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

Browse history interactively ← Previous edit Next edit →Content deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 01:47, 15 April 2010 editOhconfucius (talk \| contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers328,947 editsm →An article built on CCP propaganda ← Previous edit		Revision as of 01:50, 15 April 2010 edit undoAsdfg12345 (talk \| contribs)Pending changes reviewers6,640 edits →An article built on CCP propaganda Next edit →
Line 560:		Line 560:
	:::It's obviously a more complex situation than that; if Reuters did everything the same as a CCP media outlet, no one would find them credible. I think the point Zujine is making (and I agree with it) is that it would be noteworthy to mention that they share ties. To the extent that those ties influenced reporting on this incident, everyone can make up their own minds. I'm under no illusions about the integrity of a company like Reuters, though. --<font style="bold">]</font><font color="black" style="bold">]</font> 01:31, 15 April 2010 (UTC)		:::It's obviously a more complex situation than that; if Reuters did everything the same as a CCP media outlet, no one would find them credible. I think the point Zujine is making (and I agree with it) is that it would be noteworthy to mention that they share ties. To the extent that those ties influenced reporting on this incident, everyone can make up their own minds. I'm under no illusions about the integrity of a company like Reuters, though. --<font style="bold">]</font><font color="black" style="bold">]</font> 01:31, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
	:::*I think it is absolutely wrong, and typical of the fallacious arguments which are employed here to rule out or impugn sources unfavourable to FLG, to seek to remove or otherwise cast doubt on the Reuters coverage. The conditions, namely that they are to report only under supervision and without questions, the alleged participant in the hospital room, are clearly stated in the article. Although we know that the Chinese censor and stage-manage, this is something universal to most political parties, and happens almost everywhere, even in the hallowed West. I defy anyone who can show me just one political event that is not stage-managed. People are quite capable of making that judgement for themselves whether the PRC/CCP are manipulating, based on the reported circumstances - which, quite frankly, are more transparent that most reports coming from anywhere else in the free world. ] ] 01:44, 15 April 2010 (UTC)		:::*I think it is absolutely wrong, and typical of the fallacious arguments which are employed here to rule out or impugn sources unfavourable to FLG, to seek to remove or otherwise cast doubt on the Reuters coverage. The conditions, namely that they are to report only under supervision and without questions, the alleged participant in the hospital room, are clearly stated in the article. Although we know that the Chinese censor and stage-manage, this is something universal to most political parties, and happens almost everywhere, even in the hallowed West. I defy anyone who can show me just one political event that is not stage-managed. People are quite capable of making that judgement for themselves whether the PRC/CCP are manipulating, based on the reported circumstances - which, quite frankly, are more transparent that most reports coming from anywhere else in the free world. ] ] 01:44, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
			::::Sorry, "anywhere ''else'' in the free world"? So China is free now? This point of view explains ''a lot.'' I see absolutely nothing wrong with mentioning Reuter's relationship with the CCP. As you say, people can make up their own mind. --<font style="bold">]</font><font color="black" style="bold">]</font> 01:49, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Revision as of 01:50, 15 April 2010

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

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.

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

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

China Low‑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
Low	This article has been rated as Low-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

	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
???	This article has not yet received a rating 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.

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.

New section titles

I don't think the new section titles are at all helpful. First of all, the 'Beyond the Limits of Forbearance' title got changed to Falun Gong and self-immolation, now it disappears altogether into a section called 'The dispute'. Let's not forget that Falun Gong disputes the who thing, but to get into a sensible analysis of it, we need to separate the story into two main discrete elements - that is to say the identity of the self-immolators and the video footage. The 'Dispute' section really needs to be changed back into the 'victims', self-immolators, or somesuch to bring the focus back on the individuals involved. Then, I think the role played by 'Beyond the Limits of Forbearance' is not insignificant, and needs to be reinstated as a section in its own right and not a sub-section of 'Dispute'. I know we are going through a thought process here, and I believe it will end up full circle again. Ohconfucius (talk) 01:55, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree there needs to be a section on the people involved (not "victims" but people) - and that section should include the two who have been tried for their involvement in the incident but were not there on the day. The section that was named "The self-immolators" was about the dispute rather than the people involved - and (as I indicate above) not all those involved in the incident were self-immolators - so seems appropriate to give it a more specific title. Also, there are two main threads to this incident and article - the self-immolation itself, and the dispute arising from it. As the dispute is a major aspect of the incident, it seems not just appropriate but necessary that we have a section which deals with the dispute. The question is how we deal with it. After I read and then retitled the Dispute section I considered that the Falun Gong and self-immolation section is actually part of the dispute - Falun Gong are disputing that the self-immolation was done by Falun Gong practitioners "because" of what is said in the Falun Gong and self-immolation section.

My thinking at the moment is that the large chart, a very helpful and clear device to explain who is who, should be placed in a new section, possibly named "People involved", and that section should go into detail about those people already mentioned in the chart and the two others. There is additional information about them that is not currently in the article (such as their preparations for the self-immolation - visiting the site in advance, etc), and it would be helpful to trace them through from "planning" to trial/hospitalisation.

If the chart is to be called "people involved" perhaps the police close to the incident and those who video taped the original footage should be listed as well. Surely they were instrumental in the entire incident and were "people involved". Actually, I personally would rather see the section renamed with the use of the word "victims", e.g. "victims involved", as someone suggested early on. "People involved" is a sweeping statement.

AnnaInDC (talk) 10:49, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

In addition, the dispute section should be revisited to see if it can be presented in a clearer manner. Those of you who have been involved in this topic for years know what is going on, and what the arguments are - but as someone new to this I have been struggling to make sense of who says what and why. The dispute section should indicate clearly the claims made by the Chinese government, the counter claims by the Falun Gong, and then outside commentary on these claims - and advising readers of the stance and involvement of outside commentators. For example, Schechter is mentioned by name four times in the article, the first time we are told he is a "journalist", but then we are left to work out for ourselves who he is and why he is being quoted so much. In the dispute section it might be useful to explain who some of these major players actually are - especially if they have been named in the lead.

The aim is not just to make this a clear, readable, helpful and neutral article, but to bring it up to FA status, and at the moment an outsider who has worked closely on the article for a few days and been doing a considerable amount of background reading still feels a bit lost! The nature of the incident, and the awkwardness of the sources, means this is a trickier article than normal to work on, and I have a lot of admiration for those of you who have worked on this for years - especially Ohconfucius, who seems determined to be as fair, accurate and neutral as possible. SilkTork * 09:39, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

OK, I see where you are headed with this. Yes, I've been involved with this article faaaar too long, and I saw the challenge to get it to FA was not only for the article itself, but with a mind to creating a modus operandum for all the FG articles (which, incidentally, have all been heavily conflict-ridden), but I realised that I am so heavily invested in this that I take many things for granted, which is where you come in, thank you. Trust has also been an issue: FG editors are like what you have read in, for example, Ownby and Kavan. Their defenses are at DEFCON4 if not 5. There have been belligerent FG opponents as well as FG supporters who have always made matters worse, as I have ended up fighting off both sides until I decided one day that I had had enough, but I digress.

Anyway, to underline how the dispute runs right through this article, if we were to just talk about the CCTV footage, it is clear that False Fire deconstruction is a key opposing element. As to the individuals involved, the govt supplies history and background and epilogue for most of them, but FG doesn't really have much solid evidence that they were not practitioners (hardly surprising, the nature of the amorphous and diffuse FG 'beast'), thus they tend to fall back on the video evidence. Then, there are the third party comments/views. I for one have always shuddered at the overuse of Schechter, but it is a source which the FG editors insist upon, and I can see why: he is a journalist with some HR credentials, and, from having read everything I can obtain for free that he has written, he seems to regurgitate the Falun Gong line, whilst always adding his own flourish. For FG, he is highly credible spokesmen for their cause. However, I don't find Schechter particularly insightful (because everything he says appears in some FG publication or website somewhere) his flourishes send the WP:NPOV red light. I can cite, for example how Philip Pan wrote that Liu Chunling was "troubled", but after Schechter got hold of it, she became someone "with mental problems". Ohconfucius (talk) 10:38, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

FAC commentary post promotion

I think it is a bit premature to state that the current version of the article is of FA class since there are still statements like: "Female, music teacher, practitioner since 1997". This things are serious, because those people who jump to the table will take for a fact the PRC version of the events. --HappyInGeneral (talk) 07:31, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

The only thing I could think of to address your concern would be to add after "State media gave the participants' details as follows:", or after the table itself, something like "Falun Gong denies the participants were movement members". While I think the article gives sufficient context as it is, I would not object to adding something like this before or after the table. JN466 14:20, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, for now I think I need to go back to /sources, as I know Karen (from UN) is not included and I suspect that there quite a few more sources out there. --HappyInGeneral (talk) 14:27, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

If you look back at an earlier version, you will see that another Falun Gong single purpose account decided to do away with the table of people involved because he considered it unreliable propaganda/slander. The fact that it was utterly pertinent, properly sourced and attributed mattered little to him, however, he hypocritically used the same rationale (ie properly sourced and attributed) when it suited him even when the relevance of his insertions were more problematic; he forced and bullied his way - I am not suggesting you, Happy, are like him in the latter respect. SilkTork perceived there was much in the article which 'forced views upon the reader' at every turn that FLG was not involved. Following his advice, I was emboldened to remove quite a few instances of FLG denials or similar which I had previously been reticent to touch for fear of adversely affecting the the neutrality that I perceived in the article at the time. Now I realise that it created an excessively convoluted article structure, with constant backwards and forwards. Neutrality does not mean truth, it just means views presented in an objective fashion. Please be reminded that we are writing for Misplaced Pages - this is not about 'truth, compassion and forbearance', validating or defending the Fa. Misplaced Pages is about verifiability and attribution over truth. Ohconfucius (talk) 02:22, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

As for the past we can bring up too many things (quick sample) but I don't think that we want to live in the past. Do you agree? --HappyInGeneral (talk) 11:22, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree with what Ohconfucius says. Misplaced Pages is not like many other forms of publication - we do not originate material, nor argue nor persuade nor investigate nor do many of the things that people often associate with published articles. The aim is to reflect material that has already been published. We do not wish to comment on that material, either directly with editorial comments, nor by presenting it in a manner that implies we support or disagree with the material. What we want to do with this article is say: this event has been reported - this is what sources have said happened. And in doing that we want to be sure we are giving proportionate and balanced space to what sources have to say. In the process of presenting information on what happened, it is inevitable that we will present material that a Falun Gong member would object to as well as material that the Chinese government would object to. But we are not deciding who is right and who is wrong - we are letting the reader make up their own mind by giving the reader the information. Now, if a government source says that a person comes from a certain town, has a certain name, and belongs to a certain group, we report that. And then we report that some aspects of that information is contested. But we do need to first report what has been said. We cannot pick and choose which of the government information not to report. That would be wrong. SilkTork * 09:48, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Well said SikTork, I definitely agree. That is why I started to work on /sources. Right now I believe that this is a powerful way to map out what is WP:DUE. What do you think? --HappyInGeneral (talk) 11:10, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

I can see the fallacy straight away: we all know how prolific both Falun Gong and the Chinese authorities are on the subject... Playing arithmetic, except for mainstream media possibly weighted by the respective readdership (and even that is problematic), means very little. Ohconfucius (talk) 11:40, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

In the /sources list, I tried to deal with that from the start, placing sources into WP:SPS, secondary sources and high reliable sources. That is basically an attempt to give the source some kind of weight and categorization. Now if we have 100 links from one source saying 1 thing, that will still give it a weight 1, not 100, right? Anyway, for the moment, I think it's best to list all that we think are relevant. After that we can decide how to include them based on their WP:DUE. At this point I'm not sure why you claim fallacy over this. Maybe I understood something wrong? --HappyInGeneral (talk) 11:50, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Just quickly, after a brief scan, it appears that there are serious NPOV concerns with parts of the article in its current form. One thing that strikes me as particularly odd is the large table, drawn from CCP propaganda, which attempts to sum up the people involved and their alleged Falun Gong credentials, along with thumbnail pics etc. This totally violates WP:DUE. Chinese state media is not a reliable source on the topic of the persecution of Falun Gong, or on Falun Gong. The addition of propaganda from CCP sources should be done with circumspection, and done carefully, and be clearly labelled. Having a giant table gives the opposite impression, and makes these sources appear much more authoritative than they are. Suggest summarising the information in prose form, noting all discrepancies with other research (which are also sidelined in this format).--Asdfg12345 01:38, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

I read SilkTork's and OhConfucius's comments. Understood. A key point is still that CCP mouthpieces discussing this topic are not reliable sources. At the moment the way things are presented in the article gives the impression that the information is authoritative. This isn't an opinion, since there is a huge amount of literature about China's extensive propaganda and censorship system. Discussing this topic, one of the most sensitive for propaganda and public security officials in China, outside the context of the repression of Falun Gong and the propaganda war waged against it--all totally verifiable etc.--would be to warp the discussion and give undue weight to unreliable sources. Anyway, I think the devil is in the detail, really. When we talk about anything in the article, like the people involved, it should be with a mind to including all relevant information. We shouldn't present as authoritative the official account of the people, then group all the third party comments about the incident and the people and other issues together. Know what I mean? Every aspect of this is disputed, and on every point the range of views that have been circulated need to be conveyed (in accordance with to what extent they've been adopted by the various sources of course). So what I mean is, I suggest the part about the people involved not just take the CCP info, but be based on all the information available from various sources. Failure to do this would be to elevate an unreliable source as presenting facts, which violates wikipedia policies.--Asdfg12345 01:56, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

I am unable to find the actual context for the phrase "At the same time, though, Li repeated many times in his post-1999 writings that practitioners were good and moral people who "obey the law and the government."" added by this edit, in that I cannot verify whether it is indeed in relation to his post-1999 scriptures. Can anyone help verify this, please? The only bits in the book I can access through Google states "He insists over and over that practitioners are good people who obey the law and government. Their hearts are pure, and they have something to offer..." I think that regardless of this, Li clearly expects his followers to pay greater heed to his word rather than that of the authorities, so its place in this text is rather irrelevant and bordering on synthesis. Ohconfucius 08:31, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Page 190 is about the 1999 demonstration in Zhongnanhai: You can read on from there to page 191. I have a hardcopy of the book too, so if you need anything further that isn't in google books, just ask. --JN466 21:00, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

The long speech quoted on page 191 is from a news conference in Sydney on May 2 1999. If you have an amazon customer account, the book has a fully searchable preview in amazon. --JN466 21:10, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

I cannot access the online sources. It would be great if you could email the scan of the two pages to me. Ohconfucius at hotmail. Cheers, Ohconfucius 02:33, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

section changes

Hello, I think since over 9 years have gone by, it has become clear that self immolation is not a part of Falun Gong. There has been a lot (more than a lot) of evidence that Falun Gong is severely persecuted by the Chinese government and that he self immolation was more than likely a staged event. Western journalists have gone to investigate and found that several people involved were not "practitioners" of Falun Gong. This is noted in the Wiki entry but buried below. Can we put that up closer in the introduction? (This isn't really a disputed issue anymore) Also, I think with so many Chinese media sources being cited, it is not an unbiased review of the event. As most know, Chinese media is state run. CCTV and Xinhua news are not "reliable sources" as required by Wiki. There have been books and articles published more recently that cast more than a serious doubt on the self immolation being a something related to Falun Gong but more likely something related to the Chinese government's attempt to create propaganda to use in banning the movement. As noted in the Wiki article already (but buried below), western journalists were not allowed to investigate immediately after the incident and most articles published right after that period mimic CCTV and Xinhua news sources which again, are not "reliable" as they are state run by the Chinese dictatorship.

Further, there is no evidence that any of the the people/victims involved where Falun Gong practitioners other than this is what was reported by Chinese run media sources. A couple of them being called practitioners in the Center Table with Photos, while several clearly were not does not make sense. Claiming that the victims were "practitioners" should be removed. In fact, if several were proven not to be practitioners by western journalists, the article should be revised.

Lastly, I am just getting the hang of using Wiki so please be patient with my attempts to edit. I hope to be able to find your messages if you send them. Thank you!

AnnaInDC (talk) 10:49, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Your changes were distinctly non-NPOV. It is by no means clear they were not FLG practitioners, although this is what FLG organisation maintains. Although you cited Pan, mainly, the changes you made are straight out of The Epoch Times. Just because FLG is persecuted by the Chinese regime does not mean that FLG are always right, either - those two are independent. I have once again reverted you. Ohconfucius 02:22, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Please explain why you reverted the changes, each change at a time. I did not use Epoch Times. For example, I added a direct link to NTDTV and provided my reasons for doing so. It is in line with the trend set up of directly linking to the media source, as done with Xinhua, CCTV and Washington Post. Please explain why you reverted this change. I also replaced the link to New Religion with qigong. Would you like to have both links exist in that sentence? Falung Gong is a know qigong. Please explain why you reverted this. Also, checking Falun Dafa Information Center, a respected source, they claimed that 2 of the self immolators where investigated and were not seen practicing Falun Gong, as investigated by journalist Philip Pan: http://www.faluninfo.net/article/837/ This investigation is a basis of their bebuking the incident, not merely that it is "considered a sin" which is a hookie and weak claim. I've read the neutral point of view policy and it says Misplaced Pages requires that "significant views" be published. The point of view of the Falun Dafa Information Center is a significant view and should be included in the intro in an abbreviated but complete form, not just cherry picking the weakest points (e.g. killing is a sin). Please see above link for all complete points rebuking self immolation incident listed. AnnaInDC (talk) 04:14, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

It's very disturbing to see, years after trying to mediate these pages, that new editors are still inserting exactly the same language. It's enough to make one think that there is off-site direction happening, down to which references to use. 76.102.12.35 (talk) 04:18, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

"As most know, Chinese media is state run. CCTV and Xinhua news are not "reliable sources" as required by Wiki." By the same logic NTDTV and faluninfo.net are FLG-run media outlets, ergo not reliable sources, ergo should not be included (hey, it's your own logic!). "there is no evidence that any of the the people/victims involved where Falun Gong practitioners" There is no (solid) evidence that they aren't either. It's a matter of China says yes, FLG says no, and this is exactly what this article conveys. "Falung Gong is a know qigong." citation needed (and no, just because FLG say it is doesn't mean it is). If for once you FLG practitioners could actually be fair and apply the same principles to both sides it wouldn't be such a pain to deal with these conflicts. --antilived 05:14, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Antilived, "by the same logic", should the references to Xinhau and CCTV be removed? Why is it alright to extensively refernece Xinhau and CCTV with direct links on the page to them and not alright to reference NTDVT? Also, you wrote for reasons for reverting to the old version that I was refering to "a dead woman to be a whore... really?" This is not the content I added. Lui's profession was of someone who worked in a nightclub, which is what I added. See: "The mother was a quiet woman who kept to herself, the daughter a lively fifth-grader who never failed to smile and say hello. Neighbors recalled there was something both strange and sad about Liu Chunling, that she sometimes hit her child, that she drove her elderly mother away, that she worked in a nightclub and took money to keep men company." This article is a 3rd part investigation and was not referenced in this long Wiki entry. I have added it. Please leave it as it is a 3rd party source. AnnaInDC (talk) 05:53, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

I think you have missed my point there. By your logic NO sources would be allowed since it's mainly a battle between Chinese and FLG propaganda. I have not said anything about NTDTV other than applying your own logic on yourself, and indeed it is cited extensively in the FLG sections of the article. There has been extensive coverage on the doubts of the victims being practitioners, there is no need to relentlessly repeat what is basically the same thing (other than the allegation of Liu Chunling being a prostitute, which is bad taste for a deceased woman and although it no longer applies, I still think WP:BLP has some good points on this). Also, all of the allegations in your article are hearsays by neighbours. Don't know about you but I definitely wouldn't trust my neighbours to do my biography. Misplaced Pages does not REQUIRE the inclusion of every single third party source (it'd then be something WP is not). If it's redundant (doubts of practitioner-ness? Check. And that's probably it), why include it? --antilived 05:59, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Since yesterday, this article has come under "concerted" attack from a single-purpose account and other IP editors with an obvious FLG perspective. Misplaced Pages is about verifiability and not truth. It is accepted that there is little possibility of objective reporting in this situation. Nowhere is it claimed that Chinese state media or Falun Gong-controlled media, both cited in abundance in this article, are reliable sources, but these sources merely advance the position of two opposing sides. How fresh it is to see use of a nine-year-old source as the main piece of evidence to show that "it has become clear that self immolation is not a part of Falun Gong". As to you saying "I was refering to 'a dead woman to be a whore... really?' This is not the content I added" – thanks to the transparency of wikipedia, that comment can easily be shown to be a lie. Ohconfucius 10:13, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for leaving the link to NTDTV. This is in line with the other direct links to the other media companies mentioned in the article. As you pointed out, most sources on this issue are 9 years old. Your first reference is not from FDI (though attribute to FDI) but from a Falun Gong practice website. That killing is "condisered a sin" is not a FACT, yet you have picked this as a main reason FDI rebuked the self-immolation incident. After the incident was extensively investigated, other reasons are now the main premise attributing it to being staged or not related to the burning of Falun Gong pracitioners and you have not presented those upfront. See bullet points herein:http://www.faluninfo.net/article/837/ Also, WP:BLP requires senstivity toward living people and that the same common sense can be applied to the deceased. However, "nighclub worker" as Lui worked in a night club was her profession, "that she worked in a nightclub and took money to keep men company." I have not added the more subjective observation that she took money from men to the caption.

Also, I am perceiving a high degree of obvious OWNERSHIP attribute to this article by past editors such as OhConfucious wherein reason for reverting all the additions or changes made are not even given. A request for citation of a reliable source is also being ignored and reverted. The references cited are 9 years old, even outdated and the more updated references on this subject are ignored and should be included. AnnaInDC (talk) 15:05, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

See my response to Asfdg for the prostitute issue. In short, Washington Post didn't say she's a prostitute, Washington Post said it heard from her neighbour that she works in a night club and is a prostitute (big difference there!). Now before you start accusing people of owning the article, edit-warring is a bigger no no. Two wrongs do not make a right (just like just because CCP engages in propaganda doesn't justify FLG to do the same). --antilived 07:42, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

The section Falun Gong and Self Immolation should be deleted. It references an Institue of Cultic Studies based in China as a primary reference and cites this link which is not for said "Institute" nor a RELIABLE source:http://www.facts.org.cn/Feature/hand/Cases/200904/t90507.htm This anti-Falun Gong propaganda and not VERIFIABLE. Also the section reads like an ORIGINAL SYNTHESIS. Self Immolation practices in Buddhism are irrelevant here. After 9 years self immolation as related to Falun Gong is has been disproven. In otherwords, there is no such thing as "Falun Gong and Self Immolation" which this section as synthesized based on an obscure website used by the Chinese Government to spread anti-FalunGong propoganda. AnnaInDC (talk) 15:19, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Also, thus far, I've obvserved blind reverting of new contributions. Instead of reverting the changes without consideration for other points of you, why don't you help incorporate the additional information or views (such as those note above) in a way you feel is appropriate and would benefit readers seeking balanced and updated information on this subject. For example, this article by P. Pan is not cited or discussed, also, the book by Proffessor David Ownby published in 2008,"Falun Gong and the Future of China" (an updated source) where he researches and discusses extensively about the self immolation incident is not cited or discussed. remarked it was possible for misguided practitioners to have taken it upon themselves to demonstrate in this manner." This is by no means a conclusion of the 200+ page book or the points he makes therein, yet you have cherry picked this statement to support what appears is a personal point of view. I suppose if more statements from the book are added, you will revert those?]. In summary, this article appears to rely extensively on old sources including those generated and copied from Chinese media around 2001/2002 and are given UNDUE WEIGHT, independent western media investigations cited herein are few and new sources for citation on this topic have been ignored and should be incorporated. AnnaInDC (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 16:33, 15 February 2010 (UTC).

The burden is on you to provide why it should be included, not on me for why it shouldn't be included. Also, who is this "you" you are talking about? Me? Ohconfucius? Before you start accusing us non-FLG practitioners of malice and lumping us together, read WP:AGF and WP:ETIQUETTE please. --antilived 07:42, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

section changes

Lastly, I am just getting the hang of using Wiki so please be patient with my attempts to edit. I hope to be able to find your messages if you send them. Thank you!

AnnaInDC (talk) 10:49, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Your changes were distinctly non-NPOV. It is by no means clear they were not FLG practitioners, although this is what FLG organisation maintains. Although you cited Pan, mainly, the changes you made are straight out of The Epoch Times. Just because FLG is persecuted by the Chinese regime does not mean that FLG are always right, either - those two are independent. I have once again reverted you. Ohconfucius 02:22, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Please explain why you reverted the changes, each change at a time. I did not use Epoch Times. For example, I added a direct link to NTDTV and provided my reasons for doing so. It is in line with the trend set up of directly linking to the media source, as done with Xinhua, CCTV and Washington Post. Please explain why you reverted this change. I also replaced the link to New Religion with qigong. Would you like to have both links exist in that sentence? Falung Gong is a know qigong. Please explain why you reverted this. Also, checking Falun Dafa Information Center, a respected source, they claimed that 2 of the self immolators where investigated and were not seen practicing Falun Gong, as investigated by journalist Philip Pan: http://www.faluninfo.net/article/837/ This investigation is a basis of their bebuking the incident, not merely that it is "considered a sin" which is a hookie and weak claim. I've read the neutral point of view policy and it says Misplaced Pages requires that "significant views" be published. The point of view of the Falun Dafa Information Center is a significant view and should be included in the intro in an abbreviated but complete form, not just cherry picking the weakest points (e.g. killing is a sin). Please see above link for all complete points rebuking self immolation incident listed. AnnaInDC (talk) 04:14, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Quick analysis of some reverts

AnnaInDC is no sock of mine, just to be clear. I'm also not going to be a cheerleader for anyone who adds what appears to be "pro-FLG" content. But I am interested in this discussion, and I looked at one set of changes. I'll write what the edits were and whether I think they were appropriate per wiki content policies. Note that in italics are the edits or changes that AnnaInDC made; they were all reverted in this particular skirmish.

Example 1 (where the new editor is called out as a possible "Falun Gong propagandist"):

changing a description of Xinhua from "press agency" to "state media" -- probably not necessary, given it's already described as "official Chinese". But somewhere in the article a clarification that Xinhua is the CCP's official "throat and tongue" (mouthpiece) would be helpful to the reader, along with the background of the propaganda campaign that particular publication lead.
changing Falun Gong from being described as a "new religious movement" to a "qigong movement" -- what's wrong with this? Ownby, Penny, and even Palmer subscribe to this view. I think it should be left. "Qigong" has far more scholarly support than NRM. If that's disputed, let's see some good sources.
adding and at least two of the victims were never seen practicing Falun Gong, as reported by the Washington Post -- it's also unclear what's wrong with this.
putting a citation tag -- unclear what's wrong with this.
adding that "The video footage was deconstructed into slow motion"' -- unclear what's wrong with that
removing the claims, used in the anti-Falun Gong propaganda campaign (and that description, "anti-Falun Gong propaganda," is given by scholars, not me), that the individuals were practitioners since 199x -- this is removing the bias from the table. It was a clear violation of WP:DUE to have those state media descriptions in a prominent, official looking table like that. That should be obvious
adding an explanation that she "took money to keep men company" -- why should this be deleted?

Okay, those were all the changes in italics, and my thoughts in plain font, for what it's worth. That was just for one edit. The changes do not seem tendentious. The hostile response, particularly to a newcomer, and willingness to edit war rather than discuss the changes are the actual problem, in my view, not these individuals edits.--Asdfg12345 05:08, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Example 2 (this time I will just explain what the revert was and a remark about it in brackets. Reason Antilived gives for revert is "because it's mostly irrelevant"):

removes tags
reverts that she was a night club worker in the caption
changes "press agency" to "state media" (I think that's fine)
changes "qigong" to "NRM" (violates V)
removes that "at least two of the victims were never seen practicing Falun Gong, as reported by the Washington Post" (unclear why this should be removed? It's not explained.)
removes the fact that the video was "deconstructed in slow motion" (is that a disputed or controversial description of the contents of the video in question?)
adds that they were "practitioners since 199x" (obviously violates NPOV/DUE for including the propaganda claims in an official looking table, as noted above)
deletes elaboration of the Post "took money to keep men company remark' (the reason for this is unclear)

These actually look like a very similar set of edits. As far as I can see, Antilived and Ohconfucius haven't made clear what is problematic or POV-pushing about AnnaInDC's changes. Instead she is told to take her "FLG propaganda campaign elsewhere," which strikes me as rather uncollegial.

Further remarks: The use of propaganda sources for factual information is troubling (such as that of Xinhua in the lead). There are also some original syntheses, and a general departure from WP:DUE in the article as a whole. I will elaborate on both those points in a later post. One point is the synthesis violations; the other is the WP:DUE violations. The second will take a bit longer to prepare, but to cut a long story short, refer to Ownby's treatment of the subject in Falun Gong and the Future of China pp. 215-218. That's fairly neutral. This wikipedia page is not.--Asdfg12345 05:46, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Finally, some of the explanations for removing the content are nonsensical by wikipedia's content standards. The explanation for excluding parts of Philip Pan's investigation, according to Antilived, is that "There has been extensive coverage on the doubts of the victims being practitioners, there is no need to relentlessly repeat what is basically the same thing (other than the allegation of Liu Chunling being a prostitute, which is bad taste for a deceased woman and although it no longer applies, I still think WP:BLP has some good points on this). Also, all of the allegations in your article are hearsays by neighbours. Don't know about you but I definitely wouldn't trust my neighbours to do my biography." -- the added information was a few sentences, I don't think that's "relentlessly repeating"; BLP is obviously irrelevant; and the "hearsay by neighbours" and the quality of neighbours as biographers is also irrelevant, since those were reported by Philip Pan in his article, which is a reliable source for the purposes of wikipedia. The information excluded was "and at least two of the victims were never seen practicing Falun Gong, as reported by the Washington Post" (from the lead) and that she "took money to keep men company". This appears to be sourced, relevant information, presented in a straightforward way. The reason for removing it does not stand up to scrutiny, in my estimate.--Asdfg12345 06:01, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Now before you start lawyering me about how BLP doesn't apply because she's dead, let me ask you: what is the purpose of WP:BLP? To protect someone's namesake from baseless slander and libel is the correct answer. In that regard, does it really make any difference if the person is alive or dead (other than Misplaced Pages's liability)? Don't you think spreading the rumour that a dead woman is a prostitute disgusting? Yes, they were reported by Philip Pan, but he reported the neighbours saying those things, and have been perfectly clear on that, giving the reader warning to apply a pinch of salt. "her neighbours say..." is VERY different from "she is... because we've investigated...". He does not personally endorse the comment, and gives big caveat before the quote. Take that out of context, and you make it sound like Washington Post said she's a prostitute, when it's merely Washington Post reporting her neighbours saying she's a prostitute. (hope you see the difference there). As for the "practitioner since.." thing, you seemed to be fine with it here... A big caveat is given before the table; we aren't presenting it as facts but as what Xinhua has said. As Xinhua is the only one to release information on the "victims", how is it undue to include what they have said about the centre piece of this whole incident, the victims? I personally don't care about the other edits, but in the face of Anna's repeated edit-warring (she has far exceeded WP:3RR) I've simply reverted her changes to promote discussion. --antilived 07:08, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

In my experience, discussion does not rely on reverting someone's changes. I don't know how that is supposed to work. About what you said, yes, I can see what you mean. Neighbours are just neighbours. But this is wikipedia, and WPost is a reliable source. It's very easy to have a few words in there "according to neighbours interviewed" or whatever it is. You could make a change like that rather than reverting, right? Wouldn't that be a nicer way of handling the issue? I think so. Regarding the table, please see this part of UNDUE: "Misplaced Pages aims to present competing views in proportion to their representation in reliable sources on the subject. This applies not only to article text, but to images, wikilinks, external links, categories, and all other material as well." -- under the circumstance where the issue of whether they are practitioners or not is precisely what is in dispute, it's obviously biased to put that information in a table, making it look very neat and official. Xinhua's reports on this topic are anti-Falun Gong propaganda; not a reliable source. I don't think anyone is disputing that. I also don't see how presenting such propaganda claims that way is neutral. In fact, I disagree with having a table at all, as long as all that information if from Xinhua and has not been verified by any other source. Also, saying the editor has edit warred, and you are simply reverting him/her (I want to clarify that, it's annoying using the slash or calling "her" when not sure), is a cop out. The real issue is the subject of the changes. I numbered them above. Please feel free to respond, perhaps clearly explaining your objection in terms of relevant policy. I totally don't understand why you are bringing up BLP here. She's dead, apparently.--Asdfg12345 09:19, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

I told you I don't really care about the other edits since they are so minor, as 80% of the edit is the insertion of the nightclub thing. It is removed because I have the decency to not to baselessly cast a dead woman's name in negative light, and that it is completely irrelevant to the incident. Tell me, how does whether she is a prostitute or not matter? The view that she is a prostitute is of the neighbour's and neighbour's alone (ie. fringe view until it's proven to be more widespread), Washington Poste does not endorse it but merely reported such view exists. To put in such a serious claim as truth when it's merely hearsay is a grievous attack on her (deceased) person, and as it is completely unconstructive to the content it should be immediately removed. As for the table; as Xinhua is the only source of information on the victims and was a major player in creating the controversy, how is it undue to state what they have stated about the centre piece of this incident? The whole thing is a China vs. FLG fight, and that is reflected in the article with opposing views having their own sections. This is journalism, in the same vein that Philip Pan reported the neighbour's view, we are reporting both Xinhua's and FLG released information. We do not and should not judge whether it's true or not, whether it's propaganda or not, merely that it exists, can be traced to a significant party, and report as it came from that party. The rest should be left to the reader to decide. --antilived 09:56, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

I think at this point it would be helpful to get the views of outside editors. If you still dispute including that information about the woman from Pan, let's take it to a noticeboard and get another opinion. Same with including Xinhua propaganda in the table. I think it's obvious that that format of presentation violates the undue and NPOV policies, and I explained why. If we can't agree, let's take it to the NPOV board and see what others think. Agree?--Asdfg12345 10:32, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Of course I dispute it, as you (or Anna) still have not stated why it should be included (the burden of proof is on you to say why it should be included, not on me on why it should be removed). Feel free to ask for outside editors' help (although I can hardly say I'm "inside"), but this is not a matter of NPOV or not. Anna inserted slanderous material on a dead woman that's completely irrelevant to the article, and I have deleted it. It's simple as that, no FLG politic involved (unless you wish to admit that you are/she is trying to discredit her by alleging her to be a prostitute). --antilived 02:07, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Generally, if it's sourced, neutrally worded, and relevant, there's grounds for including it. The reasons you've offered for keeping it out don't make sense. I'm not alleging she's a prostitute, neither, as far as I can tell, is AnnaInDC. The point is to accurately transmit the research of third parties on the background of one of the immolators. It's relevant that she took money to keep men company. Please stop trying to keep that information out. Saying it's slanderous of a dead woman in China makes no sense.--Asdfg12345 08:04, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

You still haven't answered my question: how is it relevant? What are the grounds of including it? Do we need the occupation, date of birth, blood type, star sign, their favourite food and favourite colour for every one of these "victims"? Why does her occupation of night club worker matter? How does alleging her to "take money to keep men company" help with a reader reading on this incident? You say it's relevant and has its grounds but NEVER said why it's relevant, what are the grounds for its inclusion? It's nice to see you so vehemently defend a single purpose account's edit and suggest the removal of a section, which that single purpose account promptly removed too. --antilived 08:46, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Not only are these 'neighbours' unidentified/anonymous, verbal testimonies of this nature should be regarded with extreme caution. Any journalist snooping around searching for information on a 'suspected Falun Gong believer' would raise defensive comments from interviewers. It is well conceivable to be neighbours with somebody without knowing anything about them. It is only natural that those who genuinely know would want to distance themselves; those who don't might be inclined to bluff it. Ohconfucius 09:42, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

And yes, Anna did assert, in this little piece of original research, that she was a prostitute. Now can we move on? Ohconfucius 10:00, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

The information about the woman is relevant because it is part of the argumentation that seeks to show that she was not a Falun Gong practitioner. Pan said it, not me or AnnaInDC. I don't know why we are indulging in the speculation about the reliability of neighbours and whatever else. If it's in a reliable source, and it's relevant, then what's the issue? Such argumentation is notable because it pops up in Falun Gong sources, and also in those who argue that the immolators were not "real practitioners." It's a small piece of info. Regarding the veracity of neighbours etc., I would not have a problem with the logic you're both employing, but the giant problem with that is that it's going to diverge on different issues, and there's no rule for saying which logic should be dominant in which situation. Someone thinks something makes sense, someone else doesn't. It won't work as a methodology. I have stated why I believe it's relevant (I thought I had already, apologies for not being clear sooner), and no one disputes that it's sourced, is the conclusion that you both still oppose it? If so I'll open a note on the RS noticeboard (or should it be NPOV?) PS: I don't support the note that she was a prostitute; that's a possible reading of the source, but not explicit in it. Whatever's quoted or paraphrased should be very close to, or the same as the source. If you both still disagree with including the note from Pan about the woman, please advise whether you believe it's a NPOV issue, or a RS issue. I'll take it to the relevant board. Since you (plural) are disputing it, you'll need to point out exactly what's in dispute, so I can seek to resolve it. If outside editors agree with what you're saying, of course I'll drop it. It's just a novel form of argumentation for me on wiki.--Asdfg12345 16:38, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

I've put up an entry on WP:RS/N##Anonymous testimony in journalist piece. --antilived 00:55, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

In other articles I have worked, unattributed quotes or those from unnamed individuals are never used. I personally believe it's not a RS, but a NPOV issue -specifically WP:UNDUE. The source itself, Washington Post, is generally considered reliable, should it be chosen to use it, it ought to be clearly attributed. Using it, however, can lend support to a minority, fringe or totally unsupported position just because somebody happens to be around when the reported passed by. Ohconfucius 06:42, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Sure; I'm just wondering why we can't say what Philip Pan said, though. If it's good enough for WPost, I don't see why it's not good enough for us? It's certainly not perfect, but please consider what reliable and verifiable information there is about these people: virtually none. The CCP blocked access for nearly forever, and tightly controlled everything else. This is a glimpse into what the people who had seen and interacted with this person had said. So a neighbour is not identified; that's still more reliable than the barrage of calculated anti-Falun Gong propaganda from CCP mouthpieces, sprinkled around the article.

That's one thing. The other is that "practitioners since 199x" according to CCP propaganda is still in the table. Does anyone else see a problem with this? If it's going to be a table, which includes photos, and other information--I mean, if it's going to be presented in a format which grabs attention, draws the eye, and confers a kind of legitimacy by doing so (and not everyone is going to see the above disclaimer); and given that Xinhua is not a reliable source on this subject--why should that info come from only one side? I think the information there should not be so controversial. The whole dispute is over whether they were "practitioners," or not, and further, what it means to be a "practitioner" when Falun Gong forbids suicide. Putting the info in a table like that undercuts the whole debate and asserts the POV of the propagandist as fact right from the start. That's a serious violation of NPOV right there. I'm wondering whether it's an oversight on OC's part, or the intention is to keep it like that. If so, I can start another noticeboard thing, just to air the issue. To draw a comparison: why isn't there a table of the "participants" based solely on Falun Gong-sourced information, right underneath? In fact, Falun Gong sources actually have third party verification, as Ownby notes, and are regarded as reliable and sound. How would having a Falun Gong-sourced table telling us all about their perspective on the participants be any different to this? I don't think it would be useful at all, just as including these propagandistic up front claims is not particularly useful.

Ohconfucius, regarding your apparent acknowledgement that parts of the "Falun Gong and self-immolation" section were original synthesis, and apparent integration of that content into an overall discussion of the dispute, I acknowledge your spirit of fairness and compromise, and willingness to examine your own work, prejudices, etc.. --Asdfg12345 14:01, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

About whether Falun Gong should be classified as "qigong" or not

I'd suggest "a form of qigong" or something along those lines. It's clear that Falun Gong differs from the forms of qigong that emphasise only healing, fitness or Extraordinary Powers, but describing it as "a form of qigong" or something similar has textual support. Quotes follow source. This is just from a quick trawl through some sources. There are many more. I'd be interested in how many sources the NRM claim has.--Asdfg12345 05:24, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Madsen, Richard. Understanding Falun Gong. Current History; Sep 2000; 99, 638

p. 244 Falun Gong is a form of qigong developed in 1992 by Li Hongzhi...

Like most qigong practitioners, Falun Gong members do not make a clear distinction between physical and spiritual healing. Thus, from a Western viewpoint, most forms of qigong look more like religion than medicine...

Lowe, Scott. Chinese and International Contexts for the Rise of Falun Gong. Nova Religio April 2003, Vol. 6, No. 2

p.263 Falun Gong is the form of qigong Li Hongzhi began teaching in 1992.

Ownby, David. A History for Falun Gong Popular Religion and the Chinese State since the Ming Dynasty, Nova Religio 6 2 (2003) 223-243

p. 235 In any case, however large Falun Gong now looms as an independent entity, it was at the outset no more than a variety of qigong.

Neither Li Hongzhi nor Falun Gong was controversial in the beginning. Instead, Li became an instant star of the qigong movement, celebrated at the Beijing Oriental Health Expos of 1992 and 1993.

Ownby, David. Falungong and Canada's Foreign Policy. 56 Int’l J. 183 2000-2001

p. 187 At the most basic level, Falungong is a variety of qigong, and Li Hongzhi emerged in 1992 to 'rectify' the alrger qigong movement, which in his view was rife with false teachings and greedy and fraudulent 'masters.'

...and so should Islam be described as "a form of Christianity Muhammad developed"? All of your quotes say FLG is a form of qigong at 1992, but what about now? Your third quote goes against your agenda, because if FLG is a separate entity it can't possibly be a form a qigong now can it (it can, however, originate from qigong). The very title of Ownby's paper, "A History for Falun Gong Popular Religion ...", further points it towards the religion rather than qigong. Let's now look at the definition of religion: A religion is a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe check, especially when considered as the creation of a supernatural agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances check, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.check I would say that's a good fit, do you? --antilived 07:17, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

We don't need to dispute such basic things as verifiability and reliable sources. If you can bring more sources, and more mainstream sources, supporting your POV, do so. If you can't, that's fine, too. At the moment we have reliable sources supporting the wording "form of qigong." Yes, they're not all unanimous, and it's not so clear cut, but it's obviously more sound than relying on your original research and quirky logic.--Asdfg12345 09:06, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

It is an absolute fallacy to play battle of the sources here - I'll match your Palmer and I'll raise you a Cheris. Of course, most scholars who believe the 'qigong' label is appropriate, because it is largely what FLG is. Due to the nature of FLG, though, it belongs to other categories. We all know the ACM refers to FLG as a 'cult'; there are many scholars who see religious traits within FLG; Cheris is only one of those who refers to FLG as a NRM, "with cult characteristics". These categorisations are not mutually exclusive. I note that FLG dislikes the NRM label, but that is not a reason not to use it. Ohconfucius 09:24, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Actually, "playing the battle of sources" is probably the only reasonable way to resolve such issues. If you can think of another objective method, please share it. The best and fairest I can think of is to look at all the major, reliable sources on the topic, and see which forms of categorisation are most common. Otherwise it's just one person's word against another's, and that is never going to resolve anything. We need to submit to this kind of scrutiny, or it's all just opinions, right? There are far more reliable sources classifying Falun Gong as a form of qigong; of course it's more than that, or different, or whatever, but that's the subject for the main Falun Gong article, not for a single sentence that addresses the issue in passing on this page. We should defer to the simplest and least controversial description. These three or so above are only a drop in the bucket. I stopped searching after these.--Asdfg12345 09:38, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Maybe add both! "five members of Falun Gong, a banned but popular new religious movement originating from qigong" Or maybe instead of "new religious movement" or "qigong movement" how about just "five members of Falun Gong, a banned but popular practice based on meditation"? --antilived 10:01, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Why not just "five practitioners of Falun Gong, a banned but popular form of qigong practice..." (I don't know what preceded that, presuming it fits in context. I believe the term "practitioner" is standard diction by now. If we want to find out which is more common ("member," "practitioner," "follower") across various sources, we can, but I think practitioner is the simplest and least disputed. The other terms should be used depending on the source etc., I guess. But let me know if we want to do the source test on "practitioner." Regarding combining them, at the moment I have only one source saying NRM. And I can put my hands on another half dozen good ones that use "qigong practice" or variation thereof. Yes, it's nice to compromise, but if it's compromising away from reliable sources, is that what we're meant to do? I think let's play this with a straight bat. If "members" was more common than "practitioners," I would submit to that, too.--Asdfg12345 10:16, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

So I tried to make concessions with you by suggesting to incorporate both sides or none at all, and you ignore it and keep your stance? Bravo on that collaboration, Asdfg. If we want to find out which is more common ("member," "practitioner," "follower") across various sources, we can, but I think practitioner is the simplest and least disputed. Why don't you apply that same logic on this whole qigong thing and you'll see where I'm coming from? The selective application of you FLG people's logic amazes me. --antilived 02:11, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

I am not sure the word "religion" as applied to Falun Gong works. Historically, religions are institutions with a structure, heierachy, a sort of church, etc. Of course one can use the term "religion" loosely as in e.g., "I workout religiously" but that is coloquial English. I am alright with Antilived's suggestion of using both in the sentence, though. AnnaInDC (talk) 16:32, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Ohconfucius appears to agree with qigong/practitioner. These terms seem to have the balance of sources. We should defer to reliable sources, and work together to make sure that they are best represented in the pages; that's what policy requires of it. It's not about just setting arbitrary whims about how things should be, then meeting half way. I did apply the same logic to the qigong thing; it's the term that has the most balance of sources. I'm trying to resolve these issues in the most objective and scientific way possible: source mining. If there's a better approach, I'm open to it. Misplaced Pages requires we defer to reliable sources, and that's all I've tried to do.--Asdfg12345 08:00, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

If reverting the change = "appears to agree" then I have nothing left to say. If something is conflicted, differs between sources, and non-essential, why not just remove it altogether? Why do we have to categorise FLG? Or do you really love pushing your agenda that much (well, it IS the only thing you do here...)? This is a conflict that can go away instantly if we just remove the controversial label, and it's fair to all sides since it leaves the reader to decide what FLG is. Does a tiny thing like this really necessitate your time to do so much research on? It certainly isn't worth mine. --antilived 08:54, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Antilived, above I showed a bunch of good sources that refer to Falun Gong as "qigong" or variation thereof. You haven't shown how it's a particularly controversial or disputed label; so far you have not produced any sources for your argument. Misplaced Pages is based on reliable sources. The remarks about my "pushing an agenda" etc. are getting a bit old. Instead, I think we should engage in rational debate and do research to back up our opinions. At the moment it seems that we should go with the "form of qigong" description, given that there is no serious problem with it.--Asdfg12345 16:45, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

When your source points it away from qigong I wouldn't call it "a bunch of good sources". --antilived 00:31, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

I hate it just so much when we have to descend into political correctness and use certain language/wording because it's simply 'uncontentious'. Our extensive use of the term 'practitioner' is already an appeasement to FLG because they eschew the concept of membership, despite the fact that many many articles I have read use the term 'member'. But of course, you're right that such a discussion doesn't belong here but in the main article. I can see the argument for simplifying it here, for expediency. Ohconfucius 10:35, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Actually, we shouldn't use "practitioner" as an "appeasement to FLG," but because the term has textual support. I think Falun Gong's self-reference should count for something, but mainly, I suppose it should be RS. My understanding is that often, in any kind of discourse, certain words will become standard to refer to certain people. I thought for Falun Gong that this has come to be the word "practitioner." I just did some quick searches now (for "falun gong practitioner" and "falun gong member") and "member" is far more common on google ordinary search, but "practitioner" far more common on google books and google scholar. Amnesty defers to "practitioner" (192 instances to 6), so do all .gov sites (263 to 136), .gov.au sites 330 to 6, and NYtimes is 91 to 83 for practitioner. It's actually not as clear cut as I thought, but there's a definite trend. However, better sources carry greater weight, like Tong's recent book, which uses "practitioner," (I just did a very non-scientific test, saw three instances and none of "member") and Ownby's 2008 text. I guess those count for relatively more. Anyway, "member" is obviously fine for a bit of variety sometimes and if that source prefers it or (obviously) in quotes. Just my thoughts. I think in the lead though, or in general, maybe "practitioner" is a simple default.--Asdfg12345 13:38, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

"Falun Gong and self-immolation" -- an original synthesis

This is just about the one section called "Falun Gong and self-immolation", which AnnaInDC removed. This section is a piece of propaganda; in wikipedia it's called a "Synthesis of published material that advances a position". The edict there is to "not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources." and "If one reliable source says A, and another reliable source says B, do not join A and B together to imply a conclusion C that is not mentioned by either of the sources." This section hovers between legitimate commentary and quotes, and synthesis/propaganda in its descriptions. I will write sentence by sentence, referring to the text. I thought it would be easier to present the sentence in italics first, then a starred remark.

Falun Gong stated that there had been no incidents of self-immolation among Falun Gong practitioners in the world before 23 January 2001.

Neutral statement.

However, the China Association for Cultic Studies published details of 3 instances of Falun Gong followers who they claim committed self-immolation prior to 2001, the earliest one in 1997, and 3 further instances said to have taken place subsequent to the incident in Tiananmen Square.

Propaganda--making this juxtaposition is not okay. It's not a reliable source to begin with, anyway. facts.org.cn is the CCP's very own attack web site. If you know Chinese, check the virulent original. Want to know more? Try searching "凯风" "610" site:gov.cn. It's a propaganda website which has no credentials to discuss Falun Gong.

Academics such as Chang (1991), Rahn (2001), Lindsey (2001) and Li Cheng (1997) recognised that suicide is a traditional gesture of protest in China; ter Haar (2001) postulated that former Buddhists may have brought with them the "respectable Buddhist tradition of self-immolation as a sacrifice to the Buddha".

Next it refers to academics who talk about suicide as "a traditional gesture of protest in China" (no mention of Falun Gong?) and ter Haar who postulates that "former Buddhists may have brought with them the "respectable Buddhist tradition of self-immolation as a sacrifice to the Buddha"." -- this is also totally irrelevant. That link is dead now anyway so we can't check, but there's nothing here that indicates any relevance to Falun Gong, so it's all a subtle original synthesis. By referring to a "traditional gesture of protest in China" and "former Buddhists" etc., it kind of implicates Falun Gong without doing so explicitly. A form of original synthesis. Update: the source was produced and it was shown that ter Haar mentioned Falun Gong specifically. My suggestion was then to expand on his analysis, since he's a recognised figure, and keep out the coatrack (sources above that make no mention or speculation of Falun Gong and self-immolation, or that don't pass RS)

"The Guardian commented that Li Hongzhi's new scripture released on 1 January 2001, Beyond the Limits of Forbearance, had confused his supporters.

Next paragraph. I know Gittings is an old China hand. This could be attributed better though, and mentioned alongside other pertinent commentaries. These are cherry-picked opinions designed to give an impression, not a full representation of what commentators have said regarding whether it's likely they were practitioners or not.

Matthew Forney in Time magazine believed the message had spread into China via the internet and informal networks of followers, and reached more radical practitioners there.

Forney in Time; this seems okay, but what it's building to and the context it's placed in make it problematic.

Falun Gong headquarters in New York admitted ten days after the release of the scripture that "certain disciples had some extreme interpretations we are going to resort to violence", and asserted that Li's message merely meant time had come to let the truth be known about China's atrocities.

The "headquarters" "admitted" could be better attributed or ommited, since these aren't the terms used by the entity referred to. I would suggest that in this context, they are words to avoid, or weasely. If they don't add anything (do they?) then why not just say what the Falun Dafa Information Center said, rather than what Falun Gong "headquarters" "admitted"?

Jensen and Weston remarked it was clear from Li Hongzhi's messages that he advocated martyrdom over prudence, and that "if the Chinese authorities lit the fire, Li just as clearly fanned the flames."

The use of this remark is misleading. The authors were not referring to self-immolation; in that remark they talk about "Li's speeches during the period" and how they are interpreted. They say that the incident itself "remains highly disputed", mention that Falun Gong thinks it a set up, and are inconclusive about whether they were "practitioners" or not ("Whatever the truth about the incident..."). But the way the remark is placed here, it makes it seem like the authors have come to the conclusion that the individuals in the immolation were Falun Gong practitioners. This is a distortion of the source.

David Ownby believes that the brief message was "difficult to interpret": it somewhat resembled a "call to arms" against what Li described as "evil beings who no longer have any human nature or righteous thoughts". Ownby said nobody he talked to had seen it as a "green light" for violent action; "ut a practitioner at the end of his or her rope in China could certainly see as an endorsement for martyrdom, and perhaps choose his or her own means to achieve that."

This is not all Ownby said about it. Using the final remark from Pomfret to give it the flourish of finality violates NPOV, which says that all points of view should be described fairly, and the article not try to lead readers down the garden path of which is true and which isn't. But in this section the readers are introduced to a series of specially chosen quotes, some of which are relevant, others not, to create the impression that the opinion of commentators is that those who apparently immolated themselves were Falun Gong practitioners. The reliable sources which dissent (Porter, Schechter, the remarks in Beyond the Red Wall) are left out, and the section is wrapped in the package of "Falun Gong and self-immolation" which itself violates synthesis. Google that phrase and you'll find it's not a subject of scholarly discussion, but appears only on wikipedia. In all the literature on Falun Gong, this does not appear to be a subject of discussion. All the material included under this section here relates to whether people think the individuals involved were practitioners or not, not how or whether Falun Gong is related to or includes self-immolation.

Suggestion: scrap the section as it is and reintegrate the material that's directly relevant to the matter at hand into a section which explicitly weighs up the question of whether the individuals involved in the event were practitioners or not. Something like "Disputed identity of individuals" or "Speculations on identity" or whatever, something that is neutral and has the breadth needed to be able to give all the opinions available (and there are more than what is just here) on whether the individuals were "practitioners" or not. The current section doesn't cut it, and provides a one-sided, cherry-picked set of quotes and syntheses to conclude that they were practitioners, which is not a reflection of the body of reliable sources available. Further, the section title is a synthesis, and half the first paragraph is propaganda/coatrack combo. For Ownby's view, his book would be the go-to place. He's decidedly inconclusive on the matter.--Asdfg12345 06:53, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Here's the archived copy of the link from the WaybackMachine. --antilived 07:25, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, indeed. What Haar wrote was not only non-synthetic, it was highly relevant and centred on his work on the Falun Gong. Ohconfucius 07:31, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

This does not seem to be a discussion, but mudslinging dressed up as rational argument. There are some pretty stiff allegations being rolled out to discredit the contents of this article, including a lot which is directly out of the Falun Gong playbook but using WP's own policies and guidelines. This comes as no surprise, as I have become used to seeing these sort of tactics in Falun Gong-related articles. I'm just surprised it hasn't come along sooner. I'm not saying the article couldn't be more NPOV, but the changes inserted by AnnaInDC were clearly from the blinkered 'Falun Gong is Good and we can believe everything they say but we can't trust anything which emanates from the Propaganda Department' school of thought - this is testified to in the comments she placed in this talk page. I may have the highest edit count here, but the coherence of the text with the underlying sources was scrutinised by several editors highly skilled in NPOV matters. If this were a sincere discussion, I would oblige. I won't do it today, but I will take a look at the sources in the next few days. Ohconfucius 07:31, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

And now I see that the section has been completely removed - going a lot further than even what asdfg suggested to rework the material into the rest of the article. This is all very sinister indeed. Ohconfucius 07:46, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, super sinister. I think the devil himself might be behind it. I do not mean to have slung mud. That's not what I was trying to do. I looked at each sentence there and tried to refer to policy in pointing out where problems were. I don't think it's controversial to change the title of the section, or include all such relevant information elsewhere, along with a fuller account of the difference views. And by "fuller account of the different views" I do mean, like, all the different views (per RS). I read the ter Haar thing, it adds a useful perspective. Unfortunately we only get a soundbite of it that fits into the master narrative. That won't do. Someone like that is a good source, and should get more play for their piece of insight to develop a bit more. Basically, all I suggest is that things be unwound a bit, and the discussion (on the page) opened up. I mean that the question of whether they were Falun Gong practitioners or not, as it is addressed in the form of speculation/opinion by reliable sources (I'm not talking about Falun Gong video deconstruction or whatever), is an interesting and relevant part of this whole debate. The section that deals with this needs to be 1) longer and make better use of the reliable sources and points of view available; 2) not use an originally synthesised title like "Falun Gong and self-immolation" (search that, see what you find); 3) give more space for the themes to unfold and be explored, showing different sides (and a number of points of view are conspicuously missing from this analysis, such as that of Porter and Schechter) while concluding none, and giving the reader something they can make up their own minds about, rather than a pre-wrapped package. My analysis of those sentences is not meant to be an attack on you. I don't know why it passed NPOV, I won't speculate. I just pointed out the problems I saw when reading that section.--Asdfg12345 09:32, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I noticed this section basically repeated some of the same information in the "The dispute" section above (that's a good name for it!). This is my suggestion for the best way to resolve this: move what was not in "The dispute" up there and integrate it; purge the repetition; drop the original syntheses and coatracking (that is, remarks not explicitly mentioning Falun Gong, for starters); group the arguments by theme; give the big names more space to expound; bring in some more diverse viewpoints (I can think of four already: Porter, Schechter, the WSJ editorial called like "what is Falun Gong is a cult?" and Beyond the Red Wall. I'll paste three of those below); and call it a day. This is just a thought, I'm sure it's not perfect, but I think it avoids the danger of making a synthesis, repeating arguments, and presenting a one-sided view. Also, I believe all or at least most of the remarks, snide or otherwise, about the scripture, or whatever else, be put here, too, and given a chance to be aired. Including Ostergaard's "gift" remark later on seems a bit cheap. Those sort of comments need to stand up to scrutiny. (Look how Ownby presents the scripture, for example. He puts it in the section in his book before the one about the self-immolation, and makes clear that "the form taken by such apparent militancy, beginning later in the spring of 2001, was that of sitting in a meditative posture and "emitting righteous thoughts." He does not link the scripture with the immolation, and that is worth a lot. There should surely be a diversity of views, but wikipedia requires that editors take their cues from the best sources, and frame things in a way that reflects the most reliable sources; when there is a dispute about the interpretation of the scripture, I think all the disputes should be grouped, and aired in accordance with their prominence. Including an unusual or fringe interpretation of it outside the context of mainstream interpretations, for example, doesn't seem quite on point.) Just some extra thoughts. I am not trying to pick fights.--Asdfg12345 10:28, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

I do not see how this section passed the NPOV requirement because the leading reference is not a WP:V source. There would not be a section without this reference: http://www.facts.org.cn/Feature/hand/Cases/200904/t90507.htm If you look at this website "http://www.facts.org.cn/", it is an "anti-Falun gong" website based in China. So, it's not a NPOV to begin with and not WP:V ("what counts is whether readers can verify that material added to Misplaced Pages has already been published by a reliable source"). Also, as mentioned below, that site is not from the "Cultic Research Institute". Whoever put this section together wrote "Cultic Research Institute" and added a propaganda link that has nothing to do with the "Cultic Research Institute" and does not even mention said "Institute". Also, if you use Chinese "media" sources, how can you validate that they are just not fabricated? China's media standards do not allow for WP:V Where are pre-2001 news reports of the Falun Gong pre-2001 self immolation incidents? Why did these 3 cases of Falun Gong pre-2001 self immolation turn up (in that link/ref) only AFTER the Tiananmen incident in 2001? I suggest that this reference to "facts.org.cn" should be removed, it does not appear to be legitimate data and does not meet WP:V standards. The section should be deleted unless convincing news reports of FG pre-2001 self immolation turn up. AnnaInDC (talk) 23:35, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Please see this synopsis in this link/reference from "The Human Rights Brief" (2001), a student-run publication of the Center for Human Rights and Humanitarian Law:

http://www.wcl.american.edu/hrbrief/09/1china.cfm "The Chinese Media's Propaganda Campaign against Falun Gong"

"While the government's campaign of violence endeavors to abolish the practice of and belief in Falun Gong, the propaganda campaign has been effective in gaining public support. The most common and seemingly most effective element of the propaganda campaign is recurrent broadcasting and reporting of the self-immolation of several alleged Falun Gong practitioners in Tiananmen Square in January 2001. By repeatedly depicting images of a young girl burning alive while asserting that Falun Gong preaches that such self-immolation will lead its followers to paradise, the Chinese government reportedly has succeeded in persuading many people that Falun Gong is an "evil cult." In response to the self-immolations, several unnamed Falun Gong spokespersons attempted to disassociate the movement from such events, expressing skepticism about whether those who set themselves on fire actually were Falun Gong members."

AnnaInDC (talk) 21:03, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

And on a lighter note, lets see what Ohconfucius has to say about removing data: "I do cleanups, and I'm not afraid to remove large quantities of text which are not relevant or compliant with WP policies and guidelines." From:http://wapedia.mobi/en/User:Ohconfucius :-)

AnnaInDC (talk) 00:11, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

I have difficulty believing it was not a sarcastic jibe at me, a subtle implication of hypocrisy, but I'll let it pass. Here is an example of my judicious pruning. Enjoy! Ohconfucius 02:59, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

The actual writing in the article is quite good. However, I don't understand why you or whoever initially put this article together picked the weakest points from the various references when presenting the Falun Gong side. It does not read as being from a NPOV. For example, what sticks out first is the intro's because killing is "considered a sin". People may disagree but I think that sounds like fluff if trying to debuke the self immolation as Falun Gong related and not listed as the main points by FDI as to why they thought the incident was staged. There are other examples of a shakey Falun Gong perspective in this Wiki entry. Mostly, my issue is with the WP:V of media sources originating in China or mimicing China's media coverage of the self-immolation. Unfortunately, for all we know, those people could have beed bribed, drugged so the burning didn't hurt and then swapped for TV interview purposes, and even killed after their usefulness was up. What happened to them after supposedly being "sentenced" to jail? Somehow I think no one will ever know.. AnnaInDC (talk) 05:05, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

It's not the 'weakest' point, by any means. Looking at the link you provided, it is the principal philosophical argument from the FLG. The others are interpretations of the circumstantial evidence which FDI used to discredit the event as a 'setup'. In any event, these secondary arguments are taken up quite well in the secondary sources, NTDTV and Danny Schechter, and thus it was preferred to leave these to 'do the talking', otherwise, there would have been needless repetition and over-reliance on a primary source. Ohconfucius 05:21, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
I don't disagree with you about the reliability of the sources used in the article in the absolute, but they are "reliable" in the sense that they represent the FLG and the Chines government respectively - this is what WP:A and WP:V are about. Yes, I agree it is likely that some of the interviews and footages were shot with body doubles, and what is in the article is sufficient to allow readers to come to that conclusion too. Ohconfucius 05:24, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

That is not clear in the way this information and sources are presented. An entire section "FG and Self Immolation" is created based on data found in www.facts.org.cn, which is not WP:V. You (or someone) created a whole section based on a source that is not WP:reliable or WP:V. If the point is to document what the Chinese government has claimed it should be presented that way rather than using their unverifiable data as fact. The result is a creation of a stream of thought for readers based on potentially fabricated sources through WP:OR. Remember most people accessing the link will not spend this much time digging into the issue, carefully weighing all the evidence.AnnaInDC (talk) 16:11, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

I just checked the WayBack Machine and

this reference is not archieved there. There seems no way to determine when it was published as it is not dated. In my experience, references that can not be dated with non-WP:V data are not legitimate. AnnaInDC (talk) 18:03, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Anyway, who decides? I think that section should go unless verifiable news/data about self-immolation before 2001 is presented.The main reference from www.facts.org.cn does not hold up as legitimate and isn't worthy of being cited in what is supposed to be a fact based encyclopedia which readers can rely on. AnnaInDC (talk) 16:11, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Consensus decides on Misplaced Pages. And we have bad experiences of trying to reach consensus with pro- and anti-FG propagandists. Martin Rundkvist (talk) 18:46, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Okay, well this reference used to create the "Falun Gong and Self immolation" section is not traceable or dated, and not found in the WayBackMachine. I fear to suggest that it's actual date is in the link at "200904", around the time this section "Falun Gong and Self immolation" was included into Wiki and the link was created for inclusion into Wiki? Please quell my concerns if that is not the case. Anyhow, it does not hold up as a legitimate reference for basic reasons: 1. it's from a propaganda website and 2. it is not dated. So, please remove the section, it does not meet the WP:V, WP:reliable, WP:NPOV, no WP:OR requirements.AnnaInDC (talk) 19:54, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

So..I preened through the history and found that this strange reference was added on 10/11/2009 not too close to "200904". Maybe someone was just careless and did not inspect it carefully. Sorry. AnnaInDC (talk) 02:59, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Note: if no cogent reason is given as to why the useful info in this section shouldn't be integrated into the "dispute" section, with the coatracking and irrelevant information deleted (as in, that which doesn't mention Falun Gong at all and only serves the original synthesis), and the reliable sources expanded on, then I'd suggest that be done? At the moment I'm not sure where the discussion is, but it seems that idea hasn't really been disputed, and the problems in that section will remain until its fixed. --Asdfg12345 15:12, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

- Who says the change is not disputed? There is more than one way of disputing something without edit warring, you know...
  Much valid sourced text was removed on the pretext that one of the sources was a 'Chinese government propaganda site' in absolute disregard to the my objection. It is just plain obscene to remove text just because it happens not to conform to the FLG view of the world. The text is as necessary and required as anything which came from any FLG source, so it's pretty clear to me the deletion was partisan and unwarranted. Ohconfucius 02:05, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, that note was basically an invitation to keep the discussion going, and to voice any complaints. I disagree with the simple removal of the section, as I said earlier--though it's not the same as vandalism. Please see the note on questionable sources, in RS: "Questionable sources are those with a poor reputation for checking the facts, or with no editorial oversight. Such sources include websites and publications expressing views that are widely acknowledged as extremist, or promotional in nature, or which rely heavily on rumors and personal opinions. Questionable sources should only be used as sources of material on themselves, especially in articles about themselves. Questionable sources are generally unsuitable as a basis for citing contentious claims about third parties." -- the website in question is associated with the work of the 610 Office, and is well-known as a partisan anti-Falun Gong hate website. Please explain if you disagree, hopefully bringing some evidence. The use made of these extremist sources in this article is troubling, and violates both NPOV and RS. It's quite unclear how that text (from facts.org.cn) is necessary and required as anything from a Falun Gong source; in the article currently, it's function is purely propagandistic. The CCP's anti-Falun Gong claims regarding this incident are outlined clearly enough in reliable sources; we don't have to rely on propaganda to explain these things, and the purpose of this page is not to vilify Falun Gong in the same words as the CCP's mouthpieces. All I've proposed is that the good information in that section be integrated into the "dispute" section above, and the coatracking, original syntheses, and sources that fail RS be removed. That's it. I wrote a detailed analysis of the paragraphs in question above, too, and the notes I wrote haven't been rebutted. I don't see why we can't just fix this and move on? It will basically just be an improvement of the page--I don't see the problem? --Asdfg12345 06:15, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, your disagreement with wholescale section removal didn't stop Anna from repeatedly reverting me, essentially refusing to accept my arguments and made me feel I was being ganged-up against and dragged behind the bike shed. It also reminded me of tactics once prevalent in FLG articles which I ranted about. The decent thing to be done was to simply leave it in its existing state and tag it {{NPOV}}, but oh no... I just didn't know what to say.

If it's any consolation: if I had the powers to edit, I would have reverted her. I think just above is the third time I stated direct disagreement with the approach of straight out removing the material, which as we've seen over these last few years, just antagonises the situation. I don't know what more I can do than advocate the best way I see of resolving it (as above). --Asdfg12345 06:49, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Oh, I know you weren't responsible for that rather aggressive, tendentious editing. I merely stated how I felt about being handled in that fashion. Ohconfucius 07:39, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

I was not handling you Ohconfucius. I simply edited the article in a way I thought was appropriate; by removing the "Falun Gong and Self Immolation" section. The only reference for creating that section is dubiously not WP:R or WP:V as it does not have a date, not found in the WayBackMachine, and is posted on a propaganda website (of a country with limited or no media freedom, i.e., they can just make stuff up. For those not upto speed simply google the words: China media freedom). Can we all agree that this reference is not suitable for an encyclopedia? Also, the section as whole comprised WP:OR based on this "faulty" reference. According to Wiki policy and your own words on your user page, there is nothing wrong with cleaning up articles by removing large amounts of text, something you do yourself when you see fit. Please advise this new editor what would you have done if you were my shoes? AnnaInDC (talk) 23:15, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

It may help to focus very specifically on the content issues at hand, and not on the personal ones. Another reference discussing the concept of that section was the ter Haar one (and while not nearly as weighty as would a published text, like a book, or what have you, I guess it's something). But one reference does not a section make; the rest of the information was not about that subject, and ter Haar's observations could just as well go into the "dispute" section to avoid the whole POV fork etc. They are, after all, just his speculations. I don't think even Professor ter Haar should get his own section to ponder on this topic, when everyone else has to squabble over their views in the "dispute" section. AnnaInDC, a more conciliatory approach would be to go ahead and try to incorporate the information into the "dispute" section, and see how it goes. 2 cents. --Asdfg12345 00:22, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

As I said above, the decent thing to be done was to simply leave it in its existing state and tag it {{NPOV}}, tag the link with {{dead link}}, and then start a discussion here, but oh no... Removing the whole section on the premise you stated above is downright tendentious editing. Ohconfucius 01:48, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

There is some confusion here. The {{dead link}} should properly go in for current ref.3 used several times in the "Incident" section. I can try to do that. The removed section was one created from WP:OR and a faulty article from a propoganda website. I don't think it's proper to just create sections based on made up material. AnnaInDC (talk) 03:22, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Edits by 68.32.165.254

Please stop your attempt to introduce undue weight into the article. You claim the article relies on out-of-date information, yet you insist on repeated insertion of Pan's article as a citation - incidentally already cited in the article. FYI - which from dates from February 2001. Pan's article is but one of many used to achieve the balance of the current article which has been thoroughly reviewed and has been made a Featured article. If you have any fresh non-Falun Gong sources not already cited which you wish to cite, please discuss these here. Ohconfucius 14:34, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

I am sorry,68.32.165.254 is me. It's not clear why the computer is adding an IP address and not my account name.

AnnaInDC (talk) 15:35, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Warning, AnnaInDC, you've been persistently re-inserting your edit 4 times over the time period from 2010-02-15T15:41:19 until now. You have already violated WP:3RR which means you could be banned from editing for some time. Please refrain from edit-warring and talk before you act. Thank you. --antilived 07:34, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Antilived, you and Ohconfucious have done the same by removing the {POV} and {unbalanced} tags. The tags explicitly state that these should not be removed until the "dispute" is settled and you have continued to do so. WP:3RR. Please respect this. Further, I have ADDED information and you have reverted these without remarks. WP:3RR I am concerned that that Ohconfucious is more than just a bit biased in his views as in this talk section, he calls the main subject in this Wiki entry the "Falun Gong beast". This isn't about member conduct however, it's about accuracy (as best as possible) backed up by reliable sources. Perhaps there needs to be a clear section or passage about free press in China in terms of reporting on the Self Immolation? http://www.cfr.org/publication/11515/ see section "How does China exert media controls?" This is from 2008. What do you think about Xinhau and CCTV news coming out in 2001? Do you think they are reliable in terms of reporting on the self immolation incident? As you may know, Falun Gong is persecuted and followers are tortured to death in China even to this day. See:http://www.faluninfo.net/article/956/?cid=84 Take a step back and consider the sources you are using, originating from the government run media in China and what this means in terms of reporting on the Falun Gong issue. At the very least, this Wiki entry is not "balanced" as it relies heavily on China's news sources and is "disputed". AnnaInDC (talk) 16:54, 17 February 2010 (UTC) AnnaInDC (talk) 16:54, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

This is not the first time that material from my userspace has been taken in an attempt to attack me personally. I know all to well how the Chinese regime works, as do I about Falun Gong. Both are equally sensitive and intolerant of criticism, except the PRC government uses a sledgehammer while FLG uses extensive lobbying. You keep harping on about most of the material being 'old', but this is not some 'ageist' website, but an encyclopaedia containing new as well as old subjects. 'New' research isn't necessarily 'better' research. As far as this is concerned, because it took place 9 years ago, one would legitimately expect a preponderance of sources from back then. That is not to exclude the fact that Ownby has written about it more recently. However, much of the material available is but a rehash, as indicated by your attempt to use the Philip Pan source to turn Li Chunling into a whore. What you are doing here is not original, and is straight out of the Falun Gong playbook. The tactics are already described in my rant, which you appear to have read. I will one day tire of this battle and leave you to it, but we are not there yet. In the meantime, I would refer you to this version, which will no doubt meet with your approval. Enjoy! Ohconfucius 03:56, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Also, I have removed the section Falun Gong and Self Immolation. The entire section hangs on one reference from an "anit-Falun Gong" propaganda website based in China http://www.facts.org.cn/. The passage in the section recites claims from the am Institute of Cultic Studies based in China that there were incidents of Falun Gong Self Immolation pre-2001 yet, the reference is not even from the "Institue of Cultic Studies" and there is not mention of said "Institute" in the entire link. Where did this data come from? see herein: http://www.facts.org.cn/Feature/hand/Cases/200904/t90507.htm This is completely unverifiable and a propaganda website. Also, the section blends Buddhist self immolation incidents in. What does that have to do with Falun Gong? There are many incidents of Self immolation throughout history, by protesters in general see:http://en.wikipedia.org/Self-immolation If self immolation was a part of Falun Gong, as this section Falun Gong and Self Immolation attempts to allude, shouldn't it have been repeated since 2001 somewhere else in the world? AnnaInDC (talk) 17:54, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

You challenge the legitimacy of the link and the contents therein, but the contents are as legitimate as any citation or link to Faluninfo. I deeply suspect, based on your comments here earlier, you removed that just because you just happen to disagree with it; the collateral damage you inflicted included contents attributed to ter Haar, Gittings of the Guardian, and David Ownby - there was a direct quote from him, circumspectly saying they were not FLG practitioners: "Ownby said nobody he talked to had seen it as a "green light" for violent action". You are right that there would be no such section without the Facts.org citation, but that is not justification for removing it. The relevance lies in the documented fact, per Ownby and others, that there were many followers of other Buddhist disciplines who 'defected' to FLG. Section of books dealing with the incident often refer to buddhist self-immolation as a respectable form of protest. Removal of same is censorship and tantamount to vandalism.

The problem is that this is still WP:OR rather than a presentation of something WP:V. "hat counts is whether readers can verify that material added to Misplaced Pages has already been published by a reliable source (see below), not whether editors think it is true." Also, Hindus 'defected' to FLG so by that reasoning, there should have been self immolation incidents outside of China.AnnaInDC (talk) 06:23, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

As to the allegation that the Pan article is not cited, I invite you to take another look at the article - there are two Philip Pan articles cited. I do not know where you found "Institue of Cultic Studies" from; I admit it's not highly prominent and easily missed - try typing 'China Association for Cultic Studies' into the search box of your browser when you are at that page. Ohconfucius 02:40, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

I see your point, and that is one reason why there are also no Epoch Times articles referenced (but maybe there should be). The major difference is that FDI is not persecuting and torturing members of the Xinhua and CCTV media. Also, overall, news put out by FDI is verified by various third party human rights organizations (which is not the case with data coming from China's media outlets so I think the evidence has to be stronger than a mere listing on a org.cn website) FDI has gained credibility as a respectable source for Falun Gong persecution news because what it puts out is verified by Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, etc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by AnnaInDC (talk • contribs) 05:25, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Human rights organisations use FDI/Epoch/NTDTV published information to supplement their own sources, and not without qualification. In fact, they do mostly as we do here: we habitually cite same by explicitly mentioning the source - Amnesty, HRW, Reprieve, RSF, HRIC - in the same breath as the claim. Although such usage is often read by some to be tacit endorsement, this is at least one step remote from treating as 'reliable'. Ohconfucius 06:34, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

That is not completely true. Amnesty International, HRW and the United Nations do their own research into the matter (do you need a verification of this? I can get that). They do quote details but also verify for themselves to determine if the whole of the claims are true. That can not be said with Xinhua and CCTV news or western news media in 2001. Xinhua and CCTV are state run while western media were blocked and the trail for investigation by western journalists went cold so there are few post-2001 news reports. The media that did go in to investigatelike Wash Post's Philip Pan found evidence that that the people who self immolated were most likely not Falun Gong. That's why media which is state run and used for persecution (like Xinhua, CCTV, or even "Pravda" in the former Soviet Union) can not be considered as WP:V or a reliable source. AnnaInDC (talk) 15:08, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

References

I am seeing a problem with some of the references used:

1. This article "Tiananmen tense after fiery protests" has outdated links and can not be found in whole on the internet. It is used extensively in the Incident section. Trying to find the aricle by searching the title it only comes up on wiki mirror websites that have the same broken links. See Ref. currently in the article.

2. At least (currently removed) can not be found anywhere else (on a reliable news source) and does not have a publication date. www.facts.org.cn seems to be an anti-Falun Gong propaganda website and questionably un-WP:V, WP:R and not NPOV. I do not think www.facts.org.cn should be relied upon. AnnaInDC (talk) 21:29, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Just regarding 2, facts.org.cn is verifiably and obviously an anti-Falun Gong propaganda site. Moreover, it's connected with the work of the 610 Office, as demonstrated in the link I posted above. I don't think anyone is disputing that. facts.org.cn should not be used in wiki. --Asdfg12345 14:07, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

So is there going to be participation from other people in fixing this? If the references are failing, then parts of the sections need to be redone based on reliable available references. Do I need to do this alone? I read through the history and parts of it are like a fight scene from Crouching Tiger Hidden Dragon. I've thought about this and hear the need for just sticking to the bare bone facts but also realize that determining the facts about this incident is not simple because no truly reliable reporting source was at the scene and could investigate. Also, I noticed a reference used/discussed in the past regarding the U.N. determining that this self immolation was a "hoax" and wonder why the "evidence" in that report was good enough for the U.N. and not good enough for Wiki editors? Hence, that reference was removed. Does anyone care to answer that before I start making changes that other people will not want to accept (thereby wasting everyone's time). Also, if the self immolators were fake Falun Gong practitioners, quoting them over and over as if they are speaking on behalf of Falun Gong does not makes sense and is misleading. They are saying some really weird things that I bet neither Christians, Buddhists or Falun Gong practitioners, regardless how "spiritual" their beliefs maybe, ever would say to media. Those are immediate issues that I see with the Wiki entry. Comments? AnnaInDC (talk) 20:57, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

No, that is not how it works. Unfortunately, even news organisations remove news articles after a time; the world has no accepted way of ensuring the durability of their links. Webarchive is not infallible nor does it have universal coverage of all available websites. There is no rule which says WP articles must be rewritten because links stop working. It is not an excuse to sanitise just because it doesn't tell the story you want. Ohconfucius 03:20, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm actually refering to this: "what counts is whether readers can verify that material added to Misplaced Pages has already been published by a reliable source (see below), not whether editors think it is true" from WP:V. Expiring links to documentation does present a conundrum because when links stop working, readers can not verify at all (regardless of whether it was a reliable source or not). I think if another reliable reference supports the same story, it should be used instead. Otherwise, I would think that the section should be rewritten with the verifiable/reliable references available. This is how it seems to me since WP:V is probably the number one issue for an encyclopedia. Maybe Wiki needs a new rule/policy for handling expiring links. AnnaInDC (talk) 04:20, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

But the stories of news orgs can be tracked through other systems, like LexisNexis for example. facts.org.cn isn't a reliable source anyway and shouldn't even be in the article. That's the actual issue. It's not a reliable source. The CCP's perspective should of course appear, and be explained clearly, but when it comes to narrating the events, how they unfolded, and other pertinent details, propaganda sources should not be used for that information. Those sources are for stating the CCP's view/propaganda, not for informing the reader of any facts about the case. There is a clear difference. I can make a post on RS board about this if this argument is disputed. --Asdfg12345 15:04, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Sanitisation of Liu Chenjun's fate needs to be fixed

Sorry, I'm a bit cynical about this by now. I do not think it's proper when editors scrub out the ugly details of the CCP's repression when adding information to wiki. Liu Chengjun is supposed to have been "sentenced to prison, where he died 21 months later" -- but did he just suddenly "die"? The sources referred to say he was either reportedly "beaten to death" (USDOS: "In December, Liu Chengjun, sentenced to 19 years in prison in March 2002 for involvement in illegal Falun Gong television broadcasts, was reportedly beaten to death by police in Jilin City Prison.") or tortured to death, in the far more gruesome Falun Gong account. You can also take He Qinglian's version of it, on my userpage, which says he was tortured to death. Full paragraph from Ms. He: "I must also express my admiration for the men and women within China who have never compromised with the regime. Coming from China, I know all too well the price paid by those who refuse to compromise, including being isolated by intellectuals who fear associating with “heretics.” This book names and pays homage to many Chinese journalists who have been imprisoned for their efforts to expose corruption. These men and women of conscience are like a lamp with an ever-burning ﬂame. Others have devoted themselves passionately to furthering freedom of speech, some even paying with their lives. Liu Chengjun, a Falun Gong practitioner, was one of them. On March 5, 2002, Liu and some friends managed to intercept eight cable television networks in Changchun City and Songyuan City, Jilin Province, and televised a program entitled “Self-Immolation or a Staged Act?” exposing the Chinese government’s cover-up of its persecution of Falun Gong and the staged immolation the government claimed was the action of practitioners. Liu was arrested and subjected to 21 months of torture that led directly to his death. He paid with his life, but thanks to his sacriﬁce, many people learned the truth about the government’s persecution of Falun Gong." Can someone please fix this, and note that the man was reportedly subject to 21 months of torture that lead to his death? --Asdfg12345 14:20, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

The last two sentences in the article are not reliable sources and should not be used in the way they have been. I am baffled as to how this sort of vile propaganda can be used in this way. There are dozens of reliable sources saying that the CCP went on a propaganda bonanza with this event, whatever the nature of it. And CCP media and anti-cult GONGOs which play a vanguard role in the persecution (see the CECC's 2009 report) are not reliable sources on the subject. That's a real violation of the principle of NPOV, RS, and undue weight. Forget about whether the woman was a prostitute, this is smuggling propaganda used to sustain a violent campaign of repression into what is supposed to be a respectable encyclopedia. And those are not just my words. I'm paraphrasing the words of scholars, who describe the persecution and propaganda campaign in similar terms. I simply do not see the need for this. --Asdfg12345 14:27, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

A little bird who is a journalist who knows someone who is a journalist that later investigated told me that Liu Chunling (i.e. night club worker or prostitute with the 12 year old daughter who also died) was likely involved in organized crime and was the "Jack Ruby" of the self immolation incident. I thought that was interesting in light of the fact that she was the first to die and on the scene (perhaps from being hit on the head). This is just conversation as there are no resources to support this. AnnaInDC (talk) 21:17, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for that little bit of sarcasm. The Liu Chengjun hacking part of the article is but a small epilogue, and any expansion would be a coatrack. Of course, the mention that somebody dying in prison would generally sound warning bells, and the link which serves as a reference can lead the reader if he/she wants to follow that part of the story. Ohconfucius 03:41, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

There's no reason to delete two words "from torture" or "was beaten to death..." or whatever it is, given that each time the Liu Chengjun case is mentioned, this information is mentioned. Why should this information be sanitised? --Asdfg12345 15:05, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Of course there is. This is mere allegation. To put that in would be to go down the slippery slope of coatracking, because you would then need to write a whole section on the respective arguments from both sides. Ohconfucius 01:44, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Would it, though? I think the argument from reliable sources is the main one relevant here. The key point is that when his murder is mentioned, it says he was abused, beaten, or tortured. I haven't yet seen a reliable source that mentions his treatment beyond that. So I don't understand why when we mention it, we remove that uncomfortable fact? the CCP isn't a reliable source on the treatment of its political prisoners, as you might know. In an article on him, it would be well and proper to discuss their perspective (of course), but in a short note, I believe it should be presented in the same as as it is by reliable sources. Please explain how you diverge. --Asdfg12345 01:49, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

I think we should firmly bear in mind what the central subject is. If you wanted to create an article about Liu Chengjun, or more broadly the hacking incident, then fine. Because there would be space to develop this. I feel that adding 'death by torture' definitely imparts a NPOV concern not entirely related to the self-immolations which would pollute the central subject. Ohconfucius 02:06, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Okay, I can see your point enough to let it stop here. I'd go out with a last emphasis that in the sources above it's also mentioned as an aside (the two USDOS and He Qinglian), and they are not partisan sources; this supports the idea that it's not biased to mention that he died from something rather than just "died." But there are bigger fish to fry, so let's forget this. Thanks. --Asdfg12345 03:10, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I really don't know that's right. The guy was tortured to death for hacking about this incident. That's a big deal, and says so much about this case. At the least, it shows the importance the CCP attaches to pushing its side of the "truth" of this story, which is relevant to readers of this article to more fully understand the context in which the claims are being made. It's relevant, sourced, and informative; I don't believe it breaches NPOV, because I have not seen any other source dispute the claim that he died from torture/abuse. I'll put a third opinion tag here. This is minor, I know, and I won't begrudge consensus on this, but I just thought about it again and do actually think it's important enough to spend a few minutes rigging up a third opinion template.--Asdfg12345 03:16, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

What are the alternative narratives on how he died, and who are they sourced to? Do any sources express doubt about how he died? --JN466 13:08, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

From the sources available (two USDOS, one He Qinglian), he died from abuse, beating, or torture. It's a difference of a couple of words to include this info; I don't think we're looking at an WP:UNDUE violation here. Regarding what other sources have said on his death, I am not sure. --Asdfg12345 12:54, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

I can see merits in both your arguments. As a compromise, how about quoting the relevant sentences from the US DOS state reports in the ref note? That is

"In December, Liu Chengjun, sentenced to 19 years in prison in March 2002 for involvement in illegal Falun Gong television broadcasts, was reportedly beaten to death by police in Jilin City Prison." in the 2003 report, and
"For example, in 2003, Falun Gong practitioner Liu Chengjun died after reportedly being abused in custody in Jilin Province." in the 2005 report. --JN466 16:05, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

So, do you mean the inline text should remain vague on his cause of death, but that the cause, according to USDOS, be given in the ref note? Just want to be clear on what you mean. If that is the suggestion, I think it's better than nothing. If that's the idea, I disagree though, given that in the three sources available it's mentioned directly alongside his death (that he died from beating, torture or abuse, depending on which source), but overall I appreciate your giving it the time, sharing the view, and it's not something I think would warrant any further dispute. I just don't get why wiki shouldn't talk about the issue in the same way as the reliable sources available have. In particular, the USDOS reports give that small level of detail in a report about the whole HR situation in China. This is an article about the incident that he was risking his life hacking into a TV station about. In terms of scale, we are two steps more zoomed in than the USDOS report, but still give less detail than they do? I just don't think it's logical. But yeah, I'm not going to go on about it. I've voiced my disagreement, and I do appreciate the time taken to look into it and give an attempted compromise. --Asdfg12345 06:12, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

I've added a couple of China state refs, added "under disputed circumstances", and provided quotes from the US DOS and the Chinese Embassy in Canada. --JN466 11:45, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Okay, thanks. As I said, I know you are attempting to present both sides and make neutral improvements. I wonder if this is what is meant by NPOV though. The RS page has a section on questionable sources: "Questionable sources are those with a poor reputation for checking the facts, or with no editorial oversight. Such sources include websites and publications expressing views that are widely acknowledged as extremist, or promotional in nature, or which rely heavily on rumors and personal opinions. Questionable sources should only be used as sources of material on themselves, especially in articles about themselves. Questionable sources are generally unsuitable as a basis for citing contentious claims about third parties." I will just ask a question: since it's obvious that the CCP in this case has a poor reputation for checking the facts, no real editorial oversight (except the central propaganda department), and expresses views that are widely acknowledge as extremist against Falun Gong (like, "they should be crushed like rats crossing the street"), how can this source be used for claims against third parties (Liu Chengjun)? In particular, they are matched against a highly reliable source like the USDOS. There is no parity there. I wonder what your understanding of this is, and how it matches up with the policy elaborated above. --Asdfg12345 00:54, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

If a dictatorial regime puts a government critic into a mental hospital, claiming they were sick, WP reports that that is what the regime said. This does not mean WP endorses the regime's opinion that the person was mentally ill, or that WP uses a questionable source for statements concerning the person's mental health. In my view, such an assertion says much more about the regime making the statement than about the person in question: but that is my judgement as the reader. --JN466 22:05, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Yep, obviously, and agreed. My concern is with the technical matter of how many words are accorded each side in wiki and in those sources; the three sources mentioned above don't give such detail to the CCP's view about Liu's alleged health problems--but in the edit you made, those alleged health problems were elaborated on. I would have thought a few words like "The CCP claimed that Liu died from health problems" would be sufficient. This is my last input on the matter. You've done a good job.--Asdfg12345 00:54, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

About the background section

I believe the background section suffers from problems of original synthesis, undue weight, and cherrypicking sources. Some questions I have are how the notes from Time are relevant as background to this event? I checked all the references in that section, and as far as I can tell, the only thing that links Li's remarks with this event is the note by Gittings: "But some observers believe it is possible that the five were driven by desperation - and confusion about Mr Li's "new scripture" - to attempt suicide." -- does that warrant the great emphasis on them, and all the information we are presented with about Li's other remarks? Notably, in Ownby's book there is not much emphasis on linking the scripture with the immolation. I would suggest that that is a good indicator of how much emphasis wiki should give to it. Unfortunately, this looks like an instance of selected quotes arranged in a way that supports a particular narrative that is not explicitly articulated in any of the sources quoted. I just mentioned how the only thing linking the scripture to the immolation is the note from Gittings (actually from Jensen and Weston as well) -- but is there anything at all linking Li's other remarks with it? If not, it's unclear how they belong in the section that is a backgrounder to the immolation.

I find that the first paragraph is much the same; a novel narrative. This particular expression of the lead-up to the persecution is not found in any single source, so it's a kind of original synthesis in itself. Further, even if it was in a source, it still wouldn't be the most neutral, accepted, or common way of discussing it. I would contend that Sima Nan's remarks about Falun Gong are barely relevant for the Falun Gong pages anyway, given how little they are mentioned in reliable sources, let alone weaving them into a narrative here. So much attention is given to what Falun Gong is alleged to have done, or what Li is alleged to have said, whereas in a third party analysis of most of these events, the focus is largely on what the CCP has done. One important question is about where this article is situated; I mean, if it had to be categorised, what is this article a subtopic of? I think if we did that analysis, it would become clear that in the overwhelming number of cases, this event is a referred to in the context of the propaganda campaign waged by the CCP against Falun Gong. That's the context this event is situated within, quite beside the question of the identity of the participants. I would first like to know whether this proposition is disputed, and if it is, then do some source-mining to find out which way the event is mostly discussed. Let's put it this way: if the event is mostly contextualised as an example of Falun Gong's apparent suicidal tendencies, or Li's encouragement for immolation, then it would make perfect sense to emphasise the aspects that have been emphasised in the background section. If it is mostly framed as an example of state propaganda (and yes, I believe it's quite indisputable that it is), then the background and other elements of the article should reflect this. Does this make sense? I'm making this argument and using contrarian logic to try to show, or explain, why I believe certain information is out of place here. As long as there is no explicit link between Li's remarks and this event, I believe their inclusion here is a subtle sort of original synthesis, irrelevancy, and undue weight. Further, given this, I don't think there is enough acknowledgement or emphasis on how this event was used as a piece of propaganda. I mean, the current mentions are a poor reflection of the body of sources which have situated it in that context. Again, for now what I'm saying is argumentation and proposition; I will be happy to test these theories with research.

Notes on how the Jensen and Weston source has been used, and suggestions for how to improve accuracy: 1) it is written fully as "Falun Gong" not "FG." 2) There is a paragraph break before "Such flames..." 3) The next sentence at the end is "Whatever the truth about the incident, it clearly marked an important public relations victory for the Chinese state within China, as many Chinese who had remained neutral to that point came to share the authorities’ view that the Falun Gong was indeed a dangerous heterodox sect." I contend that at least "Whatever the truth about the incident..." is relevant and should be tacked on. If the rest is too long, just use ellipses. The note of inconclusiveness is important, in my opinion. --Asdfg12345 15:04, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Given that no one has responded to this for close to two weeks, I would suggest the items suggested there are actionable by anyone. --Asdfg12345 01:20, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Some sources for editors to use

I posted these previously elsewhere, not sure if anyone picked them up. I'm providing here for the editors of this page:

Porter, Noah. Falun Gong in the United States An Ethnographic Study. Dissertation. University of South Florida, 2003, pp. 104-105

January 23, 2001, was when the infamous self-immolation incident happened. Five people showed up Tiananmen Square and set themselves on fire. Falun Gong practitioners have pointed out many suspicious aspects of the event, suggesting the Chinese government was behind it. The Chinese Government was reported by practitioners to have fabricated such a report earlier (Clearwisdom.net 2000a). Since suicide is a traditional gesture of protest in China (Chang 1991: 89, 134; Rahn 2001b; Lindsey 2001: 2; ter Haar 2001: sec. 1; Li Cheng 1997: 168-169), it may seem reasonable to think Falun Gong members might protest in this way. However, Falun Gong beliefs prohibit killing, which includes suicide (see Li Hongzhi 1999c: 27); therefore, I think that even if there were people who lit themselves on fire and considered themselves Falun Gong practitioners, they would not be representative of Falun Gong practitioners any more than Christianity as a whole is represented by people who shoot and bomb abortion clinics. While some have said that “the event was a public relations disaster for both Beijing and Falun Gong” (Lindsey 2001) and that “the state was quite angry at the Western media for publishing it as evidence of Falun Gong martyrdom” (ter Haar 2001: sec. 1), it should also be pointed out that there is some evidence that the Chinese government is divided on the issue of Falun Gong (Edelman and Richardson 2003: 320), and that “Public sentiment within China was decidedly opposed to the government campaign, at least until several Falun Gong adherents—including a mother and daughter—immolated themselves in a January 2001 protest in Tiananmen Square” (Kindopp 2002: 261). Therefore, those the anger directed at Western media portrayal of the self-immolation may reflect divisions within the Chinese government; and, in any case, it is clear that Falun Gong took a much more damaging PR blow from the incident than the Chinese government did. In addition, convincing evidence has been provided that the events described by the Chinese media are at least deceptive, if not a complete hoax (Schechter 2000; Schechter 2001: 20-23; FalunInfo.net n.d.c).

Rowe, Peter. "Beyond the Red Wall: The Persecution of Falun Gong," Canadian Broadcast Corporation: 2008. link, starting 16:00.

Clive Ainsley: The Chinese media was used as a tool against them, and for a long period of time accusations of great evil against the Falun Gong appeared every day in the Chinese language press, both the print media and on television.

...

Narrator: One of the most powerful images used in the media war between the Chinese State and Falun Gong, is the so-called self-immolation of practitioners in Tiananmen Square on January 23, 2001, five people set themselves on fire near the People's Hero monument. This infamous footage has been repeatedly shown on Chinese state television to underscore the government's claim of the suicidal nature of Falun Gong. A number of unexplained inconsistencies in the broadcast have led many people to believe that it was actually a hoax designed by the government to discredit the movement.

Clive Ainsley: You've got Falun Gong people in this country, they've been oppressed over and over again, they've not been allowed to speak, they're not allowed to assert their rights as citizens, and the level of frustration must be terribly, terribly high, so I can understand people doing that. That doesn't mean the teachings of Li Hongzhi, the movement is evil, but ironically, we ultimately found out that it was a fraud anyway. It wasn't real, the people involved were not Falun Gong members, it was completely staged by the government.

Pan, Philip P. "Human Fire Ignites Chinese Mystery; Motive for Public Burning Intensifies Fight Over Falun Gong." Washington Post Foreign Service, 02/04/2001

The state media have said little about why the five who set themselves on fire might have joined Falun Gong. Beijing denied requests to interview Liu Siying and the three other survivors, who are all hospitalized with serious burns. A Kaifeng official said only China Central Television and the official New China News Agency were permitted to speak to their relatives or their colleagues. A man who answered the door at the Liu home referred questions to the government. But Liu Chunling's Apple Orchard neighbors described her as a woman who led a troubled life and suffered from psychological problems. State media identified 78-year-old Hao Xiuzhen as her adoptive mother. Neighbors said they quarreled often before Liu drove the woman from their home last year.

"There was something wrong with her," said neighbor Liu Min, 51. "She hit her mother, and her mother was crying and yelling. She hit her daughter, too." There were also questions about how Liu supported herself and about the whereabouts of her daughter's father. Neighbors said Liu was not a native of Kaifeng, and that a man in southern Guangdong province paid her rent. Others, including neighbor Wen Jian, 22, said Liu worked in a local nightclub and was paid to dine with and dance with customers. None ever saw her practice Falun Gong.

Brady, Anne-Marie. Marketing Dictatorship: Propaganda and Thought Work in Contemporary China. Rowman and Littlefield: 2008, p. 86

The horrific and graphic scenes of the self-immolations have been repeatedly shown on Chinese television as a justification for why Falungong should be banned in China. The images have been extremely effective in turning public opinion in China--which was initially relatively sympathetic to the group and its followers--against the spiritual movement. According to Falungong, the incident itself never happened, and was a cruel (but clever) piece of stunt-work worthy of Hollywood.

--Asdfg12345 15:07, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

An article built on CCP propaganda

A lot the central material in the current article is CCP propaganda, presented without context. Sources such as Pan, Schechter, Ainsley, Brady, Qinglian, are all either kept out or sidelined. Even the perspective of Ownby is distorted.

Images directly taken from footage described as "engineered" by sources such as Schechter, are presented, with captions that lend legitimacy to it. I cant help but say that this is but the product of pure propaganda and spin. Any attempt to improve it or add objective sources in is immediately countered. I'll point out how much of the academic material was blanked out in a series of edits and how academic sources such as Schechter are sidelined as "subscribing entirely to Falun Gong POV."

CCP Propaganda, and images drawn from it, are not a legitimate material for an encyclopedia.

Dilip rajeev (talk) 07:18, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Lemme give you the eyebrow on this: you are linking to a section that Asdfg threw in a few weeks ago, and are suggesting that the people who do not share your views get paid for their edits? (just making sure I understand this correctly) Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 08:57, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

If I remember right it was I myself who "threw in" the section. All I commented on was how much the article draws from CCP propaganda. I did not imply that people who do not agree with my perspective get paid. I did not analyze the history of edits and was assuming this kind of disruption could only owe itself to IP edits. All that I intent to convey in the post above is that I have deep concerns regarding this pattern of removal of well sourced, centrally relevant material, misrepresentation of sources such as Ownby, and an almost WP:RS status provided to xinhua and CCP propaganda( the current article builds itself on Xinhua propaganda presented for fact) . Anyway, just focusing on the content and sticking to WP guidelines is all thats needed to fix these issues. I apologize if my comment came across as against other editors.

Dilip rajeev (talk) 13:18, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Good. That's all I wanted to know. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 13:40, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

A quick note that Schechter isn't an academic source. Of course, it's fallacious that he be excluded because editors don't like his POV, but no one was there to stop it from being deleted. I share the concerns about how openly CCP anti-Falun Gong propaganda is used in the article as though it is a regular source. I wouldn't accuse anyone of any ill intentions though. Cut and summarise, and attribute the CCP claims to reliable sources as far as possible; their view is obviously a significant one, but shouldn't be used as a factual one like it is. I also think the background section has problems, as I wrote above. At the same time, it would not work to turn that section into an oppositely weighted coatrack full of detailed information about the horrors of the persecution. I wrote above that in the vast majority of sources this incident finds its context within the propaganda campaign against Falun Gong. That's how it's usually construed. I think the background section should introduce the fact of the persecution, talk about the propaganda campaign, and to the extent that reliable sources have discussed it, only then talk about how Li's teachings were allegedly related to the incident. But on that last point, no evidence (in the form of reliable sources) has been presented for it. It's just a splicing of several different sources. Ownby's text does not draw a link between these two things at all (i.e., an escalation in Li's public statements and the immolation), so it's quite unclear why we should. In fact, I don't think we should unless it is directly textually supported. And much of that is to do with the "dispute" rather than the "background." Two cents.--Asdfg12345 13:21, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

I surveyed the use of Chinese state sources used in this FA. At the time of writing, they are the following:

: used five times, four times with attribution, once with corroboration by Western source.
: appropriately used (one use with attribution, one use without attribution for stating that two protesters were not tried).
: appropriately used (for date when Chinese government ban started).
: appropriately used, twice with attribution, once with corroborating source from Human Rights Watch.
: used with attribution.
: used with attribution.
: used with attribution.
: this is a Reuters report reproduced on a Chinese government website.
: used with corroboration by Western source.
: used with attribution.
: used with attribution.
: was used without attribution; attribution has now been added.

I don't see a problem with these uses. --JN466 14:21, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Honestly, gentlemen. This is an article that's been thoroughly reviewed by the wikipedia community and it is a featured article. It is as close to neutral as we can make it. No one's buying into your advocacy rants. Please quit the complaining to advance your agenda. Colipon+(Talk) 15:32, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Being used with attribution of the point of view of CCP propaganda is different from being used with attribution like any other source, as a piece of factual information. The two are vastly different. The article in many places uses such sources in the second way, when they should only be allowed to be used in the first way, according to the RS policy. These are extremist and propaganda sources which are associated with a persecution; they do the propaganda for it. They're not normal sources, and can only be relied upon to transmit the CCP perspective. I wouldn't suggest they be deleted entirely, but use restricted to one section which outlines the CCP's point of view. In reality though, it may be possible to present the CCP perspective without having to resort to primary sources. In any case, having a subsection that outlines the CCP's claims would solve the problem. Sprinkling the propaganda sources throughout the article creates problems for readers. Actually, I just mean they should not purport to represent facts. If it's appropriate to mention the CCP perspective in several places, then do that. But there is a big difference between using them as facts and using them as opinions. There was also a lot of information deleted from the page, too. I'll find an older version of the article and paste some of the deletions below, for anyone who dares to add back in. --Asdfg12345 02:55, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Please, stop wikilawyering. Merits of sources should be judged individually and with regards to their usage. There is nothing wrong with adding sources from the PRC government, provided they're attributed correctly. Especially considering that they're an involved party, a blanket ban or dismissal is against the spirits of WP:NPOV.--PCPP (talk) 14:36, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

I hope it was clear that I did not suggest a blanket ban or dismissal of all CCP sources. I said they should be more clearly identified as such, and not be elevated to the place of facts, as they are frequently in the article. And this can be in various ways, including using propaganda in an official-looking table, or weaving it among factual accounts from journalists, etc. Both those things can and should be avoided. the CCP view will still be aired, but it shouldn't be in a way that gives the unsuspecting reader the impression that what they're reading is not state propaganda against a persecuted group.... (unless that's the whole point? No, I don't believe it).--Asdfg12345 00:57, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

PCPP and others, I've followed the discussion and see how this is a difficult issue. Here is what I think: You wrote, "erits of sources should be judged individually and with regards to their usage. There is nothing wrong with adding sources from the PRC government, provided they're attributed correctly." That sounds very nonbiased and academic but, how are you going to correctly distinguish true from propoganda sources in this case? I do not know how old you (or other editors here) are but in the former Soviet Union a few decades ago, there was a media/paper called "Pravda", which translates as "Truth". It became a laughing stock amongst Russians and to this day. Do you understand? So, my point being that in places like communist countries where there is no media freedom, presenting their side is not trivial as one really does not know what one is presenting; it could very well be something blatently made up (i.e. their propoganda). So, some ideas on how to avoid this would be great. AnnaInDC (talk) 06:06, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

You act as if the PRC is the only source producing propaganda, and that everything FLG and the US tells is the absolute truth. To assume that because China has limited media freedom, all of its sources can be blanketly labelled as "propaganda" is absolutely dishonest and goes against the spirit of NPOV. Propaganda goes both ways, and what is "truth" and "propaganda" is subjective, as such it's up to the reader to decide.--PCPP (talk) 04:16, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

that's wrong. This is what the WP:RS policy is for. Please read it. And if there are other disputes, they can be taken to the NPOV noticeboard. --Asdfg12345 06:03, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

I made a few small changes based on the discussion above. ✔ Olaf Stephanos ✍ 00:09, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

I looked, and agree. --Asdfg12345 00:10, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

I just popped in to see what was going on here, and was not surprised to still find the very same verbose wikilawyering, but ramped up a few notches; I just find myself being 100% in agreement with PCPP three posts above. I'd also point out the recommendation by asdfg to "including using propaganda in an official-looking table". Then our friend Olav comes along and scrubs out information in the table so cited to state media, to which asdfg utters his agreement. I rest my case, and I think I will stay away for quite a while longer. Ohconfucius 16:49, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Ohconfucius, can you please explain your rationale for this edit? Thank you. ✔ Olaf Stephanos ✍ 13:07, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

I do not want to actively participate in this discussion, but I will follow it, and I want to offer some initial questions and observations.

Basically the complaint seems to be that putting Xinhua's claims about the identity of the participants in a table makes them appear to be facts, or at least, more factual than claims that were part of a propaganda campaign. It is noted that above the table it states 'according to Xinhua', but the concern seems to be that the form of the table itself conveys a certain legitimacy, and therefore undue weight.

On this point, I would agree with Colipon who noted on the main discussion page that anything from either Falun Gong or the CCP should not be presented as factual (unless, presumably, it had third party support). So I think it needs to be clarified why propaganda is being presented as factual information in this case.

The other point is the CCP's anti-cult GONGO. Olaf and Asdfg12345 have argued that this GONGO is not a reliable source. Again, I think Colipon made the salient point: these sources can represent their own views (given certain conditions), but usually not make statements that are to be taken as facts about third parties. In this case, the GONGO is used to give a quote from a Falun Gong practitioner. That seems to be overstepping the stipulation about not making claims about third parties.

I will probably not say more than just the above. I wanted to articulate the arguments raised above in a clear way. I could not find the refuting arguments above, or I would have restated them here as well. I look forward to see how this is resolved. The Sound and the Fury (talk) 14:07, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

This is easy to resolve. I can understand the concern about the prominence of these claims in the table - it simply makes them appear more factual. At the same time, the CCP's claims in this regard should be noted. So let's just put the claim that the individuals were practitioners in the prose, rather than the table. That should make everyone happy. —Zujine|talk 04:53, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

That's probably a fair solution. I am glad that someone is willing to challenge the entrenched anti-Falun Gong orthodoxy that seeks to own the page and define the terms of legitimate debate. The point is not to remove this information from the encyclopedia, but to make sure that when people see it, it doesn't parade as fact. The only facts here are who said what. But jazzing it up in a table is like promoting one set of facts against another. Or shall we have a table based on information from Falun Gong sources? I think Zujine's change is suitable. And it's high time the propaganda at the end of the article was removed. The anti-cult group is not a reliable source on what Falun Gong practitioners are alleged to have said. If the propaganda claims of the CCP need to be included in some other way (like some phrases: "China believes the despicable immolation by "Falun Gong" shows the world the despicable nature of this mortal threat to socialism with Chinese characteristics" or whatever garbage they say), then fine, but not in the form of quotes from victims, I'd say. Doing that is propagandistic. I have more points:

The neutrality of Reuters on a topic like this is questionable. In articles such as 'Senior party official expects Reuters to depict China fairly' the CCP makes clear that Reuters is in its pocket when it comes to reportage coming from China. (for example, Li Changchun, the propaganda chief in charge of vilifying Falun Gong, says: "Reuters should be a bridge in helping the world obtain a better understanding of China and report China as it is," - I think we all know what that is code for). I would suggest that for neutrality the fact that Reuters was the only agency allowed to do the interviews be noted, along with its cooperation with the CCP. This could be done in a single sentence, and would offer readers the background they need to evaluate the claims they are about to read. Note: this is not trying to keep any information out. It is trying to provide appropriate context.
What is the relevance of the shoeshine man case? This article is about the Tiananmen Square self-immolation. The only connection is the tendentious claim by the Independent linking them. Does that warrant a long paragraph, based on one opinion of one journalist? I don't think so. That isn't an "aftermath" by any means. Again, there is absolutely no real evidence that he was a Falun Gong practitioner: a suicide note found by the police? Obviously they made it up. Unless some real evidence is presented for this, it's obviously POV-pushing, trying to link immolation to Falun Gong with no real evidence, quite typical of the Chinese media. Unless its inclusion can be properly justified, it should be removed since it is straight out of the CCP propaganda narrative that tries to connect immolation with Falun Gong. It's an association fallacy.
the top image is biased. It also immediately sets the tone of the article to adopt the CCP's narrative. Encyclopedia's should be written with a mind to how readers are likely to interpret the information they are presented with. Consciously presenting information in a way that accords with the CCP's propaganda is not neutral reportage. I suggest some other image, or another way of resolving it. Over and out. --Asdfg12345 06:27, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

I'll leave others to come up with something about Reuters - I don't know if it would actually be original research to include the kind of note you suggest, Asdfg12345. In a similar way to your desire to include the Luo Gan/He Zuoxiu connection on the Falungong main page, this seems to be aimed at changing the impression of the reader through background information. The point is that in neither this case nor the other does the source you refer to make clear why the connection matters. It seems like a spot of 'synthesis of published material that advances a position'. If you had a journalist or scholar saying that Reuters did these reports out of a desire to ingratiate itself with the CCP, the argument would make more sense.

But I agree on both the 'shoeshine man' and the top image. The first seems to make a tendentious argument with weak information, and the second is quite similar to how the CCP has presented this case.

I also wonder whether that whole box itself is biased, since it assumes the event was not staged (i.e., it's a 'civilian attack' of 'attack type: self-immolation' etc.), when really that is what the whole dispute is. In both cases one could imagine the presumed Falungong equivalent: an image of the woman being struck in the head with the cudgel, and instead of a 'civilian attack' box it's a 'Communist political hoax' box. Homunculus (duihua) 00:45, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Looking again, the only problem I have is how the box says 'attack type.' Whether it was an attack or a hoax is in dispute. If it said something neutral here, I wouldn't have a problem with the box, which I think adds a professional touch to the page. Homunculus (duihua) 00:50, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm not here because I'm watching the page, but because of this deletion warning on my talk page. Would you care to reinstate the image, at least somewhere in the article? I fail to understand why one image is removed because of the comments of ONE devoted Falun Gong lobbyist, while others images - there are a string of them - taken from the same source are still used in the article purported to show a different view. This is wholly inconsistent and in my view violates WP:NPOV. Ohconfucius 01:44, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

(←) Even Reuters is a lapdog of the CCP now? Give me a break. Colipon+(Talk) 12:54, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Actually, it's typical of these transnational capitalist organisations - they get married to state capitalism when doing business in repressive countries, sacrificing the values that allow them to exist in the West. In any case, it's not an original synthesis if the claim is not made explicit that they reported the alleged immolation in a way to please Beijing. As long as a simple statement of background fact is made, that should be fine. It's merely a question of relevance. And it is of course relevant when the propaganda taskmaster has such a cosy relationship with this media organisation. Suppressing the information about Reuter's relationship with the CCP would be wrong. See 'Information suppression', which includes: "Concealing relevant information about sources or sources' credentials that is needed to fairly judge their value." I propose a simple sentence like: "Reuters has a cooperative relationship with the propaganda department of the Party, and was the only foreign media group allowed to interview the victims." That is simple, factual, and relevant. —Zujine|talk 12:57, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

This would seem completely contradictory to the fact that many Chinese (and the Chinese government) criticized Reuters during events such as the Tibet uprising in 2008 and the Olympic Torch Relay. If Reuters was "warned" of this by Li Changchun as early as Falun Gong, perhaps they wouldn't have been so adamant to continue criticizing the Chinese gov't until 2009? Just my two cents. Colipon+(Talk) 13:10, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

It's obviously a more complex situation than that; if Reuters did everything the same as a CCP media outlet, no one would find them credible. I think the point Zujine is making (and I agree with it) is that it would be noteworthy to mention that they share ties. To the extent that those ties influenced reporting on this incident, everyone can make up their own minds. I'm under no illusions about the integrity of a company like Reuters, though. --Asdfg12345 01:31, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

I think it is absolutely wrong, and typical of the fallacious arguments which are employed here to rule out or impugn sources unfavourable to FLG, to seek to remove or otherwise cast doubt on the Reuters coverage. The conditions, namely that they are to report only under supervision and without questions, the alleged participant in the hospital room, are clearly stated in the article. Although we know that the Chinese censor and stage-manage, this is something universal to most political parties, and happens almost everywhere, even in the hallowed West. I defy anyone who can show me just one political event that is not stage-managed. People are quite capable of making that judgement for themselves whether the PRC/CCP are manipulating, based on the reported circumstances - which, quite frankly, are more transparent that most reports coming from anywhere else in the free world. Ohconfucius 01:44, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, "anywhere else in the free world"? So China is free now? This point of view explains a lot. I see absolutely nothing wrong with mentioning Reuter's relationship with the CCP. As you say, people can make up their own mind. --Asdfg12345 01:49, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Cite error: The named reference Porter was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
Ownby, David (2008). Falun Gong and the future of China. Oxford University Press. pp. 215–216.
Staff and wire reports (24 January 2001). "Tiananmen tense after fiery protests". CNN. Archived from the original on 22 February 2007. Retrieved 9 February 2007.

Categories: