Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Tiananmen Square self-immolation incident/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Karanacs 18:14, 13 October 2009 [1].

Tiananmen Square self-immolation incident

[edit]
Nominator(s): Ohconfucius (talk) 04:38, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Toolbox

The above article has had its share of problems in the past. It is under Arbcom probation, yet its principal issue is one of WP:NPOV. A bunch of single purpose Falun Gong editors caused it to be delisted as WP:GA. Recently, due to an influx of fresh editors, the article has been reverted to its GA version. Over the last 2 weeks, I have given it a significant rewrite, and I believe that it meets the necessary criteria, and would like it confirmed. Ohconfucius (talk) 04:38, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

done Ohconfucius (talk) 05:37, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support FA For an article that used to be on probation, one would never guess it by looking at it now. The scope, details, and abundant citations make this a showcase article to direct someone after they poo-poo Wikipedia. Someone (or some group) has obviously been very busy trying to make Wikipedia shine. Greg L (talk) 20:27, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
done Ohconfucius (talk) 03:16, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose for now as I have multiple concerns on 1a. Some of these failings seem to be due to the fact that editors are so familiar with the topic that they have forgotten to explain things to the general reader who may know nothing about Falun Gong. Others are just a failure to summarise information in a well-organised way.
  1. Background section: The "Fa" is not explained. Now explained as how Falun Gong refers to itself Ohconfucius (talk) 03:22, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. FLG is not a commonly known acronym; we should write Falun Gong throughout. all instances now changed back Ohconfucius (talk) 03:22, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. "head office": not explained. Is it the Falun Gong head office? Where is it? Is that its official name? Refers to New York, where Li Hongzhi and Gail Rachlin are based. Now clarified Ohconfucius (talk) 03:22, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Incident section: "A foreign film crew witnessed a man sitting down on the pavement northeast of the Monument to the People's Heroes at the center of the square, poured gasoline on his clothes and set himself on fire. Moments later four more people set themselves alight.[1] Nearby police with fire-extinguishers ran to the first victim and put out the flames before the others set themselves alight." The first sentence is grammatically unsound (who poured? grammatically it is the film crew right now); the third sentence needlessly repeats the same formulation ("set themselves alight") that the second used. I've rewritten the paragraph - pls check. --JN466 00:50, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. First we say, "A foreign film crew", then we refer to "the filming CNN crew". If this is the same film crew as the first, then the first mention should identify it as a CNN crew. Yes, they are one and the same. Now adjusted. Ohconfucius (talk) 03:22, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. In the table, the Outcome column for Liu Baorong should probably mention that he also failed to set himself on fire. Done
  7. What about Liu Yunfang? Was he let go or sentenced as well?
  8. The section "Reporting and Analysis" seems muddled and is often unclear.
    • "On the issue of plausibility" -- Plausibility of what? This needs to be spelled out for the reader. now removed during rewrite. I hope it is clear from the remaining text without this intro. Ohconfucius (talk) 03:22, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • "the Laogai Research Foundation founded by Chinese dissident Harry Wu suggested that a set-up was "hardly a far-fetched hypothesis", as the government had vowed to extinguish all problems connected with Falun Gong before the 80th anniversary of the Communist Party in July 2001." A set-up by whom? Falun Gong or the Chinese government? refers to set-up by the Communist Party. Ohconfucius (talk) 03:22, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Sinologist Barend ter Haar believes the event was not orchestrated in advance but that the video could have been fabricated, given the government's great anger at the Western media for publishing it as evidence of Falun Gong martyrdom." Again, orchestrated and fabricated by whom and to what purpose? The phrase "given the government's great anger" is a non-sequitur; I don't see how the Chinese government's being angry about Western media showing the film makes it more likely that the Chinese government fabricated the film. rewritten, please check Ohconfucius (talk) 03:22, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • The format of quotes "A said X, B said Y, C said Z" does not flow well.rewritten, pls check Ohconfucius (talk) 03:22, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Who or what is the "World Organization to Investigate the Persecution of Falun Gong"? Who runs it? The acronym WOIPFG should not be used without prior explanation. now clarified as a Falun Gong lobby group Ohconfucius (talk) 03:22, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Ownby "said that although the message superficially seemed to be a "call to arms... [against]... evil beings who no longer have any human nature or righteous thoughts" (Li's words)" -- what are Ownby's words, and what are Li's words? Rewritten per John Carter. --JN466 00:50, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  11. "claiming a number of inconsistencies in the state's version of events compared with the video broadcast" -- the article says the video was broadcast by the state television, so which state version is the state-broadcast video inconsistent with? The state's version of events comes from all media - print, TV, etc., not just the video. Now clarified. Ohconfucius (talk) 03:22, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks. Yes, I agree. I've been editing around the family of articles for a while, and I am aware of me possibly lacking in objectivity. I've tweaked some of the points you mentioned above, but will have more time for a closer look on Monday. Ohconfucius (talk) 17:12, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: "Call to arms" is Ownby's phrase, the other, longer, quote about "evil beings" is quoted by Ownby from Li's speech. John Carter (talk) 17:13, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've struck my Oppose above. The article is not ready for FA status, but it is profiting from the attention of the FA process, and given more work it may be possible to bring it to FA status in the course of this nomination. --JN466 13:23, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Sorry but I don't believe it to be of good enough quality for FA. It could do with a major polish not to mention could probably be made more comprehensive. Himalayan 17:54, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Accusations of bad faith edits in a FA nomination should basically disqualify the article as being in a state of flux. Shii (tock) 18:53, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Well, I did worry when I wrote the nomination above, and I'm sorry it created that impression for the above editor that it was a bad faith accusation on my part. That aside, I wanted to demonstrate that the challenge which I had in mind when I started with this article. As I said, the article was fraught with WP:NPOV issues successive from both a pro-FG and pro-Chinese government perspective which needed rectifying. I hope that getting this article to FA, through careful community scrutiny (particularly as to its neutrality), it will silence the criticisms of bias, and be stable once and for all. Ohconfucius (talk) 06:30, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • o/s - request input from someone with the source
  • Same for current ref 19 (Peerenboom..)
    • o/s - need input from someone with the book
Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 18:40, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I removed your strike throughs, generally at FAC the person who makes the comment/concern strikes through when they feel the issues is resolved. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:59, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Up to you. Some folks are less concerned about it, but it probably wouldn't hurt.
  • New query ... what is "ibid Porter, pg 105 (Chang 1991: 89, 134; Rahn 2001b; Lindsey 2001: 2; ter Haar 2001: sec. 1; Li Cheng 1997: 168-169)" supposed to mean? It's current ref 28. We don't use "ibid" on Wikipedia because it is dependent on context, which can change easily. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:09, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Porter's thesis is used once in the article, and I used it because I wanted to quote a bit more info than what the other tag gave. I have now consolidated them because they point to the same page, in fact. Ohconfucius (talk) 13:20, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment – To add to Ealdgyth's sourcing comments, only printed references should have the publisher in italics (Ref 1 from CNN should be adjusted, and there may be others), and reference 20 shouldn't have all-caps in the title. Giants2008 (17–14) 01:04, 29 September 2009 (UTC) all instances of non-print media new changed to normal type. Ohconfucius (talk) 03:22, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I was the one who brought up the issue on the noticeboard, and that I would like to confirm that it is solved, so the removal of the tag is correct. My addition in the lead first needs to be in the body of the article, that was my mistake with it. Hope I'll find the time to do it. Best Regards, --HappyInGeneral (talk) 20:22, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I am involved in the subject of Falun Gong here, if not the content of this article itself, but, based on my own admittedly limited knowledge of the subject I don't myself see anything which would cause me to think it truly fails any FA criteria. John Carter (talk) 22:01, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - This is a very good NPOV version of what was once a POV-laden agenda-pushing article, and should stand as a guiding example for NPOV on this encyclopedia. It meets all the featured article criteria, and all the users involved, especially User OhConfucius, has been working very diligently to make the article the way it is today. He takes into account the views of all editors who have taken an interest in the article, and have made all the changes accordingly, as we note above. Colipon+(Talk) 13:25, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose The lead could be clearer. I was aware that one of the most notable images of the incident was of Liu Siying who is not mentioned by name in the lead, and when she is introduced it is "the young girl burning" even though this is the first mention, so the indefinite article should be used. The Falun Gong are not explained in the lead - and the Background section is similarly unhelpful in explaining who this group are. The video evidence section is not balanced - it is presented in such a way that it is building up evidence that the event was staged - "said to be taken" is directed language, we get a series of unchallenged statements which give the view that the event was staged, supported by an an inset with seven statements; and this is followed by an inappropriately used quote from the Washington Post. The article presents the quote as evidence that the event was staged, yet the quote is used in the source as evidence that the newspaper men where arrested and DID NOT collaborate with the police - that the filming that was shown on TV was from standard CCTV footage that every modern city has. At this point I do not trust the article, and cannot give it my support. SilkTork *YES! 14:27, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'll read the article more closely later and give a fuller assessment, but I will say that at this stage, I've simply glanced at the lead and I still have concerns that Liu Chunling is not mentioned in the lead, even though we now have an image of her in an infobox at the top of the page. And while I'm pleased to see that there is a better introduction to the Falun Gong in the Background section, the lead still doesn't make it clear who they are. SilkTork *YES! 19:10, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I found a couple of WP:LINKVIOs. We should only be linking to newspaper articles on the newspapers' own sites. Unlicensed copies of newspaper articles on Falun Gong websites, academic websites, human rights orgs' websites etc. should not be linked to. Please check through the remaining links. A note like "(C) 2001 The Washington Post", or a website claiming "fair use", is not indication of a license to host the material. However, I believe web pages bearing an explicit statement saying "Reproduced by permission of [original publisher]" or similar may be linked to. JN466 14:12, 6 October 2009 (UTC) I've checked through all the refs now; there was just one other and I've taken it out. The rest look fine. --JN466 17:30, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support now. I think the article has improved a lot over the past few days. I'd invite the earlier oppose voters to re-review it, to see if the concerns they had at the time have been addressed. JN466 17:34, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Leaning to support Support

  • Freaky.
  • I did some copy editing, including a fact tag. It's jarring for someone to do that to my articles, and I apologize, but that needs a cite. I checked the Guardian reference used in other parts of the article, but it did not say what that sentence says it does. Done. It got separated from another piece of text. Ohconfucius (talk) 01:44, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Liu chunling frames.jpg really needs a complete description. I cannot tell what is happening in the series of images. I've expanded the description Ohconfucius (talk) 01:44, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • What is facts.org? I looked at the site but I could not tell who runs it, and its stance on Falun Gong. Is it neutral? Is it fact-checked? This is an anti-FLG site put up by the China Association For Cultic Studies. Is it neutral? Hell no, but it's the party line ;-) Ohconfucius (talk) 01:44, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
interrupted and will return to finish the article and review--- --Moni3 (talk) 20:46, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ok, sorry. To be clear: the image page needs a description of the image, not the caption in the article. I have now added a fuller description as well as a translation of the legend accompanying the image. Ohconfucius (talk) 03:49, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • You might need to help the reader in The victims section with explaining the points you're trying to make. The incident seems to be interpreted liberally by Falun Gong, the Chinese government, and international press. Although you've constructed this section with strong quotes and sources, it helps to anchor these with simple interpretations of the various arguments, particularly in the first two paragraphs. It might help to start the section with a sentence that reads, "Following the incident, the details of why the participants were involved were disputed between representatives of Falun Gong, the Chinese government, and the international press." and start the second paragraph with "Doubts about strident practitioners of Falun Gong revolved around the use of suicide as a form of protest, as the beliefs of Falun Gong forbid it." I would also add a sentence before "Francesco Sisci, ..." to introduce the idea that someone, somewhere, thought it a valid theory that the Chinese government forced, coerced, asked, or somehow persuaded five individuals to light themselves on fire. Added the first two. I recall reading a remark somewhere that the Wang Jindong in the video was wearing fire-proof clothes, but not the other victims. In absence of any accusation that all the victims were coerced or persuaded, I have enlarged the original Sisci quote. Does this work? Ohconfucius (talk) 03:49, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Watch your verb tense change in the third paragraph of this section as well. I'm not wild that writers and magazines are reported to have "said" when they wrote, reported, remarked, stated, but switching to "were saying" is grammatically incompatible and in an article where everyone seems to be saying the other side is lying, seems shifty and untrustworthy. Clarity and precision of language is very important here. I changed one instance of a magazine saying something, when in fact, it's the writer of the magazine article who put it forth. I suggest going through the article to reconcile these issues. I've now worked through all the quotes/beliefs etc. and have hopefully corrected them all. Ohconfucius (talk) 05:40, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can you call someone who consciously makes a decision to sit down, pour gas on himself, and light himself on fire a victim? What is he a victim of? Yes and no. Of course, the government refers to these people as victims of Falun Gong. I saw nothing wrong with that description because even respectable journals often refer to people who commit suicide as 'suicide victims'; those like Chen Guo can be said to be a 'burns victim'. However, I have changed most instances of the word (except reference titles and direct quotes) because it's probably more neutral. Ohconfucius (talk) 03:49, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Aftermath section needs an introductory sentence to ease into the issues you cover. Something like "The incident continues to serve as a significant reason for disputing the methods of Falun Gong in China." Now added. Ohconfucius (talk) 05:40, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is not readily and very strongly apparent soon enough in the lead about why this happened. At any point in an article that references self-immolation in the title, an article will have to address as soon as the date and place are mentioned. Even if it is a phrase or clause "...to protest the perceived unfair treatment from the Chinese government." or something. I agree. Now added, thanks. Ohconfucius (talk) 03:49, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • In reference to facts.org, you should state the first time you use this reference that it is an anti-Falun Gong state-sponsored website, and every time after that, references facts.org. As in, first instance: "State-sponsored anti-Falun Gong website facts.org reports..." and then "According to facts.org..." following that. Now added, thanks. Ohconfucius (talk) 03:49, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

--Moni3 (talk) 13:24, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment The sentence "Liu Yunfang explained that he was unable to burn himself because he had not attained the required spiritual level." has been added to the Incident section. When I first came across this sentence a couple of days ago, I meant to insert it in the same way. Later on, however, I saw this Chinese government source saying, "Liu Yunfang and Liu Baorong were stopped before they could set fire on themselves." Assuming this to be the truth, I no longer felt it was appropriate to add the sentence then. For if Liu Yunfang made the statement at all, it must have been a post-facto rationalisation of why the police were able to stop him, rather than evidence of a lack of willingness or ability on his part to go through with what his companions were going through with (which is the impression currently created). --JN466 19:28, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, according to this, there doesn't seem to be incompatibility between those positions, although I admit to being confused about it when I first read the various apparently conflicting accounts. It does appear to be post-facto, but one could read that his lack of commitment to go through with it (that an enlightened one would have no fear or doubt), which was finally ended by the vigilant and decisive police at the scene. Do the new formulation and ref work? Ohconfucius (talk) 02:00, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, very well done for finding that source; and it is certainly plausible that it might have been hesitation on his part which gave the police the time to stop him. Incidentally, in the case of Liu Baorong, china.org.cn said she explained that her watch malfunctioned.
    • You have done a great job addressing mine and everyone else's earlier concerns; I hope this nomination succeeds. --JN466 10:53, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The issue has come up elsewhere as to what caused the people to decided to use self-immolation, and one theory I have heard that is not addressed here is that it is a copycat action of Tibetan protestors using self-immolation. Could someone address this in the artilce? Nezzadar (speak) 17:49, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Tiananmen_Square_self-immolation_incident/archive1&oldid=1138473849"