Talk:2001 Tiananmen Square self-immolation incident

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by TheSoundAndTheFury (talk | contribs) at 20:14, 26 July 2012 (→Facts.org.cn: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 20:14, 26 July 2012 by TheSoundAndTheFury (talk | contribs) (→Facts.org.cn: new section)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

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
Current status: Featured article

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

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

China 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.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

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).

A fact from this article was featured on Misplaced Pages's Main Page in the On this day section on January 23, 2008, January 23, 2009, and January 23, 2010.

Template:Article probation

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

Archives

Index

Archive 1	Archive 2	Archive 3
Archive 4	Archive 5	Archive 6
Archive 7	Archive 8

This page has archives. Sections older than 60 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present.

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)

There's little need for that bloat. Most of it is already in the 'History of FG' article. As such, the background section makes it difficult to navigate compared to the benefit it brings. --Ohconfucius 04:04, 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 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 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, 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 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 01:12, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

I don't understand what is happening here. This version, 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 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)

Thanks. I'm not going to edit. Obviously there is rarely such a thing as "clear, unambiguous problems" on a page like this. But you knew that. My main proposal, above, remains. The Sound and the Fury (talk) 18:30, 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)

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.

There is some inconsistency in the use of British and American english
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.
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.
The 'background' section, as it stands at the time of writing , is lacking some references. As I raised in a discussion thread 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, 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.
It has been proposed that the background section should contain slightly more information (even more than was in [http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?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.
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.
The 'incident' section does not note that CNN reporters had their tapes confiscated
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.
The government affiliations of the 'China Association for Cultic Studies' is not made clear
A quote from Human Rights Watch does not belong in the section on 'Chinese state media reports'
It was pointed out that the Falun Gong PR immediately after the incident was perhaps more reserved and nuanced than the page currently suggests.
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.
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)
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, 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 (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 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 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 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)

And uh, what are the other POV concerns and how may they be fixed? Specific sentences or sections that need attention is helpful ("blatant propaganda piece" is, unfortunately, not actionable). The Sound and the Fury (talk) 18:55, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Facts.org.cn

This website is cited three times in this article: once for direct Chinese government propaganda , one for a Reuters article 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)

Categories: