Talk:2001 Tiananmen Square self-immolation incident: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively ← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 11:59, 21 September 2017 editInternetArchiveBot (talk \| contribs)Bots, Pending changes reviewers5,386,254 edits Notification of altered sources needing review #IABot (v1.5.3) (FA RotBot)← Previous edit		Latest revision as of 17:00, 24 November 2024 edit undoAidan9382-Bot (talk \| contribs)Bots9,260 editsm Fixed archive location for Lowercase Sigmabot III (More info - Report bot issues)
(23 intermediate revisions by 15 users not shown)
Line 1:		Line 1:
			{{Talk header}}
	<!--{{featured article review\|Tiananmen Square self-immolation incident/archive1}}-->
			{{Contentious topics/talk notice\|topic=fg\|style=long}}
	{{Talk header\|search=y}}
			{{Article history
	{{Ds/talk notice\|topic=fg\|style=long}}
	{{WikiProjectBannerShell\|collapsed=yes\|1=
	{{WPCHINA\|class=FA\|importance=Mid}}
	{{WPReligion\|class=FA\|importance=low\|NRM=yes\|NRMImp=mid\|FalunGong=yes\|FalunGongImp=Top}}
	}}
	{{ArticleHistory
	\|action1=PR		\|action1=PR
	\|action1date=17 September 2007		\|action1date=17 September 2007
Line 30:		Line 25:
	\|action4oldid=319662770		\|action4oldid=319662770

	\| topic = Socsci
	\|currentstatus=FA		\|currentstatus=FA
	\|maindate=April 3, 2012		\|maindate=April 3, 2012
			\|topic = Socsci

			\|otd1date=2008-01-23\|otd1oldid=186315135
			\|otd2date=2009-01-23\|otd2oldid=265908085
			\|otd3date=2010-01-23\|otd3oldid=339530804
			\|otd4date=2016-01-23\|otd4oldid=701190729
			\|otd5date=2017-01-23\|otd5oldid=761526002
			\|otd6date=2019-01-23\|otd6oldid=879826901
			\|otd7date=2021-01-23\|otd7oldid=1002258518
			\|otd8date=2024-01-23\|otd8oldid=1198226193
			}}
			{{WikiProject banner shell\|class=FA\|
			{{WikiProject China\|history=yes\|importance=Mid}}
			{{WikiProject Death\|importance=low\|suicide=yes\|suicide-importance=mid}}
			{{WikiProject Human rights \|importance=High}}
			{{WikiProject Religion\|importance=low\|NRM=yes\|NRMImp=mid\|FalunGong=yes}}
	}}		}}
	{{OnThisDay\|date1=2008-01-23\|oldid1=186315135\|date2=2009-01-23\|oldid2=265908085\|date3=2010-01-23\|oldid3=339530804\|date4=2016-01-23\|oldid4=701190729\|date5=2017-01-23\|oldid5=761526002}}
	{{Notice\|{{find}}}}
	{{User:HBC Archive Indexerbot/OptIn		{{User:HBC Archive Indexerbot/OptIn
	\|target=Talk:Tiananmen Square self-immolation incident/Archive_index		\|target=Talk:Tiananmen Square self-immolation incident/Archive_index
Line 43:		Line 51:
	\|archiveheader = {{talkarchivenav}}		\|archiveheader = {{talkarchivenav}}
	\|maxarchivesize = 100K		\|maxarchivesize = 100K
	\|counter = 7		\|counter = 8
	\|minthreadsleft = 5		\|minthreadsleft = 5
	\|algo = old(60d)		\|algo = old(60d)
	\|archive = Talk:Tiananmen Square self-immolation incident/Archive %(counter)d		\|archive = Talk:2001 Tiananmen Square self-immolation incident/Archive %(counter)d
	}}		}}
	{{Archive box
	\| index=/Archive index
	\| age= 60
	\| collapsible= yes
	\| auto = long
	\| search= yes
	\| collapsed= No
	\| style=
	\| image=
	\| bot= MiszaBot
	}}

	== 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".--] (]) 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. ] (]) 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: . 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. ] (]) 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''. ] (]) 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. ] (]) 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 Misplaced Pages, 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 Misplaced Pages. I earnestly request reconsidering the quility of this article. Thanks. ] (]) 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.--] (]) 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. ] (]) 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 Misplaced Pages 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. ] 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.--] (]) 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. ] (]) 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 .
	*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 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 .
	*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.--] (]) 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. —'''<font color="darkred">Zujine</font>\|]''' 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.] 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 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, , he was invited by falungong to introduce his book.
	--] (]) 20:37, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

	:*“on 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 ], 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. —'''<font color="darkred">Zujine</font>\|]''' 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 Misplaced Pages'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?--] (]) 05:13, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

	The notability guideline relates to articles, not to the sources used in articles. ] 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 ] about Falun Gong are not comparable to when Falun Gong sources make verifiable statements about their own beliefs, though, for example.] 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. ] (]) 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. ] 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. ] (]) 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. ] (]) 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.—'''<font color="darkred">Zujine</font>\|]''' 05:18, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

	Looks like it happened again. 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.] 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.
	] 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.] 14:56, 21 April 2014 (UTC)


	==Huh?==
	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 Misplaced Pages 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. ] 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: 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.—'''<font color="darkred">Zujine</font>\|]''' 21:56, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

	== External links modified ==		== External links modified ==
Line 202:		Line 98:

	Cheers.—] <span style="color:green;font-family:Rockwell">(])</span> 11:59, 21 September 2017 (UTC)		Cheers.—] <span style="color:green;font-family:Rockwell">(])</span> 11:59, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

			== Move discussion in progress ==

			There is a move discussion in progress on ] which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. <!-- Talk:Tiananmen crosspost --> —] 05:30, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

			== Possible changes to keep FA status ==

			*There are apparently a few unsourced sentences or at least lacking in-line citations, including an entire paragraph in the "Falun Gong response" section.
			*Shouldn't this have an infobox?
			<big>]</big> ] 00:54, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 17:00, 24 November 2024

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the 2001 Tiananmen Square self-immolation incident article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8Auto-archiving period: 2 months

The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to Falun Gong, which has been designated as a contentious topic.

Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.

2001 Tiananmen Square self-immolation incident is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Misplaced Pages community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.

This article appeared on Misplaced Pages's Main Page as Today's featured article on April 3, 2012.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
September 17, 2007	Peer review	Reviewed
October 11, 2007	Good article nominee	Listed
August 7, 2008	Good article reassessment	Delisted
October 13, 2009	Featured article candidate	Promoted
Facts from this article were featured on Misplaced Pages's Main Page in the "On this day..." column on January 23, 2008, January 23, 2009, January 23, 2010, January 23, 2016, January 23, 2017, January 23, 2019, January 23, 2021, and January 23, 2024.
Current status: Featured article

This article is rated FA-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

China: History Mid‑importance

	China portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject China, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of China related articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChinaWikipedia:WikiProject ChinaTemplate:WikiProject ChinaChina-related
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Chinese history (assessed as Mid-importance).

Death: Suicide Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Death, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Death on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.DeathWikipedia:WikiProject DeathTemplate:WikiProject DeathDeath
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Suicide task force (assessed as Mid-importance).

Human rights High‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Human rights, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Human rights on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Human rightsWikipedia:WikiProject Human rightsTemplate:WikiProject Human rightsHuman rights
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Religion: Falun Gong / New religious movements Low‑importance

	Religion portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, a project to improve Misplaced Pages's articles on Religion-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.ReligionWikipedia:WikiProject ReligionTemplate:WikiProject ReligionReligion
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is within the scope of Falun Gong work group, a work group which is currently considered to be inactive.
	This article is supported by New religious movements work group (assessed as Mid-importance).

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Tiananmen Square self-immolation incident. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20140706224534/http://culteducation.com/group/1254-falun-gong/6781-one-way-trip-to-the-end-in-beijing.html to http://www.culteducation.com/group/1254-falun-gong/6781-one-way-trip-to-the-end-in-beijing.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—_{Talk to my owner:Online} 03:39, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141028001341/http://www.amnesty.org/en/library/asset/ASA17/011/2000/en/7a361a8e-df70-11dd-acaa-7d9091d4638f/asa170112000en.html to https://www.amnesty.org/en/library/asset/ASA17/011/2000/en/7a361a8e-df70-11dd-acaa-7d9091d4638f/asa170112000en.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:12, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Tiananmen Square self-immolation incident. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:59, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Tiananmen which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 05:30, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

Possible changes to keep FA status

There are apparently a few unsourced sentences or at least lacking in-line citations, including an entire paragraph in the "Falun Gong response" section.
Shouldn't this have an infobox?

Skyshifter 00:54, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

Categories: