Jump to content

Talk:2001 Tiananmen Square self-immolation incident/Archive 7

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1←Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7Archive 8

Spin

I still wholeheartedly believe that the immediate post-FA version (December 2009) of this page is much more neutral than the 'watered down' version that have emerged since to tip the balance in favour of FLG again. (Ohconfucius recently made some constructive edits to get it back to NPOV status - although granted, he shouldn't have to, since the FA version was perfectly fine.)

The version I am talking about:


The current version:


I do not believe Schecter's reporting on Falun Gong to be authoritative, and even if it were, his views do not deserve such added emphasis in the intro - when all the other opinions have been 'watered down' to tip the POV balance in favour of Falun Gong. But more importantly, note that in the latter version the due weight given to the event being an 'authentic protest' has been all but obfuscated into half a sentence. I believe the former paragraph is a much more neutral and due-weight survey of views on the subject. It has the legitimacy of an FA-sanctioned introduction. We should revert to that version. Colipon+(Talk) 18:46, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

I have already agreed that Schechter's comment does not need to be singled out in the introduction (though, for the record, Schechter did far more research into this event, and seemed much more familiar with Falungong beliefs, than just about anyone else cited on this page with the possible exception of David Ownby). As for your suggestion to roll back to a version from 2009, I will state again: in early 2011, additional scrutiny was applied to the page, and several editors—including SilkTork—made revisions through consensus and extensive discussion. Through that process, it was found that there were problems with the previous version of the page (SilkTork seemed to agree that the page required work after these problems were identified; some were quite serious). As has already been stated, the previous lede section conflated and oversimplified the views of individual scholars and journalists. Among other things, it implied 1)that Time magazine and Ownby, and Sisci and ter Haar, had identical views, and 2)that Ownby believed the self-immolation was an authentic protest (he thought it was equally likely that the event was staged. The previous version of the page omitted this). If you want to get a sense of the weight that should be afforded to different perspectives, I suggest you read Ownby's "Fire in the Square," which is pasted above. This isn't about "tipping the balance in favour of Falungong." It's about presenting contentious material in a fair, neutral way, and not distorting the views of the people being cited.—Zujine|talk 20:17, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
"Schechter did far more research into this event, and seemed much more familiar with Falungong beliefs". Er, maybe. When I read the Schechter articles, I mentally compared them to everything I have read in the Falun Gong press and websites. The divergence between the views was to me next to indistinguishable. --Ohconfucius ¡digame! 01:22, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

"respectable Buddhist tradition"

Can we please find a better heading than "respectable Buddhist tradition"? It is extremely confusing for the average reader. Perhaps "Link to Li Hongzhi's writings" or "Buddhist tradition and Li Hongzhi." The paragraph is about the speculation that the protest was in fact authentic, and the would be best reflecting it as such. Colipon+(Talk) 21:17, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Fair-use images

There's an awful lot. The ones in #People involved are very poor, and I doubt the FUR is valid (it's essentially FU pictures in a list, which we don't allow for discographies or other list-type articles). File:Chen guo.jpg also seems to have a poor chance at passing the FUC Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:50, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

The lead image was used under the same rationale, and I assume it therefore also failed fair use. My knowledge of these issues isn't stellar, so correct me if I'm wrong. I replaced the lead image (actually restored it) to the previous one. It seems to be a screenshot of CCTV footage published by Minghui, which apparently authorises reproduction of images.—Zujine|talk 05:29, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Images

The recently inserted image is a rather gruesome representation for the article. Can we please revert back to the earlier image? — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 07:02, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Yea, I'm not sure why it was changed back. I replaced the Liu Chunling image because it apparently failed fair use (it was under the same license as other images that were deleted for that reason). Also, yes, it's certainly gruesome. But now it's back. Hmm. There are ways to get around this. The photo of Wang Jindong is not nearly as gruesome, and it seems to be ok as far as fair use goes. We may even want to consider using a generic image of the square, though that undeniably has some disadvantages as well.—Zujine|talk 07:18, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
I have replaced the image as per this discussion. The chief concern for now is the problematic fair use rationale. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 10:00, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
It seems that you replaced the image because it's aesthetically discomforting, but let's just face the fact that self-immolation is horrendous way to die. The FUR for the current image is no more or less problematic than the one for File:Liu chunling burned.jpg. Perhaps we should consider replacing it with this soothing image instead. ;-) --Ohconfucius ¡digame! 13:34, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Aftermath - proposal

I was just attempting some corroboration, and revisited HRW's 'dangerous meditation' document, which provides good information. I'm not going to edit (or, not right now), but thought I would write a proposal for a new, short section under 'aftermath' to reflect some of this material, plus a couple other things I picked up. Thoughts/suggestions/objections welcome. I recognize this is a FA today, and is also under arbitration, so I am refraining from bold, unilateral changes. Here's what I propose:

The self-immolation necessitated a change in tactics for Falun Gong. Tiananmen Square had been "permanently contaminated" as a venue for protest, according to journalist Ethan Gutmann, and Falun Gong's daily demonstrations in Beijing nearly ceased altogether.[15][3] According to Human Rights Watch, practitioners may have concluded "the protests had outlived their usefulness for demonstrating Chinese abuses or for informing an overseas audience of Falungong's harmlessness."[3] Diaspora practitioners living oversees focused their attentions on getting the word out about the treatment of practitioners by the Chinese government, issuing reports to the United Nations and human rights organizations, staging public marches and hunger strikes outside of China, and documenting human rights abuses on websites.[3] Within China, practitioners used mass mailings and handed out literature to "spread the truth" and counter the government's charges against them.[3] In an August, 2001 press release, the U.S.-based Falun Dafa Information Center noted this shift in strategy, and said that Chinese practitioners "sometimes also manage to post large posters and banners in major thoroughfares. They even set up loudspeakers on rooftops or trees around labor camps and in densely populated areas to broadcast news about the human rights abuses."[3]

This actually segues very neatly into the television hijacking incident. I might suggest that that sub-section simply be folded into this one, and the whole thing renamed accordingly to 'Impact on Falun Gong's resistance,' or something.

One other thing that caught my eye on the page is that this section 'links to Buddhist tradition' has been pulled out from 'dispute,' expanded, and made its own section. This seems to have happened in the last couple days, but I'm not going to take the time to pinpoint when it happened. It would seem to me that the section belongs under 'dispute.' That is, it is a collection of scholars and journalists opining and speculating on what may have happened. I am curious if the reasoning was ever explained. Other third-party theories—that they were novice practitioners, that the event was staged by the government, etc—are not singled out in this manner.Homunculus (duihua) 13:50, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Seems fine. I'll add it, and also add a couple more sub-headings. I don't know why the 'links to Buddhist tradition' is standing on its own. I'd also like to propose that after the activity dies down a bit, it may be necessary to take stock of the changes that have been made, and allow concerned editors to list any new or ongoing problems they may have. Then we can ask for a FA reassessment. Zujine|talk 16:57, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

background

I just updated the background section, as other editors had started demanding additional sources for things. I hope this wasn't too bold. I think it could still be improved, of course. Ideas on how to do that are welcome. It might be worth saying a little more on the persecution itself. For instance, the responsibility systems, arbitrary imprisonment, societal discrimination, reeducation, torture, and other coercive methods. I also think that we should note that Falungong's resistance in Tiananmen Square was very much unexpected (Johnson called it arguably the most sustained resistance in 50 years of PRC rule), and was a cause of considerable, ongoing concern for authorities who had vowed to eliminate the practice. Any thoughts? —Zujine|talk 03:44, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

OhConfucius, I really can't keep pace with the volume of your edits. Among other things, you keep restoring inaccurate information regarding the source of Falungong's response to the scripture. I've pointed out the problem several times now, and you have continually reverted without discussing. With this edit[1] you reverted a substantial amount of work. I added sources, gave a more detailed and nuanced explanation of events, and had the courtesy to come to the talk page and try to start a conversation on how it might be improved further. What I wrote wasn't perfect, but I think it was nonetheless superior to the very selective history that it replaced. I would appreciate more explanation for the reversion. Here [2] you deleted mention of the function of the 610 Office. I think this is relevant information, particularly as this article addresses the media coverage and prosecution of Falungong cases. Please explain how your views diverge. I'm willing to compromise here, and won't assert that I know what is best, but I would at least appreciate a conversation. With this edit[3], you deleted the thing about how Jiang resolved to defeat Falungong, saying that we don't know what he resolved, only what he wrote. But the letter that Jiang wrote (which is provided in the source) said that the party must defeat Falungong, didn't it? I see that a request for mediation has been made. That's excellent, and certainly needed.—Zujine|talk 04:14, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

I've restored some of what I added before to the background section, and tried to condense it a bit. The version I wrote here is, I think, far more accurate, complete, and detailed, without being substantially longer than what was there before. I am not going to edit war over this, but again, if there is disagreement or suggestions for further improvement, I hope they can be discussed.—Zujine|talk 05:29, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

  • While the background section appears to be largely factual, its existence as "background" in this context, and its overall weight in the article tends to steer the reader to the inevitable conclusion that Falun Gong are the helpless victims in this, and that the big bad CCP set up the whole charade so that the public would get behind the clampdown on the "evil cult". Therefore, it needs to be dramatically pared back so as not to give undue weight. Most of this detail is already in repeated in the 'Falun Gong' and 'Persecution of Falun Gong' articles, but I wouldn't object to much of this existing background section to be transferred to the Falun Gong response section instead of outright deletion, though. --Ohconfucius ¡digame! 06:38, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
  • The fact that some of this information is found on other articles is of little consequence. This article should be able to stand on its own, don't you think?
  • I don't know why any of this information would belong in the section on Falungong's response. This is background information. 'Falungong's response' refers to its analysis and views on the self-immolation, not on the genesis of the campaign against them. Moreover, this background section is sourced entirely to non-Falungong sources, so...yea, I don't understand your proposal.
  • Could you be specific about how the presentation of information here is not neutral, in your view?

I need to leave this alone for a while. I'll revisit it later.—Zujine|talk 07:18, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

OK, you guys win. I've put the lead and the background section back to its state as at 26 March instead of tagging it {{NPOV}} – not that I regard it as neutral but it's a darn site preferable to the one before. I consider the previous version highly problematic for the reasons already stated above. That restored version seemed acceptable to Homunculus, TSTF, and Zujine for several months, so hopefully it shouldn't be an issue. --Ohconfucius ¡digame! 01:12, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

I don't understand what is happening here. This version,[4] seems, on a whole, to be an improvement from what was there before (though there's always ways to improve further). For example, the background section had more references, and gave a broader view of the dynamics with the party-state through the 1990s. How was it "highly problematic"? You raised some concerns, Zujine answered and asked for clarification on the specific problems you perceived. You didn't respond, then reverted to a previous version. I don't know, this is frankly bizarre. Homunculus (duihua) 01:55, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
Kinda confused too. How are these improvements, OhConfucius? You didn't respond to Z. The Sound and the Fury (talk) 02:02, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

We might benefit from reiterating some basic principles and suggestions for conduct.

  • In the interest of maintaining a constructive and professional editing environment, editors should refrain from commenting on the motives of others, and instead focus on content issues. In particular, sarcastic comments, comments that others are POV-pushing, propagandising, and so forth, can quickly sour the atmosphere. (I am referring to things I’ve seen across several discussion threads).
  • Battleground behaviour and rhetoric should be avoided. The tendency to make significant, undiscussed changes intended to alter the balance of the page is somewhat alarming. There also appears to be a propensity to unilaterally edit war, while failing to heed requests for discussion. Finally, we should refrain from the use of language like “you win,” which could be construed to imply some kind of battle.
  • Given that this is a highly contentious Featured Article under ArbCom, I have proposed several times that potentially contentious changes should be calmly discussed on the talk page first, and consensus attempted. I think that’s still a reasonable request.

Now for the specific content issues here. Your latest edit returned the lede and the background section to how they were a week ago. In general, I believe that where there are informed editors collaborating in good faith, a page will almost always benefit by way of iterative changes, compromise, and discussion. As such, I think that the version from earlier today was, on balance, superior to what was there a week ago.

  • Regarding the lede, I was under the impression that you agreed with the version from earlier today. Several of the recent changes were in fact made by you (eg. removing Philip Pan, removing information on the rise in Falungong torture deaths). Others were changes you requested (eg. that the Schechter quote be removed). I found that version of the lede to be agreeable, and sought compromise. I have seen zero explanation that would justify rolling back to the version from a week ago.
  • Concerning the background section, you raised some vague concerns and suggestions above. In particular, you said that the section suffered from undue weight and bias. I am obviously not as attuned to the politicised nature of this topic, and did not understand how the version I wrote was problematic. Essentially, the only difference was that I added more sources, expanded on the chronology and chain of command behind the suppression, and gave a more general and representative overview of tensions from 1996 onward. Since I do not understand what the undue weight or POV issues were, I asked you to clarify exactly what your problem was. You did not do so.

I am asking again that you explain specifically where you see problems. I will do my best to address them. —Zujine|talk 04:54, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

  • No,I utterly reject that the concerns are "vague". The background is not a summary, it goes into too much detail that is not directly related to the incident. It's really quite simple: if you read nothing further than the background section, the inevitable conclusion is that there has been a massive setup. No reading of any of the narrative that follows will suffice to give the necessary balance that the incident was not set up by Jiang Zemin and pushed through the politburo, let alone that it is indeed disputed. The lead and background section has been acceptable to the assembled Falun Gong sympathisers for at least a year, if not more, so if anything is a consensus version, that one is. I recall reading an essay about the consequences of "upsetting a delicate balance", and it seems that I certainly did that, disputable though that "balance" was at the time. I put in a few changes, and these brought about a flurry of falun Gong responses in an attempt to "neutralise" the changes, and the end result is this disgraceful POV mess. Now it's even more imbalanced that I fear the article is a lost cause. It should definitely be put up for FAC review. --Ohconfucius ¡digame! 02:23, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
I didn't respond to this because it just seemed so improper, but I might drop in a word now. I think the above remarks are wholly inappropriate. Can any of us imagine a content disagreement on a page relating to homosexuality resulting in one editor calling others "the assembled gay sympathizers"? It's puerile name-calling. This is why I suggested OhConfucius just stop editing these articles. I assume the actual content issues in question will come out in the wash (i.e. through iterative editing and discussion among consensus-minded editors, rather than the current, what I would characterize as political warfare). The Sound and the Fury (talk) 18:22, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

:( I could not tolerate it...

I just couldn't tolerate such thing to be a featured article, as a Chinese. :( --Sky6t (talk) 13:26, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

:( … I feel terrible about this! Sky6t (talk) 13:34, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
👍 Like Cool design.
Can you perhaps elaborate? Colipon+(Talk) 14:09, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
Well... All of a sudden the talk page has changed a lot... And you know the Chinese version of this article is as if it were written by fa lun gong participants. But why the English version is featured? That might be a shame to us Chinese, as well it does not reflect the fact.Sky6t (talk) 11:19, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

A couple of notes

Can I make a few suggestions? Well, let me not wait to hear the answer. I'm just reading through the piece again and will write what comes to mind on the various sections. These notes may or may not be helpful. I'll leave it to the editors of the article to decide.

The incident

Does not mention that CNN's film was confiscated. Seems kind of an obvious thing to have?

Chinese state media reports
  • This section admirably conveys the informational aspect of state reporting following the incident, but obviously that is not the most prominent, or noted aspect, of the activities of state media following the incident. There should be some explanation here of how the incident was immediately seized on to attack Falun Gong. The vituperative nature of state reports does not come through.
  • I suggest the first paragraph be curtailed since it is all unreliable state propaganda. It is undue weight. I suggest a terse summary of the detailed claims made in the first paragraph. They are entirely unverifiable, and presenting them as factual, in such detail, is in my view a disservice to the reader. These cannot be understood as "facts" as we usually understand that term, and should not be reported as such. The first paragraph should be reduced to about a third its size.
  • The affiliation of the "China Association for Cultic Studies" is not mentioned. This seems very strange. (i.e. it's a state run organization that was set up to spread propaganda on the practice.)
  • Certain terms like "required spiritual level" should probably be in scare quotes, to emphasize the fact that they are from state propaganda outlets. Just like "avid practitioners." All this content is strictly speaking propaganda aimed at defaming the practice, in the context of a well-documented violent persecution. Its presentation here does not make that clear enough.
  • The unusualness of the fact that Xinhua released details of the incident hours after it occurred is not noted. Several writers have pointed out that this is strange for such a political incident. We heard recently about a self-immolation on Tiananmen Square by a dispossessed farmer that was completely suppressed by state media until a British tourist brought it to light, who happened to be there on the day. The alacrity with which these reports emerged should be noted in this section rather than elided.
  • The final line by HRW doesn't belong in this section.
Falun Gong response
  • I seem to recall slightly more sophisticated in the FLG response, in that they said that so much around the incident remains unknown. This would be worth noting. The fact is that they cannot know for sure the individuals were not practitioners; their original PR seemed to emphasize the need to approach the matter with caution.
Third Party findings, links to Buddhist tradition; Dispute
  • I'm taking all these as basically the same thing. They are a big set of claims and counter-claims, some based on facts, some based on opinions, many a combination of somewhere inbetween.
  • Why not simply call this whole section "Dispute" or "Issues in question" and then a series of subsections like "The identity of participants," "Falun Gong's teachings," "Access to victims," "Possible state involvement," which go through and look at the issues in question. Either of those may be better than the confused sections we currently have, which are really a series of claims and counter-claims, many of which have no evidence, on a range of the issues at stake, without any overall guiding logic to the presentation. Most of these are just pundits sounding off, but it's cloaked as something else.
  • Such a schematic presentation would also prevent the POV-pushing that is currently taking place across these three sections.

I will do Aftermath later. Maybe I should just start editing myself. Other highly charged pages, such as that around the shooting of Trayvon Martin, which I have edited, benefit from a much wider constituency of editors. If only were the same for this page. I've just pointed out some of the issues I see above. The Sound and the Fury (talk) 17:27, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for coming to the talk page first. In the case of clear, unambiguous problems, you can go ahead (cautiously, I hope). If other editors raise divergent views, they can be discussed. If we do choose to make larger structural changes, or changes that could potentially alter the balance of the article, I think they should be made through a process of consensus-building. Your idea of a systematic, issue-based approach to the dispute may have some merit, but I'd like to see what other editors think.—Zujine|talk 18:18, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
To someone who is involved or even a cursory knowledge of Falun Gong, TSTF's 'suggestions' smacks of the exact same sort of tactics used by banned Falun Gong users to advance the Falun Gong world view (just read through the archives of this talk page and follow the arguments of asdfg12345 (talk · contribs), dilip rajeev (talk · contribs) and Olaf Stephanos (talk · contribs). To TheSound's credit, he does not engage in personal attacks or overly emotional language. But he, aided and abetted by two other users who consistently patrol all Falun Gong articles, is trying to single out User ohconfucius, an editor with a clean and flawless (and neutral) record of editing a wide range of articles, of 'bad faith editing' along with a series of other far-fetched accusations. If they succeed, God help this encyclopedia. Colipon+(Talk) 04:10, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
I suggest you refrain from making personal attacks, or impugning the motives of other editors. Please discuss content. —Zujine|talk 04:58, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
These were not personal attacks, merely assessments based on my experiences editing these articles. I have engaged in 'content discussions' before, both at this article and at other Falun Gong-related articles. They are not discussions in good faith. They are always fruitless. And they intimidate non-involved editors. No matter what arguments are presented, what sources are referenced, there will always be a problem with it as long as it does not suit Falun Gong's dualistic world view. I cannot countenance such a 'content discussion' when I know it is not in good faith. Engaging with such supposed 'content discussions' is not only a waste of time, it also lends legitimacy that this is somehow a battle between pro-FLG and anti-FLG, which it is not. Colipon+(Talk) 13:25, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

TheSound, in previous discussions from last year, we grappled with the presentation of these 'issues in dispute,' so to speak. The current format was arrived at organically as a way to coherently present the counter-narratives, while also separating Falun Gong's response from other third-party findings. I think it served the purpose, but it's true there may be better approaches to the organization. I'm just going to write some considerations and thoughts here. (I hope that observers don't get worried that this is a harbinger of massive changes. I'm just sharing ideas). A possible organization, based on the current one, could go something like this:

  • Background
  • The incident
  • People involved
  • Chinese state media reports
  • Falun Gong response (remove some of the specific points of evidence, and discuss in general terms what FG's views and positions were)
  • Issues in dispute (based on the information already on the page, with presentation just formalized. FG's evidence and that of third-parties is sometimes difficult to separate, so might be mixed together, making clear which statements come from whom. Each of these points would be quite short, working from material already on the page. In the event that Chinese authorities have responded to the challenges raised, we can add that.)
  • Identity of self-immolators
  • Behavior of self-immolators
  • Availability of fire extinguishers
  • Source of footage
  • Death of Liu Chunling and Liu Siying
  • Speed of official media reports
  • Lack of independent corroboration (/ access to victims?)
  • Role of Falun Gong scripture (to replace what is now 'links to buddhist tradition')
  • Interpretations (I'm proposing this as an alternate name for the section currently titled 'dispute')
  • Aftermath
  • Media campaign and public opinion
  • Violence and reeducation
  • Impact on Falun Gong resistance
  • Fate of the self-immolators

Again, these are just ideas. I don't know that a reorganization is a pressing need. It might improve readability and navigability, but ultimately would affect little change to content. There might also be a concern that some disputed issues are not covered by these sub-headings. Anyway, I hope we're not just going around in circles, and that each iteration is actually an improvement. I assume more editors are watching this page now — any outside feedback on the page organization or other issues would be helpful.

Regarding the article's FA status, I'm not sure of the appropriate procedure here. Significant changes have occurred over the last several days, and some problems have been identified along with new proposals for improvement. Should we try to agree to changes, make them within some predetermined timeframe, ensure the page is stable again, and then seek FA reassessment? Or should the page be assessed now (and probably be delisted on account of recent instability), then fixed, then assessed again? Homunculus (duihua) 16:16, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Homunculus, thanks for your productive engagement. I think that organizational structure looks pretty interesting. I'd actually suggest that the focus in both the Chinese media section and the Falun Gong section have more on the perspectives that are projected, and also third party analysis of them to the extent that its present, rather than emphasizing the "factual" nature of what each side is saying. It's basically a war of PR - although, each does make a series of factual claims.
The sections look fine. I don't think we need an "interpretations" section which is again just a space for various sources to sound off on their pet theories. One could fill that section with Schechter types or Sisci types, but I don't think that necessarily helps the reader. Better to present it in the schematic structure above, addressing whatever evidentiary or argumentative point is appropriate, rather than a sort of free-for-all. I really agree with Colipon's point about this not being a pro-Falun Gong or anti-Falun Gong issue. In fact, I think presenting the issues like this, in their complexity, will really help unwind the juxtapositions and sharp (false) dichotomies that sometimes build up on pages like this. The Sound and the Fury (talk) 03:49, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Can you clarify what you mean by the proposal that "both the Chinese media section and the Falun Gong section have more on the perspectives that are projected, and also third party analysis of them to the extent that its present, rather than emphasizing the "factual" nature of what each side is saying."? That might get tricky. I mean, we don't want the section on Chinese media to be full of secondary sources commenting on the propagandistic nature of the reports, right? Maybe I'm not understanding your suggestion. Regarding the dispute section, as I said below, I think there's still merit to including it, though that doesn't mean that it can't be tweaked. Secondary source analysis is still valuable to readers trying to figure out what to make of such divergent narratives. Such is my opinion.Homunculus (duihua) 05:46, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

It'd probably be sufficient to move some of the stuff from the first subsection of the Aftermath section, in the first paragraph and a few things from the second--whatever relates to the immediate actions of Chinese state media channels. The Aftermath can then be for the aftermath, say, a month or more down the road, not the immediate response. There may have been some attempt to pare away the Chinese state reporting on the facts of the incident from the propaganda aspect of their reports, but such a division could only be artificial. Seems to make more sense just to put the immediate stuff in one place, and the repercussions in another. That's all I mean. It's along the lines of logic-guided content partitions that I mentioned above. The Sound and the Fury (talk) 15:22, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
A proposal for a more logical presentation of some parts of the article was made by me back in March, and refined by Homunculus in April. There haven't been any objections (it's fairly uncontroversial and will simply improve navigability and sense without impacting much the content itself) so I will go ahead with it. TheSoundAndTheFury (talk) 20:19, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Taking stock

In the last week or so, this page has been through something approximating 150 edits. In the course of this activity, there have been some rather significant changes—some perhaps for the better, and others maybe less so. Some new concerns have been raised that have thus far not been adequately addressed, and there are some old issues to resolve as well. As this article is now up for FAR, I hope we can identify and resolve these issues in a timely manner. I will suggest, as other editors have done elsewhere on this page, that this discussion focus strictly on content. Editors who find that they have difficulty refraining from accusations of bad faith or ad hominem attacks, or who do not wish to see the article improved, are strongly encouraged to recuse themselves. I, for one, will simply ignore any comments that do not relate to improving the page.

I am going to consolidate here the problems I've seen raised by others, and a few I've seen myself.

  1. There is some inconsistency in the use of British and American english
  2. The last sentence of the lead, regarding the rise on Falun Gong death tolls, is a primary source, and may be considered original research in that the source does not directly connect this trend to the self-immolation. Unless a better source can be found, this should be removed.
  3. Some editors have objected to the background section singling out the views and findings of particular individuals. I cannot tell if this is still an objection.
  4. The 'background' section, as it stands at the time of writing [5], is lacking some references. As I raised in a discussion thread[6] last June, this version of the background section also oversimplifies the dynamics between Falun Gong and the party-state in the 1990s (namely, it implies that Falun Gong was merely being criticized by a couple skeptics between 1996 and 1999. Really, the Ministry of Public Security was monitoring them, their books had been banned, and factions within the party-state were sanctioning criticism of Falun Gong (and other qigong practices) in the media and other fora. That was the wider context in which folks like He Zuoxiu were acting). A different version of this section,[7] seemed on the way to resolving these problems, and also included more detail on the chain of command and legal framework established around the crackdown, some of which may be relevant to this article. That version been reverted on the ground that it gave too much detail and undue weight. The precise concerns have not been specified.
  5. It has been proposed that the background section should contain slightly more information (even more than was in [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tiananmen_Square_self-immolation_incident&direction=prev&oldid=485643694 this version) regarding the nature of the persecution and the...shall we say, audacity of Falun Gong's continued protests (and the problems that presented for China's leaders). It seems there is disagreement about the ideal length of the background section, and it is not clear how we are to determine which details have direct relevance.
  6. As has been pointed out several times on the talk page, there is a misattributed quote in the article. Specifically, the response from Falun Gong to the scripture "Beyond the Limits of Forbearance" currently quoted in the article is credited to a Falun Gong center in New York. The secondary source (in this case the Guardian), made a minor error in attributing the source; this quote actually came from a group of practitioners in Mainland China, and was published as an essay on a Falun Gong website. My understanding of WP:V is that, when it is clear that a secondary source made a factual or interpretive error, it can be fixed through reference to the primary source.
  7. The 'incident' section does not note that CNN reporters had their tapes confiscated
  8. Concerns were raised that the section 'Chinese state media reports' did not make sufficiently clear that the details are from a government sources. It was also suggested that this section should focus more on the intended message and tone of these reports, including the timing of them.
  9. The government affiliations of the 'China Association for Cultic Studies' is not made clear
  10. A quote from Human Rights Watch does not belong in the section on 'Chinese state media reports'
  11. It was pointed out that the Falun Gong PR immediately after the incident was perhaps more reserved and nuanced than the page currently suggests.
  12. It has been proposed that the matters in dispute be explicitly delineated (a proposal is above) to make this section more easily navigable. Doing so would also provide a venue for Chinese government responses to third-party investigations, where available.
  13. Ian Johnson's views (or evidence, I should say), is not currently included, but may be notable (this relates to the strange timing of the official news reports)
  14. It has been suggested that we might reduce or dissolve the current 'dispute' section. (Personally, I disagree; third party interpretations of this event are still helpful in making evaluations of all the relevant facts)

Did I miss anything? I hope we can move forward on these issues within the next couple weeks.Homunculus (duihua) 05:05, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

  • This is helpful. On number 14, that is not what I meant. Please re-read the suggestion I made in full. It's more nuanced than just deleting stuff. A lot of these changes shouldn't be controversial anyway, and the time it takes to write about them could be spent fixing them (i.e. wrongly placed content) On 8, I think it's clear that it's government sources. It just seemed that odd weight was given to the factual details, which are not the main thing, and not enough explanation of the general direction and purport of the reports (i.e. that this incident proves that the Falun Gong are an evil religious cult that burn themselves to go to heaven and the central government's decision was correct.) or perhaps that is clear enough. The Sound and the Fury (talk) 15:28, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
  • This article is not "now up for FAR"; see WP:FAR instructions, specifically:

    ... should not nominate articles that are featured on the main page (or have been featured there in the previous three days)...

    and

    Before nomination, raise issues at talk page of the article. Attempt to directly resolve issues with the existing community of article editors, and to informally improve the article.

    The hope is that mainpage exposure will result in issues being resolved on talk, or at least encourage editors to work towards that before nominating at FAR. The FAR nomination was out of process, and was removed. FAR is not dispute resolution: editors should attempt to resolve issues first on talk, rather than rushing to FAR, which is at least a month-long process. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:35, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for the clarification. Hope we can work through issues regardless.Homunculus (duihua) 15:37, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
I just took care of a couple of the items listed above, and it seems some were already addressed as well. The only ones remaining are issues 3(?), 5, 8, 11, 12, 13, 14. It's nice to see progress—thanks for working on this.—Zujine|talk 04:50, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
If there are no clear and articulate objections, I think someone should just go ahead with these suggested improvements. The Sound and the Fury (talk) 18:15, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
I don't think neutral edits are being made according to the above problems. Please discuss further about possible edit structure and wording, especially Ohconfucius, Homunculus, Zufine, whom all seem to have differing POVs in their revisions on this article. - M0rphzone (talk) 22:02, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Hi M0rphzone, regarding your rolling back to the March 26th version of the page[8], there were some changes that occurred between March 26th and now that did seem to achieve consensus. Specifically, several images were removed because they failed fair use; some non-controversial content was added to the 'aftermath' section; primary source research was removed from lede; American english was changed to british, references were fixed, etc. Please see earlier discussion threads where these issues were identified and resolved. There are unresolved issues, to be sure, but things generally seem to be moving forward. If you're not sure about something, please ask (and if there are specific diffs that look funny to you, perhaps you can identify them individually, lest good edits get reverted along with questionable ones). Thanks for looking over the page. Homunculus (duihua) 22:17, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

H, I'm not sure why you added a POV tag here[9] (or maybe you just restored it along with other things). It's been on the page for a while without any explanation. We've identified areas for improvement, but none among these seem to be POV issues, so I removed the tag. Correct me if I've overlooked something.—Zujine|talk 04:48, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Among the proposed changes listed above, I think the most pressing is the update to the background section. As stated above, I suggested this about a year ago, but it wasn't until an editor wrote this version[10] that these suggestions were acted upon. The new version was reverted for reasons that were never constructively explained. I'll explain again, and very specifically, why I think that we should restore that version / why the current background section is inadequate.

  • The current version of the background section oversimplifies the dynamics between Falun Gong and the party-state in the 1990s. It implies that Falun Gong was merely being criticized by a couple qigong skeptics between 1996 and 1999, and that this led to a chain reaction that ended in Falun Gong being suppressed. This is not the case. All of the recent books on Falun Gong, such as David Ownby's, David Palmer's, Benjamin Penny and (to a slightly lesser extent) James Tong, describe a much more complex dynamic emerging in the mid- to late-1990s that reflected disputes at high levels of the party between competing factions, and also reflected broader disagreements about the role of independent civil society, religion, etc. in Chinese society. While Falun Gong was initially supported and sanctioned by the government, contentions first arose as part of a general backlash against qigong in the mid-1990s. When Falun Gong withdrew from the CQRS amidst mounting tensions, that's when it became a target of officially sanctioned criticism and scrutiny. Beginning in 1996, the Ministry of Public Security started monitoring practitioners, their books had been banned, and factions within the party-state were sanctioning criticism of Falun Gong (and other qigong practices) in the media and other fora. That was the wider context in which folks like He Zuoxiu—a member of the top-level party consultative conference—were acting. Some factions and government ministries continue to support and advocate for Falun Gong, but the group's fate was sealed on April 25. Current version captures none of this nuance, but this version [11] does.
  • The current version says almost nothing about the events transpiring between April 25 and July 22. It says only that Falun Gong was banned on July 22. But again, if we consult the books mentioned above, a great deal more nuance emerges. The July 22 notice was a series of prohibitions, not a law. And the actual persecutory campaign began days earlier on July 19 or July 20, depending how you're judging it (media campaign began on the 19th, thousands of practitioners detained on July 20). Current version also doesn't include any information on the 610 Office, which is highly germane. The 610 Office exercises control over media coverage and judicial processes, among other things. This article discusses Chinese media coverage and trials. Readers should know that, where it involves Falun Gong, the media and judiciary are answerable to the 610 Office. Again, current version includes none of these details, alternate version does.
  • Both versions seems to involve some original synthesis, noting that Time magazine said Falun Gong websites encouraged practitioners to "step up" demonstrations on Tiananmen Square. Notice the date of the Time magazine article? It came out several months after the self-immolation. It is not part of the background. However, we can replace this with some other relevant background on the scale, significance and audacity of Falun Gong's public resistance in general.

Are these any objections? Comments? Homunculus (duihua) 19:57, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

  • No objections. Do you plan to make the edits where the various issues are summarized and combined, as discussed above? On your last point, if the article is referring to events before the immolation, then just because it came out a few months later does not make it automatically not part of the background. Do you mean to suggest that post-facto postulation is not properly speaking "background information"? I think Falun Gong produced post-immolation reports attempting to fill in their version of the background also after the fact—are they then inadmissible because published after? The Sound and the Fury (talk) 02:39, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
Sorry, I didn't see this before. Need to revisit all these proposals. Like I said, I think one of the first things is the background section. I'll try putting something together. My point wasn't actually about post-facto postulation. It was that the use of the TIME magazine article was inappropriate; statements made months after this event is not background to the self-immolation. If the goal of that sentence was to illustrate the importance of Tiananmen Square as a venue for Falun Gong protests, there are other (and better) ways to make the same point.
As to post-facto postulation, I don't think there's any need to include Falun Gong's post-immolation reports either in the background section.
I'll try to get to this sometime this week. It's the long weekend now. Once we've sifted through these proposals, I think it would be appropriate to file to have this page reassessed. Homunculus (duihua) 16:32, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

A Funny Joke

-Why do the authors of this propaganda piece... I mean article feel the need to remind us about the "state-run media" every other sentence?

-Why is it overloaded with emotionally charged, POV, opinion-based phrases such as "torture and imprisonment of its practitioners", "a belief that is not supported by Falun Gong’s teachings", "campaign of state propaganda", "eradicate Falun Gong", "widespread use of torture, sometimes resulting in death",

-Why does it give undue weight to conspiracy theories involving men in dark overcoats, complete with fuzzy photographs that prove absolutely nothing? The general consensus is not that this incident was staged by evil fu-Manchu sinister Chinese government officials in dark overcoats who appear out of nowhere to strike deadly blows upon burning human beings without anybody noticing.

Could it be, shock horror, because this is another FLG propaganda article policed by FLG SPA's? AnAimlessRoad (talk) 15:36, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

  • Controversial claims, such as those presented by the state-run Chinese press, should be given inline attribution.
  • There is nothing POV, emotionally charged, or opinion-based in these statements of fact. This is the kind of language used by reliable sources on the subject.
  • There is one short paragraph explaining the analysis of CCTV footage showing the man in military overcoat striking down the woman. This piece of evidence has been referenced in several RS articles on this subject. It's notable, and not given inordinate weight.
  • Who are these FLG SPAs you're referring to? Homunculus (duihua) 16:18, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
  • I took this article to FAC, and was disappointed after a small bunch of editors usurped it and turned it into what you see. I tried to return some semblance of political neutrality to it, but you will see my efforts were in vain; it has gotten worse. If even I give up, as I have, I fear few others are likely to tread this quagmire. --Ohconfucius ¡digame! 10:06, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
FYI, that guy was site banned then banned as an abusive sock... The Sound and the Fury (talk) 13:18, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
That user most definitely had issues with his conduct, though pointing that out is mostly a red herring. The real problem is that this article's balance had been totally destroyed since it was taken to FA status, and that it should undergo FAR. I personally feel sympathetic to the users who worked so hard to get the article to where it was for FA, just to see it wither away gradually. Colipon+(Talk) 14:42, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
Wow, this article is absolutely pathetic and has massive POV problems, and I have only read the intro.
  • "to protest the unfair treatment of Falun Gong by the Chinese government." - unfair is not attributed but is written in wikipedia's voice - POV of course
  • "to justify the torture and imprisonment of its practitioners." - what? way to go to the extreme rather than simply stating "to justify persecution of its practitioners."
  • "and the government began sanctioning "systematic use of violence" against the group." - sourced to let's see, "Falun Gong practitioners"... statements by the Chinese gov are constantly attributed yet highly controversial and important claims are written as fact.
I need to get to work now, I hope there is discussion work done while I am away, there is no question a POV banner is required for such a blatant - at least to POV watchers - propaganda piece. Unique Ubiquitous (talk) 12:46, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
Good points, and thanks for being specific with your concerns. I agree on the first two points. For the first, maybe we could just delete "unfair." On the second point, your proposal seems good. As to the third, the source of the "systematic use of violence" is the Washington Post, not Falun Gong practitioners. If you find other issues of this nature, please point them out. Homunculus (duihua) 16:32, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
I fixed the first two (I actually think it is better to keep the introductions bland, so I chose "campaign" over "persecution." The third point only appears in quotes and is sourced to WaPo so I think it is OK. For the record I had not read the lead (I actually still didn't read it now) and was not aware of this obviously biased language. The Sound and the Fury (talk) 18:52, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
"systematic use of violence...the sources said" - The WP attributes it, although paraphrased, to their sources, which are stated in the previous paragraph as being "according to government sources and Falun Gong practitioners." I have not read the article yet, not really interested/knowledgeable in the topic, really I hate wikipedia, the vast majority of social topics are highly POV pushing. Unique Ubiquitous (talk) 19:34, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

The death cause of Liu Siying

As mentioned in the page "Twelve million children submitted writings disapproving of the practice" , I learned this is related to Liu Siying's death. Though the state media said she died of heart condition (it is suspicious), in Children textbook her death was blamed on self-immolation. I think the death cause of liu Siying should be one of the important topics in this page. Since it was almost not touched, I added the following content in the Falun Gong's Response section. Today I found it was deleted due to "primary source FLG material". The section title is Falun Gong Response, I feel FLG source should be acceptable. Is it right? The content I added was too long. Can anyone help summarize it? Thanks in advance.

"World Organization for the Investigation Persecution of Falun Gong (WOIPFG) exhibited the testimony of a doctor from Jishuitan Hospital where Liu Siying stayed before she died. The doctor claimed that Liu Siying's death is very suspicious and said, "Liu Siying's burn treatment was about completed, and her body had basically recovered to its normal state. She had already decided to leave the hospital. In light of these circumstances her death appears very suspicious." The doctor disclosed, on March 16, the day before she died, that the hospital did a comprehensive check up on Liu and found her condition to be completely normal. The hospital doctor also confirmed that on that morning of the day when Liu Siying died "Jishuitan Hospital staff and the Beijing Medical Administration Department's director even conversed with her, and at that time, Liu Siying's health was still normal". "WOIPFG points to the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) as a suspect of single handedly directing the "Tiananmen Square Self-immolation" and murdering potential informers". World Organization to Investigate the Persecution of Falun Gong. Retrieved 13 October 2012.

Falun Gong Minghui website reported that Liu Siying was denied for family visitation and died Mysteriously. It said "the authorities did not allow any reporters other than those from Xinhua News Agency to interview 12-year-old Siying, nor did they allow any of her family members to visit. They even threatened her grandmother, to such an extent that the elderly woman was terrified to be interviewed by any reporters. During the period of time right before she died, including Friday, March 16, 2001, one day before her death, Liu Siying’s electrocardiogram (EKG) and other tests all showed normal results. Then, on Saturday, March 17, 2001, between 11:00 a.m. and 12:00 p.m., doctors suddenly discovered that Liu Siying was in critical condition. She died shortly afterwards. In addition, on the morning of March 17, 2001, between 8:00 and 9:00 a.m., the head of the Jishuitan Hospital and the head of the Beijing City Medical Administration Division paid a visit to Liu Siying at her hospital room and talked to her for quite a long time. At that time, Liu Siying was still quite animated and active. The autopsy of Liu Siying took place at the Jishuitan Hospital, but the autopsy report was issued by the Emergency Center. In addition, the autopsy report didn’t disclose any discussion of the case. It only made a general statement that her death was likely due to problems with her myocardium." Before Liu Siying's death, the state media never mentioned Liu Siying had any heart conditions. Falun Gong practitioners analyzed that "among the people accused of self-immolation, Liu Siying is the person who was most likely to divulge the secrets because she was so young that the threats would not have been as effective as they would be used on the adults. The adults could be sentenced to jail or isolated from the outside world, at least temporarily. But Liu Siying was under the legal age of being detained. Therefore, to detain her publicly would have an extremely negative impact, but releasing her would leave them vulnerable that she might speak-out, and let the truth be known. The only way to guarantee her silence and avoid divulging any secrets to the public was to kill her." "54 Facts That Reveal How the "Self-Immolation" on Tiananmen Square Was Actually Staged for Propaganda Purposes - Part 2". Falun Dafa Minghui.org. Retrieved 13 October 2012." Marvin 2009 (talk) 03:20, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

It's fine to have some primary sources used appropriately to describe FLG's response, but this is not just FLG's response. This is presenting new evidence, and passing it off as facts, without stating where that information came from. I guess that's probably why it was removed (that and it's really long). Just to give one example, how does Falun Dafa Minghui know that the head of the Jishuitan Hospital visited Siying just before her death? We can't give this angle more emphasis than what good, independent sources give it, but if you think it isn't given enough weight and need help figuring out what to write, maybe I could look into it.TheBlueCanoe (talk) 04:06, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
Thanks a lot for your reply. It seems that Minghui got the information from WOIPFG's Jishuitan Hospital Medical Personnel Investigative Report. WOIPEF mentioned that this report was kept confidential for the purpose of protecting witness, but WOIPFG is willing to provide it to international criminal courts) . There were so many different issues involved in this case, so maybe other independent organization simply did not notice Li Siying's death cause report from WOIPFG. If you can help make a simple summary, that will be great. Marvin 2009 (talk) 11:15, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
Unfortunately I did not have the time to closely examine this and pick out the key parts. How about this, Marvin2009: summarize the key point you would like to get across in the above, in about three sentences. That will save us some time, then we can add it to the article. It was far too long as it stood, especially introducing these important factual claims as a primary source. Please summarize the most important point in a few sentences, and if there are no objections we can include. TheSoundAndTheFury (talk) 01:52, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for your advice. I would like to sum it up as below. Please feel free to modify. Thank you.
The cause of the death of Liu Siying was highly suspicious. WOIPFG exhibited the following testimony from one of medical staff who treated her in Jishuitan Hospital: during the period of time right before she died, including March 16 one day before her death, Liu Siying’s electrocardiogram (EKG) and other tests all showed normal results; On March 17 between 8 am to 9 am when the head of the Jishuitan Hospital and the head of the Beijing City Medical Administration Division paid a visit to Liu Siying at her hospital room and talked to her for quite a long time, Liu Siying was still quite animated and active; On March 17 between 11am to 12pm, doctors suddenly discovered that Liu Siying was in critical condition and She died shortly afterwards. Marvin 2009 (talk) 21:55, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

There's a sentence in there that says "The [False Fire] documentary also addresses the medical treatment and ultimate death of Liu’s 12-year-old daughter." Just build on that. Something like "The [False Fire] documentary also says that Liu's 12-year-old daughter died under unusual circumstances in hospital, noting that she was recovering well before dying suddenly on March 17th. Some Falun Gong sources argue that she may have been killed by the government as a way of guaranteeing her silence." Is that good? And would the government have any response to that allegation that should be noted? TheBlueCanoe 01:37, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks to The BlueCanoe. I cannot find any response from CCP media to such an allegation from WOIPFG. However, some inconsistency could be found between CCP media's March 3rd news (2 weeks before she died)Jishuitan Hospital's 39 days Rescuing and CCP media's March 18th news (the 2nd day after Liu died )Liu Siying's Sudden Death. In March 3rd news, a reporter from Health Newspaper wrote: Liu Siying was relatively stable after over one month treatment and there was no serious Complication. No mentioning any heart conditions. In March 19th news (2 days after she died), the head of Jishuitan Hospital said: Liu Siying in the past had a Myocarditis history and had never been healed. After she was sent to the hospital on January 23, the burn was cured through medical staff's great effort, but Liu Siying's heart function had been out of the way all the time and her heart rate had been at about 140-170 times per minute. In response to these two news, one mainland medical doctor argued (on April 5 2001's Minghui news Liu Siying really died due to Cardiogenic sudden death?) the the hospital head's words 'Liu Siying's heart function had been out of the way all the time and her heart rate had been at about 140-170 times per minute for over one month' showed Liu Siying experienced serious Complication, which could lead to death anytime, because ... If so , how could the mainland media said on March 3rd there was no serious Complication happened to Liu Siying. The doctor also questioned why the hospital and any mainland media never mentioned Liu's Myocarditis history (and it was never healed) before her death when many Chinese had been very concerned about Liu Siying's health. The doctor deduced that the answer was simple, the 'stage' was temporarily built for covering up Liu's real death cause. Marvin 2009 (talk) 12:36, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Facts.org.cn

This website is cited three times in this article: once for direct Chinese government propaganda [12], one for a Reuters article [13] and once in the external links section. I believe the first should be purged because the source is unreliable and a hate/propaganda site; I believe the second should refer simply to the Reuters articles without linking to facts.org.cn's version, which by hosting it is probably perpetrating copyright infringement; and I believe the link should be removed from the EL section according to item 2 of WP:ELNO ("Any site that misleads the reader by use of factually inaccurate material or unverifiable research, except to a limited extent in articles about the viewpoints that the site is presenting") and the copyright abuse issue mentioned above. If there are no objections I will do this soon. TheSoundAndTheFury (talk) 20:14, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

I notice this page has an external link to this website. This website claimed itself on its homepage as a civilian anti FG website. However, one government document Main points to prevent cult showed this Facts.org.cn was created and run by 6-10_Office in the name of civilian organization. The document mentioned all governments at province, municipality and county level had listed submission to fact.org.cn as an evaluation objective for Leading cadres. Also one branch of CCP's Politics and Law Committee Awarding policy regarding propaganda work had a policy that urged staff to submit articles for this website and claimed each article with 500 words and more) would be awarded 500 RMB and each article with less words would be awarded 400 RMB. It seems that 6-10 office used such a fake web not only for attacking FG and but also generating high incomes for themselves from tax payers. I suggest the external link to such fake web should not be included in this page. Marvin 2009 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 13:16, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Inappropriate balance

I think this article have an inappropriate balance because contains few announcement of then Chinese Government but opinions from Falun Gong are widely used in this article, this reaches an inappropriate balance and I think if this problem are not fixed, this article shouldn't be marked as "Featured Article".--A20120312 (talk) 22:24, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

The above editor nominated this article for FAR minutes after making this comment. This is not enough time to allow for discussion and article improvements, and such time is required per step one of the FAR process. Due to this, the review is currently on hold, pending discussion and/or improvement. If such is not forthcoming, the review may be reinitiated after at least a week. Dana boomer (talk) 23:44, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
This issue of 'what is the appropriate degree of balance' has been addressed endlessly on the talk page. If you wish to pick up the discussion again---and by all means, you may---please do so with reference to previous discussion. The best answer to the question of the appropriate degree of balance was given here: [14]. The diff contains the full text of the section from David Ownby's book dedicated to retelling this story. Ownby is arguably the leading scholar on this, and his treatment serves as the best guide we have to what is due weight. The article currently follows his narrative quite closely in terms of structure, weight, and balance (though ours is more detailed). If you would like to respond to that in specific, please go ahead. But rather than broad claims, discussion is most helpful when focused around specific facts, statements, views, or sources that are missing. May I suggest that if this discussion is to continue, it focus on center on specific problems identified, or specific suggestions for improvement. TheSoundAndTheFury (talk) 01:18, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
Due to the lack of response by the FAR nominator, I have deleted the FAR page. If any editors still feel the article is not up to FA specs, they need to discuss the issues here, first. Dana boomer (talk) 13:56, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Featured article review

Today, an editor created a FAR for this article. Because there was no previous talk page discussion, as is required, the review has been placed on hold. Below I am copying the nominator's rationale. Please discuss. Dana boomer (talk) 21:43, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Start copy: I am nominating this featured article for review because it doesn't seem to have a neutral viewpoint, and there is a significant change between original FA and current article. When I read this article, I feel it always tries to tell me the "truth", and leads me to the conclusion that the incident was staged by someone. In recent time it's current version was translated into Chinese Wikipedia, and frankly I am disappointed in it's neutrality. I do not think this article fits all of the featured article criteria to be identified as one of the BEST article in English Wikipedia. I earnestly request reconsidering the quility of this article. Thanks. InstantNull (talk) 21:29, 4 March 2013 (UTC) End copy

I appreciate your assist. I noticed some concerns have been posted on talk page and if it is inappropriate I accept it.--InstantNull (talk) 21:55, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
There has been no discussion that resulted in the need for a FAR. Basically, the talk page step is there to make people try to talk things out on the talk page first. As this article has editors interested in maintaining its quality, you are quite likely to get a response from one or more of them here. It is best, if possible, to work these types of things out on the talk page. Dana boomer (talk) 00:58, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
A lot of the reliable source coverage of the incident deals mainly with the matter of whether or not the event was staged. Since that's the question that has animated the debate about the self-immolation, it would be problematic if the article didn't present that evidence and counter-evidence.
The role of Wikipedia is to describe the debate in a neutral and complete way, and not to take a side or pass judgement. So the language used has to be dispassionate and factual, and shouldn't appear to be endorsing one view or another. I don't think this article has any major problems in that sense, but if you do, maybe you could explain how, and then we could try to figure out how to make improvements. TheBlueCanoe 01:40, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
That is what I am talking about, describing the debate neutrally instead of the fact asserted by any side. But it seems to be an unfair debate since the very begining, the selection of sources results in the bias on expression. And some primary source is overused to prove arguement. Besides, some content is still unclear without source such as "public sympathy". Limited to my English proficiency, it is better to be reviewed by peer editors, and that is also my main purpose.--InstantNull (talk) 08:44, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
InstantNull, it has been reviewed by peer editors, who found it to meet the featured article criteria. The burden rests upon the person nominating an article for FAR to articulate the problems that they feel prevent the article from being of featured status, with examples. So, what sources do you contend have been left out, or mis-used? What information do you contend is missing sources? With regard to the use of the phrase "public sympathy", I see it used twice, once in the lead and once, with a reliable reference, in the Media campaign section. Why do you feel it is unclear or unsourced? You need to give details and examples on what you feel is wrong if you want editors to work with you to improve the article. Vague statements of unfair treatment of one side or another, biased source selection and primary source over/misuse will get you nowhere without specifics. Dana boomer (talk) 01:28, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
Yes, it had been reviewed, which was almost four years ago, and now more than 500 time edits were made. You can see how different it is with the cur version.
  • The FLG's denial that the self-immolators were practitioners was left out in leading paragraph, while at first it denied the incident had nothing to do with its practitioners. Instead, it emphasizes that belief self-immolation would lead them to paradise is not supported by Falun Gong’s teachings.
  • In Washington Post's report by Philip Pan, the original text "no one suspected that Liu, 36, might have joined the banned spiritual movement Falun Gong." was distorted into "no one ever saw [them] practice Falun Gong." which was "included" by FLG's editor.
  • Regarding to "public sympathy", I still cannot find the phrase in any sources may related, could you please point out which reliable one it is? The only article I find containing the word "sympathy" so far is in TIME's article.
  • In Chinese state media reports section, a "guest comment" titled "Beijing is Burning" dated on February 13, 2001. However, at the end of this comment, it says "Are the 2008 Olympics worth all that?" The strange thing is, we had to wait 5 months later to witness Beijing was elected as the host city of 2008 Olympics. I doubt the authenticity of this source, is a featured article worth all that?
  • In The death of Liu Siying section, "one mainland medical doctor argued on Minghui website...", who he/she is, does s/he have a medical qualification, why do not interview a more convincing medical expert? I do not think it is reliable.
  • Why a medical official's visit is related to Liu's death? The implying heavly relies on WOIPFG's source, an organization founded by FLG, which both of them are primary sources.

Above, you can find more problems if you want.--InstantNull (talk) 23:17, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

The changes the article has been through since the FA review in 2009 have been rigorously discussed and debated, with the exception of a couple more recent changes that maybe didn't receive the same amount of scrutiny. The net result of edits over the last few years has been very positive—for example, the article that passed for FA in 2009 omitted several major aspects of the story, and there were instances of original and inaccurate synthesis, etc. So the fact that it changed is not itself a problem, as long as those changes are based on sound rationale.

To your points:

  • I don't understand your first concern. Clearly there is a change between the current lede and the one in 2009, but those changes were all discussed, and there were reasons behind the choices that were made. The fact is, contrary to the Chinese government's assertions, falungong's teachings do not include a doctrinal support for self-immolation. That's pretty important, so it makes sense that it should be in the lede, in my view.
  • Philip Pan's article does include the phrase "no one ever saw her practice Falun Gong", so I don't think it's fair to say this is a 'distortion.' In this case, a decision was made that the current quote more effectively encompasses the most important finding of Pan's investigation.
  • The decline in public sympathy for falungong following the self-immolation is a trend that received broad coverage in academic and journalistic works. The specific term "public sympathy" doesn't necessarily appear in all that coverage. It's a paraphrase, a concise way of summarising what happened. By example, the Washington Post noted that the party-state sanctioned systematic violence against falungong, and that its campaign was aided by the "turn in public opinion against Falun Gong" following the self-immolation. A Reuters article gave a lengthy exposition on how the self-immolation marked the turning point in the state's propaganda campaign, and enabled the government to establish a "popular consensus" around the necessity of the anti-falungong campaign (again I'm paraphrasing). David Ownby wrote that "Up until the self-immolation incident, many Chinese within China seem to have reserved judgment on Falun Gong, and outside of China, diligent Falun Gong practitioners had managed to wrestle the Chinese state to a standstill, having succeeded in keeping at least part of their message in the public eye. After the self-immolation incident, however, Chinese within China increasingly came to see Falun Gong as dangerous and untrustworthy, and media outside of China slowly began to disengage as well." Do you see why paraphrasing is a good choice in the lede? Do you think there is a better way to summarise this idea?
  • I don't understand your complaint about the "Beijing is Burning" piece by Ann Noonan. The reason this article is referenced is to support the information about possible charges against foreign journalists, and there's another reliable source supporting the same thing. Secondly, Beijing was vying for the Olympics at the time, and lots of western commentators were weighing in on its bid in light of human rights concerns. There's nothing strange here. But if you think the source itself is unreliable, you could consider bringing it to the reliable source noticeboard.
  • Your final two concerns deserve closer examination. This material was added relatively recently and I don't think it was scrutinized too much. But it does appear to be too heavily reliant on primary sources. —Zujine|talk 13:32, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

For now, I just removed the section about Liu Siying's death because none of the sources used seemed very solid. It might be a bit heavy-handed, but the section as a whole was pretty flimsy. A better version if possible using better sourcing.TheBlueCanoe 13:50, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

  • In chronological order, Falungong first denied self-immolators were practitioners, that is important. Falungong's teachings do not support suicide, which is their own explanation arose after the incident happened. on this page only, it records dozens of suicide incidents, all with sources, many of them happened before the famous self-immolation incident.
  • Also in TIME's article, "it's impossible to tell how many people still practice secretly", shows it was quite normal if no one ever saw someone practicing falungong. "no one suspected Liu may have joined Falun Gong" do not mean these people can be as witnesses to prove she has nothing to do with falungong like an evidence.
  • The public opinion could be positive or negative, the reserved judgment could be from favourable impression to disgusted, why it has to be necessarily public sympathy. I do not think it is a good choice, actually it makes the article unneutral.
  • I doubt the neutrality of the book written by Danny Schechter, Falun Gong's Challenge to China. it is sorted in the third-party research, but it can be obviously see that there are ralation between the author and falungong, the author's new book was published by falungong's publisher, he was invited by falungong to introduce his book.

--InstantNull (talk) 20:37, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

  • “on this page only, it records dozens of suicide incidents, all with sources, many of them happened before the famous self-immolation incident.” — you linked to a website affiliated with the Chinese government’s 610 office, whose mission is to propagandise against and suppress Falungong. It’s been agreed in previous RS/N discussions that that website is not a reliable source on Falungong.
To my understanding, no independent or reliable sources have ever corroborated the Chinese government’s claims about Falungong suicides. So we can’t assert those allegations as facts. That being said, there are reliable sources that describe the role of the suicide claims in the context of the Chinese government’s propaganda campaign against falungong. So if you think this is important background, we might include a paragraph somewhere. Of course it would need to be presented in the way that reliable sources frame it. If you want, I can collect some sources to show you how this has been discussed in reliable sources.
  • You’re sort of arguing against the sources here. Here’s the deal: the Chinese government claimed Liu was an avid and obsessed Falungong practitioner. But when that claim was investigated by the Washington Post, neighbours described a woman who had no known affiliation with Falungong, and whose lifestyle was highly inconsistent with the profile of a Falungong practitioner. These are the conclusions as described by experts like David Ownby. Ownby also allows that it is possible Liu and the others were “new or unschooled” Falungong practitioners, which is something already described in the article. I am not sure what change you're suggesting here, or on what basis. Everything is cited to quality sources.
  • I don’t really understand your third point. What are you proposing?
  • Danny Schechter is a respected journalist and media critic. His book “Falun Gong's Challenge to China” was one of the first major studies of the Chinese government’s treatment of Falun Gong, and a lot of the book was commentary on the surrounding media coverage—an area where he’s an established expert. His book is also frequently cited in more serious academic texts as being a valuable resource. Schechter clearly does not like the Chinese government and he certainly seems sympathetic to Falungong, but there are other third party sources who may be biased in the other direction, and we include their views in this article as well. Finally, Schechter’s book was published by Akashic Books, which does not appear to be a “falungong publisher.” Is there is a something specific where you don’t think Schechter is reliable? Or is it just that you don’t think he’s a third party? He is quite clearly a third party. —Zujine|talk 06:50, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
If government’s propaganda against falungong is not reliable, according to what you said, those falungong media affiliated directly with falungong, whose mission is to propagandise for and advertise Falungong, are unreliable either. I appreciate if you can collect more reliable source, but I think it may be difficult because what you can find are basically either from falungong or from anti-falungong website, I have been tired of this.
My third point argues about your point made earlier, hope I stated it clearly. The last, bout Danny Schechter, I am not sure if he is respected in English world, but it is clearly he may not meet Wikipedia's notability guideline. I am talking about his Chinses version of his book, and the picture shows the scene about his book launch. Is a third party supposed to get pay from an object, even the one he is sympathetic to?--InstantNull (talk) 05:13, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

The notability guideline relates to articles, not to the sources used in articles. Danny Schechter wrote a popular book on Falun Gong, so he's a very relevant source for this article. Also, if Danny Schechter speaks at an event organized or promoted by Falun Gong practitioners, that does not mean he is getting paid by Falun Gong. On the issue of Chinese government sources and Falun Gong sources, both are primary. As much as possible the article should use secondary sources to describe the debate, though there are some appropriate use cases for primary sources. Cases where the Chinese government is making exceptional claims about Falun Gong are not comparable to when Falun Gong sources make verifiable statements about their own beliefs, though, for example.TheBlueCanoe 12:36, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

I'd argue the Chinese government's propaganda is not reliable, according to several reliable sources - from Amnesty and HRW to any scholarly source on Chinese propaganda. Actually, for a rather minor example ,"China's state-owned media calls Nobel committee an 'evil cult' while state security abducts rights campaigners from the street and cuts their communications," says the Guardian.http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/dec/10/china-still-furious-over-nobel If the regime's state media were a reliable source, the article on Nobel Peace Prize would be a rather strange kind of an encyclopedia article. 101.63.222.42 (talk) 16:52, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

I'll be trying to rest the article more on western media sources, and in context of the documented fact of propaganda from the CCP, using the propaganda from the regime to a lesser extent in this article. Definitely not presenting any of them as facts. Wiki Chymyst 17:15, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Revert

I reverted the latest edit by an IP, who is presumably the same person as "Wykymyst." I have not had time to look through the other edits. I don't know how many of them are useful and how many are along the lines of the one I just undid: not very helpful and don't read well. When I get a moment I will go through the rest of them and make more changes as I consider due, and then make some notes on this page explaining my thinking. The reciprocal will be appreciated by this new editor. TheSoundAndTheFury (talk) 18:19, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

I have reverted the revert of this edit. No explanation as to why. You need to justify the original huge raft of changes. TheSoundAndTheFury (talk) 06:18, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
It seems you didn't go back far enough to effectively undo this huge raft of changes. I just restored the lede and background sections to be much closer to what they were under the previous version, adding a few bits here and there of research that I read recently and was reminded of. There were other places in the article where I found that someone had inserted repetitious points of evidence pointing to a hoax in various places where it didn't belong, and other instances of sub-par writing, so I tried to clean it up where I could. Every time I read this article I feel that there's a lot we could do to tighten it up, though I recognise that would be a difficult and potentially controversial thing to do.—Zujine|talk 05:18, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Looks like it happened again[15]. I'm reverting this, and here's why:

  • The government didn't initially claim that this was a protest against mistreatment.
  • It's repetitive, with the Falun Gong perspective repeated twice in the same short paragraph
  • There's extraneous information that should be buried much deeper in the article, instead of in the establishing paragraph
  • Overall it detracts from the clarity and objectivity of the introduction.TheBlueCanoe 14:33, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Hi, I am the Wykymyst editor who had done the changes. And my rationale was going by the best of sources available - Peter Pan, Ian Johnson, to documentaries done by respectable folks - ALL OF WHICH say the same thing. IT WAS STAGED. And a bit of human sense - I mean how much more obvious could it be. But then human sense has no place in an encyclopedia you can argue. And my edit and each sentence were supported by multiple sources. Do not let other users set up an inital bias in your brain, which then will lead you to echo things from their biased viewpoint. Wiki Chymyst 12:10, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

I'm biased towards good writing. You didn't address the reasons for the revert, which was that your edits made the introductory section less clear, coherent, and readable.TheBlueCanoe 14:56, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
  1. ^ a b Cite error: The named reference breakingpoint was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  2. ^ Cite error: The named reference oneway was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  3. ^ a b c d e f Spiegel, Mickey (2002). Dangerous Meditation: China's Campaign Against Falungong. Human Rights Watch. ISBN 1-56432-270-X. Retrieved 28 September 2007.
  4. ^ Smith, Chrandra D. (October 2004). "Chinese Persecution of Falun Gong" (PDF). Rutgers Journal of Law and Religion. Rutgers School of Law. Retrieved 28 September 2009.
  5. ^ a b Cite error: The named reference hrw-chn43081 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  6. ^ Professor David Ownby is Director of Center for East Asian Studies, University of Montreal
  7. ^ a b Cite error: The named reference ownbyfalungong218 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  8. ^ Barend ter Haar, Chair of Chinese History at Leiden University (Sinological Institute) Retrieved 29 September 2009
  9. ^ Cite error: The named reference Haar was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  10. ^ Cite error: The named reference sisci was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  11. ^ Cite error: The named reference ownbyfalungong was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  12. ^ Cite error: The named reference Schechter2001 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  13. ^ Barend ter Haar, Chair of Chinese History at Leiden University (Sinological Institute) Retrieved 29 September 2009
  14. ^ Falun Gong's Challenge to China – A report by Danny Schechter
  15. ^ Gutmann, Ethan. (6 December 2010) 'Into Thin Airwaves'. The Weekly Standard
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2001_Tiananmen_Square_self-immolation_incident/Archive_7&oldid=1259338118"