaign Against Falungong,' may have been to proper title. However, I cannot find a copy of the article online in any event. Ohconfucius (talk) 03:30, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Copyedit and review
I just went through the entire article and copyedited all its sections. In some places I tried to expand the context by expanding an organization's name (WOIPFG) or by explaining a bit about the background of the organization (Harry Wu). I still have two concerns:


 * 1) The lede states that the "many Chinese were convinced that Falun Gong was evil" after the event. Perhaps there is a better way to phrase that sentence?
 * 2) I am not entirely sure about the abbreviation of "FLG" to represent Falun Gong. Is it really necessary?

Colipon+ (Talk) 13:16, 20 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I actually started selectively replacing some of the 'Falun Gong's with FLGs because of my dislike of constant repetition, but once it was done, I felt that most of those instances looked strange. Ohconfucius (talk) 14:55, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Us westerners aren't used to seeing letters from the middle of a word capitalized and included in abbreviations. Also, as someone not particularly familiar with the phrasing, somewhere indicating that "cultivation" basically means in more straightforward language might be useful, like indicating that "cultivation" refers to what some westerners might think of spiritual practice. John Carter (talk) 23:26, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
 * You probably know this anyway, but Falun Gong is in actual fact be three words where '法輪', through some convention, became phonetically merged into one word. Practitioners are not allowed to teach, nor to interpret Li's teachings; they insist that to substitute foreign words and ideas misrepresents FLG ideals and the teachings of the master. Nevertheless, I find FLG approach quite paradoxical. The language, with minimal deviation from the scriptures, is somewhat esoteric, which is why I tend not to edit the teachings article. I suspect for the vast majority of readers, the 'Teachings' article is a complete turn-off, so that needs to be stripped down to an article with suitable weight and encyclopaedic content. Ohconfucius (talk) 02:11, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Also, one comment from page 218 of Ownby's book might be relevant. After saying it could have been staged, he goes on to say that "But it seems just as possible that those who set themselves on fire might have been new or unschooled Falun Gong practicioners, had discovered and practiced Falun Gong on their own (and badly) in the post-suppression period, and, for whatever reason, decided to make the ultimate sacrifice." John Carter (talk) 23:54, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that. Balancing comments like that have a habit of disappearing (or not appearing) for some reason! Ohconfucius (talk) 02:11, 24 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Haven't seen any of the changes to the article yet. Let's not use "FLG."--Asdfg12345 18:24, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Clarification on Lede
I want to discuss the following line:
 * the six-month campaign successfully portrayed it as an "evil cult" which could unhinge its followers.

What exactly does "unhinge its followers" mean in this context? That it can discourage its followers from believing it? Or that it could drive its followers to extreme ends? Perhaps this should be clarified. Colipon+ (Talk) 02:41, 24 September 2009 (UTC)


 * 'to Unhinge' is slang which usually means 'to render someone insane'.
 * This needs to be treated like any other historical event article. When you start an article with extreme views and names, the rest of the article will have issues.  You don't start the Communist party view by portraying them as a bunch of 下人 by birth from a traditionalist view. Benjwong (talk) 05:42, 24 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry, I don't understand, Ben. Which bits are you referring to? The Communist Party is only mentioned once in the article, quite a way down. Ohconfucius (talk) 06:02, 24 September 2009 (UTC)


 * No I am using it as an example. Basically the intro section that Colipon was mentioning. "According to Time, the Government's media war against Falun Gong gained significant traction following the act; the six-month campaign successfully portrayed it as an "evil cult" which could unhinge its followers."  This type of intro is slant toward a view.  But then the communist party article does not begin in the same fashion. Benjwong (talk) 06:19, 24 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I see what you mean. That part of the sentence is now gone. Ohconfucius (talk) 06:26, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

New Year's Day Message
The citation 23 is used to indicate that Li's comment above could not be interpreted as being a call to violence. Ownby does not in fact specifically make such a statement. The section on the New Year's Day message indicates that Li's statement, which was "brief - although still difficult to interpret" superficially seems to be a "call to arms" against "evil beings who no longer have any human nature or righteous thoughts....Such evil's persecution of the Fa can thus no longer be tolerated" (all p. 214). However, on p.214-215, Ownby goes on to say that no one he talked to saw the statement as a "green light" for violent action, and that "violence of any sort is so alien to Falun Gong principles that no one with whom I spoke at the time associated the message with the idea of an eye for an eye" (p. 215). John Carter (talk) 13:35, 24 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, that seems to be a mild misrepresentation, again. How do you suggest we change it? We still need to refer to the original text. Can we start with something like
 * ? Ohconfucius (talk) 14:41, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Sounds good to me, although it should be noted that the last quote used is in fact cited as a quote from Li's speech, so maybe something like 'a "call to arms" against what Li described as "evil beings who no longer have any human nature or righteous thoughts"'. John Carter (talk) 15:11, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks, John. Ohconfucius (talk) 02:39, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

This event was staged by the Chinese government
Hmm, I did not read this article, well for months now. Just read the lead and the message sent is that it "was an authentic protest by practitioners" even if misguided. This is very much against WP:NPOV if we are to consider source like the one bellow, but I'll try to make time to come with more shortly.

"KAREN PARKER, of International Educational Development, said State terrorism in the form of Government terror against its own people produced far more gross violations of human rights than any other form of terrorism; an example was China's treatment of the Falun Gong. The Government had sought to justify its terrorism against Falun Gong by calling it an evil cult that had caused deaths and the break-up of families, but the organization's investigation showed that the only deaths and resulting family breakups had been at the hands of Chinese authorities, who had resorted to extreme torture and unacceptable detention of thousands of people. International Educational Development had discovered that a self-immolation cited by the Chinese Government as proof that the Falun Gong was an evil cult in fact had been staged. " citing: http://www.unhchr.ch/huricane/huricane.nsf/0/D1D7C610CB97B340C1256AA9002678B0?opendocument --HappyInGeneral (talk) 12:50, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, this matter has been raised before, and can be found in archives 1 and 15 of Talk:Falun Gong and archive 2 of this page, I believe. Other opinions, On p. 217 of his book, Ownby states that "Falun Gong analysis suggests that the event was staged from beginning to end: those who supposedly set themselves on fire were not Falun Gong practicioners, they did not perhaps set themselves on fire (or did so imaging 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". He doesn't specifically mention IED that I can determine though. And, at least in my eyes, I don't see anything particularly wrong with the lead as it exists. Xinhua did apparently come out with its claim by at least January 31, when a 30 minute special on the TV show Forum came out (Ownby, p. 216). I think it does make sense, to a degree, to mention the government's allegation first, both because it was, seemingly, the first chronological response to the problem, and because of the broader general impact their statement had. The differing opinions are covered extensively in the last paragraph, and frankly, at least to me, their numbers are more than sufficient to outweigh the earlier stating of the government's claim. I would be interested in hearing any other comments though. John Carter (talk) 15:53, 26 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I cannot believe my eyes your words "the message sent is that it 'was an authentic protest by practitioners'". The strongest it ever comes is that some observers believe it may have been authentic, and others disagree, but that the PRC government tried to spin it for all it was worth. I specifically ignored the IED statement for two reasons. Firstly, it is directly lifted from a press-release, a primary source, as some sort of round-robin newsletter. I have not seem any secondary source citing anything in that IED section of the press release. Secondly, it is clear from the statement that it is almost entirely rhetoric, and the reaction (the "discovery" in their words) is strictly from seeing False Fire. Ohconfucius (talk) 16:22, 26 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I perceived that the overall message presented in this version in the lead is that it 'was an authentic protest by practitioners' probably because lots of sources presented in the lead say this sort of thing, and none of the sources mention that this event might have been a complete and premeditated set-up. I agree that the opinions are diverse, but these should be presented. --HappyInGeneral (talk) 16:30, 26 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, there's "Falun Gong in New York City have denied that the self-immolators were practitioners, on the grounds that the movement's teachings explicitly forbid suicide and killing.[6] Falun Gong and some third-party commentators point to apparent inconsistencies in the government's version of events, claiming that the incident was staged to turn public opinion against the practice.[7][8] " in the third paragraph. As there's only Falun Gong and Danny Schechter saying the whole thing was made up from start to finish, from people at Tiananmen Square to the video to the interviews with victims, I think what is said just about covers it. However, perhaps you can find something else I missed... Ohconfucius (talk) 17:18, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
 * OK, I replaced reference 7 with something meaningful, I still need to look for the source of reference 8, and starting with that there where the analysis of how things where perceived from that point on. Having no real information there where several opinions and those varied from misguided practitioners to state terrorism. And with that I think we have things rounded up. --HappyInGeneral (talk) 21:18, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
 * BTW, I'm not sure what IED stands for. Thanks. --HappyInGeneral (talk) 21:49, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
 * "International Educational Development", where Karen Fowler of the all-caps name worked? John Carter (talk) 22:20, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Karen Parker "is the chief delegate for International Educational Development - Humanitarian Law Project, a nongovernmental organization (NGO)  accredited by the United Nations Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC)" according to this. Also more about her work can be found here.--HappyInGeneral (talk) 22:38, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
 * It may be undue weight to mention Parker's statement. IED does not seem to be a particularly prominent organisation. Looking at WorldCat, there is not a single IED publication that is held at more than 1 (one) library worldwide: . As such I don't think the statement belongs in the lede, nor in the article, really. -- JN 466  23:21, 26 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I see. If I'm correct you arguing something like: mentioning "International Educational Development" is similar in saying that X from Time magazine said the following, where X in itself is not notable thus relevant but Time Magazine is. As for relevance, the United Nations is more relevant here then David Ownby, Times or a sinologist because United Nations has accredited field specialists, like Karen, do the research for them. Then when the United Nation issues a press release, that is their statement done through their accredited staff. So thank you for pointing this out, and you are right, it needs to be reworded to: "The United Nations on 14 August 2001 issued a press release where they said that this was a clear expression of state terrorism, and that the event was staged to justify the extreme torture and the unacceptable detention of thousands of people. " --HappyInGeneral (talk) 11:15, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
 * No frigging way. The UN did not say it, just some not very prominent NGO said it in a UN press release. IF the UN General Assembly or the Security Council had said it, then yes. However, as it is phrased, you would be passing off something some not very notable body said as a UN statement. It would be clearly wrong, a misattribution. What's more, You wrote:"The United Nations on 14 August 2001 issued a press release where they said that this was a clear expression of state terrorism, implying this to mean setting up the self-immolations, whereas nothing in the passage made that connection. Ohconfucius (talk) 12:35, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
 * "No frigging way."? Well, if you open the source that I mentioned the first thing you will notice is that it says: UNITED NATIONS, Press release. Sure if you want we can make the attribution more specific into: "Karen Parker the chief delegate of an organization that is accredited with the United Nations was quoted in a press release issued by the United Nations on 14 August 2001 saying that this was a clear expression of state terrorism, and that the event was staged to justify the extreme torture and the unacceptable detention of thousands of people. " Since notability/relevance is not an issue here, see John's comment bellow, please don't delete this reference if you still think that attribution or something similar can be improved, but go ahead and improve it, or propose something to be improved. --HappyInGeneral (talk) 20:21, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Regarding: "implying this to mean setting up the self-immolations, whereas nothing in the passage made that connection." => if you read the first quote in bold you will notice that she said that the event "in fact had been staged". --HappyInGeneral (talk) 20:21, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, the statement talks about several disparate issues (it probably had to be cut down, but that's another story), but you introduced text introduces a huge leap in logic (and I paraphrase) 'the Chinese government are guilty of state terrorism, therefore they staged the self-immolations (oh, and by the way, I saw the video'). In addition to my previous arguments, people other than myself have argued that the statement/view is not notable enough to be included, just because IED doesn't pass muster, you now try to pass this off as a UN statement. Pfff... Ohconfucius (talk) 02:04, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Regarding WorldCat, I searched for "International Educational Development" as author and it shows up 145 publications. --HappyInGeneral (talk) 11:49, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Folwer has testified before the UN Commission on Human Rights regarding other matters, as per here, so she seems to be notable and evidently reliable enough. However, if that statement is to be included, then the responses to them probably should as well. Pages 217-218 of Ownby, whose book is I think one of the few reliable relevant ones to be published since the incident, says "If those who set themselves on fire were not practitioners, then who were they? Where would Chinese authorities have found "actors" (including children) willing to play such roles? What would have been their motivation? I suppose that it is possible that there are desperate people in China (and elsewhere) who will do anything for money (which would go to their families in this case, one supposes, unless the authorities had promised to rescue them before the flames could do no harm). Or the entire event could have been staged." At this point, the text continues with the previously quoted statement about how they might have been indepdent (and bad) practicioners who took it on themselves to make the ultimate sacrifice. John Carter (talk) 16:40, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Hello John, when you say Folwer you mean Parker, right? What you read from Ownby is an opinion, nothing more, since there is no fact checking there, and he is no field specialist. But since we are introducing opinions, I would suggest using the one from Poisonous Deceit, which is from one of the officials from Jiang's circle, understandably anonymous, however since we are not talking of fact checking, but only opinions, it does have the same value. In this book that person states that those people had previous agreements with the government. And this is why they wore heavy thick fire proof clothing and mask (as you can see in the article the image with the sitting guy with the gasoline bottle). If this is the case I'm sure that they got assurances that no harm will come to them, but as it can be expected, they where betrayed. One of them had to be killed on spot to make it dramatic. A little girl had to be burned and later she had to die in order to fuel the propaganda with the "adequate" emotions. Since it was her mother that conveniently died on the spot, it is impossible for the girls mother to expose the CCP for her daughter suffering. Please read it and judge for yourself. --HappyInGeneral (talk) 20:21, 27 September 2009 (UTC)


 * This cherry picking is so transparent... I just love it when people hold Ownby out to be the world's foremost authority on Falun Gong when he expresses sympathetic views of FG, and when it's something less charitable, it becomes "it's only an opinion". Well, if his is the foremost expert, then what he says isn't "just an opinion" any more. They carry a lot of weight. Ohconfucius (talk) 02:51, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Since when are documents published by Falun Gong propaganda websites reliable sources? Furthermore one person's opinions does not make the "staging" claim a fact, and what you're trying to do is synthesis a conclusion. The source claimed the IED "discovered" that the self-immolation incident was staged, with no sources or evidence whatsoever.--PCPP (talk) 02:05, 28 September 2009 (UTC)


 * The press release is essentially the minutes of a meeting, and it reports that Parker (thanks for finding the CV) said this, and that she concluded by saying "The international community and the Subcommission should urgently address this situation." Is there any evidence that the UN subcommission did address this? Because if there isn't, then this is just an otherwise unreported statement in a meeting that should not be given a prominent (or any) place in this article. Don't get me wrong, I am quite happy to quote someone who thinks the event was staged by the Chinese government, but it should be a much more notable source than this one. Alternatively, if Parker's statement did lead to further investigation by the UN, as she asked, and the UN subsequently released a statement or a report or a finding of fact, then that would be a good source to quote. -- JN 466  22:19, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
 * P.S.: I think Parker's organization is more commonly known as the Humanitarian Law Project. -- JN 466  22:33, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Parker's statement
Just for the sake of argument, let's look at the entirety of Parker's statement: "KAREN PARKER, of International Educational Development, said State terrorism in the form of Government terror against its own people produced far more gross violations of human rights than any other form of terrorism; an example was China's treatment of the Falun Gong. The Government had sought to justify its terrorism against Falun Gong by calling it an evil cult that had caused deaths and the break-up of families, but the organization's investigation showed that the only deaths and resulting family breakups had been at the hands of Chinese authorities, who had resorted to extreme torture and unacceptable detention of thousands of people. International Educational Development had discovered that a self-immolation cited by the Chinese Government as proof that the Falun Gong was an evil cult in fact had been staged. The international community and the Subcommission should urgently address this situation. International Educational Development also agreed with the Special Rapporteur that Governments in armed conflicts with opposition groups too often unfairly termed the opposition "terrorism" when the true issue was self-determination, as in Kashmir; or used the term "ethnic conflict" as a way of casting certain conflicts as a kind of terrorism; the Sri Lanka-Tamil, Turkey-Kurdish, Indonesia-Acheh and Indonesia-Molucca conflicts were examples. Domestic legislation should be considered in any review of matters of terrorism."

The part in the communiqué above which I bolded is the only part directly relevant to the self-immolations. Looking through the entire text, nowhere does it say "Karen Parker the chief delegate of an organization that is accredited with the United Nations was quoted in a press release issued by the United Nations on 14 August 2001 saying that this was a clear expression of state terrorism, and that the event was staged to justify the extreme torture and the unacceptable detention of thousands of people.". - In the context, 'this' is a clear inference to the self-immolations, which is directly linked to state terrorism.The fact of the matter is that no observers are sure about what happened, each having expressed some doubts about some element of the events from both the FG and PRC side of things. Happy joined the dots which weren't there, to try to bolster support for the Falun Gong argument that the incident was staged. His continues to insist on putting it in the lead, but this construction is clearly original research, and cannot be allowed. Ohconfucius (talk) 02:35, 28 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I'll reply to all here to keep the flow of the topic into one place:
 * @Ohconfucius, expanding on misattribution and synthesis claim. As far as I can see the only thing I missed is one source, but that was already on this talk page, you could have just added it. Anyway let me fix it up and break it down to really small clear statements.
 * The statement with the additional reference added: "Karen Parker the chief delegate of an organization that is accredited with the United Nations was quoted in a press release issued by the United Nations on 14 August 2001 saying that this was a expression of state terrorism, and that the event was staged to justify the extreme torture and the unacceptable detention of thousands of people. "


 * Analyzing in small parts:


 * 1) "Karen Parker the chief delegate of an organization that is accredited with the United Nations …" - here is the source for that: http://www.brusselstribunal.org/bios/Parker.htm, direct quote: "She also consults and serves as an expert witness in legal disputes involving the application of armed conflict law. In 1982, she founded the Association of Humanitarian Lawyers (originally incorporated as International Disability Law), and has served as its president for over ten years. In addition, she is the chief delegate for International Educational Development - Humanitarian Law Project, a nongovernmental organization (NGO) accredited by the United Nations Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC). "
 * 2) "…was quoted in a press release issued by the United Nations on 14 August 2001 saying that …", source: www.unhchr.ch, direct quote: " UNITED NATIONS Press Release, Sub-Commission on the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights 53rd session, 14 August 2001"
 * 3) " …saying that this was an expression of state terrorism, and that the event was staged to justify the extreme torture and the unacceptable detention of thousands of people.", see bolds in the quote: "State terrorism in the form of Government terror against its own people produced far more gross violations of human rights than any other form of terrorism; an example was China's treatment of the Falun Gong. The Government had sought to justify its terrorism against Falun Gong by calling it an evil cult that had caused deaths and the break-up of families, but the organization's investigation showed that the only deaths and resulting family breakups had been at the hands of Chinese authorities, who had resorted to extreme torture and unacceptable detention of thousands of people. International Educational Development had discovered that a self-immolation cited by the Chinese Government as proof that the Falun Gong was an evil cult in fact had been staged. The international community and the Subcommission should urgently address this situation."
 * As you can see all the dots are there and I did carefully summarize them as recommended by WP:SYN, if we where to include the whole quote, the idea would be exactly the same, only it would be unencyclopedic. However if you think you can do a better summary by still keeping all those points, I have nothing against that, and it is much better then just removing relevant sourced content from the lead.


 * @Ohconfucius, regarding: "His continues to insist on putting it in the lead, but this construction is clearly original research, and cannot be allowed." => again it is not original research (per details above), it is a summary based on WP:SYN per the source, also it would against WP:NPOV if we would not cover this as well. Of the whole event this is a crucial aspect that otherwise is not given it's deserved weight to. So for all this reason it is not only allowed, but essencial and thus removing it is unproductive and unencyclopedic.


 * @Ohconfucius, regarding: "In the context, 'this' is a clear inference to the self-immolations, which is directly linked to state terrorism." => the whole paragraph above refers to state terrorism and the self immolation is given as an example.


 * @Ohconfucius, regarding: "I just love it when people hold Ownby out to be the world's foremost authority on Falun Gong when he expresses sympathetic views of FG, and when it's something less charitable" => please be fair and consider that a source is an authority when it makes research (like his field work) and it is an opinion when it says something without research or references.


 * @PCPP, regarding: "Since when are documents published by Falun Gong propaganda websites reliable sources?", if you refer to the publication of Poisonous Deceit I don't recall it being a Falun Gong publication, do you have any source for that claim?
 * @PCPP, regarding: "Furthermore one person's opinions does not make the "staging" claim a fact", it is not presented as a fact, but an attributed quote. Now of course given the publisher of the quote, gives some weight to it.
 * @Jayen, regarding: "Because if there isn't, then this is just an otherwise unreported statement in a meeting that should not be given a prominent (or any) place in this article." => actually this statement is a published statement, and we quote it as such, when we will find that the UN followed up on her statement (although I doubt it because I think this is politically impossible, given the circumstances) we will report on it as how the UN followed up on it. Until then stating that Karen and it's organization got these conclusions, it is correct.
 * @Jayen, regarding: "Don't get me wrong, I am quite happy to quote someone who thinks the event was staged by the Chinese government, but it should be a much more notable source than this one." => Why does she need to be more notable? How notable other then accredited by UN does she need to be? --HappyInGeneral (talk) 12:55, 28 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm still totally opposed to the partisan editing approach you are adopting, and have reverted. I've done enough talking, and I don't want to lawyer, so take that as you will. Ohconfucius (talk) 14:18, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I believe it would be much more reasonable to seek and receive consensus on the talk page before making such additions again. Also, regarding the book, it seems to be very much a WP:SPS. Without any independent verification of the material, in this case even the name of the alleged government official, I honestly don't think that any of the statements it makes can be necessarily considered reliable. John Carter (talk) 14:32, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Hello John about the book you are right, I will not argue that it is somewhat WP:SPS considering the circumstances. But when compared with the opinions from Ownby and Haart, it seems to me that it has the same value. That was my point. --HappyInGeneral (talk) 15:51, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Regarding the deadlock, I'm requesting an RFC on it, so we'll have some uninvolved views on it. --HappyInGeneral (talk) 15:51, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Liu Baorong
This participant was clearly female, per the cited source http://www.china.org.cn/english/7474.htm and I have changed this in the table. Sources contradict each other on whether she was prevented from carrying out the self-immolation -- see and  -- or backed out at the last minute, as the "False Fire" video asserts she said on state television. The one version I haven't seen supported yet is that she tried but failed to ignite the gasoline, which is what I had imagined from our wording.  JN 466  01:39, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
 * It seems Liu Baorong was exempted from punishment:  JN  466  01:45, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

NPOV - regarding mentioning Karen in lead
Hello, Since I added the NPOV template to the article, I raised the question on Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard. Best regards, --HappyInGeneral (talk) 16:38, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Personally, I would like to see some evidence that some form of press not apparently tied to Falun Gong gave the comments reasonable coverage before adding reference to them in the lead. Without such evidence, then, whoever made the statement, if it has really only received significant discussion by the Falun Gong "partisans", for lack of a better term, then I don't think that it really necessarily qualifies as being an entirely separate statement from their own arguments, but more one of the statements used by that side in the discussion of the controversy. If that is the case, and it is effectively just one of the "points" by that side in the discussion, then I'm not sure this article should give it more weight than the media who have discussed the subject have. John Carter (talk) 18:37, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Hi John, are you referring to the statement by Karen Parker? If so that appeared in the Press release issued by the United Nations. I guess it is safe to assume that it is an organization that is not run by Falun Gong. But if you have sources saying something on the contrary, please let us know. --HappyInGeneral (talk) 19:07, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, I am referring to the, evidently, single press release, out of I believe at least several per day, that seems to have been released by the UN or the NGO itself regarding this matter. I do not believe that it is necessarily the case that each statement in each press release of any governmental entity is, in and of itself, necessarily sufficiently important to demand that material be included in the lead of an article. If no media independent of Falun Gong made any paarticular covearage of that apparently single press release, then, effectively, the story as a news story or other noteworthy event exists more or less solely as a "talking point" for Falun Gong-related press. Also, at least to me, it strikes me as rather odd that only one statement was issued. I used to work in state government here, and I can remember times when statements in press releases were later found to be overstated, based on faulty data, etc., and, basically, wrong. It is however impossible to withdraw a press release once it is issued. But it is possible to send follow-up requests requesting the media not to run that piece, which they will generally fairly readily do. That is one of the reasons I would like to see that someone actually ran the story, rather than simply referring to a press release. Also, if the story were something that even the NGO thought to be significant, it is to me all but impossible to imagine that they themselves would not have issued a statement regarding the specifics. The fact that no such statement seems to have been found indicates to me the real possibility that the initial release may have been either in outright error, overstated, or otherwise something sought to be withdrawn. Granted, none of that is necessarily admissable, but I do believe that it is reasonable to request at least, to be in accord with WP:UNDUE, that there be evidence of some significant press coverage independent of Falun Gong, either in books, magazines, etc., regarding this single press release to believe it merits inclusion in the lead of the article. By saying this, I am not saying that it does not merit inclusion in the article, simply that there might not be sufficient cause to place reference to it in the lead of the article. John Carter (talk) 22:16, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I have raised a question regarding this matter at Notability/Noticeboard. John Carter (talk) 00:07, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Sources discussing the point of view that the event was staged
Perhaps these sources can help present the various truth claims. If editors can find further sources, that would be useful.  JN 466  21:33, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Media and Cultural Transformation in China, by Haiqing Yu (University of New South Wales), published by Taylor & Francis (appears to endorse the claim that the event was staged)
 * Dangerous Meditation -- China's Campaign against Falungong, Human Rights Watch (discusses the claim without endorsing or rejecting it)
 * China's transformations: the stories beyond the headlines by Lionel M. Jensen, Timothy B. Weston, Rowman & Littlefield (discusses the claim without endorsing or rejecting it, but states in a footnote on page 110 that human rights workers generally accept the validity of the information provided on Falun Gong websites)
 * China's long march toward rule of law by Randall P. Peerenboom, Cambridge University Press (quotes the Hong Kong-based Information Center for Human Rights and Democracy taking the view that the protesters were Falun Gong practitioners)
 * Contesting media power: alternative media in a networked world, Rowman & Littlefield, reports that Falun Gong activists hacked a TV network in Northeast China and showed the False Fire video there, instead of the state television; appears to endorse the claim (also see and  for the TV takeover story; I think this should be mentioned in the aftermath section)
 * Article in The Guardian with useful analysis
 * Article in The Age ("But the ready availability of fire-extinguishers and official TV teams and the lack of verification about the victims raised question whether Falun Gong was really involved, or whether the incident was staged.")
 * Washington Post story.
 * New York Times article, mentions the claim.
 * Thank you for this research, I think we should truly maintain this list of sources with the brief summary just as you did. --HappyInGeneral (talk) 08:34, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the links. Most of the sources have now been incorporated into the article. Ohconfucius (talk) 09:45, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Also, Ownby specifically mentions that the claim was made, on page 217 as I indicated above. I have no doubts myself, like I said above, that mentioning Falun Gong's claim that the event was staged is significant enough for inclusion in the article. I think the question is whether Parker's statement reported in the UN press release is significant enough for inclusion in the lead. John Carter (talk) 22:18, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Also, Ownby included one piece of information on page 216 which, at least to my eyes, is a reasonable indication that the event might not have been set up, even if he never specifically links the statement to the allegation. Quoting here, "Xinhua offered a brief report of the events that very evening - but only to foreign reporters and news outlets. Nothing was revealed of the self-immolation within China proper until more than a week later, on 31 January, when a thirty-minute special edition of Forum, which follows the nightly news on CCTV, revealed the grisly details to the Chinese public." Personally, I tend to think if the Chinese government set it up in advance but still needed more than a week to get together a reasonable news piece for internal consumption, there is more outright incompetence there than is generally let on. John Carter (talk) 15:22, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Funny, that. Maybe I've been getting it wrong all along... From what I read, the state media broadcast the news nationally but without the video, and only released the video a week later. I also think the whole video thing was a setup, but that's not important here. Ohconfucius (talk) 02:56, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Article on Neutral point of view/Noticeboard
There is a discussion on the addition of Parker and IED's sources here if anyone's interested.--PCPP (talk) 01:17, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the new notice, this is better phrased then the previous one: . Best Regards, --HappyInGeneral (talk) 08:55, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Washington Post ref
The following statement is supported by a link to the Washington Post "China Mulls Murder Charge..." article:
 * "Articles about sensitive subjects in the Chinese press are almost never reported on a timely basis; the usual protocol is approval by several party officials before publication.[34] However, Xinhua released a brief report of the events that very evening, but only to foreign media; nothing was revealed locally for a week."

I'm not sure the source says what is stated. The relevant section says: "Articles in the Chinese press, particularly those regarding sensitive subjects, are generally approved by several party officials before publication. The newspapers that published this one declined to comment, and a spokesman for the Ministry of Public Security did not respond to questions faxed to him." While it might be possible for a delay to occur while getting approval from several officials, it is equally possible for a meeting to be held and the matter to be discussed on the same day. The implication from the Washington Post has little to do with timely publication, and more to do with verification of the content of the Yangcheng Evening News and the Southern Daily reports.  SilkTork  *YES! 23:30, 10 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm OK with this now.  SilkTork  *YES! 07:50, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Sanitisation of Liu Chenjun's fate needs to be fixed
3O

Sorry, I'm a bit cynical about this by now. I do not think it's proper when editors scrub out the ugly details of the CCP's repression when adding information to wiki. Liu Chengjun is supposed to have been "sentenced to prison, where he died 21 months later" -- but did he just suddenly "die"? The sources referred to say he was either reportedly "beaten to death" (USDOS: "In December, Liu Chengjun, sentenced to 19 years in prison in March 2002 for involvement in illegal Falun Gong television broadcasts, was reportedly beaten to death by police in Jilin City Prison.") or tortured to death, in the far more gruesome Falun Gong account. You can also take He Qinglian's version of it, on my userpage, which says he was tortured to death. Full paragraph from Ms. He: "''I must also express my admiration for the men and women within China who have never compromised with the regime. Coming from China, I know all too well the price paid by those who refuse to compromise, including being isolated by intellectuals who fear associating with “heretics.” This book names and pays homage to many Chinese journalists who have been imprisoned for their efforts to expose corruption. These men and women of conscience are like a lamp with an ever-burning ﬂame. Others have devoted themselves passionately to furthering freedom of speech, some even paying with their lives. Liu Chengjun, a Falun Gong practitioner, was one of them. On March 5, 2002, Liu and some friends managed to intercept eight cable television networks in Changchun City and Songyuan City, Jilin Province, and televised a program entitled “Self-Immolation or a Staged Act?” exposing the Chinese government’s cover-up of its persecution of Falun Gong and the staged immolation the government claimed was the action of practitioners. Liu was arrested and subjected to 21 months of torture that led directly to his death. He paid with his life, but thanks to his sacriﬁce, many people learned the truth about the government’s persecution of Falun Gong."'' Can someone please fix this, and note that the man was reportedly subject to 21 months of torture that lead to his death? --Asdfg12345 14:20, 19 February 2010 (UTC)


 * The last two sentences in the article are not reliable sources and should not be used in the way they have been. I am baffled as to how this sort of vile propaganda can be used in this way. There are dozens of reliable sources saying that the CCP went on a propaganda bonanza with this event, whatever the nature of it. And CCP media and anti-cult GONGOs which play a vanguard role in the persecution (see the CECC's 2009 report) are not reliable sources on the subject. That's a real violation of the principle of NPOV, RS, and undue weight. Forget about whether the woman was a prostitute, this is smuggling propaganda used to sustain a violent campaign of repression into what is supposed to be a respectable encyclopedia. And those are not just my words. I'm paraphrasing the words of scholars, who describe the persecution and propaganda campaign in similar terms. I simply do not see the need for this. --Asdfg12345 14:27, 19 February 2010 (UTC)


 * A little bird who is a journalist who knows someone who is a journalist that later investigated told me that Liu Chunling (i.e. night club worker or prostitute with the 12 year old daughter who also died) was likely involved in organized crime and was the "Jack Ruby" of the self immolation incident. I thought that was interesting in light of the fact that she was the first to die and on the scene (perhaps from being hit on the head). This is just conversation as there are no resources to support this. AnnaInDC (talk) 21:17, 19 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks for that little bit of sarcasm. The Liu Chengjun hacking part of the article is but a small epilogue, and any expansion would be a coatrack. Of course, the mention that somebody dying in prison would generally sound warning bells, and the link which serves as a reference can lead the reader if he/she wants to follow that part of the story. Ohconfucius  ¡digame! 03:41, 20 February 2010 (UTC)


 * There's no reason to delete two words "from torture" or "was beaten to death..." or whatever it is, given that each time the Liu Chengjun case is mentioned, this information is mentioned. Why should this information be sanitised? --Asdfg12345 15:05, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Of course there is. This is mere allegation. To put that in would be to go down the slippery slope of coatracking, because you would then need to write a whole section on the respective arguments from both sides. Ohconfucius  ¡digame! 01:44, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Would it, though? I think the argument from reliable sources is the main one relevant here. The key point is that when his murder is mentioned, it says he was abused, beaten, or tortured. I haven't yet seen a reliable source that mentions his treatment beyond that. So I don't understand why when we mention it, we remove that uncomfortable fact? the CCP isn't a reliable source on the treatment of its political prisoners, as you might know. In an article on him, it would be well and proper to discuss their perspective (of course), but in a short note, I believe it should be presented in the same as as it is by reliable sources. Please explain how you diverge. --Asdfg12345 01:49, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I think we should firmly bear in mind what the central subject is. If you wanted to create an article about Liu Chengjun, or more broadly the hacking incident, then fine. Because there would be space to develop this. I feel that adding 'death by torture' definitely imparts a NPOV concern not entirely related to the self-immolations which would pollute the central subject. Ohconfucius  ¡digame! 02:06, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Okay, I can see your point enough to let it stop here. I'd go out with a last emphasis that in the sources above it's also mentioned as an aside (the two USDOS and He Qinglian), and they are not partisan sources; this supports the idea that it's not biased to mention that he died from something rather than just "died." But there are bigger fish to fry, so let's forget this. Thanks. --Asdfg12345 03:10, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually, I really don't know that's right. The guy was tortured to death for hacking about this incident. That's a big deal, and says so much about this case. At the least, it shows the importance the CCP attaches to pushing its side of the "truth" of this story, which is relevant to readers of this article to more fully understand the context in which the claims are being made. It's relevant, sourced, and informative; I don't believe it breaches NPOV, because I have not seen any other source dispute the claim that he died from torture/abuse. I'll put a third opinion tag here. This is minor, I know, and I won't begrudge consensus on this, but I just thought about it again and do actually think it's important enough to spend a few minutes rigging up a third opinion template.--Asdfg12345 03:16, 23 February 2010 (UTC)


 * What are the alternative narratives on how he died, and who are they sourced to? Do any sources express doubt about how he died? -- JN 466  13:08, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

From the sources available (two USDOS, one He Qinglian), he died from abuse, beating, or torture. It's a difference of a couple of words to include this info; I don't think we're looking at an WP:UNDUE violation here. Regarding what other sources have said on his death, I am not sure. --Asdfg<b style="color:black;">12345</b> 12:54, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I can see merits in both your arguments. As a compromise, how about quoting the relevant sentences from the US DOS state reports in the ref note? That is
 * "In December, Liu Chengjun, sentenced to 19 years in prison in March 2002 for involvement in illegal Falun Gong television broadcasts, was reportedly beaten to death by police in Jilin City Prison." in the 2003 report, and
 * "For example, in 2003, Falun Gong practitioner Liu Chengjun died after reportedly being abused in custody in Jilin Province." in the 2005 report. -- JN 466  16:05, 25 February 2010 (UTC)


 * So, do you mean the inline text should remain vague on his cause of death, but that the cause, according to USDOS, be given in the ref note? Just want to be clear on what you mean. If that is the suggestion, I think it's better than nothing. If that's the idea, I disagree though, given that in the three sources available it's mentioned directly alongside his death (that he died from beating, torture or abuse, depending on which source), but overall I appreciate your giving it the time, sharing the view, and it's not something I think would warrant any further dispute. I just don't get why wiki shouldn't talk about the issue in the same way as the reliable sources available have. In particular, the USDOS reports give that small level of detail in a report about the whole HR situation in China. This is an article about the incident that he was risking his life hacking into a TV station about. In terms of scale, we are two steps more zoomed in than the USDOS report, but still give less detail than they do? I just don't think it's logical. But yeah, I'm not going to go on about it. I've voiced my disagreement, and I do appreciate the time taken to look into it and give an attempted compromise. --Asdfg<b style="color:black;">12345</b> 06:12, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I've added a couple of China state refs, added "under disputed circumstances", and provided quotes from the US DOS and the Chinese Embassy in Canada. -- JN  466  11:45, 28 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Okay, thanks. As I said, I know you are attempting to present both sides and make neutral improvements. I wonder if this is what is meant by NPOV though. The RS page has a section on questionable sources: "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." I will just ask a question: since it's obvious that the CCP in this case has a poor reputation for checking the facts, no real editorial oversight (except the central propaganda department), and expresses views that are widely acknowledge as extremist against Falun Gong (like, "they should be crushed like rats crossing the street"), how can this source be used for claims against third parties (Liu Chengjun)? In particular, they are matched against a highly reliable source like the USDOS. There is no parity there. I wonder what your understanding of this is, and how it matches up with the policy elaborated above. --Asdfg<b style="color:black;">12345</b> 00:54, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

If a dictatorial regime puts a government critic into a mental hospital, claiming they were sick, WP reports that that is what the regime said. This does not mean WP endorses the regime's opinion that the person was mentally ill, or that WP uses a questionable source for statements concerning the person's mental health. In my view, such an assertion says much more about the regime making the statement than about the person in question: but that is my judgement as the reader. -- JN 466  22:05, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Yep, obviously, and agreed. My concern is with the technical matter of how many words are accorded each side in wiki and in those sources; the three sources mentioned above don't give such detail to the CCP's view about Liu's alleged health problems--but in the edit you made, those alleged health problems were elaborated on. I would have thought a few words like "The CCP claimed that Liu died from health problems" would be sufficient. This is my last input on the matter. You've done a good job.--Asdfg<b style="color:black;">12345</b> 00:54, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Recent changes
I made a couple revisions to the lead, both to attempt to shorten the length and better capture the nature of the dispute surrounding the event. I may make more changes in the morning, but here is a summary of the edits I’ve just made: Generally it's quite problematic in this article that the CCP account gets an inordinate amount of play (so many references are to official sources), and yet there is no earnest attempt to represent the problems identified by Falun Gong sources. It's all either CCP or weird back-and-forth between scholars; like, in the 'dispute' section, the third and fourth paragraphs should be dramatically cut. They don't even really belong in that section. That section should describe a dissection of the event and other views. Not sure what to do about that in a hurry, but I'm first bringing the problem here for discussion. If there are issues, let's talk them through. I don't suppose these first round of additions will rankle anyone, though. They were sorely overdue. --Asdfg<b style="color:black;">12345</b> 07:48, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
 * In the first paragraph, the article presented Falun Gong’s narrative as centering on the fact that the teachings forbid suicide. This is far too simplistic a representation. Not only do they say they don’t endorse suicide, they go much further to conclude that the event was staged for the purpose of inciting violence against them and elevating support for the persecution policy.
 * Added in the finding by Philip Pan that the two deceased self-immolators had never been seen practicing Falun Gong (contrary to Xinhua accounts)
 * Added statement by IED
 * Added two sentences that speak to the impact of the event on the persecution, including the Washington Post article about the sanctioning of torture in the aftermath of the self-immolation, and the fairly substantial increase in reported Falun Gong torture deaths in custody.
 * No problem? Let me add some more background. --Asdfg<b style="color:black;">12345</b> 16:24, 23 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I haven't looked at this article in a while, but I'll dive into it for today. Given the controversy that has surrounded this topic, I suggest you proceed carefully. Regarding the dispute section, I don't have a serious problem with it as currently presented, but you are right that it does not present the substance of detractors' arguments; rather, it is just a back-and-forth between scholars and journalists concerning their assessments of competing claims. It certainly makes sense, then, that the article should include a section that presents the challenges to the official narrative, given that the official narrative is given substantial space, and Chinese government sources are cited at great length.  I am not willing to make these changes myself, and don't have sufficient knowledge of the subject. One thing I would like to do, however, it contribute to the background section. Currently the section does not do anything to describe the suppression of Falun Gong, yet this event can only be understood in the context of the suppression.  If the protesters were Falun Gong aspirants, then they self-immolated to protest persecution;  if they were not, then the event was staged as part of a persecution, and either way, the event was publicized and propagandized to build support for persecution. So I will do that. Homunculus (duihua) 16:33, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

I had not looked at this article in a long time, and now I know why. The whole tone of the piece is about validating the official narrative. Most information not in line with that has been suppressed. I find it extraordinary. Here I will number my diffs and explain my changes in each one. Note that I number the diffs, and each change will be explained by a letter, such that if there is a dispute with my interpretation, please refer to it like 1a, 2c, etc. This is the quickest way I can think of to identify the specific points of dispute and discussion. I leave this as a holding note while I assemble that explanation, could be another 30 minutes. It's expected, of course, that anyone disputing my changes actually identifies the specific points they dispute and writes why, since I have taken the trouble to do the same. The only grounds we have for a common working environment is this kind of process. Let me pause here, make a few more changes, and write up my explanations. I will include a bit more of a preface setting out the context of what we're dealing with before diving into the specific issues. Thank you. --Asdfg<b style="color:black;">12345</b> 17:02, 23 January 2011 (UTC)


 * As mentioned, here are my explanations. They are thought out. Each time a piece of red appears I have lettered it, and each number corresponds to a specific diff. I did it this way because it would have been cumbersome to include only one change per diff, but if we want to do that, that’s fine. I don’t mind how we structure the change and discussion process, I just thought this the simplest. My basic motive here has been to add in more facts about what we know--the vast majority of the changes are along those lines. In some cases I noticed pieces of information that did not belong: they were excerpted from various places and arranged here to further the state narrative. That is not in line with Wikipedia policy. This happened in the background section, for example. It was even worse before, as I recall. I've attempted to straighten that out, too. Lastly, I ask that the discussion be conducted strictly according to good manners and wiki policy. Please explain which parts of my changes are disagreeable and do a better job. I'm editing totally in good faith, and may well have made a mistake somewhere here. I'm sure to have overlooked much, at least. I await some sincere interlocutors.


 * 1) 1 A) Add key claims to lead. This is a crucial part of the whole story and cannot be left out. The event happened within the context of a massive persecution and this should not be forgotten or moved to the side. B) The video was not “questioned” by NTD, it was dissected in slow motion. I don’t know why we would want to change that. C) The fact that the protesters were identified not as Falun Gong people by Pan is crucial and should be higher in the piece. This is the kind of info suppression that needs to be cleared away. (Note that the diff here is a bit messy, because paragraphs were moved down. I will do my best to avoid this in future, because the changes are thus obscured. But the rest of the information was not altered much or at all.)
 * 2) 2 This language was provocative and nonsensical. Let’s just state the facts as they stand and not use hyper-language to score propaganda points. Facts, facts, facts. In a story where so much information is deliberately obscured, the best service we can provide readers is to simply state the known facts in a clear manner.
 * 3) 3 The video footage was deconstructed, not questioned.
 * 4) 4 This is not ad ad-hom attack. This is a known fact about this poor woman that should not be obscured. It goes far to the point that she may not have been a practitioner. Information that doesn’t agree with the state narrative should not be suppressed.
 * 5) 5 A) Remove scripture, add persecution background: the relevance of the scripture to the protest has been severely overplayed, and including it so prominently in the background is highly tendentious. Strictly speaking it is not part of the background, it is merely a small part of the interpretation of a few observers. If there’s someone with a background in Chinese religion (not gittings) who makes this link, that could be discussed, but at the moment we have primary research and a tendentious link, it looks quite poor. B) “broke the news”? They merely told their version of events, in fact. C) Properly relaying what Falun Gong press statement said, it was more than the originally emaciated recap. D) Note what the Laogai Research Foundation actually said on the topic, which was more than what they were quoted as saying. The background here is key. E) Porter’s views are important for understanding and context. No clue why they were left out…
 * 6) 6 This is the deconstruction of the footage. Not sure why it was left out. People need this information to make an informed choice about what happened. You’ll notice that my changes are along the lines I mentioned earlier: adding facts, being circumspect about opinions. Facts count for so much more in such a contested case, and the purpose of the page should not be to make people think one way or another about the incident, but provide what information is required for people to make up their own minds. My edits aim to help with this difficult task. So it is with noting the inconsistencies found by the False Fire documentary. These were actually in the article unproblematically some time ago. I don’t know why or how that changed.
 * 7) 7 A) Falun Gong leadership expected people to demonstrate? That is a wildly inaccurate use of language. I have made it say the truth, just that practitioners protested there. B) What relevance has Li’s statement on supernormal powers to the incident in question? C) What relevance has Li’s “marked change in tone” after the persecution to the incident in question? None, apparently, and therefore the information has no proper place here.
 * 8) 8 A) The first change is less radical than it looks. It is merely to condense the different views to a simple paragraph. They can be elaborated on in all their erudition later, but the lead is not the place for that, per WP:LEDE, which explains clearly how leads are meant to introduce the topic and set out the main controversies, rather than delve into details. B) Remove the graf on the fate of the survivors, this is all from propaganda sources and is not strictly relevant to the actual incident itself. What the CCP did afterwards can be explored, sure, but it is not the key point of contention. The inclusion of this information here just reinforces the official propaganda narrative, in fact, and serves no other purpose. C) I simplified slightly that there was an enormous campaign of propaganda to follow, using various sources. This is a pretty crucial piece of the puzzle. D) Add two NYT sources. E) Sima Nan’s criticism was not notable at the time (I think TSTF went through this a lot on the talk pages a long time ago) nor is cited here; secondly, the picketing was peaceful and this should be acknowledged. F) Note Jiang set down the order. G) The massive propaganda campaign part is important as part of the background to what happened. Again, an important fact that was somehow dismissed in place of speculation. This, like all my other edits, have attempted to correct the balance between opinion/speculation and fact/what we know.--Asdfg<b style="color:black;">12345</b> 17:53, 23 January 2011 (UTC)


 * We tried working on this simultaneously earlier, so I decided to go elsewhere and wait to see what you produced. I removed a couple things ("enormous" propaganda campaign, and the WOIPFG analysis in the background section). I will go through other edits more carefully later.  In general your changes are reasonable, but I would suggest there are at least two outstanding issues of considerable significance. First, I see that you made an attempt to clean up the lede, but it's still quite long. Second, I have a much bigger problem with this article in that it contains so much original synthesis of so many sources, and I fear that the selection of quotations and opinions given by third parties may not, in fact, be representative, but instead that third parties have been quoted selectively to advance a particular narrative. For instance, Ownby is quoted as saying that it's plausible that the self-immolators were practitioners. I checked this reference, and found that he describes the alternative (that the participants were paid actors) as being equally plausible, and observed that it is impossible to know for sure what their identities are.  To resolve this issue, I suggest that we find a credible source or two that clearly and cogently articulates both sides of this story, and use that as a guide to explaining the dispute. A clear version of the counter-narrative does not exist in the current article. Homunculus (duihua) 18:59, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Fair comment. I have been perhaps overly focused on the detail and did not consider the larger picture of how the article was operating to present the various ideas, though I got the feeling that the state narrative was quite dominant. I'm happy with the changes you suggest; we can just go back and forth doing changes, as long as you're OK with that. If you don't take offense to a revision, I won't, and we can beaver away at refining the information available and adding new information. --Asdfg<b style="color:black;">12345</b> 02:33, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I've added further clean up, as Asdfg's changes only added further neutrality issues. First of all, he radically changed the intro so that FLG sources such as False Fire are given prominence, along with further pro-FLG sources to give that particular POV undue weight. I don't see why Schechter and Pan's opinions hold more weight than Ownby and ter Haar's - there is no unanimous agreement on the status of the immolators. Secondly, relevant scriptures from Li Hongzhi were removed entirely, downplaying Li's positions on the incident, and replaced with further criticism of the PRC government, which I don't find adhering to NPOV policies. Lastly, the large amount of original research from False Fire gives a serious undue weight issue here - particularly since it was not made by an independent party.--PCPP (talk) 16:59, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
 * PCPP, you might as well have simply said: "No, I disagree, those edits suck, I'm undoing all of them." That's all you've done, in fact. You have not addressed in substance any of the explanations above. You continually do this. You are a menace to any serious editing of the article. You turn everything related to this subject into a battle. Homunculus and I were discussing the changes in a cooperative atmosphere above, but your edit completely negates this consensus we had formed on our changes. You are simply barging in with what amount to large reverts and minimal explanation. Your explanation amounts to "pro-FLG" and "POV undue weight," which is entirely a political judgement that skirts around any critical analysis of the central issues. This is entirely typical of you. I wonder if Homunculus has any more patience than me, I would be surprised if anyone could. What you're doing is so disruptive.
 * And now let me respond to what I can scrape off your argument:
 * the introduction needs to make clear that there is a strong counter-narrative to the state narrative. Both these versions of events should be presented front and center, for the reader to choose from. The counter-narrative has stronger sources than the state narrative, if you'll bother to look closely at the sources. It is not feasible that it does not appear strongly in the lead, along with the state assumptions of the identity of the people.
 * Who said that Schechter and Pan's opinions hold more weight than Ownby and ter Haar's? The point is to keep the lead clear and simple. The detailed arguments can be addressed later.
 * I addressed the question of Li's scriptures above, you have not responded, and I'm not going to repeat myself. You are saying that including the background of repression is a "criticism of the PRC government"? This is propaganda and nonsense. Criticism of the PRC government would be stuff like "The PRC government really sucks, it's so bad, it's terrible," whereas reports from human rights organizations about torture deaths and prison sentences is factual information that is highly relevant.
 * False Fire won an award and has been widely cited by secondary sources, and stands as a clear articulation of the holes that are in the report. They are factual observations of the CCTV footage itself. Trying to suppress that information here is not a very funny joke.
 * You should not revert again. Discuss the above, instead. I can compromise, I regularly do and have, but you need to convince us. --Asdfg<b style="color:black;">12345</b> 17:23, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Sure, assuming there is something "for the reader to choose from" when it is heavily one sided and and implied that the immolation if fabricated, when sources taken as whole do not state as such at all. You simply try to inundate the lede with critical souces from Pan and Schechter, while completely neglect sources such as Ownby and ter Haar by removing them from the lede.
 * You did. You said The fact that the protesters were identified not as Falun Gong people by Pan is crucial and should be higher in the piece., a claim that has not been substantiated by other sources. And the excessive material on FLG torture does not belong here, its a coattrack attempting to create a misleading portrayal - it has occurred indepedenently of the self immolation, and has already been noted elsewhere.
 * You claimed that Li's scriptures are "overplayed", yet that's merely your personal opinion as a FLG practitioner. Suddenly, when it comes to critical souces, you act as if removing them is "suppression of information".
 * More baseless claims. Awards matter little here, as opposed to the fact that A) False Fire's producers are closely related to FLG, and B) it's own "analysis" has yet been disected by FLG scholars. Putting them here on its entirety violates WP:UNDUE and WP:OR.--PCPP (talk) 17:40, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

This is why I was reluctant to get involved. PCPP, you are being disruptive. I recommend you stop reverting, arguing only that the content was too 'pro-Falun Gong.' Factual, relevant information is not invalidated by the fact that it supports or aligns with the views of Falun Gong. Nor does this make the information biased or one-sided. You would be a much better member of this community if, instead of reverting against emerging consensus and removing solid content, you contributed original research. Now, a few specific points:
 * In editing this article, we cannot pretend that the details of event are not heavily contested. The counter-narrative, which posits that the self-immolation was staged, is backed by evidence from numerous sources. The Chinese government and its media apparatus is the only party that stands by its particular narrative; no independent researchers have been allowed to research the veracity of their claims regarding the identity and motivations of the victims. When independent researchers have attempted to do this, as Philip Pan did, they found flaws in the official narrative. The lede should reflect the basic facts of the event, the Chinese government story, and the view of detractors (not only Falun Gong) that the event could have been staged by the government, for what purpose, and to what end.
 * You claim that mention of Falun Gong scripture is relevant, but information about the suppression of Falun Gong is not. I disagree. The inclusion of Falun Gong scripture is a stretch to me. It strikes me as an attempt by some observers to explain why Falun Gong practitioners self-immolated, but there is no consensus that the self-immolators were Falun Gong practitioners. I am not against including some discussion of the scripture in the dispute section as part of a speculative debate on why Falun Gong practitioners might have self-immolated, but it does not belong in the background section. The persecution of Falun Gong, by contrast, does have a strong and direct connection to the event. As I mentioned before, whatever we believe about the self-immolation, it can only be understood in the context of suppression.  If the protesters were Falun Gong, they were protesting persecution. If they were not, the self-immolation itself was a part of persecution. And either way, the event led to a significant escalation of violence against Falun Gong.  Your statement that the self-immolation is unrelated to the torture of Falun Gong adherents is untenable.
 * The relationship between False Fire producers and Falun Gong is not very important to me, and I'm not sure why it matters to you. I don't judge people on the basis of their religion. What matters to me is the quality of their evidence. The evidence in their documentary was quite solid, and was overwhelmingly drawn through analyzing CCTV and Xinhua reportage. You say that FLG scholars have discredited its analysis?  Where?
 * I am beginning to suspect that you never read Ownby's comments on the self-immolation, as you have continually referenced him as standing on the opposite end of the debate as, say, Pan and Schechter. So for your convenience, here is the entirety of his analysis. I suggest this could serve as a useful guide for us in determining how to assign due weight to different sides of the debate:


 * Fire in the Square
 * In the midafternoon of 22 January, the eve of the Chinese New Year, five alleged Falun Gong practitioners doused themselves in gasoline and set themselves ablaze in Tian'anmen. One man, Wang Jingdong, aged fifty-one, sat down in a posture resembling the lotus position employed by Falun Gong practitioners (and other groups as well) and remained seated as the flames consumed him. The other four, Liu Chunling, thirty-six, and her daughter Liu Siying, twelve, and another mother-daughter pair, Hao Huichun (in her fifties) and Chen Guo (nineteen), remained erect after setting themselves on fire, running across the square with their hands raised in a manner that recalls part of the basic Falun Gong repertoire of exercises. Security officials extinguished the flames as rapidly as possible, and only one of the four, Liu Chunling, died on the square. The others were taken by ambulance to area hospitals. A CNN camera crew was on the square at the time, but their film was confiscated by security officials and not returned.
 * Xinhua offered a brief report of the events that very evening—but only to foreign reporters and news outlets. Nothing was revealed of the self- immolation within China proper until more than a week later, on 31 January, when a thirty-minute special edition of Forum, which follows the nightly news on CCTV, revealed the grisly details to the Chinese public. These details included the fact that there were two other alleged Falun Gong practitioners who were in (or in the vicinity of) Tian'anmen Square who had intended to set themselves alight with their fellow practitioners, but who had had second thoughts at the last minute. All of the practitioners were from Kaifeng, Henan, and had been "hoodwinked," in the language of the news report, by Li Hongzhi and Falun Gong, imagining that they would ascend immediately to heaven. Unsurprisingly, the feature focused on the youngest members, particularly twelve-year-old Liu Siying, whose charred body could hardly fail to solicit a reaction. Liu was filmed crying out for her mother and for her uncle (Chinese often refer to any older male as an "uncle," regardless of the existence of a blood relationship), and she explained, in interviews conducted in the hospital, that she had believed that there would be no pain and that she would be ushered quickly into paradise, "a wonderful world with gold everywhere." Others who burned themselves spoke of betrayal at the hands of the master (although Wang Jingdong apparently remained faithful, talking about a "final test" to be organized by Li Hongzhi). The report also included interviews with shocked relatives and repeated the general and specific themes of the anti-Falun Gong campaign well known to most Chinese.
 * 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 skeptical foreign journalists—began to point out a number of anomalies which might lead one to wonder if the events were as straight-forward as Xinhua had portrayed them. For instance, why were 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.
 * Over the succeeding weeks, other questions were added. Philip Pan, a journalist for the Washington Post, traveled to Kaifeng, found where Liu Chunling and Liu Siying had lived, and talked with neighbors to learn that no one was aware that they were Falun Gong practitioners and that Liu Chunling had a troubled past and present; apparently, she had struck her elderly mother and her daughter, and worked as an escort in a local nightclub. Perhaps she turned—secretly—to Falun Gong as a result of her personal difficulties, but 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 documents 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 supposedly 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 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 imagining 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.
 * Although the arguments of Falun Gong practitioners seem cogent, it is very difficult to arrive at a final judgment about the self-immolation. If those who set themselves on fire were not practitioners, then who were they? Where would Chinese authorities have found "actors" (including children) willing to play such roles? What would have been their motivation? I suppose that it is possible that there are desperate people in China (and elsewhere) who will do anything for money (which would go to their families in this case, one supposes, unless the authorities had promised to rescue them before the flames could do harm). Or the entire event could have been staged. But it seems just as possible that those who set themselves on fire might have been new or unschooled Falun Gong practitioners, had discovered and practiced Falun Gong on their own (and badly) in the post-suppression period, and, for whatever reason, decided to make the ultimate sacrifice.

This seems like a pretty level analysis to me, and as you can see, nowhere does he "discredit" the Falun Gong claims; he actually devotes more space to explaining the inconsistencies in the official story than he does to repeating it. On another note, I would normally be inclined to try to temper Asdfg's contributions and tone them down. Were it not for the need to defend, say, the relevance of information on the torture of Falun Gong, I would much prefer to be doing that.Homunculus (duihua) 19:38, 25 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Asdfg, you edited the lede to refer to an increase in alleged Falun Gong torture deaths following the self-immolation. Can you prove there is a correlation? It seems a bit tenuous, particularly considering its prominent position in the article. Homunculus (duihua) 05:27, 26 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I noticed a moment ago that PCPP reverted Asdfg's changes again. Perhaps it was not clear that I support the content of most of Asdfg's changes. Where this is not the case, we can at least work in a productive manner to arrive at improvements through substantive and civil discussion. I am not the slightest bit fond of reverting, but my aversion to it is not as strong as my affection for meaningful discussion, so in the interest of the latter, I reinstated the previous (consensus) version. Homunculus (duihua) 05:42, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I took note of Homunculus's suggestions and agreed with his arguments to restore the material on torture. I made the following changes: A)Shortened the lede to four paragraphs, including the intro; statement about CCTV coverage; fate of the survivors; and the resulting campaign against FLG. The detailed third party analysis, in my opinion, belongs to the body. B)Readded the material on Li's scriptures, which has been noted by Time a few paragraphs down, but is open to discussion. C)Removed the giant False Fire box - the CCTV section already detailed False Fire's arguments, and the dialogue would only add further undue weight.--PCPP (talk) 06:18, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Just catching up with this now. Are you sure that's all you did, PCPP? This is a diff of all your changes--there appear to be much more than the A-C you provide here. I support a clear statement of the hoax narrative, whether it is in a breakout box or elsewhere. But there should be a concise, point by point summary of the apparent holes in the official story. I would also ask PCPP a favor, if he would, since I am having some trouble picking through that diff: can you please just paste here below all the things you deleted from the article (you took it from 51,624b to 48,509b--that is surely more than just the False Fire section)? That would be nice, thank you. (I might also add that I feel a little sorry for the other two interlocutors--you spent so much time writing all that, but PCPP responded so concisely. When I get more time I will try to look closely at what changes he actually made, unless someone is first.) — Zujine |talk 23:19, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Please note that PCPP just basically undid everything he didn't like, which both myself and Homunculus were discussing above. He threw out five sentences to justify massive changes. It seems we are the only ones who care to discuss things, whereas PCPP prefers to simply put his head down and try to crash through? This is battleground-like behaviour. I will not revert again--let me clarify that now, but I know that PCPP simply ignores discussion if there are no edits to back it up, and I understand that I have the support of other editors in doing so. If others do not agree with my reverting PCPP, please let me know. I am trying to take a bit of the brunt of this, the situation is so damn unreasonable. Upcoming is a proper explanation of why what he did was wrong and should be disagreeable to anyone who wants a reasonable page. --Asdfg<b style="color:black;">12345</b> 05:04, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Here is my analysis of three diffs that you did. What I did was, firstly, revert, then restore the more reasonable edits you made. The three diffs below are what I dispute. If you are going to engage in the discussion, PCPP, please do so properly. I will not revert you anymore on this page, on these disputes. I’ll leave that to others, so it’s clear that you are being a menace not to just me, but everyone trying to edit in a normal environment here.
 * You shortened the lede, but in the process removed any mention of third parties who doubt the veracity of the CCP’s narrative (Schechter, Pan, Porter, and HRW all disappeared in your edits). You made it seem that the dispute lies entirely between the CCP and Falun Gong, but this is not the case. Ownby says it is not the case; he draws attention to credible, serious problems in the official story that were often ‘’not’’ presented by Falun Gong sources, but by Western journalists. You also removed any mention that self-immolation or suicide is not part of Falun Gong doctrine, and deleted two separate sources which noted that the CCP narrative is impossible to verify. You then proceeded to add a paragraph of CCP propaganda about the trial and sentencing of the participants, suggesting that your primary motivation was not to shorten the lede, but to ensure that it better reflects the Party’s narrative of events.
 * You removed the False Fire sidebar, claiming the information was redundant. Some of it was, I agree, but not all. In addition to removing that information, you also removed the subsequent paragraph without discussion, which dealt with Liu Chunling and her daughter. You did not note this in your edit summaries, but it appears that you removed all mention of Philip Pan’s investigation into the identities of these two self-immolators who were killed. These individuals were not Falun Gong practitioners. Pan’s represented the only attempt at independent investigation into the CCP’s claims, and it revealed a crucial flaw in the official narrative. Pan’s findings are widely cited, and appeared in both the International Herald Tribune and the Washington Post. Is that why you removed all mention of it?
 * - In this edit you restored information from the Jensen source that has nothing to do with the immolation incident. Specifically, the parts talking about Falun Gong’s views of “the apocalypse” etc. are not directly related to the immolation (and, incidentally, they disagree with Ownby’s analysis). This is a bow that is being pulled far too far. No direct connection means you can’t just randomly quote the words to make Falun Gong look weird, or crazy, or likely to teach people to burn themselves. To put it mildly that’s called an original synthesis (strongly, it would be called propaganda).
 * Finally, I made an edit changing two things in the lead. That is pretty self-explanatory in the diff. --Asdfg<b style="color:black;">12345</b> 05:37, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Oh, and now I see why he deleted Pan like that. Because his reportage of how the participants were not Falun Gong practitioners is "a claim that has not been substantiated by other sources"! !! That's all I have to say. ! --Asdfg<b style="color:black;">12345</b> 06:05, 27 January 2011 (UTC)


 * The intro is simply too long and fails WP:LEDE, and Putting the material on FLG doctrines there violates on WP:SYNTHESIS and WP:OR. Extensive discussion by third parties belong in the "dispute" section. The intro currently states the events that occurred, Chinese govt and FLG's separate claims, fate of the survivors, and the resulting crackdown on FLG. It's important to point out the Chinese govt's claims per NPOV, and not just because you think its propaganda. I have since shortened several sentences and readded HRW and Schechter's observations.
 * The basic arguments made by False Fire, is already found in the "China Central Television video footage" section with 2 images. Putting a giant dialogue box is simply providing undue weight per WP:UNDUE. The paragraph that follows was removed by mistake, I have restored it.
 * The Li scripture on "Beyond the Limits of Forbearance" is important, as in the subsequent paragraph, The Guardian and Time, as well as Ownby all noted that Li's message on the ordeal of FLG may be misinterpreted by individual practitioners as a call of martyrdom, per the "dispute" sections, where I moved it.
 * Your last edit is simply WP:POINT. The immolation is already heavily disputed, so why add a further "disputed" discription to Liu's death?--PCPP (talk) 11:18, 27 January 2011 (UTC)