Talk:2001 Tiananmen Square self-immolation incident/Archive 6

About the background section

I believe the background section suffers from problems of original synthesis, undue weight, and cherrypicking sources. Some questions I have are how the notes from Time are relevant as background to this event? I checked all the references in that section, and as far as I can tell, the only thing that links Li's remarks with this event is the note by Gittings: "But some observers believe it is possible that the five were driven by desperation - and confusion about Mr Li's "new scripture" - to attempt suicide." -- does that warrant the great emphasis on them, and all the information we are presented with about Li's other remarks? Notably, in Ownby's book there is not much emphasis on linking the scripture with the immolation. I would suggest that that is a good indicator of how much emphasis wiki should give to it. Unfortunately, this looks like an instance of selected quotes arranged in a way that supports a particular narrative that is not explicitly articulated in any of the sources quoted. I just mentioned how the only thing linking the scripture to the immolation is the note from Gittings (actually from Jensen and Weston as well) -- but is there anything at all linking Li's other remarks with it? If not, it's unclear how they belong in the section that is a backgrounder to the immolation.

I find that the first paragraph is much the same; a novel narrative. This particular expression of the lead-up to the persecution is not found in any single source, so it's a kind of original synthesis in itself. Further, even if it was in a source, it still wouldn't be the most neutral, accepted, or common way of discussing it. I would contend that Sima Nan's remarks about Falun Gong are barely relevant for the Falun Gong pages anyway, given how little they are mentioned in reliable sources, let alone weaving them into a narrative here. So much attention is given to what Falun Gong is alleged to have done, or what Li is alleged to have said, whereas in a third party analysis of most of these events, the focus is largely on what the CCP has done. One important question is about where this article is situated; I mean, if it had to be categorised, what is this article a subtopic of? I think if we did that analysis, it would become clear that in the overwhelming number of cases, this event is a referred to in the context of the propaganda campaign waged by the CCP against Falun Gong. That's the context this event is situated within, quite beside the question of the identity of the participants. I would first like to know whether this proposition is disputed, and if it is, then do some source-mining to find out which way the event is mostly discussed. Let's put it this way: if the event is mostly contextualised as an example of Falun Gong's apparent suicidal tendencies, or Li's encouragement for immolation, then it would make perfect sense to emphasise the aspects that have been emphasised in the background section. If it is mostly framed as an example of state propaganda (and yes, I believe it's quite indisputable that it is), then the background and other elements of the article should reflect this. Does this make sense? I'm making this argument and using contrarian logic to try to show, or explain, why I believe certain information is out of place here. As long as there is no explicit link between Li's remarks and this event, I believe their inclusion here is a subtle sort of original synthesis, irrelevancy, and undue weight. Further, given this, I don't think there is enough acknowledgement or emphasis on how this event was used as a piece of propaganda. I mean, the current mentions are a poor reflection of the body of sources which have situated it in that context. Again, for now what I'm saying is argumentation and proposition; I will be happy to test these theories with research.

Notes on how the Jensen and Weston source has been used, and suggestions for how to improve accuracy: 1) it is written fully as "Falun Gong" not "FG." 2) There is a paragraph break before "Such flames..." 3) The next sentence at the end is "Whatever the truth about the incident, it clearly marked an important public relations victory for the Chinese state within China, as many Chinese who had remained neutral to that point came to share the authorities’ view that the Falun Gong was indeed a dangerous heterodox sect." I contend that at least "Whatever the truth about the incident..." is relevant and should be tacked on. If the rest is too long, just use ellipses. The note of inconclusiveness is important, in my opinion. --Asdfg12345 15:04, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Given that no one has responded to this for close to two weeks, I would suggest the items suggested there are actionable by anyone. --Asdfg12345 01:20, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

An article built on CCP propaganda

A lot the central material in the current article is CCP propaganda, presented without context. Sources such as Pan, Schechter, Ainsley, Brady, Qinglian, are all either kept out or sidelined. Even the perspective of Ownby is distorted.

Images directly taken from footage described as "engineered" by sources such as Schechter, are presented, with captions that lend legitimacy to it. I cant help but say that this is but the product of pure propaganda and spin. Any attempt to improve it or add objective sources in is immediately countered. I'll point out how much of the academic material was blanked out in a series of edits and how academic sources such as Schechter are sidelined as "subscribing entirely to Falun Gong POV."

CCP Propaganda, and images drawn from it, are not a legitimate material for an encyclopedia.

Dilip rajeev (talk) 07:18, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Lemme give you the eyebrow on this: you are linking to a section that Asdfg threw in a few weeks ago, and are suggesting that the people who do not share your views get paid for their edits? (just making sure I understand this correctly) Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 08:57, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

If I remember right it was I myself who "threw in" the section. All I commented on was how much the article draws from CCP propaganda. I did not imply that people who do not agree with my perspective get paid. I did not analyze the history of edits and was assuming this kind of disruption could only owe itself to IP edits. All that I intent to convey in the post above is that I have deep concerns regarding this pattern of removal of well sourced, centrally relevant material, misrepresentation of sources such as Ownby, and an almost WP:RS status provided to xinhua and CCP propaganda( the current article builds itself on Xinhua propaganda presented for fact) . Anyway, just focusing on the content and sticking to WP guidelines is all thats needed to fix these issues. I apologize if my comment came across as against other editors.

Dilip rajeev (talk) 13:18, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Good. That's all I wanted to know. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 13:40, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

A quick note that Schechter isn't an academic source. Of course, it's fallacious that he be excluded because editors don't like his POV, but no one was there to stop it from being deleted. I share the concerns about how openly CCP anti-Falun Gong propaganda is used in the article as though it is a regular source. I wouldn't accuse anyone of any ill intentions though. Cut and summarise, and attribute the CCP claims to reliable sources as far as possible; their view is obviously a significant one, but shouldn't be used as a factual one like it is. I also think the background section has problems, as I wrote above. At the same time, it would not work to turn that section into an oppositely weighted coatrack full of detailed information about the horrors of the persecution. I wrote above that in the vast majority of sources this incident finds its context within the propaganda campaign against Falun Gong. That's how it's usually construed. I think the background section should introduce the fact of the persecution, talk about the propaganda campaign, and to the extent that reliable sources have discussed it, only then talk about how Li's teachings were allegedly related to the incident. But on that last point, no evidence (in the form of reliable sources) has been presented for it. It's just a splicing of several different sources. Ownby's text does not draw a link between these two things at all (i.e., an escalation in Li's public statements and the immolation), so it's quite unclear why we should. In fact, I don't think we should unless it is directly textually supported. And much of that is to do with the "dispute" rather than the "background." Two cents.--Asdfg12345 13:21, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

I surveyed the use of Chinese state sources used in this FA. At the time of writing, they are the following:

• [1]: used five times, four times with attribution, once with corroboration by Western source.
• [2]: appropriately used (one use with attribution, one use without attribution for stating that two protesters were not tried).
• [3]: appropriately used (for date when Chinese government ban started).
• [4]: appropriately used, twice with attribution, once with corroborating source from Human Rights Watch.
• [5]: used with attribution.
• [6]: used with attribution.
• [7]: used with attribution.
• [8]: this is a Reuters report reproduced on a Chinese government website.
• [9]: used with corroboration by Western source.
• [10]: used with attribution.
• [11]: used with attribution.
• [12]: was used without attribution; attribution has now been added.

I don't see a problem with these uses. --JN466 14:21, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Honestly, gentlemen. This is an article that's been thoroughly reviewed by the wikipedia community and it is a featured article. It is as close to neutral as we can make it. No one's buying into your advocacy rants. Please quit the complaining to advance your agenda. Colipon+(Talk) 15:32, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Being used with attribution of the point of view of CCP propaganda is different from being used with attribution like any other source, as a piece of factual information. The two are vastly different. The article in many places uses such sources in the second way, when they should only be allowed to be used in the first way, according to the RS policy. These are extremist and propaganda sources which are associated with a persecution; they do the propaganda for it. They're not normal sources, and can only be relied upon to transmit the CCP perspective. I wouldn't suggest they be deleted entirely, but use restricted to one section which outlines the CCP's point of view. In reality though, it may be possible to present the CCP perspective without having to resort to primary sources. In any case, having a subsection that outlines the CCP's claims would solve the problem. Sprinkling the propaganda sources throughout the article creates problems for readers. Actually, I just mean they should not purport to represent facts. If it's appropriate to mention the CCP perspective in several places, then do that. But there is a big difference between using them as facts and using them as opinions. There was also a lot of information deleted from the page, too. I'll find an older version of the article and paste some of the deletions below, for anyone who dares to add back in. --Asdfg12345 02:55, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Please, stop wikilawyering. Merits of sources should be judged individually and with regards to their usage. There is nothing wrong with adding sources from the PRC government, provided they're attributed correctly. Especially considering that they're an involved party, a blanket ban or dismissal is against the spirits of WP:NPOV.--PCPP (talk) 14:36, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

I hope it was clear that I did not suggest a blanket ban or dismissal of all CCP sources. I said they should be more clearly identified as such, and not be elevated to the place of facts, as they are frequently in the article. And this can be in various ways, including using propaganda in an official-looking table, or weaving it among factual accounts from journalists, etc. Both those things can and should be avoided. the CCP view will still be aired, but it shouldn't be in a way that gives the unsuspecting reader the impression that what they're reading is not state propaganda against a persecuted group.... (unless that's the whole point? No, I don't believe it).--Asdfg12345 00:57, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

• PCPP and others, I've followed the discussion and see how this is a difficult issue. Here is what I think: You wrote, "[m]erits of sources should be judged individually and with regards to their usage. There is nothing wrong with adding sources from the PRC government, provided they're attributed correctly." That sounds very nonbiased and academic but, how are you going to correctly distinguish true from propoganda sources in this case? I do not know how old you (or other editors here) are but in the former Soviet Union a few decades ago, there was a media/paper called "Pravda", which translates as "Truth". It became a laughing stock amongst Russians and to this day. Do you understand? So, my point being that in places like communist countries where there is no media freedom, presenting their side is not trivial as one really does not know what one is presenting; it could very well be something blatently made up (i.e. their propoganda). So, some ideas on how to avoid this would be great. AnnaInDC (talk) 06:06, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

You act as if the PRC is the only source producing propaganda, and that everything FLG and the US tells is the absolute truth. To assume that because China has limited media freedom, all of its sources can be blanketly labelled as "propaganda" is absolutely dishonest and goes against the spirit of NPOV. Propaganda goes both ways, and what is "truth" and "propaganda" is subjective, as such it's up to the reader to decide.--PCPP (talk) 04:16, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

that's wrong. This is what the WP:RS policy is for. Please read it. And if there are other disputes, they can be taken to the NPOV noticeboard. --Asdfg12345 06:03, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

I made a few small changes based on the discussion above. ✔ Olaf Stephanos ✍ 00:09, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

I looked, and agree. --Asdfg12345 00:10, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

I just popped in to see what was going on here, and was not surprised to still find the very same verbose wikilawyering, but ramped up a few notches; I just find myself being 100% in agreement with PCPP three posts above. I'd also point out the recommendation by asdfg to "including using propaganda in an official-looking table". Then our friend Olav comes along and scrubs out information in the table so cited to state media, to which asdfg utters his agreement. I rest my case, and I think I will stay away for quite a while longer. Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 16:49, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Ohconfucius, can you please explain your rationale for this edit? Thank you. ✔ Olaf Stephanos ✍ 13:07, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

I do not want to actively participate in this discussion, but I will follow it, and I want to offer some initial questions and observations.

Basically the complaint seems to be that putting Xinhua's claims about the identity of the participants in a table makes them appear to be facts, or at least, more factual than claims that were part of a propaganda campaign. It is noted that above the table it states 'according to Xinhua', but the concern seems to be that the form of the table itself conveys a certain legitimacy, and therefore undue weight.

On this point, I would agree with Colipon who noted on the main discussion page that anything from either Falun Gong or the CCP should not be presented as factual (unless, presumably, it had third party support). So I think it needs to be clarified why propaganda is being presented as factual information in this case.

The other point is the CCP's anti-cult GONGO. Olaf and Asdfg12345 have argued that this GONGO is not a reliable source. Again, I think Colipon made the salient point: these sources can represent their own views (given certain conditions), but usually not make statements that are to be taken as facts about third parties. In this case, the GONGO is used to give a quote from a Falun Gong practitioner. That seems to be overstepping the stipulation about not making claims about third parties.

I will probably not say more than just the above. I wanted to articulate the arguments raised above in a clear way. I could not find the refuting arguments above, or I would have restated them here as well. I look forward to see how this is resolved. The Sound and the Fury (talk) 14:07, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

This is easy to resolve. I can understand the concern about the prominence of these claims in the table - it simply makes them appear more factual. At the same time, the CCP's claims in this regard should be noted. So let's just put the claim that the individuals were practitioners in the prose, rather than the table. That should make everyone happy. —Zujine|talk 04:53, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

That's probably a fair solution. I am glad that someone is willing to challenge the entrenched anti-Falun Gong orthodoxy that seeks to own the page and define the terms of legitimate debate. The point is not to remove this information from the encyclopedia, but to make sure that when people see it, it doesn't parade as fact. The only facts here are who said what. But jazzing it up in a table is like promoting one set of facts against another. Or shall we have a table based on information from Falun Gong sources? I think Zujine's change is suitable. And it's high time the propaganda at the end of the article was removed. The anti-cult group is not a reliable source on what Falun Gong practitioners are alleged to have said. If the propaganda claims of the CCP need to be included in some other way (like some phrases: "China believes the despicable immolation by "Falun Gong" shows the world the despicable nature of this mortal threat to socialism with Chinese characteristics" or whatever garbage they say), then fine, but not in the form of quotes from victims, I'd say. Doing that is propagandistic. I have more points:

• The neutrality of Reuters on a topic like this is questionable. In articles such as 'Senior party official expects Reuters to depict China fairly' the CCP makes clear that Reuters is in its pocket when it comes to reportage coming from China. (for example, Li Changchun, the propaganda chief in charge of vilifying Falun Gong, says: "Reuters should be a bridge in helping the world obtain a better understanding of China and report China as it is," - I think we all know what that is code for). I would suggest that for neutrality the fact that Reuters was the only agency allowed to do the interviews be noted, along with its cooperation with the CCP. This could be done in a single sentence, and would offer readers the background they need to evaluate the claims they are about to read. Note: this is not trying to keep any information out. It is trying to provide appropriate context.
• What is the relevance of the shoeshine man case? This article is about the Tiananmen Square self-immolation. The only connection is the tendentious claim by the Independent linking them. Does that warrant a long paragraph, based on one opinion of one journalist? I don't think so. That isn't an "aftermath" by any means. Again, there is absolutely no real evidence that he was a Falun Gong practitioner: a suicide note found by the police? Obviously they made it up. Unless some real evidence is presented for this, it's obviously POV-pushing, trying to link immolation to Falun Gong with no real evidence, quite typical of the Chinese media. Unless its inclusion can be properly justified, it should be removed since it is straight out of the CCP propaganda narrative that tries to connect immolation with Falun Gong. It's an association fallacy.
• the top image is biased. It also immediately sets the tone of the article to adopt the CCP's narrative. Encyclopedia's should be written with a mind to how readers are likely to interpret the information they are presented with. Consciously presenting information in a way that accords with the CCP's propaganda is not neutral reportage. I suggest some other image, or another way of resolving it. Over and out. --Asdfg12345 06:27, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

I'll leave others to come up with something about Reuters - I don't know if it would actually be original research to include the kind of note you suggest, Asdfg12345. In a similar way to your desire to include the Luo Gan/He Zuoxiu connection on the Falungong main page, this seems to be aimed at changing the impression of the reader through background information. The point is that in neither this case nor the other does the source you refer to make clear why the connection matters. It seems like a spot of 'synthesis of published material that advances a position'. If you had a journalist or scholar saying that Reuters did these reports out of a desire to ingratiate itself with the CCP, the argument would make more sense.

But I agree on both the 'shoeshine man' and the top image. The first seems to make a tendentious argument with weak information, and the second is quite similar to how the CCP has presented this case.

I also wonder whether that whole box itself is biased, since it assumes the event was not staged (i.e., it's a 'civilian attack' of 'attack type: self-immolation' etc.), when really that is what the whole dispute is. In both cases one could imagine the presumed Falungong equivalent: an image of the woman being struck in the head with the cudgel, and instead of a 'civilian attack' box it's a 'Communist political hoax' box. Homunculus (duihua) 00:45, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

• Looking again, the only problem I have is how the box says 'attack type.' Whether it was an attack or a hoax is in dispute. If it said something neutral here, I wouldn't have a problem with the box, which I think adds a professional touch to the page. Homunculus (duihua) 00:50, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

• I'm not here because I'm watching the page, but because of this deletion warning on my talk page. Would you care to reinstate the image, at least somewhere in the article? I fail to understand why one image is removed because of the comments of ONE devoted Falun Gong lobbyist, while others images - there are a string of them - taken from the same source are still used in the article purported to show a different view. This is wholly inconsistent and in my view violates WP:NPOV. Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 01:44, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

(←) Even Reuters is a lapdog of the CCP now? Give me a break. Colipon+(Talk) 12:54, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Actually, it's typical of these transnational capitalist organisations - they get married to state capitalism when doing business in repressive countries, sacrificing the values that allow them to exist in the West. In any case, it's not an original synthesis if the claim is not made explicit that they reported the alleged immolation in a way to please Beijing. As long as a simple statement of background fact is made, that should be fine. It's merely a question of relevance. And it is of course relevant when the propaganda taskmaster has such a cosy relationship with this media organisation. Suppressing the information about Reuter's relationship with the CCP would be wrong. See 'Information suppression', which includes: "Concealing relevant information about sources or sources' credentials that is needed to fairly judge their value." I propose a simple sentence like: "Reuters has a cooperative relationship with the propaganda department of the Party, and was the only foreign media group allowed to interview the victims." That is simple, factual, and relevant. —Zujine|talk 12:57, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

This would seem completely contradictory to the fact that many Chinese (and the Chinese government) criticized Reuters during events such as the Tibet uprising in 2008 and the Olympic Torch Relay. If Reuters was "warned" of this by Li Changchun as early as Falun Gong, perhaps they wouldn't have been so adamant to continue criticizing the Chinese gov't until 2009? Just my two cents. Colipon+(Talk) 13:10, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

It's obviously a more complex situation than that; if Reuters did everything the same as a CCP media outlet, no one would find them credible. I think the point Zujine is making (and I agree with it) is that it would be noteworthy to mention that they share ties. To the extent that those ties influenced reporting on this incident, everyone can make up their own minds. I'm under no illusions about the integrity of a company like Reuters, though. --Asdfg12345 01:31, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

• I think it is absolutely wrong, and typical of the fallacious arguments which are employed here to rule out or impugn sources unfavourable to FLG, to seek to remove or otherwise cast doubt on the Reuters coverage. The conditions, namely that they are to report only under supervision and without questions, the alleged participant in the hospital room, are clearly stated in the article. Although we know that the Chinese censor and stage-manage, this is something universal to most political parties, and happens almost everywhere, even in the hallowed West. I defy anyone who can show me just one political event that is not stage-managed. People are quite capable of making that judgement for themselves whether the PRC/CCP are manipulating, based on the reported circumstances - which, quite frankly, are more transparent that most reports coming from anywhere else even from in the free world. Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 01:44, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, "anywhere else in the free world"? So China is free now? This point of view explains a lot. I see absolutely nothing wrong with mentioning Reuter's relationship with the CCP. As you say, people can make up their own mind. --Asdfg12345 01:49, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

RFC: Relevance of sources

Does the disputes sources (Li Hongzhi's scripture and False Fire analysis) in the article warrant inclusion?--PCPP (talk) 14:56, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

The sources are as follows:

Li Hongzhi's scripture, which some analysts in the following paragraph argued to have sent a misleading message to practitioners:

On 1 January 2001, Li published "Beyond the Limits of Forbearance", in which he wrote that persecution of the Fa – an expression used by Falun Gong to describe itself – by "evil" – meaning the Chinese Communist Party – could no longer be tolerated: "Forbearance [as taught by Buddha] does not mean tolerating evil beings. [...] Completely eliminating the evil is for Fa-rectification, and not a matter of personal cultivation. In personal cultivation, there is usually no going beyond the limits of Forbearance." Jensen and Weston (2006) noticed a marked change in the tone of Li Hongzhi's messages following the ban: practitioners who remained steadfast against the oppression would survive the apocalypse while those who succumbed to pressure would not. Those who died or had suffered were promised "consummation", or enlightenment. Specifically, Li wrote that "any fear is itself a barrier that prevents you from reaching consummation", that "the process of enduring is but a brief moment", and that those who "have hidden themselves ... have sided in their understanding with evil beings."

An analysis of "False Fire", a documentary produced by a FLG-associated group that deconstructed the events, in its own box:

False Fire, a NTDTV documentary that deconstructs the event points out several inconsistencies in the Chinese Government's version of the story, including:

• Liu Chunling, the only self-immolator who died on the spot appears to fall from being bludgeoned on the head by a man in military suit. The programme argues that Liu could have died from a severe blow to the head.
• The self immolators appear to be wearing several layers of, possibly fire-protective, clothing and masks. The hair and bottle of gasoline at the feet of an alleged self-immolator is intact, although this should have caught fire first.
• Police, who normally are not known to carry fire extinguishers on duty, appeared to have used almost 25 pieces of fire-fighting equipment on hand on the day of the self-immolations. The nearest building is 10 minutes away and footage shows that only two police vehicles were at the scene. The flames were put out in less than a minute's time.
• The camera of the CCTV footage zooms in on the scene as it unfolds; surveillance cameras in Tiananmen Square are usually fixed.
• Wang Jindong shouts comments that do not form part of Falun Dafa teachings; his posture, including hand position and sitting position, does not reflect the full or half lotus position required in Falun Dafa exercises.
• The hospital treatment of the victims, as recorded by Chinese state media, is inconsistent with proper care of severe burn victims: for instance, patients were not kept in sterile rooms.
• The girl who allegedly underwent a tracheotomy appeared to be able to speak and sing clearly mere days after the surgery.

Another editor wanted to remove the Li Hongzhi scripture because he feels that it violates original research, and paints a negative image of FLG, while I argued for the removal of the False Fire box because of undue weight and SPS, and that the documentary's arguments has already been covered in the CCTV footage paragraph along with third party analysis of the footage in question. Furthermore, article's intro is currently disputed as well, particular in the areas of due weight to certain sources.--PCPP (talk) 15:07, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

PCPP, you are misrepresenting the stated reason that said 'other editor' argues against the inclusion of the Jensen & Weston analysis. The reasoning, as I understand it is not that it is original research, but that it's original synthesis, and furthermore is of dubious relevance. There is no proof of any connection between Li's scripture on Jan 1 2001 and the self-immolation. Some observers (journalists) have pointed to the scripture as an explanation of why Falun Gong practitioners might have been confused and may have turned to self-immolation. But the problem, for those uninitiated in the details of this discussion, is that there are serious doubts about whether the self-immolators were actually Falun Gong practitioners. In any case, I think it is okay to mention that some journalists have speculated on the possible significance of this scripture, but it should appear only in that context; otherwise it is original synthesis. So too is the inclusion of Jensen & Weston. What relevance does Falun Gong's purported views on the apocalypse have to the self-immolation? No only is there no connection, but their analysis of Falun Gong scripture is at odds with that of Ownby (arguably the leading scholar on Falun Gong, who has actually performed field work among its practitioners). It appears you are attempting to synthesize material in such a way as to suggest that acts of self-immolation are somehow justified in Falun Gong doctrine, but Falun Gong scholars argue that it is not.

As to the false fire box, I do have a problem with redundancy, and I would favor its removal on the condition that the important points in the box are represented in the body of the article. Homunculus (duihua) 15:38, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Homunculus's assessment that the chief argument you make here is bunkum. The annoying thing is that it takes quite a while to work that out. I had to scan a dozen diffs, read through thousands of words in commentary an explanation, and check three or four sources before becoming familiar enough with the basis of the dispute and feeling that I was qualified to comment on it. It is probably this enormous overhead, coupled with the rancorous atmosphere, that has so far kept outside editors away. Let's take the good chance we have here and not ruin it.

I am going to revert PCPP's edit. Here are some reasons why:
1: When I look at this, all I see is a revert action, negating all the discussion that has gone on.
2: I notice that there are several additions that make no sense, such as removing Noah Porter's analysis, and re-including the mention of Sima Nan. Now, we know that Sima Nan was not a prominent critic of Falun Gong until after the crackdown, and secondly, he is not even mentioned in the sources. So here is a smoking gun of PCPP doing a revert that introduced unsourced information; granted that it is only a name, but it shows that he simply reverts first and talks later, which makes it a big problem for the rest of us who want to do good work on these pages.
3: There has simply been no response as to why the scripture speculation belongs in background and not in dispute. It seems to clearly belong in the dispute area, since putting it in background is a synthesis and all. Also, after looking at the Jensen and Weston piece, I have to agree with the assessment that there is no clearly stated connection between what is quoted above and what appears in the article. The original source does not posit a direct relationship. Putting it here is therefore misleading. In the version I am reverting to, there is a reduction in the length, but not the core argument, and the only thing we lose is the original synthesis.
4: We can talk about reducing the lead separately. There's no urgency on that. I suspect 'shortening the lead' is an excuse for 'deleting things I don't like'.
5: I also feel the same way with Homunculus on how annoying this all is. I would prefer to work with intelligent and interested editors who can compromise, know their sources, and engage in a proper debate. Instead I feel that what is being used are force tactics and obfuscation of the arguments. It is most unsatisfying.
6: I agree with not having the False Fire information in a break-out box. I am going to put it into the text now, in a sub-section that specifically addresses the hoax narrative. --—Zujine|talk 19:21, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Woah, I just noticed some things in my changes. It seems that PCPP actually reverted at some point, while I was making changes, and that I reverted back in the midst of other changes (I had several browser windows open and suspected I had gotten confused with the timing). I do not like reverting. I thought the one that I did would be sufficient to send a signal that PCPP needs to slow down. Now let me make this proposal, which may be seen as a bit more palatable: Asdfg12345 and PCPP should not revert on this page again, and if they have controversial edits, they should discuss them first. That way you can both be on equal footing. Let me know how each of you finds this proposal. I noticed in PCPP's edit that he said something about the RfC. But opening an RfC doesn't mean you just freeze the page the way you like it. Anyway. These pages are on probation, you know? --—Zujine|talk 19:45, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Thank you very much, for completely ignoring my arguments, again.

• I removed Noah Porter because his claim was duplicated and already present in another paragraph:

Anthropologist Noah Porter says that even if the participants considered themselves to be practitioners, they are no more representative of Falun Gong than Christianity is represented by people "who shoot and bomb abortion clinics."

vs

University of South Florida masters student Noah Porter commented that other religions have extremists too, and that even if the participants had been practitioners, they were not necessarily representative.

• Plenty of sources such as The Guardian and Time commented on Li's scripture, and Ownby even speculated that it may be misinterpreted as call to martyrdom. Here's the next paragraph:

The Guardian commented that Li Hongzhi's new scripture released on 1 January 2001, Beyond the Limits of Forbearance, had confused his supporters. Matthew Forney in Time magazine believed the message had spread into China via the internet and informal networks of followers, and reached more radical practitioners there. According to The Guardian, Falun Gong headquarters in New York admitted ten days after the release of the scripture that "certain disciples had some extreme interpretations [and thought] we are going to resort to violence", and asserted that Li's message merely meant time had come to let the truth be known about China's atrocities. Jensen and Weston remarked it was clear from Li Hongzhi's messages that he advocated martyrdom over prudence, and that "if the Chinese authorities lit the fire, Li just as clearly fanned the flames." David Ownby believes that the brief message was "difficult to interpret": it somewhat resembled a "call to arms" against what Li described as "evil beings who no longer have any human nature or righteous thoughts". Ownby said nobody he talked to had seen it as a "green light" for violent action; "[b]ut a practitioner at the end of his or her rope in China could certainly see [the statements] as an endorsement for martyrdom, and perhaps choose his or her own means to achieve that." ter Haar (2001) postulated that former Buddhists may have brought with them the "respectable Buddhist tradition of self-immolation as a sacrifice to the Buddha".

And not even one paragraph is allowed on Li's scripture? What bullocks.

• And here's the entire paragraph on False Fire's claims which already exists, in case you missed it.

According to an initial Falun Gong press statement, "Much remains unclear and unknown about the circumstances surrounding the incident", including what took place in the week between the incident and when the "fully engineered news articles and television programs" were released. Subsequently, Falun Gong-affiliated New Tang Dynasty Television produced a programme called False Fire, claiming a number of inconsistencies in the accounts from various state sources compared with the video broadcast nationally. Issues and discrepancies mentioned included why the participants' hair and the gasoline-filled bottles did not catch fire, the presence of fire extinguishers, whether Wang Jindong was sitting or standing when he shouted, and the medical treatment and ultimate death of the 12-year-old girl. In a frame-by-frame replay of parts of the state media footage, the film commentary argued that a man wearing military clothing struck Liu Chunling on the head with an object, thus causing her death. Falun Gong lobby group, the World Organization to Investigate the Persecution of Falun Gong, stated that the Speech Processing Laboratory at National Taiwan University analysed the broadcasts, and claimed that the first 'Wang Jindong' on CCTV was not the same person who appeared the second and third times.

Is that not enough? There's even two images that illustrate the disputes. Why the need for a dedicated section on False Fire when it's already been covered? It's even sourced from the FLG umbrella organization WOIPFG, which fails WP:SPS

• Your "improved" lede now completely removes any mention of the fate of the survivors, while now implying that the self-immolation is a hoax. Why the undue emphasis on FLG's teachings on suicide and Pan's report? He supposedly interviewed a neighbor that that made the allegations, so that proves the hoax accusations 100%? Another reporter Francesco Sisci as well as Time argued that the event was caused by misguided individuals and the fractured leadership, while ter Haar compared the self-immolation with the Buddhist concept of self-sacrifice. Why aren't their views featured in the lede?--PCPP (talk) 20:12, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Let's see...
1: I removed Porter's duplication. That's not a big deal to fix.
2: Look up. I have put a slice through the statements that are not related to the immolation, and I have italicised the statement that has been taken way out of context. By putting a touch of original research, followed by a portion or the analysis of a respected scholar, you create propaganda by suggesting something that was not implied.
3: This is a question of due weight. You would like to give more weight to the speculation surrounding the incident, speculations about Li Hongzhi's teachings and what have you. I, and I believe some others, would like to see a proper evaluation of the factual information available. You show how there is some of that summarised in one paragraph. There actually needs to be a proper section that properly outlines the counter narrative.
4: I've just moved a paragraph up from the teachings part.
5: I notice you removed the whole counter-narrative again. Good job! I'll get back to this later. —Zujine|talk 20:29, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Proposal

I have decided for the time being to ignore disruptive edits and revert wars and proceed with efforts to improve the article. There has been consensus between Asdfg, myself, and Zujine that there is a need for a clear articulation of the counter-narrative (or other evidentiary flaws in the official narrative). A couple attempts have been made to achieve this, but so far they seem to fall short of the mark. Asdfg reinserted the old False Fire sidebar that laid out some points of contention, but I think we're in agreement that it was largely redundant. Zujine created a sub-section dealing with challenges to the official narrative (which PCPP then inexplicably renamed 'government narrative,' which is precisely the opposite of what it is), but its positioning in the article is somewhat odd, and it still falls short of the task of providing a cogent explanation of challenges. Another issue we have is that the section on CCTV footage articulates many of the challenges to the government story, but by no stretch does it include all of them, and the title of the section does not accord with the content. I would like to propose changing the title of the CCTV footage section to Zujine's "Challenges to the official narrative," and writing in a clear articulation of the issues and the conclusions reached by Falun Gong, Schechter, etc. I will also propose that similar content currently residing in the dispute section be removed, and the section be renamed to 'assessments,' 'speculation,' or something like that. At the end of the day, that's really all that will be left in that section—journalists and scholars offering speculation on the event. I'm going to be bold and start working toward these changes. Please weigh in with any intelligent, productive suggestions or edits you may have. Be warned that I will not necessarily heed belligerent or disruptive comments.Homunculus (duihua) 20:53, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

I made some changes just now as per my comment above. Namely, I changed the section previously titled CCTV footage to "Challenges to the Chinese government narrative." I attempted to consolidate all related information in this section, taking Ownby's account as my guide. This means that the change is accompanied by the reorganization and migration of some content, as I had to move some things out of this section, pull other content in, and delete some things that were duplicated or extraneous. I hope the diff[13] is not too intimidating; aside from some new writing in the 'challenges' section, I did my best to keep other things intact.

I need to return to real life now, but this is far from being finished. There is still some redundancy between the new section and the 'dispute' section, and other outstanding issues. I will step back for now though, and wait to see the response from other editors, who will no doubt be civil.Homunculus (duihua) 21:42, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Looks good to me, I just fixed up some of the section titles. I didn't look carefully but I agree that streamlining the presentation has been lacking for a long while. It is much clearer; well done. —Zujine|talk 21:56, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

The changes are mostly OK, in my view, although I disagree on some details. I'm happy to see you guys involved, though. I'll be keeping an eye on the pages once again. ✔ Olaf Stephanos ✍ 22:13, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

recent round of changes

I see that PCPP made another giant set of changes without any consultation. I won't do the same, so here's my lengthy explanation and justification for my changes. If you agree or disagree, please state your opinion either way.

Taking this diff as the go-point, let me write a few things.

Since it's obvious what the changes were, anyone can see, let me just state my disagreements. Each number corresponds to a red change

1. It needs to be stated that the burning doesn't work with Falun Gong teachings--why remove this? CHANGING BACK
2. Fine. LEAVING.
3. Why is information about the survivor's fates--which is completely CCP controlled information, relevant in the lead? Any explanation? Since this has been disputed back and forth already, and no explanation given, I'm removing it again. The point is because it is completely CCP sources and has minor relevance to the controversy in question; it shifts the focus about the dispute over the case to claims about China's rule of law. I know how this is a deliberate strategy, I just don't see how it's relevant. CHANGING BACK.
4. The biggest change: the whole rearrangement of disputation and speculation. PCPP deliberately mixes up categories here. The fact is that the challenge to the official narrative is the most prominent point of dispute. It is not of the same order of dispute as western journalists squabbling over Falun Gong teachings. But PCPP seeks to put them into the same category, so the real disputes and troubles in this story are covered up. But the whole dispute with the CCP narrative is one of the most prominent elements in the whole article, in the reporting on the incident, one of the most fundamental considerations in coming to terms with the event: was it staged or not? It is a different matter to speculate, then, whether for what reasons possible Falun Gong practitioners may have done it, or, if they were practitioners, which scriptures and how would they have set them off (this argument is largely nonsensical anyway, since if that scripture was a call to burnings, why only one? Right?) CHANGING BACK.

• Now if you'll compare this diff you'll see that those are the changes of PCPP's that I thought were worth keeping. all the others, I felt, were simply POV-pushing: pushing down the highly relevant information about the nature of the entire incident, and promoting the CCP narrative about it. It is ultimately a question of discussion and editor consensus about which sorts of information require which sorts of play in the article. But it is a discussion founded on proper sources and good research, and on the concept of impartiality. Now, I do not see either myself or PCPP as entirely impartial on this article. We have opposite perspectives. That is why it is crucial that other editors please state your support or disagreement with our changes. I believe that even with disagreements, as long as people are reasonable, it's possible to work out compromises and speak the same language. However, I am increasingly concerned that this is not true for PCPP, who appears intent on aggressively shoving forward his POV despite being rejected and complained about by numerous editors. This is a shame. --Asdfg12345 19:41, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

I support these changes. The key thing here is the placement of the counter-narrative (or call it what you will). This is a defining element of the page and of the story. Let me explain why I think it should have its own section. This page is called "Tiananmen Square self-immolation incident," not "Tiananmen Square self-immolation hoax", or "Tiananmen Square staged self-immolation." That is correct, but at the same time it is the same name that would be used if they were confirmed Falun Gong members. Since the nature of the incident is so crucial to defining the story, and that by default the 'argument' of the piece—that is, the entire way in which the story is known to the world—is through the claim that the individuals were Falun Gong practitioners. There would be no such thing as the "Tiananmen Square self-immolation incident" if it were not claimed that they were Falun Gong members.
In this situation, making clear that there is a well-founded counter narrative is important. It's not something to stuff away to a side-box or the corner of the article. It should not dominate the page, but it should be as prominent as the other narrative (or more so depending on the evidence and wp:due)—therefore I think placing all of that information in its own section is quite appropriate. The other speculations and disputations about the identity of the people and so forth (the parts that are not strictly evidence-based) are separate to this arc. This is my opinion, I apologise for the laborious way I communicated it. I think it is a joke to dispute Pan's investigation. That's the most solid piece of evidence available in the whole thing. Most of the rest is just image-making, speculation, video cuts, and propaganda and counter-propaganda. —Zujine|talk 23:24, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Asdfg, I agree with your changes, but suggest you take Zujine's advice and refrain from reverting on this page if you can, and instead discuss proposed changes and reverts on the talk page first. Hopefully if you accept these terms PCPP will do the same, and we can spend less time squabbling. PCPP, I appreciate that there is a problem with the current dispute section, in that it contains some repetitive content. Please be a tiny bit patient. I would have fixed this the other day, but it required a careful hand, and I was in a rush. I also wanted to see if others had any comments on the general direction of my edits before making more dramatic changes. But there is a way to improve this, and I suggest that given your editing history in this article, you are probably not the ideal candidate (this is only a friendly suggestion, of course). Homunculus (duihua) 04:29, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

How is "neutrality" defined here? In this edit -- how is it more neutral to change from "Challenges to the official narrative" to "Falun Gong response" and "Disputation and speculation" to "dispute"? And how does "neutrality" (is this a political term??) stack up against words like "accuracy" and "precision"? a) It is not "Falun Gong's response", this is a false attribution. The core piece of evidence in fact comes from Philip Pan. Using a label like "Falun Gong response" appears to me a way of pigeon-holing the views. This is a complex dispute to the state narrative, from various sources, not just "Falun Gong response" (which includes both disputing state narrative through this evidence but also saying that it couldn't have been practitioners because of some theological reason). For the second change, "dispute" is an odd word to employ here. What are they disputing? A whole battery of things, as outlined above. There's not one dispute. They are also speculating on Falun Gong theology and whatever else. It is a section of disputation and speculation. How is this title non-neutral? I await enlightenment from any who care to chip in. --Asdfg12345 03:53, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps there's another solution for the section title that we've yet to conjure. While I appreciate SilkTork's attempt a peacemaking, I unfortunately have to agree that neutrality here seems to be based on a normative judgement. I read the chapter of Schechter's book that dealt with this question, and he seemed to have arrived at his conclusions largely through his own, original research. Pan, though he never fully articulated the counternarrative that Falun Gong and Schechter did, is also a very important part of the story. So it is indeed not the case that the section represents Falun Gong's version of the story alone (if Schechter were out of the picture, it could be argued that the synthesis of information presented is all Falun Gong, but this is not the case). I agree it should be changed, but to what, I do not know.Homunculus (duihua) 05:26, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

To return to the 'dispute' section, I have been meaning for several days to remove content that is already present elsewhere in the article. On reviewing it, however, I noticed a number of problems. I found, for instance, that previous editors to the page had included some fairly subtle (and some less subtle) misrepresentations of the sources they were citing. The net effect was to give the appearance that there is more consensus on the nature of the event than there actually is; for instance, the way information was assembled and quoted gave the appearance that folks like Ownby might agree that the self-immolators were practitioners, and that Time magazine agreed with Sisci's statements. When I noticed this, I decided it would be necessary to double-check the sources cited, and found more problems in the process. The Gittings article best exemplified the issue. It currently reads as follows:

According to The Guardian, Falun Gong headquarters in New York admitted ten days after the release of the scripture that "certain disciples had some extreme interpretations [and thought] we are going to resort to violence".

I thought this was odd, because I have never encountered references to a 'Falun Gong headquarters in New York;' I had instead been led to believe that there is no such organization in the practice. The text as it appeared in the Guardian read as follows:

Ten days later the Falun Gong centre in the US issued a clarification admitting that "certain disciples had some extreme interpretations" of Mr Li's message, and that some people thought that "we are going to resort to violence".

I then I looked for the article that Gittings cited, and realized that it was not published by a Falun Gong Center or headquarters, but instead appeared on the Minghui website, and the authors were identified as an anonymous group of Mainland Chinese practitioners. The Minghui article actually said this about the new scripture:

"certain disciples had some extreme interpretations of it, and at the same time, there has also been a strong reaction to it in society. Some people think that we are no longer going to forbear and that we are going to resort to violence, resulting in some contention about Dafa"

Given the context of the article, the "some people" does not seem to refer to Falun Gong members, but to those "in society." The article went on to describe the view that "violence and force of the human realm are precisely what is the weakest; true strength and might is the power of mercy and compassion," and so on. In any case, Gittings demonstrated an ignorance of some fairly basic features of Falun Gong beliefs and organization, and the current article here exaggerates the problem by misquoting him. I don't mean to accuse anyone of ill will, but it seems that previous editors were straining to argue that outside observers endorse the Chinese government story that the self-immolators were Falun Gong practitioners, and that there is some kind of doctrinal justification in Falun Gong for acts of suicide or violence. I am going to make some edits to this section, and having now reviewed almost every source cited, will strive to provide a properly weighted and accurate account of the different voices in the debate. It might take me a couple more days though, as I had some other pages I wanted to work on... Homunculus (duihua) 06:00, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Well done for this investigation. My feeling is that you should simply overhaul the whole section. It's currently somewhat tedious, and as you indicate, tendentious; perhaps it would be best to simplify, be judicious about which analyses follow the known facts, which are senseless, etc. I'm confident you'll do a fair job. We can always go back and redo parts etc., as Silk indicates. —Zujine|talk 18:11, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

• Articles are works in progress, and if someone can see a way to improve an article they should not feel inhibited from making the edit. There are difficulties with some articles on controversial topics, such as this one, and there is a fine line to be walked between people being too cautious, and people being too bold. We don't wish any article to become stagnated through over-concern, and energies become dissipated through over-discussion. At the same time, we don't wish unchecked editing to take place which results in an inbalance of information and a slanted bias. I have been asked to look at the article to see if there is a fair balance. I had been previously asked to help out on POV issues in the article in 2009 when it was nominated for FA. From a quick look it appears as though appropriate editing is taking place, and people are raising issues about some edits, which are being discussed here on the talkpage. There seems to be about the right balance between editing and discussion. We want people to be bold without being aggressive and/or deaf to reason. And we don't want endless talk with no action. There is a tendency to mention editors by name. This is a natural inclination, but as that can lead to upsets and argument it is always advised that people comment only on content. It also has to be understood that if a person makes an edit that does not mean that the person who is making the edit actually supports or agrees with what is being written. If everyone assumes that people are making edits in an effort to produce an informative, accurate, neutral and balanced account of a topic, and that they don't have a personal agenda, then editing proceeds in a more collegiate and profesional atmosphere. Debate about the content, not about the person who made the comment, nor about that person's judgement. As regards the section headings - Dispute is the usual Wikipedia section heading for when there are alternative views on a topic. It is a clear and easily understood term, and is quite neutral. Disputation is an uncommon word, is indirect, is not used on Wikipedia for sections which deal with disputes, and is inappropriate as the section is not about an academic defence of a thesis, nor is it about the act of disputing, but is about the dispute itself. And speculation is not something that Wikipedia officially engages in or reports on. Falun Gong response is OK as a title as long as the section contains information about the Falun Gong response. Other forms of response from independent observers should be in a different section - either the more expanse Dispute section, or in a newly created Other responses section. I think there is some editing to do to get this article fair and balanced, and with the appropriate amount of information. However, I am very much encouraged by what I have seen so far. I think people are on the whole working well, and listening to each other. Well done. I will look more closely at the article later. SilkTork *^YES! 16:07, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for weighing in. I agree that "dispute" is an adequate section title. Homunculus (duihua) 18:02, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

[ec] Great points here. Homunculus's changes are a welcome relief, too. I agree with the section heading, or something similar (whoever uses the term "disputation" anyway?). However I am in favour of a cogent presentation of the counter-narrative, and not a presentation that segregates information by sources. Several items in the Falungong video deconstruction are shared by other commentators, and there are enough voices in that chorus, both Falungong and non-Falungong, to warrant that it be presented as a whole, so named, and properly. I disagree with dividing it up because it will fragment the cohesion of the counter-narrative, which is (and this is something I agree with a certain editor on) a crucial assessment that any reader should be allowed to make on its own terms when they decide they want to learn about this topic. —Zujine|talk 18:11, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

A final note, just to make sure this is not forgotten: I appreciate Silk's positive view of things, but I was monitoring the page before I began editing and commenting, so I saw how it unfolded: PCPP has been absolutely disruptive all the way along. You'll notice the amount of ink other editors have spilled tripping over themselves trying to explain their highly reasonable edits, and the throwaway remarks PCPP makes in response, along with either constant reverts, or what cumulatively amount to reverts. I have been frustrated by this editor, and I can only imagine others have. I know we're not supposed to name names, etc., but this must be pointed out because I don't want a repeat of it.
All the changes that he/she resisted have actually been made, they are entirely reasonable, the only difference is that X amount more time was wasted because of his/her stubborn resistance. I won't say more on it for now, but if the problem flares up again I will even more unimpressed. —Zujine|talk 18:18, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Sharing a bit of research and source-info, for other editors

Here, thought this collection of sources, might be helpful for editors - http://issuu.com/rdilip/docs/tsfinal - well.. there' s been a huge debate on if this incident was real or not - i think i've hit upon something that settles the case, forever. I include it as ãn animation in the pdf file - would require adobe reader 9 or higher to play, after download. The reason I share the doc here is there is a 'school of thought' on this incident whose views are marginalized in favor of the official chinese propagandistic picture. Sources like Clive Ansley, or Boston Globe, are not even touched upon in the article. That would more constitute an objective viewpoint than the regime's propagandistic viewpoint, imho. Some peripherely relevant material on this incident is in another article in my issuu folder, if i remember right. Dilip rajeev (talk) 11:24, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Propagandistic line of articles related to communism and china

The question I would bring up for discussion is - do we really need all this propaganda from the regime presented as fact on wikipedia? Almost every article with anything to do with communism or china, has such strong a bias in it, one might even wonder if the 50 Cent Party[14] has them on a systematic, intricate siege. Half joking - but if you would please take a moment to skip through the evidence and independent sources here - http://issuu.com/rdilip/docs/tsfinal , you will, am sure, come to share my viewpoint. Those sources seem to have no standing in the article, in which communist propaganda has been systematically legitimatized by a set of editors. Other editors presenting the viewpoint of many a western mainstream media source - have been attacked and presented as if pushing a marginal viewpoint. Just a cause for concern that I see, and would request other editors to kindly explore further.

Even the 50 Cent Party[15] article is so deviant, mis-sourced, and presenting things as if they run a advertisement campaign for the group on wikipedia. There is a tabular column presenting the communist sourced information, and all legitimate content is swept out. The sources are not sources, but a cover for absurd claims, there. Similar patterns, presenting of propagandistic sources in a tabular column, etc. - are present here. Same editors - pcpp - for instance - are/were active in both places.

More than mere coincidence, it would seem to me - from my explorations of communist propaganda tactics. Off topic, perhaps - but wiki community urgently needs a something to clean up the propagandistic nonsense on wikipedia articles on communism, and related topics. Dilip rajeev (talk) 17:44, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Btw, to understand who the 50 cent party are, I wouldn't recommend wikipedia - but these two articles :The Guardian [16], The BBC[17]. They number at around 300000, according to the Guardian - and you don't have to be a conspiracy theorist to conjecture that they are more active on wikis than anywhere else. Dilip rajeev (talk) 17:49, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Please let me know, where the appropriate forum to move this discussion to would be. Dilip rajeev (talk) 17:52, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

In response to your first post, I read the article provided in the link, but could not find who the author is and where it was published. Moreover, I'm not exactly sure why you suggest that this article should put the matter to rest once and for all. It is a cohesive and fairly compelling narrative, but as far as I could tell, does not seem to contain any new, revelatory information. In fact, most of the information contained therein is already on the page in some form. Am I missing something? Is there some well referenced information that is missing from the page, and that we could add?

Now, in response to your other concern about presenting propaganda as fact, can you be more specific? I think we took pains in editing this article to ensure that the PRC narrative was always described as such. If you disagree, I invite you to explain why, and perhaps there is something we can improve on.Homunculus (duihua) 16:58, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Its a collation of a few sources, and an analysis, and the author is me. The evidence that the players are wearing masks, presented in the article. If it were real, we wouldn't have people in 2-colored military-style masks, would we? See the animation in the pdf.Download the article, and play the embedded animation. Requires acrobat 9, or higher. You can download it from the issuu page - just click on the download icon below the article view.

For one: Why do we have a something - a huge tabular column with filtered propaganda presented for absolute fact? Do we even know if they were actors or not? Are they their real names or not? Read my article I present above. The objective, rational fact reamains that: we do not. And not in my opinion but in the opinion of western, respected sources. Propaganda should not occupy so much of an encyclopedic piece, whether sourced to the propagandist or not, imo.

This is an encyclopaedia - not a window to communist propaganda. The reason I present the doc is to point out that it is by no means a fringe view that the event was staged.

For editors here, their psyche and understanding of the incident are so slanted by the article itself - the slanted state of the article - which makes it seem that it was likely staged is but a fringe opinion. That reflects into the structore of the article. Which seems more designed for emotional impact, and more projecting one argument or other, with this image, and then that, - rather than objectively giving due weight to reliable western sources. [One source a quick scan reveals as missing the comment on the slow motion analysis that appeared in Boston Globe. ]

More than that what I would call for is a total restructuring, a reanalyzing of the whole article, and a complete taking out of those tabular columns, titles such as "survivor's fate" - which are more sentimental than objective. Survivors or actors? Fate or pretension? Its an emotional piece - this article - a product of two apparent sides striving for maximum emotional impact on either side. The pictures chosen, the captions, the structuring of the article, subtitles, are all toward that effect. And that is where my concern lies.

Dilip rajeev (talk) 07:18, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

I don't think a fundamental reordering of things is necessary, but let me take look in the next couple days to see if there are some details we've missed. There were some (mostly minor) outstanding edits I had in mind for this page anyway, and if you can suggest specific, sourced evidence (RS, if possible; the mask evidence is either self-published or appearing only in a Falun Gong documentary), then we can look at including it where relevant. I'm trying to ensure due weight is given here; if you read the discussion above, you'll notice that in editing this page I tried to take Ownby's treatment of the event as a guide to what that means. Homunculus (duihua) 13:44, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Say,

In the lead, in what you claim is a well structured, coherent piece , I must say that I see among nearly a dozen other issues, which include a marginalization, or, an ignorance[v.] of the view point of Ian Johnson, Pan, etc. - who investigated it first hand - this sentence:

"Journalist Danny Schechter notes that the Chinese government's claims about the incident remain unsubstantiated by outside parties, because no independent investigation has been allowed."[In the current state of the article]

To claim: "unsubstantiated by outside parties, because no independent investigation has been allowed." would be either a joke of an oxymoron, or the product of an unsound mind. Then to go ahead and attribute it to a respected news dissector such as Danny Schechter? You claim you go by a scholar's work - but then a perspicuity seems lacking in many an instance.

Regarding this instance, but, am quite sure, by your comment above that it could only have been the work of some editor other than you. There is such a pattern in all these articles - any sentence countering the communist view is watered down, or made sound illogical.

Again: Danny Schechter states in the clearest possible terms that the incident is unsubstantiated by outside parties - and the sentence, part of a time-line, if I remember right - stops there. [ unsubstantiated by outside parties not because they were not allowed to investigate - but because they investigated and brought to light the evidence that unsubstantiated it.] Schechter presents a significant bit of evidence, along the lines, from journalists, in an earlier section in his book, which he apparently uses as the basis of his statement, in a later section. I write from my memory of having skipped through the book a couple of years before, so please verify.

Dilip rajeev (talk) 15:48, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Such is no isolated pattern,

Take any article related to China - a 'negative' source is immediately and strongly countered or made sound illogical or irrational as in the instance above. Be it the 50 Cent Party article - where the term is now described as "a pejorative, unofficial term" and the claim sourced to this BBC article, which merely says: 'They have been dubbed the "50-cent party" because of how much they are reputed to be paid for each positive posting (50 Chinese cents; $0.07; £0.05).' And in no portion of it suggests the article's claim "unofficial, prejorative" - as if it hurt the editor to call them the 50 cent party. BBC says their job is to "spin bad news into good in an attempt to shape public opiniön," while the lead of that wikipedia article claims their job is to just "shape public opinion." A less severe distortion, but a distortion nevertheless.

I remember adding info to an article on propaganda in China, and it was blanked straight by the same set of editor(s) who blanked my contributions to the 50 cent party article. Whatever was allowed to remain was either watered-down, or made sound ludicrous, and once they take the articles to that state - they can easily convince other editors that that's how things are, apparently. Subject Matter Expertise is not what all editors carry - and people are influenced by the current state of the article itself in perceptions they form of the topic. When a piece is pushed ahead into a so called "GA" state, well - perception - and the consensus thus created play a role, while the SME that can analyze the presence of undue weights, slants, distorted sources, the pushing of ["sourced"] propaganda, etc., thats often a tough thing to find. Dilip rajeev (talk) 16:13, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

• However the article is to develop, we do not take sides. And if as editors we feel that we are taking sides then we should either make sure we edit with especial due care, or withdraw from editing in case we might subconsciously introduce bias. In creating any article on Wikipedia our approach is to neutrally summarise reliable sources, taking care not to give undue weight to any one source, and taking especial care in the use and presentation of fringe sources. It is permissible to use sources from the Chinese authorities, and from Falun Gong themselves, as part of what they are reported as saying, though the bulk of the sources and especially any opinions or conclusions should come from a range of independent reliable sources.
• Coming to this Wikipedia article with an apparently unpublished and anonymous source that is simply personal opinion agreeing with the False Fire film is not helpful, and will simply stir up old debates. The source is adding nothing new. What this article needs are sources that are factual and neutral. What we can say in the article is that five people set themselves on fire in the square. The people themselves and the authorities say they are Falun Gong protesting against the Chinese authorities. The Falun Gong say that the incident was set up by the Chinese authorities to discredit the Falun Gong. Those are the facts. That is what we say. We can give the arguments that Falun Gong use, but we do not present that evidence as fact. SilkTork *^{Tea time} 11:04, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Agreeing, Silktork. The article is in large part a collection of sources, many of which are not 'False Fire.' Just wanted to present them, that's all. My perspective is we need an intro paragraph covering the perspective of the journalists who investigated the incident. ANd that they should not be sidelined. A few of the recent changes seem to do a lot in the direction.

Dilip rajeev (talk) 11:39, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Dilip, you raised one specific issue above when you suggested that the paraphrasing of the Schechter quote is slightly misleading. I will look into it. Please be patient. I also took a second look at your paper, and found that you included a couple other pieces of evidenced (some of them sourced to Schechter, others to other independent parties), and where there are notable, I can look at including them once I've verified them. FYI, one of the outstanding tasks I had in mind for this article is to separate the Falun Gong counter-narrative from the challenges raised by independent sources (Pan, Schechter, etc. etc.). Currently they are all mixed in the section dealing with the Falun Gong response.

As to your more general concerns about the 50 cent party, it does seem there are a handful of disruptive individuals who edit from that POV (though in my personal opinion, I think they're motivated by nationalism and sport, rather than money. That is to say, I doubt the presence of 50 cent member on Wikipedia). I don't know where the appropriate forum is to raise that concern. It may be that a pluralistic and good faith environment is ill-equipped to deal with something like that. But in general, the best thing you can do is present good evidence and make neutral, well sourced edits. If you introduce good, sourced and neutral content, and it is repeatedly blanked, then open a RfC, or seek administrator help. If certain editors harass you, don't reciprocate. It seems that perhaps you feel you are unable to edit these article from an unbiased POV, and are thus enacting a self-imposed editing ban on yourself. I think that's mature. You can continue presenting reliably sourced material and discussion on the talk page.Homunculus (duihua) 14:33, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

• Homunculus, the WanJindong thing was in part an independent observation from me, based on the False Fire footage, and perhaps we can't use it yet here, for the reason it is not published elsewhere. What the False Fire documentary says, we may qualify and use. As for the rest of the article, you might find interesting material in there - the quote from Clive Ansley, to Ian Johnon's observation of an unusual alacrity in the coverage of the incident, by the Chinese media. I'd be grateful if you could look a little further into those sources. Dilip rajeev (talk) 11:39, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

I believe Dilip using material he had written himself as sources might be a violation of WP:SPS. And as a dedicated FLG activist, I believe Dilip has no right to attack other people of "bias".--PCPP (talk) 17:51, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

• Kindly go through the article in entire-ty, http://issuu.com/rdilip/docs/tsfinal - it is merely a collection of sources - in large part - sources which are third party, western, jounralist - and others - very independent and third party, if you'd just take the time to read the article, in full, you'd come to see. As for other articles in the folder - the article on Man and Science,or OOP arts, or the video on the Ancient Time Capsule to China thing,I'd fully agree they are individual research, but I've never presented them for sources here or anywhere else. Those are stuff I write up... well, for my own explortions/interests' sake. I am not sure why you say 'you believe' the Tiananmenn Burn Down article is so and so, when you could just go through them and confirm for your own sake that they are not individual research, and contains sourced material very relevant for us as editors.

• Second, whether am a activist for a human rights cause or not - is irrelevant here on talk - the concerns are related to the the content, and apprent repeated disruptions to such and related on wikipedia - it has nothing to do with who I am, or what my hobbies are. Driving the discussion to such a path, serves no purpose, and would merely be another kind of attention-deviation from the issues we are trying to tackle.

• Dilip rajeev (talk) 04:27, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

June 30 updates

I just did a minor reorganization to separate journalistic investigations from Falun Gong sources in the response sections. This was pretty long overdue, and I imagine it's not too controversial. I also added a couple more section headings in the aftermath section.

I had three outstanding questions when I was reviewing the article:

• Just noticed that the background on Falun Gong could use some work. It reflects a very simplistic and selective understanding of the dynamics between the party-state and the practice in the 1990s, one that posits that the crackdown was simply a reaction to demonstrations, when in fact there were a variety of issues involved, including ideological differences, power politics, and institutional causes. This is a pretty minor thing, and I could write something up and share it here first to see what others think, before implementing it. It would be short, I promise.
• The page, like many pages on Wikipedia, employs British and American english inconsistently. Does the style guide say anything about this?
• A question for Dilip: your paper includes a paragraph about the police officer's handling of Wang Jindong, observing that the police hesitated before putting out the flames for some reason. It wasn't footnoted. Is this an important point, in your view? If so, can you point me toward sources that can corroborate it?

That is all. Homunculus (duihua) 04:51, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Image of "Wang Jindong"

I would like to dispute the caption of this image. We cannot be sure of the identity of the individual; the name "Wang Jindong" is from the PRC narrative of the event, and we should make that clear instead of stating it as a fact. Moreover, the police did not "quickly extinguish the flames". As we see on the video, the police waits behind the man with a blanket, and only after the man shouts something Falun Gong related to the cameras does the police take action. ✔ Olaf Stephanos ✍ 22:24, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

See my above question to Dilip. Where can I find this? Homunculus (duihua) 23:01, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Indeed, it is not sourced to other but the False Fire documentary. A point to consider here is we cannot present the communist narrative for fact. There is enough skepticism expressed by third party sources for us to stay skeptical of such. For instance:

"What could be more dramatic? People are setting themselves on fire in Tiananmen Square in the heart of Beijing. CNN is there. The police just happen to have fire extinguishers on hand, and the victims are rushed to a hospital after their agonies are thoroughly photographed for state television.' While the government-controlled media uncharacteristically releases the story at once, it takes a week of production before video footage is aired." - Danny Schechter, http://old.faluninfo.net/displayAnArticle.asp?ID=3641

Dilip rajeev (talk) 11:44, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Recent changes (2)

OhConfucius, please stop and discuss changes, as other editors had the courtesy to do last year when this page was revised. You are reintroducing problems of bias, original synthesis, and misrepresentation of sources. The lede, which you just reverted back to your preferred version, is representative: you deleted any mention of the inconsistencies in the official narrative, conflated and misrepresented the views of scholars, and removed any mention of the fact that this event resulted in the increase of systematic torture against Falungong adherents. You also added several times that Falungong is illegal. Please show me the law. My understanding from Tong and other sources is that the campaign is actually extralegal, and run by the party.

In the section on 'background,' your edits 1) misrepresented the chronology of event in the spring of 1999, and 2) You added a synthesised collection of material about Falungong's teachings, which serve to bias the reader into believing that these teachings resulted in the self-immolation. The equivalent would be to point out how much authorities were struggling in the first years of the campaign to rally public support, and how desperately they needed a propaganda coup against Falungong. Do you see that that's not appropriate? This was all discussed.

In the section on 'respectable Buddhist tradition', you again misrepresented sources. User Homunculus explained at length in a previous discussion thread why changes were made, and you're reverting those changes. You also introduced a source from the China Association for Cultic Studies, saying there were other self-immolations. That is a Chinese government source, closely affiliated with the 610 Office. It is not a reliable source on Falungong. The point is that no independent sources have ever corroborated self-immolations of Falungong practitioners.

Please stop and discuss before undoing the efforts of multiple other editors.—Zujine|talk 15:47, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

I suggest referring to this edit [18] when assessing the changes. I don't intend to get involved in the content/editing side of this. I am preparing a note for Ohconfucius's talk page now. Ohconfucius spent 4 or 5 hours basically rewriting the page, to make it look like what it looked like in 2009 when he edited it, without any discussion or attempt to form consensus. It is a highly controversial page. It is not customary practice on Wikipedia to make such vast changes to such a topic without any discussion. In response to Zujine's concerns, which he has not yet answered, he alleges that the changes are basically due to a Falun Gong conspiracy and wrote "don't make me laugh" in an edit summary where Zujine disputed part of Ohconfucius's changes. Below, Ohconfucius seems to volunteer that his own interpretation of the event take precedence on the page. I intend to address the broader issue with him directly. I won't edit the page amidst in such a polemical atmosphere. My views on this will be stated more clearly soon. The Sound and the Fury (talk) 16:50, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Here we go again. I support user Ohconfucius' changes to this article. Let's not kid ourselves. The page was taken to Feature Article status about two years ago. This was done through a rigorous process of peer review from a wide range of users, and this included checking for facts, biases, references, and due weight. That such a controversial article was taken to FA status is one of User Ohconfucius' greatest achievements and speaks volumes to his neutrality and high sensibility as an editor. Accusing user Ohconfucius of bias is bound to look foolish in front of non-involved editors and all those users who worked hard in collaboration with this user to take the article to FA in the first place. Colipon+(Talk) 17:14, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

OhConfucius worked on the page in 2009. It achieved FA status. Other editors improved the page through exhaustive collaboration in early 2011. That collaboration, as you could see by looking at the discussions overhead, was also carried out through a rigorous process of establishing due weight and checking and double-checking to ensure that sources were not misrepresented. It retained FA status and, in my view, was made an even better article. SilkTork, who oversaw this process, wrote at the time that "I think there is some editing to do to get this article fair and balanced, and with the appropriate amount of information. However, I am very much encouraged by what I have seen so far. I think people are on the whole working well, and listening to each other. Well done." OhConfucius has now disregarded weeks of work and discussion that went into the page in 2011. He has done this unilaterally, without ever seeking consensus. Setting aside the question of bias, this is not appropriate conduct for an article subject to the Arbitration Committee, in my opinion. I do not want to be drawn into an editing war here, but if some users insist on another major round of revisions to this page, I hope it can proceed in good faith. —Zujine|talk 17:44, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

• You imply that your efforts made it retain FA status, I'm saying perhaps it retained it despite those efforts. I'm not saying my wordings are the best and most orthodox, but similar wording got through FAC. I just contend that it beats the FLG propaganda piece version that shocked my pants off. The entire weight given to the FLG's position was utterly outrageous. I am reminded of the very stern opposition and hostility I faced, from Dilip rajeev, when I attempted to clean up the Falun Gong articles when I first started here. I'm more than happy to work with you on improving them, but I can only cope with intellectual honesty. Please don't insult my intelligence that the Falungong's teachings have no relation to this event; numerous sources mention them when describing the incident. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 18:12, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

You're saying that the article that I worked on, along with several other editors, is a "FLG propaganda piece." That's quite insulting. In previous discussions, editors hashed out the question of how much weight should be assigned to different views, and reached a consensus. Part of this assessment was made by looking at the treatment of the subject by David Ownby, who devoted more space to addressing the third party and Falungong perspective than the official narrative. As to Falungong's teachings, they are only relevant if the self-immolators were Falungong practitioners, and that is the heart of the dispute (at least two of them were not). Therefore, putting this into the background section is an endorsement of the view that the self-immolators were practitioners. Do you understand why that fails NPOV? Ultimately, whether there is a connection between these teachings and the self-immolation is a matter of subjective opinion and speculation, so should not be part of an objective, factual background section. Their possible role in this event is addressed in the appropriate section later on the page. I point this out in more detail below. —Zujine|talk 18:50, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

I did not intend to insult; it was my opinion of the article upon reading it. It's plain as day that the focus of the background section was the banning and the persecution of the Falun Gong. I believe it is necessary and I seem to recall I agreed to expanded at the urging of other editors, who may have included FLG practitioners. Heck, I may even have expanded it myself. Whether or not the victims were practitioners, to have such a focussed section and then deny the paragraph exposing 'Beyond the limits of Forbearance', published days earlier and with an ambiguously reactionary message, is devoid of cogent logic. It just seems plain wrong that this version completely sidelines any mention of the scripture and the surrounding commentary.

Inclusion of the paragraph in question presupposes nothing more than was presupposed before my edits of yesterday. However, its exclusion clearly exposes the patent pro-FLG bias of the piece. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 04:53, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Whatever the merits of the changes since 2009 might be, it's obvious that with them, it isn't the same article that passed FA. I will observe this discussion; if the disagreements cannot be resolved over the next days, I will take it to FAR to potentially have this article demoted. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 03:35, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Recent reverts

SInce the end of 2009, when I largely stopped editing this article, I note the article has changed substantially. Judging by its general tenor, and looking at the contributors' list, the article seems to have been heavily edited by Falun Gong devotees, amongst others, during this time. What was once a fairly balanced piece read like the incident had nothing to do with the Falun Gong, which is a totally unacceptable state of affairs. I had promised myself I would stay away, and it was only on a casual drive-by that I noticed its appalling state of bias, filled with dishonest speculation, weasel words. Sourced material unfavourable to Falun Gong has been mysteriously banished (for example Jansen and Ostergaard). So despite my self-imposed topic ban, I thought it was time to restore that balance to an article that I, a specialist in NRM, and a current arbitrator, nursed to Featured Article status. The recent reverts undid my work in cleaning up the mess for the best part of today. I do not accept that the scriptures and pronunciations of Li Hongzhi have nothing to do with this incident, and anyone who says they do not are, IMHO, not being totally honest with themselves. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 15:55, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

OhConfucius, I think that as a matter of protocol, if you want this to remain a FA, you should be more careful and collaborative when making radical changes to the page. In general, when editing controversial pages, I think it's advisable to present proposals and problems on the talk page first. You've spent many hours unilaterally reworking this page, with a distinct POV and no discussion, to undue changes that were discussed and agreed upon by multiple editors. When I sought to restore some balance and remove some of the problems you introduced, you quite curtly and condescendingly reverted, with edit summaries like "don't make me laugh." If you insist on breaking your voluntary topic ban, I would at least ask that you adjust your tactics and address changes individually to explain your views in a collegial way.

You and others worked on this page in 2009, bringing it to Featured Article status. About a year ago, in January 2011, other editors discussed proposed changes at great length. These editors were not all Falungong devotees (not that a person's religion should disqualify them from editing anyways); also involved was myself, Homunculus, and SilkTork. Edits to the page were made through discussion and consensus, and the page retained its FA status. You have now undone almost all of that work, without ever engaging in or responding to the previous discussions where changes were agreed upon.

I'll address some of the changes you made individually.

• In the lede, you wrote that Falungong is illegal, and suffers only "perceived mistreatment." My understanding based on James Tong's work, and legal literature, is that the campaign is actually extralegal. Moreover, there is no question that Falungong suffers mistreatment.
• Also in the lede, you conflated the views of David Ownby & Time magazine, ter Haar and Sisci. These people all had different views, which is why I changed it (you reverted me) to address them as individuals. Specifically, you wrote that Ownby thinks these were Falungong practitioners. But as has been discussed in earlier threads, he does not think that; he thinks the event might have been staged, or they might have been new and unschooled practitioners. He does not issue a conclusive judgement. You're misrepresenting the sources.
• You removed from the lede any mention of inconsistencies or holes in the official narrative, such as the fact that the self-immolators who died were not actually Falungong practitioners. These inconsistencies are highly notable, and they form the basis for the dispute.
• You removed from the lede the Falungong perspective. Falungong's position is not just that their teachings forbid suicide. It's that this event was staged as part of a propaganda campaign intended to justify the repression and torture of members. NPOV would hold that this view should be explained. You also deleted the fact that Falungong's teachings do not support the notion that self-immolation will take one to paradise. Again, that seems a violation of the NPOV policy.
• You removed from the lede the fact that the self-immolation cleared the way for authorities to intensify the systematic torture of Falungong adherents. Yet that was probably the most lasting source of notability. This event, staged or not, was a turning point in the campaign against Falungong, and was followed directly by staggering violence against the group. Why would you remove that? You wrote in your edit summary that it was biased and loaded. No doubt it's loaded, but that's because state-sanctioned, systematic violence is serious stuff. That does not mean it's biased.
• In the section on background, you wrote that the government decided to crack down on Falun Gong on July 22, 1999. You sourced this to a Chinese government newspaper. It is incorrect. I edited it to note that the decision was actually made on April 25, and that the campaign began on July 20 (really, it was set in motion on July 19. Began on 20. The MPS notice came out on 22nd, but the campaign was already underway). I used a far better source. You reverted. Why?
• In the background section, you added a great deal of cherry-picked material about Falungong's teachings, the scripture 'beyond the limits of forbearance,' etc. I don't think this is appropriate. No one knows with any certainty that these teachings had any connection with the self-immolation, because no one knows if the self-immolators were really Falungong practitioners. Some observers have speculated that there may be a relationship, and that is addressed later on the page in the appropriate section. Putting it in the background served to bias the reader. It implies that there was, indeed, a direct connection between Falungong doctrine and the self-immolation. The equivalent, from the opposite POV, would be to stack this section with information on how the government's campaign against Falungong was struggling. How they could not bring public opinion on their side, and how they desperately needed a propaganda coup against the group, and how they had a track record of staging anti-Falungong propaganda. Neither are appropriate. The section should be an impartial, factual narrative.
• In the section on 'respectable Buddhist tradition', you misrepresented sources. Namely, you wrote that Falun Gong headquarters issued a notice saying that some practitioners thought Li's latest scriptures were an invitation to violence. This is not true. Homunculus explained at length in a previous discussion thread why this was a problematic misrepresentation of sources. What actually happened was that a group of practitioners from China (not a Falungong HQ) published an essay saying that some people "in society" (ie. not Falungong practitioners themselves) had misinterpreted the scripture. I fixed this, and you reverted.
• You also introduced a source from the China Association for Cultic Studies, saying there were other self-immolations. That is a Chinese government source, closely affiliated with the 610 Office. It is not a reliable source.
• You misrepresented Philip Pan's investigation in Weifang, writing that Pan "obtained statements from a neighbour, who said that Liu "worked in a local nightclub and was paid to dine with and dance with customers. None ever saw her practice Falun Gong." Your edit makes it appear that Pan interviewed a single witness, and also implied that the quote 'no one ever saw her practice Falungong' came from that witness. That's not the case. Pan interviewed multiple people, and among them, none ever saw the victims practice Falungong. This was not the result of a single interview. Do you see how you misrepresented the nature of the investigation?
• You deleted the sentence, "According to David Ownby, a University of Montreal historian and expert on Falun Gong, Pan’s portrayal of Liu Chunlin is highly inconsistent with the typical profile of a Falun Gong practitioner." Why?

I hope you can address these individually, or correct them. If you do not, I will.—Zujine|talk 17:22, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Since you did not respond, I have resolved these issues. Regarding the background section, please read previous threads. This was discussed a lot. The relevance of Li's scriptures is addressed on the page in the appropriate context. No one is trying to delete it. Keeping it out of the background section is just a question of being neutral, and staying away from novel synthesis or undue weight. I hope you can appreciate that. If you think that there are still problems to be addressed, let's discuss them in good faith. —Zujine|talk 21:09, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

OhConfucius, you edited the paragraph that contains the Philip Pan quote, changing it to read: Reporting two weeks after the event from Kaifeng, the hometown of the Liu, Pan obtained statements from a neighbor, who said that Liu "worked in a local nightclub and was paid to dine with and dance with customers. Another said she beat her mother an daughter. None ever saw her practice Falun Gong." This quote—and you put it in quotation marks—does not appear like this in Pan's article. I have fixed it again so that it does not misrepresent Pan's words. If you have a different interpretation, please discuss.

You also added a fairly long sentence to the leading paragraph about how Falungong was declared illegal on July 22 by the Ministry of Civil Affairs. I raised this issue above, and you didn't respond. The campaign was actually decided upon by the Party authorities, and began on July 20 after a politburo meeting on July 19. On July 22, the Ministry of Civil Affairs issued a notice saying the Research Society of Falun Dafa was not properly registered and therefore illegal. That does not amount to Falungong itself being illegal. Nor does the Ministry of Public Security notice the same day. It is my understanding from the secondary sources that neither of these things carried the force of law. This is a complicated issue, and several sources have described it in more detail. I think the lede needs to be kept more simple, as this probably is not the right place for a nuanced explanation of the law. Just say that authorities began a campaign to suppress Falungong in July 1999, or something. Would that be alright with you? —Zujine|talk 14:29, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes, perhaps there is some conflation between Falun Gong (the organisation otherwise known as 'Research Society of Falun Dafa'), and the concept and practice. In China, which operates on continental law as opposed to Anglo-saxon law, any activity is deemed illegal unless expressly allowed. There are a whole panoply of bureaucratic authorisations exist to ensure arbitrary and easy plug-pulling. Many commercial and political organisations live in a limbo of quasi-illegality because bureaucratic compliance is often impossible; even if previously given, the withdrawl of operational licence alone is sufficient to render an organisation illegal. Let alone Li Hongzhi's decision to disaffiliate from the Qigong Association. Notwithstanding, being a dictatorship, the politburo surely has the power to decree any organisation illegal; likewise for any practice it may deem inappropriate. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 15:24, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

I see that you've fixed some references and formatting. Thank you for that. However, you have also made changes that have quite substantially altered the presentation and balance of the article. You have been asked to discuss substantial changes on the talk page before making them, and I am going to repeat that request again. Please attempt to discuss and, if possible, establish consensus before making potentially controversial changes.

In light of your recent edits to the introduction, a reader now must read two paragraphs of Chinese government views and quotations before they learn anything about the dispute, Falungong's position, or the views of third parties. This does not appear to accord with WP:NPOV. Accordingly, I am going to make some changes to the lede that I hope you will find reasonable. I will ensure that the views of both the government and falungong are concisely stated in the opening paragraph, and note that third parties have also described problems with the official account. If for some reason you do not think that's fair, please explain why. —Zujine|talk 16:50, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Don't see it. The second paragraph is rather descriptive and factual, except for the Falun Dafa quote. As for the third parties, I hope you will reinstate some of them, like perhaps Ownby, ter Haar, Jansen and Johnson. I'm unhappy that only Schechter is mentioned.--Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 16:58, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for engaging. I actually think the Schechter quote is sort of redundant (HRW said essentially the same thing), so it could potentially just be removed from the introduction (I assume it's elsewhere on the page?). As I mentioned above, part of the reason I disagree with the presentation you put forward with Ownby, ter Haar, Sisci, etc., is that it conflated and oversimplified their views. For instance, the version you wrote said that Ownby believed they were new or unschooled practitioners. But Ownby also said that the event may have been staged, and that the profile of the self-immolators presented by Philip Pan was uncharacteristic of falungong practitioners. Moreover, the question would arise: how would you decide which individual's views are notable enough to describe in the lede? Why single out one journalist, but not include someone like Philip Pan, or Noah Porter, or the Laogai foundation? For these reasons, I think it's better just to present the range of third party views in general terms. They are elaborated upon in depth later in the article. Let me know if that makes sense, or how you think it might be improved. I need to go now, but I'm glad we're able to discuss.—Zujine|talk 17:32, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

• "Why single out one journalist, but not include someone like Philip Pan, or Noah Porter, or the Laogai foundation?" Why indeed? That was the main reason I objected to it being the lone quote in the lead. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 01:24, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
• And as for "The Falun Dafa Information Center suggested the incident may have been staged by the Chinese government to turn public opinion against the group and to justify the torture and imprisonment of its practitioners" – I recall that their rejection was much more categorical and vehement. I suppose ten years has mellowed them. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 01:32, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Your recent changes have again restored a mishcharacterisation of Falungong's response to the 'beyond the limits' scripture. This issued was discussed at length in a previous thread, and I also pointed it out and fixed it. You again restored the problem without discussion. So I'll say it again: the statement that Gittings cites to a Falungong 'center' in the US was actually part of an essay written by practitioners in mainland China and published on Minghui (not by the Falun Dafa Information Center, nor a 'Falungong headquarters,' as was written in the 2009 version of the page). Evidently, Gittings does not have deep knowledge of Falungong organisation, but since we know better, we shouldn't repeat his error. Moreover, the article says that it was people 'in society' (ie. not Falungong practitioners) who thought that the scripture foretold the use of violence. If we are going to quote this essay, we should do so accurately (though I'm not sure about its overall significance to this topic). Also in that section, you added other quotes from Li Hongzhi, cited to Craig Smith and David Ownby, respectively. They are original synthesis. Neither author says that these quotes have any direct connection to the self-immolation. I am going to fix these issues, and remove the Schechter quote from the lede once the page is unlocked. —Zujine|talk 20:17, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry. This is POV-pushing par excellence almost exactly in the same manner as banned Falun Gong SPA's. Scrutinizing beyond an RS to the teeth to find the RS's source, attacking sources as 'not knowledgeable' or not 'specialized' enough, saying that things are 'mischaracterized' in a way that maligns Falun Gong, obfuscating and changing due weight to tip the POV balance in favour of Falun Gong, and going on about esoterics and bombarding talk pages with excessive wikilawyering. It's though nothing as changed. Get an uninvolved admin to look into this matter. Let them settle it. Ban the problematic users. Colipon+(Talk) 21:26, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

So is this going to be a front-page FA under review then? There are about 2 hours left... Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 21:51, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, I thought the green lock meant the page couldn't be edited except by an administrator. I've resolved these problems. Colipon, surely you are not suggesting that there is something wrong with wanting to avoid original synthesis, or with ensuring that sources are not misattributed. I think we should welcome scrutiny, discussion, and work together in good faith to identify problems and arrive at solutions. All the more because this is such contentious material, I think caution is in order. Anyways, I would love an admin to moderate this discussion, and also support blocking problematic users.—Zujine|talk 22:38, 2 April 2012 (UTC)