Talk:Tiananmen Square self-immolation incident/GA1

GA Reassessment
This discussion is transcluded from Talk:Tiananmen Square self-immolation incident/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the reassessment.

I came back for a quick look at how the article has evolved since I stopped contributing. I noticed that a substantial number of edits have taken place since I withdrew from this article. Without going any further than the lead section, the blatantly obvious conclusion is that the whole affair was a setup by the Chinese Communist Party, despite the purely circumstantial evidence presented in the article, dressed up as fact by loaded opinions from Falun Gong apologists like Danny Schechter. I was not surprised at the changes, due to the fact that most of the edits since my departure from this article have been partisan, by a Falun Gong practitioner from a blinkered perspective. These edits have completely extinguished the considerable efforts I put in to defend and ensure that there was some semblance of neutrality. What's more, there is now confusion due to commentary about another self-immolation (Tan) in Tiananmen Square not subject to this article, and not hithertofore mentioned - such commentary being pointedly used to support the assertion that this incident was a setup. Bravo, I applaud this as a brilliant exercise in The article now reads like typical Falun Gong propaganda. It now makes no pretence as to neutrality as commonly accepted on wikipedia, and I have now no qualms about putting on the tag on the article. I think GA status should also be revoked. Ohconfucius (talk) 01:55, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
 * As the article currently stands, it is a far cry from the article I promoted some time ago. Currently the article comes nowhere close to meeting GA standards in many respects, most importantly neutrality. Drewcifer (talk) 04:48, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Just two quick ones: of course it's no longer GA, it should be taken off GA right away without so much as a how-do-you-do. I didn't know there had to be a process for that? Secondly, I doubt the helpfulness of sarcasm and mean comments. Although I can't really blame you, confucius, this circumstance is quite frustrating. I've found it's best to take a 24hr in these situations, cull aspersions like Strunk and White, and just play a straight bat. We're all human I guess. I hope the page can be well-improved in the time to come.--Asdfg12345 11:57, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

haha, that sarcasm link is classic!--Asdfg12345 03:48, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

As of August 2009, I think it's finally looking better now. Most of the Falun Gong conspiracy claims are properly framed as "Falun Gong claims that ...", etc. Good job, everyone. Feel free to let me know if there's another edit war afoot and you'd like my input. Kent Wang (talk) 12:21, 22 August 2009 (UTC)