Talk:2001 Tiananmen Square self-immolation incident/Archive 8

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Huh?

[1] Looking for an explanation for this change. I added a source to the point about how officials were calling for an intensified propaganda effort just weeks before this event took place, and it was removed. Also, I don't think the editor's change to the opening of the paragraph in question is an improvement in any sense. It does not make the meaning any clearer.

I'm also going to address a couple other things this editor removed. I like some of the edits, but the lead section needs to have more explanation of the dispute and sources of contention. Also (and I meant to change this in my last edit--sorry) it doesn't seem kosher for Wikipedia editors to be issuing declarations about what's "heterodox." Finally, the 610 Office was formed with a single mandate, which was to target Falun Gong. I'll make these changes now. Happy to discuss. TheBlueCanoe 03:16, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

I’m afraid Ohconfucius is generally not wont to discuss his changes on the talk page; in this case he opted to violate the 3RR rather than try to reach a consensus.

But you are right about the 610 Office. It was formed in 1999 with the sole objective of targeting the Falungong. At the time of this incident in 2001 this was still its only mandate. It was not until 2003 that its parent organisation changed its name from the “Central Leading Group for Dealing with Falun Gong” to the ’’Central Leading Group on Dealing with Heretical Religions.” When writing about an event that took place in 1999 or 2001, referring to the latter is anachronistic.

I also have to agree that the lede must include mention of at least some of the evidence that challenged the government’s story. Many people don’t read past the lede section, and without referencing Pan’s findings or other incongruities, they’ll have no idea whether there is any real basis for the disagreement.

Also looking at this edit[2]: While Ohconfucius says his goal is to remove “excessive characterisation” and use the “factual/official” explanation for the ban, he does just the opposite. He adds all sorts of unnecessary qualifications about the “massive propaganda campaign” description (a term used by Ownby as well as Amnesty International), and uses a highly compromised primary source (Chinese state-run media agency) to make assertions about the factual basis for a political persecution campaign. Altogether this is just not a useful edit from any perspective.—Zujine|talk 21:56, 10 September 2014 (UTC)