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

Browse history interactively ← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 19:50, 16 January 2008 editAsdfg12345 (talk \| contribs)Pending changes reviewers6,640 edits →Disagree with Dilip's edits ← Previous edit		Latest revision as of 17:00, 24 November 2024 edit undoAidan9382-Bot (talk \| contribs)Bots9,128 editsm Fixed archive location for Lowercase Sigmabot III (More info - Report bot issues)
Line 1:		Line 1:
			{{Talk header}}
	{{Overwikification}}{{ArticleHistory
			{{Contentious topics/talk notice\|topic=fg\|style=long}}
	\| action1 = PR
			{{Article history
	\| action1date = 17 September 2007
			\|action1=PR
	\| action1oldid = 158490830
			\|action1date=17 September 2007
	\| action1link = Misplaced Pages:Peer review/Tiananmen Square self-immolation incident
			\|action1link=Misplaced Pages:Peer review/Tiananmen Square self-immolation incident/archive1
	\|
			\|action1oldid=158490830
	\| action2 = GAN
	\| action2date = 2007-10-11
	\| action2result = listed
	\| action2link = Talk:Tiananmen Square self-immolation incident#GA Review
	\| action2oldid = 174360297
	\|
	\| currentstatus = GA
	\| topic = Socsci
	}}
	{{WPCHINA\|class=GA\|importance=}}
	{{archive box collapsible\|box-width=238px\|
	*]}}

			\|action2=GAN
	==GA status?==
			\|action2date=2007-10-11
	*does anyone think we should submit this article for featured or GA status? How far off is it? I don't like a lot of the stuff in here, but it seems to be clearly written and frankly addresses the different claims. I am thinking that there could be more reshuffling of some sections, but as it is I don't know if it's so bad. Ideas? Hmm.. I also think that if all involved editors thought about the article in terms of 'how to make it get to featured status', rather than how to present a particular view, I think we'd edit more harmoniously together. I just thought of this. Okay, that might be tricky but it would be better. Anyway, featured or not?--<font style="bold">]</font><font color="black" style="bold">]</font> 12:33, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
			\|action2link=Talk:Tiananmen Square self-immolation incident#GA Review
			\|action2result=listed
			\|action2oldid=174360297

			\|action3=GAR
	*Good idea! I have requested a peer review as a first step. ] 01:31, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
			\|action3date=2008-08-07
	::Two things should really be added. One is the template. Which I can manage. The other is that according to the false fire video the immolator was sitting with a wrong stance. Apparently practitioners are supposed to use half or full-lotus sitting stance. ] 03:40, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
			\|action3link=Talk:Tiananmen Square self-immolation incident/GA1
	::*He's probably wearing too much protective clothing to be able to adopt a full Lotus position. Haha! ] 04:06, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
			\|action3result=delisted
	*good first step in terms of peer review. In terms of bens comment, there is actually a huge amount more material from falun Gong that could be added. In a WOIPFG report they say that the CCP got different people to play Wang Jindong, and they provide a series of photos, some commentary, and claim some kind of voice testing analysis. About Liu Chunling there is a very important piece of information missing, which is the .gif of her being slugged over the head by a man in a miliatary uniform. This is common fare on all falun gong material on the subject. It is claimed that she died from that hit to the head rather than the burns. So those two pieces of information could also be added. We may also need to figure out some way of making distinctions between secondary analysis and either Falun Gong/Xinhua originated material, or somehow identifying very transparently who, precisely, is making what claims--perhaps with the use of colours and/or boxes. Let's see how it goes. Peer review may be a first good step.--<font style="bold">]</font><font color="black" style="bold">]</font> 03:47, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
			\|action3oldid=230315962
	:Ok I see you got some photos. ] 20:26, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
	==]==
	I do not think ] was applying any value judgement on FG. The Tiananmen self-immo is listed as a possible/questionable "cult suicide", defined in the widest possible way, and the template he inserted appears to merely regroup the different 'cults' and the occasion of suicide attempts already listed in that article. I believe the tag actually has a vocation here. Whether you think the Tiananmenself-immo should be included is another debate better held on the ], but it seems that neither asdfg nor Dilip rajeev have challenged that inclusion. ] 16:40, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
	:I don't mind people calling FG a cult in the article. They are entitled their opinions. What I do mind is a template passing around all the events and groups together. All the ] has to do is label any group they don't like.... a "cult", and they are practically in the same class as Heavens Gate, Branch Davidians via some template. The template just legitimizes party opinions even if it is in the "questionable" row. ] 17:22, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

			\|action4=FAC
	:Sorry, but that template is fucked. It is completely out of order here. We can discuss it further if necessary; I don't mean to use language negatively. I hope this will not become an issue. --<font style="bold">]</font><font color="black" style="bold">]</font> 03:09, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
			\|action4date=18:14, 13 October 2009
			\|action4link=Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/Tiananmen Square self-immolation incident/archive1
			\|action4result=promoted
			\|action4oldid=319662770

			\|currentstatus=FA
	I don't mind it being included on THAT page, as a questionable cult suicide, since that is what the CCP alleges--but it is one step too far to have that template here.--<font style="bold">]</font><font color="black" style="bold">]</font> 03:10, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
			\|maindate=April 3, 2012
	:Yep I too am entirely against the template on this page. All the Communist party has to do is beat up an oppressed group and light them on fire. And they are an official cult. The template makes too much of a statement. Can't have it here. ] 05:19, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
			\|topic = Socsci
	:*I won't revert for the moment, but want it on the record that I oppose. The argument to remove the template holds no water, from what I can see. It is a totally ambiguous position: If you oppose its inclusion in the cult suicide article, and argue successfully (ie establish a consensus) to have it excluded from that page, then fine, there should be no template to link them. However, if you do not, and it appears there is a consensus to keep, the template should stay. It quite clearly lists the incident as a 'questionable cult suicide, so what is the issue? Why is it "one step too far"? ] 03:05, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
	The problem is not the word "questionable", but the word "cult". The template practically gives the CCP all the rights to kill and brand their oppositions as cults if you know what I mean. I am almost certain I can't convince ] to call it a suicide template instead of a cult template. So the least we can do is get rid of it here. The equivalent would be like creating a template "people persecuted under CCP" and say "questionable". It carries too much POV. ] 05:22, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

			\|otd1date=2008-01-23\|otd1oldid=186315135
	:The template does not give the CCP all the right to do anything of the sort that you mention - it is territorial and internatational law which may (or may not) do that. You state it's a matter of interpretation of ], and you are quite right. However, I contend that my argument still applies: if you contest as you do, that FG is not a cult, then, logically, you ought to contest the reference to the Tiananmen self-immo as a cult suicide, questionable or otherwise. However, ''that'' does not appear to be in contention, which is why I have a problem with your opposition to including the template. Also, we have a consensus, which appears to be ignored here. ] 06:22, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
			\|otd2date=2009-01-23\|otd2oldid=265908085

			\|otd3date=2010-01-23\|otd3oldid=339530804
	That's an amusing comment, below. Actually, I just read several Evelyn Waugh novels, and I feel deeply that sarcasm is not the answer. Besides that, if there are some strident feelings maybe that page could be linked. I just think it's disgusting to have the template here; the communist party actually got some people, one evidently mentally unstable, to burn themselves so they could ramp up the persecution--and a child and a mother died in the process. Two of those are possible direct murders by the CCP... it's such a disgusting situation. To the extent that people can then see how vile the persecution of Falun Gong is, then it serves that purpose. I'd be happy to get it off the other page though. Is there a page for "Historical methods of minority vilification" or something--otherwise wouldn't it be better if it were deleted of that page too, is anyone against that? --<font style="bold">]</font><font color="black" style="bold">]</font> 11:08, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
			\|otd4date=2016-01-23\|otd4oldid=701190729
	:The template is sending out all the wrong message for a historical article. Is about as legit as someone making a religion-sacrificial template with the ], ], and the ]. ] 18:15, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
			\|otd5date=2017-01-23\|otd5oldid=761526002
	:*The problem is that you both strongly believe that it was staged by the CCP, but the world has some doubt and is yet to share that view. As you both feel so strongly that there should be no link, I would suggest that you either amended the {{tl\|cult suicide}} template or took that template to TfD. That way, we could at least establish a consensus of sorts on the position as far as wikipedia is concerned. Personally, I don't think you'll get very far. In the meantime, the template should stay on this page. ] 00:55, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
			\|otd6date=2019-01-23\|otd6oldid=879826901
	People are entitled their opinions based on their own research. I am not remotely going to try to go establish some kind of consensus across multiple pages. If people want to list FG as a cult, fine. If they want to list FG as a religious group, fine. If they want to list them as qiqong group, that's fine too. What is not fine is giving them a label in a historical article. Trying to come to a single consensus is not possible for something this controversial. ] 05:23, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
			\|otd7date=2021-01-23\|otd7oldid=1002258518

			\|otd8date=2024-01-23\|otd8oldid=1198226193

			}}
	=== Reasoning of placement ===
			{{WikiProject banner shell\|class=FA\|
	*Actually, I was merely following the established format of the other article at ]. But please do continue your conversation here - it looks like you are all making some headway with your discussion, above. ] 10:31, 15 October 2007 (UTC).
			{{WikiProject China\|history=yes\|importance=Mid}}

			{{WikiProject Death\|importance=low\|suicide=yes\|suicide-importance=mid}}
	== Are Chinese this stupid? ==
			{{WikiProject Human rights \|importance=High}}

			{{WikiProject Religion\|importance=low\|NRM=yes\|NRMImp=mid\|FalunGong=yes}}
	So the self-immolators are CCP agents? Which Chinese is stupid enough to burn themselves and their children to death because the CCP told them to?--] 07:32, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
			}}

			{{User:HBC Archive Indexerbot/OptIn
	:I think anyone sincerely examining the evidence available, historically and contemporarily, about the history of the CCP, its persecution of Falun Gong, the peaceful nature of Falun Gong, etc., and the circumstances surrounding this particular incident, will come to the conclusion that the CCP had a hand in it, or orchestrated the whole thing. If you don't care to take such a considered approach, then who can help you?--<font style="bold">]</font><font color="black" style="bold">]</font> 08:24, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
			\|target=Talk:Tiananmen Square self-immolation incident/Archive_index

			\|mask=Talk:Tiananmen Square self-immolation incident/Archive <#>
	::If anyone sincerely examine all evidence, they can clearly see that this issue is still disputed. "History", "peaceful nature", and video "analysis" done by the FLG are all but circumstantial evidence, the same type of circumstantial evidence conspiracy theorists use to dispute the validity of the moon landings or the 9/11 attacks. One cannot reach any sort of definitive conclusions with these "evidence". I am sorry that you have been so twisted by your blind faith that you cannot see this. <small>—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 08:10, 14 November 2007 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
			\|indexhere=yes}}

			{{User:MiszaBot/config
	Shouldn't really say the people are stupid. They have been neglected food, information and culture. Just look at the party history between 1950s to 1970s, and you wonder why the picture of Mao is still hanging at ]. I for one, actually liked what ] tried to do to help the economy and give the guy credit. But this event once again proves small events are constantly mishandled and turned into big problems. Or in this case big controversy. ] 17:42, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
			\|archiveheader = {{talkarchivenav}}
	:China is a huge country just coming out from under ]. Great inequities remain or are being created, but its leaders are a bunch of control freaks who just can't let go. I also believe use of the word "stupid" was inappropriate, but I'm not American, so I don't find "stupidity" such a great insult. People may do things for their own reasons. Usually, only people in desperation or with firm principles would do such a thing. Although I believe there is quite a lot of ] about the true allegiances of the victims, I don't discount the possibility that the CCP has infinite ways of "motivating"people" ] 04:07, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
			\|maxarchivesize = 100K
	Remember the Buddhist monks who burnt themselves to death in 1960's South Vietnam in protesting against the government's crackdown? Hardly anyone in their right minds would call these people "agents of Diem"--] (]) 04:09, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
			\|counter = 8

			\|minthreadsleft = 5

			\|algo = old(60d)
	== Citation 31 ==
			\|archive = Talk:2001 Tiananmen Square self-immolation incident/Archive %(counter)d
	Can somebody fix citation 31, the reference name is gittings which is defined, but I don't know why is it not rendering ... --] (]) 09:49, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
			}}
	:Fixed it. ] (]) 17:31, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
	:: Thank You, although I'm still not sure why the ref by name does not work ... anyway good job :) --] (]) 20:06, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

	== sources ... ==
	From RickRoss: http://www.rickross.com/reference/fa_lun_gong/falun261.html

	<blockquote>"I think Falun Gong has developed into a cult with anti-human and anti-society characteristics," said Chen, a former music student from Kaifeng in the central province of Henan.</blockquote>

	This does not make any sense to me. If this guy would have really been so devoted to Falun Gong that he set himself on fire to show his will, although he was not even asked to do this, then how is it that after he does the damage, he is the one who is calling Falun Gong a cult? ... Now really how much sense does this make? Isn't this like X calls himself citizen of Poland then goes shoot somebody in Germany, then Germany starts a war with Poland?

	Anyway I guess the source is valid from ] point of view, it is posted, it is somewhat third party, although I would call it copy/paste directly from the Chinese Communist propaganda, so I will not go in and remove it, but sorry, for me it just does not make any sense ... or to put it in another way it does show how that some of the sources are highly biased and base their story on lies.

	This would be rather a problem for the neutrality of the article, since most of it is constructed on sources like this. --] (]) 13:02, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
	: The other twist of the event is setting fire to her own 12 year old daughter, it's quite an emotional cocktail, but ... come on, no way ... this school teaches compassion too.
	: And ok, I'll stop here because ]. --] (]) 13:15, 19 November 2007 (UTC)


	I have deep concerns regarding the way material is presented here. Any rational mind watching the video can make out that the event was a staged one. It is clear the people are wearing fire resistant clothing and that a person is unmistakiably being buldgeoned on the head before he/she falls. Again the Time article which appeared at the height of propoganda by the CCP is repeated used as a "source" without providing any background to that effect. Also in the teachings it is repeatedly said that one must only used one's buddha nature - kindness, uprighteousness, wisdom, benevolence etc.. when letting others know about the persecution. Why is a particular sentence from an article being put completely out of context as if it implies use of violence? All teachings without exception urge practitioners to cultivate inward and to not bear any hatred or resentment towards anyone. There are countless articles written by practitioners on clearwisdom.net and all talk about cultivating compassion even to those who hurt us - pactitioners all believe in enduring personal suffering without any bitterness. And there have been many articles both by journalists and scholars that point out repeated use of such propoganda tactics by the CCP. We absolutely should not present material without the appropriate background - that is very likely to mislead the uninformed reader.
	Dilip Rajeev

	] (]) 10:57, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

	I think we must look into sources such as , ,, , ,etc for providing factual background to this article. When quoting sources such as 'rick ross' we must try our best to protect ourselves from the mistake of repeating propaganda statements without background. It may even sound legitimate and factual to an un-informed reader.

	Dilip Rajeev
	] (]) 11:09, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

	== GA Review ==

			== External links modified ==
	I've started to look over the article, and overall it is very good. At the moment I don't have time for a full review, but there are a few things worth mentioning right off the bat. I only got about halfway through the article, so this only covers that portion of the text. I'll try and finish up in a day or two when I get some more time.
	*<s>Many of the images seem to be under questionable copyright status. This needs to be completely cleared up before GA status can be granted.</s>
	*<s>Explain what Xinhau is in lead.</s>
	*<s>Explain who Li Hongzhi is when he is first mentioned.</s>
	*<s>In the background section, in the second to last paragraph, about halfway through it says "However, the public changed from sympathising with Falun Gong to siding with the Government after the event..." After the immolation incident? Why is this in the background section?</s>moved
	*<s>This sentence is awkward: "The burn victims then underwent long treatment in hospital."</s>
	*<s>There is no source cited for the outcome of the victims.</s>
	*<s>Wikilink any full dates. For example: <nowiki>], ]</nowiki></s> ] <sub>]</sub> 17:23, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
	*<s>A few of the quotes give a POV slant to the article. Whenever possible cite the source of the opinion, unless a direct fact is being explained in the quote. A few examples:
	**"The six-month campaign successfully portrayed Falun Gong as an "evil cult" which could unhinge its followers." By whose standards was it successful?</s>
	**<s>"reminiscent of communist political movements -- from the 1950-53 Korean War to the radical Cultural Revolution in the 1960s." Says who?</s>
	*<s>Citation #26 needs to be cleared up.</s>
	*<s>The citations go back and forth between first name, last name and the reverse. Choose one and stick with it.</s>
	*<s>I believe that articles with chinese writing in them typically have a disclaimer at the top of the article mentioning the chinese characters.</s>
	*<s>In general, there is a slight POV issue in favor of the Falun Gong. The article does a very good job of sticking to the facts, but there's a few cases where it seems as if the prose makes up the reader's mind about how to feel about it all. For example:
	**"incited by propaganda in the form of human interest stories and accounts of so-called rehabilitation efforts of former practitioners." The use of the words "propaganda" and "so-called" kind of bother me here.</s>
	As I said, overall it is very good - all of the issues I've mentioned above are fairly minor, except for the copyright statuses of the images. I can't stress that one enough. Anyways, I'll add any more notes when I can. ] 11:07, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
	:Thanks for your input so far. I have made the changes as you suggested, except for the dates. ] states that "''Misplaced Pages has articles on days of the year, years, decades, centuries and millennia. Link to one of these pages only if it is likely to deepen readers' understanding of a topic.''" The line I take is that linking to date or year pages is overwikification. I feel this generally gets in the way of understanding of a given topic, so I almost never link. We have perhaps been too zealous in simplifying the phrases so that a phrase may appear to be ] or ], but it was felt that some could be removed when the phrase is immediately followed by a footnote. Anyway, I have put them in where you thought they were required. Looking forward to more critical comments from you. Cheers! ] 06:05, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
	:: I added non-free/fair use rational to the image: <nowiki>]</nowiki>--] 09:18, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
	:::Xinhua is already described as a news agency? Is that not good enough? There also seems to be plenty of sources citing the outcome of the victims. ] 17:55, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
	::::I believe many of the issues I raised above have since been cleared up, including the two that you mentioned. Ideally, if anyone clears up the issues above, try and strike through the ones that have been addressed, to avoid confusion.] 00:17, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

			Hello fellow Wikipedians,
	I read through the rest of the article, and here are the rest of my suggestions:

			I have just modified {{plural:1\|one external link\|1 external links}} on ]. Please take a moment to review . If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit ] for additional information. I made the following changes:
	*<s>What is WOIPFG? Please explain the first time it is mentioned.</s>
			*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20140706224534/http://culteducation.com/group/1254-falun-gong/6781-one-way-trip-to-the-end-in-beijing.html to http://www.culteducation.com/group/1254-falun-gong/6781-one-way-trip-to-the-end-in-beijing.html
	*<s>The victims section kind of goes back and forth between present tense and past tense. In general, I think past tense is more appropriate. The main examples of odd present tenses I found: "Time suggests that this is a "lack of solidarity" is contributing", "The Guardian comments that", "A New York Times article states that", and "It also notes".</s>
	*<s>Is "...to make a big event to show our will to the world." “We wanted to show..." the same quote/from the same source? Why is it split into two quotations?</s> now unified
	*<s>There is a {{fact}} tag in the Liu Chunling section that needs to be cleared up.</s>
	*<s>In the same section, the last sentence kind of comes out of nowhere. Not only does it not have anything to do with Liu Chunling, but it is unsourced and comes across as very POV.</s>deleted
	*<s>The following passage is very problematic: "The state controlled media has attacked Falun Gong and Li Hongzhi on a daily basis, morning and night. Meetings have been taking place in factories, offices and universities; schools have been ordered to "educate" pupils about the sect. The Government announced that religious leaders from across the country have delivered denunciations. In Kaifeng, the post office issued an anti-Falun Gong postmark, and 10,000 people signed a petition denouncing the group." Again, it is unsourced, and the way it is worded is very POV.</s> It may be POV, but it is almost a direct quote from the Tribune.
	*Finally, I would highly recommend adding an external links section of some sort.
	Hopefully all of the above doesn't seem like too much work. When you feel you have adequately addressed those points, please feel free to drop me a line on my talk page. Also, it benefit everyone involved to strike through points as they are addressed. I've put the article on hold, so you have something like 7-10 days to clear things up. Good luck! ] 00:17, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
	*Some more crossings off! ] 02:35, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
	*The Chungling source is a FG defence statement. We can easily add that in. The guy Charles A. Radin seems to be from Boston globe. Except there is no single source that the Charles working for the globe newspaper is the one that made the statement. At least that I have come across. ] 06:17, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
	*Ignore this last comment. ] (]) 17:32, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

			When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the ''checked'' parameter below to '''true''' or '''failed''' to let others know (documentation at {{tlx\|Sourcecheck}}).
	=== Also... ===
	I should also mention that one of the GA criteria states that the article must be stable. The recent edit war makes it anything but, so despite the hard work dealing with the points brought up in my above review, the article is leaning towards failing it's GA nomination. I would urge you guys to figure this out soon, since the article's GA hold will expire at the beginning of next week I believe. For the record, my own 3rd opinion on one of the issues is that the quote about Xinhau being the world's biggest propaganda machine should be removed, as it gives the article a ''blatant'' POV slant against the Chinese government, despite the fact that it is adequately sourced. Sourcing an opinion does not mean that the opinion is valid, especially since an alternate viewpoint is not represented with equal weight, if at all. ] (]) 10:05, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
	: Well the statement "State owned Xinhua, called the worlds biggest propaganda agency by Reporters Without Borders<ref name=biggest_propaganda>, Reporters Without Borders, September 30, 2005</ref>" is more then just an opinion, since after all China is the biggest communist country in the world by far. But perhaps you have any other source? + this whole article is an image play, like it or not, see the ] section above.
	: I'm not fond of edit wars, so I will not put this section back just now, even though it's quite interesting how this statement is not present on the ] page anywhere ... Perhaps we should ask Jimbo how to handle big propaganda machines, if even well sourced sources are not allowed? And yes, I do believe it's relevant here since you do need lot's of resources to make this self-imolation scene and it's aftermath happen like it did. --] (]) 13:17, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
	:*If it belongs anywhere, it belongs on the ] page. It would be legitimate, as Xinhua is the main subject. The word "propaganda" already appears 5 times in this article, and in a legitimate context, and I think Xinhua's role is already made quite clear. ] (]) 01:24, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
	::I guess my problem with it isn't whether or not it is true or not, but how it reflects on the topic. Ideally, this article should remain neutral to the whole "Was it faked?" question, since it appears that there is no conclusive evidence that it was, only controversy, opinion, and theories. Albeit, I'd say the controversies, opinions, and theories are well founded, but they are still opinion. That said, the placement of such a little phrase undermines any neutrality, since it automatically implies that the Xinhau version is propoganda, and therefore untrue or manipulated in someway. Such a phrase would be completely acceptable in the Xinhau article, but here it only serves as opinionated commentary on the immolation event via an opinionated commentary on Xinhau. In other words, it follows the following sketchy logic: "X says Y. X lies." Reading between the lines, that implies "Y is a lie." ] (]) 02:28, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

			{{sourcecheck\|checked=false}}
	I think there is a mistake here in keeping out sources and bits of info that are important to formulating an overall understanding of this incident. It is quite annoying that policy pages change over time, but I remember once reading on WP:A or whatever it used to be, that the reader has a right to know a thing or two about the sources being used. This is needed in evaluating the source. Xinhua can't be repeated as if it were on par with a respectable, neutral publication. It definitely isn't breaking NPOV to call that and explain what Xinhua is. Neutrality doesn't mean you accept Xinhua's view uncritically, nor does it mean you refrain from any critical commentary on it. I think giving RSF's characterisation of Xinhua is relevant in contextualising what Xinhua is, which is intimately linked with understanding this incident. It certainly does suggest that the incident was a hoax--but so what? It's not our job to stop the reader from coming to that conclusion, nor to try and steer them toward it. There should just be a neutral presentation of all the information associated with this incident, or more accurately, all the things people have said about it, since that's all it seems to come down to. There are many considerations involved in that process, but I'd definitely say it's valid to characterise xinhua as the party's mouthpiece, which it obviously is, and that's no secret. --<font style="bold">]</font><font color="black" style="bold">]</font> 08:29, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
	*We asked for an independent third opinion by asking for the GA review, so I think we should not ignore the advice lightly, or try and bend the rule to score some more points against the CCP. We all know what Xinhua is, and it is already mentioned or implied several times in the article (once very prominently in the lead section, I might add) that the news is not completely unbiased. The source of the RSF assertion was general, and did not specifically mention Xinhua as a propaganda machine ''in this particular context'', and I understand that even putting it somewhere else in this article where it isn't so obvious would still violate ]. Why don't we leave it for the Xinhua article? ] (]) 09:25, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
	*I would also add that you were happy with the article before, so what changed your mind? ] (]) 09:26, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
	::I have to agree with alot of what's been said above in the last couple posts: it is important to put Xinhau into some context, since it definately has some bearing on the incident. The reader definately does deserve to know where this information is coming from. However, there is a big difference between putting things into context by saying "the official Chinese news agency" or "the state-owned broadcaster" (both of which are prominently in the lead) as opposed to "the worlds biggest propaganda agency." Both approaches put things into better context, but the first two quotes do so through indisputable fact (that it is state-owned), while the other does so by mentioning an opinion (what Reporters Without Borders thinks). Fact speaks louder than opinion, no matter whose opinion it is. Related to the above point, I would agree with Ohconfucies in saying that Xinhau is already put into context quite frequently in the article as it is.
	::As for how happy I am with the article as a whole, I think it is a fantastic article: most of my previous comments have been numerous, but fairly minor in scope. I did have reservations about a slight Fulan Gong slant, however, but everything seemed within reasonable expectations for GA status. The only reason I brought up the edit war was because it could throw the very delicate POV balance of the article way off, and that the mere fact that there is an edit war violates the GA criteria anyways. My personal recommendation to you all, for GA and beyond, is to let things cool off until after I've promoted the article, then either hashing things out here, or going to ] for a another opinion. ] (]) 10:09, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

			Cheers.—]<small><sub style="margin-left:-14.9ex;color:green;font-family:Comic Sans MS">]:Online</sub></small> 03:39, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
	I'm a pretty amenable sort of chap, or at least try to be. I think your explanation about stating it is a state owned broadcaster rather than the biggest propaganda agency is pretty good--I'm okay with confucius having reverted that. I hope readers will be able to realise that it is quite possible that many of the stories xinhua published related to this incident were in part or entirely fabricated. Anyway, it seems a small point to emphasise too much. --<font style="bold">]</font><font color="black" style="bold">]</font> 10:21, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

			== External links modified ==
	Just to let you guys know, an article can only be on hold for 10 days. So, I wanted to give you fair warning that tomorrow I'll take another look at the article and pass or fail it. From a quick glance at the article, it seems like a few recent edits messed up some citations (#8, #24, #40), and while those in and of themselves might not mean disaster, you might wanna take a look. So now's the time for any last minute changes! ] (]) 02:59, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

			Hello fellow Wikipedians,
	I have reverted one edit by another editor, who deleted two paragraphs. I endorse the removal of the Danny Schecter quote about opinion polls as being a generality and not specifically related to this article, and have not touched that. However, I would say that in general, as a courtesy to other editors and as a way of maintaining a sane working environment, all significant changes should be debated on the talk page. ] (]) 03:27, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

			I have just modified one external link on ]. Please take a moment to review . If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit ] for additional information. I made the following changes:
	:I checked the source and note there may be a problem of incorrect reference - could someone shed some light on where in the referenced citations does he write about "petition", "credibility" and "thwart attacks on China's human rights record"? The opinion attributed to Schechter is currently ]. ] (]) 06:55, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
			*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141028001341/http://www.amnesty.org/en/library/asset/ASA17/011/2000/en/7a361a8e-df70-11dd-acaa-7d9091d4638f/asa170112000en.html to https://www.amnesty.org/en/library/asset/ASA17/011/2000/en/7a361a8e-df70-11dd-acaa-7d9091d4638f/asa170112000en.html

			When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
	Thanks to ] for taking the time to wikify the dates. But god, how I find those wikified dates annoying! I tend to believe that this interpretation of ] is unhelpful. Does anyone else feel the same? ] (]) 06:22, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

			{{sourcecheck\|checked=false\|needhelp=}}
	:Even though it was my suggestion in the first place, I kind of have to agree with you. I just can't make up my mind can I? Either way, I won't hold that against the article. ] (]) 07:34, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

			Cheers.—] <span style="color:green;font-family:Rockwell">(])</span> 21:12, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
	::Thanks for the reminder. I was not aware that there was so much attention on the page, or I would have stated my rationale on the talk page.
	::Here's one of the paragraphs I believe do not conform to Misplaced Pages's standard:
	::"''One western diplomat commented that the public changed from sympathising with Falun Gong to siding with the Government after the event, after succumbing to propaganda in the form of human interest stories and accounts of so-called rehabilitation efforts of former practitioners.''"
	::I believe it's not difficult to see some major problems with the paragraph. First off, I'm sure everyone of you would agree that wordings like "succumbing to propaganda" and "so-called rehabiliation efforts" are plainly unacceptable under Misplaced Pages's NPOV policy. Besides, it's ridiculous to guess how ''others'' are deceived, how ''others'' are blackwashed by propaganda - do we know we are deceived? No. What we could say is how the general public sided with the government, and how some believe the government to be spreading propaganda. But saying that the general public is succumbing to propaganda? Unacceptable. Second, the the source given doesn't even say that. The closest quote is "One Western diplomat said government propaganda was "evolving" towards that end and played down any immediate links between the Olympics and China's human rights record..." - and that's not even close to what the paragraph says. And third - I believe the paragraph does not assert its notability and fails ], as neither the paragraph nor the source states who the "Western diplomat" actually is.
	::I suggest the removal of the paragraph or, if necessary, a rewrite so that it follows what the source says. Comments? ]\|]\|] 10:24, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

			== External links modified ==
	::*Strongly agree with the principle behind this comment; I also was not aware of this apparent misrepresentation of a source. "succumbing", if appearing in the source, should be clearly identified as such. That is obviously not neutral descriptive language. However, just looking at it, this language "so-called rehabilitation efforts of former practitioners", seems to be from another source but which is not acknowledged here. This could have happened as a mix up when things were moved. This description should be in quotes anyway, but I think it's the Chrandra Smith article. if not that one, then perhaps another one. I could be mistaken, but I think something like this is quoted already on the persecution page, and it seems very familiar. Alternatively, it might be from Ching, also on the persecution page. This could be a mistake, but I am not sure. Also, that schechter commentary about the petitions should also be referenced to his book, because I think a reffing mixup happened there too. This was originally referenced to the book, I believe, but was inadvertently lost amidst the unprecedented activity and genuine interest in improving this article by a range of diverse editors. The rigour being exercised here, I must say, is of the highest order; I think this article can only get better and better.--<font style="bold">]</font><font color="black" style="bold">]</font> 15:24, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
	::*I have modified the offending paragraph, however, I just want to chime in here about you contention per ]. I am not aware that every single fact or every single person quoted must satisfy that policy. In fact, I believe the mention of the western diplomat, even unnamed, is not a policy violation. ] states "''The particular topics and facts within an article are not each required to meet the standards of the notability guidelines''". The important thing is that the quote can be] to a ]. Now that the article says no more than what the source says about the matter, I hope this deals with the concern. ] (]) 06:56, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

			Hello fellow Wikipedians,
	===Simplification===
	I don't feel it's necessary to quote sources in their entirety. It is our job to pass on the message whilst being sufficiently concise. Specifically, "''He opines that ... the "ready availability of fire-extinguishers and official TV teams and the lack of verification about the victims" raises questions about Falun Gong involvement''" strongly implies it already, thus I feel stating "''or whether the incident was staged''" is unnecessary duplication. It isn't going to sway anybody, and the whole section is stronger without it. Incidentally, I think the opinion is downright wrong, but it has a right to be in the article - all the anecdotal evidence indicates the attempt has far from fallen flat in China. ] (]) 13:22, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

			I have just modified 4 external links on ]. Please take a moment to review . If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit ] for additional information. I made the following changes:
			*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20091003100854/http://www.hum.leidenuniv.nl/chinees/organisatie/medewerkers-alfabetisch/haarbjter.html to http://www.hum.leidenuniv.nl/chinees/organisatie/medewerkers-alfabetisch/haarbjter.html
			*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090327075424/http://org.law.rutgers.edu/publications/law-religion/new_devs/RJLR_ND_66.pdf to http://org.law.rutgers.edu/publications/law-religion/new_devs/RJLR_ND_66.pdf
			*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110716071845/http://missions.itu.int/~china/pressrelease/archives/pressrelease01.htm to http://missions.itu.int/~china/pressrelease/archives/pressrelease01.htm
			*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131029202638/http://old.nationalreview.com/comment/commentprint021301a.html to http://old.nationalreview.com/comment/commentprint021301a.html

			When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
	After a final look at the article, I've passed it's GA nomination! Though there seems to be some disagreement as far as some content goes, it looks like you guys are collaborating well to fix these things, so I don't see it as a hindrance to its GA status. In fact, there seems to be a very healthy sense of collaboration for this article, and I hope it continues. As the article currently stands, I think the article is actually very close to FA status, so hopefully you guys can fix the few remaining problems (namely a slight bias favoring Fulan Gong), iron things out a bit (the references are a little inconsistent in style), and nominate it very soon. Let me know when/if you do, and I'd be happy to lend my support. In the meantime, if you have any further questions or anything, feel free to drop me a line. Great job everyone! ] (]) 22:50, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

			{{sourcecheck\|checked=false\|needhelp=}}
	== IED quote ==
	I still have misgivings about giving so much space to this direct quote which is not covered by any secondary sources. Furthermore, only one sentence out of the entire paragraph is directly related to the incident, whilst the rest is just an emotional diatribe against the Chinese govt which does not support its claim to its discovery, so it could potentially be shortened to "''International Educational Development had discovered that a self-immolation cited by the Chinese Government as proof that the Falun Gong was an "evil cult" in fact had been staged''" without weakening the context or the facts about the case. ] (]) 10:04, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

			Cheers.—] <span style="color:green;font-family:Rockwell">(])</span> 11:59, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
	Yeah i know. I feel similarly; though I wouldn't discount the realness of what they are saying about the persecution. Perhaps this could be condensed into one preceding sentence, like "IED condemned the persecution of Falun Gong, and said ..." Or whatever. Thanks for bringing that up, the quote is not quite right the way it is there now. I too noticed this and felt slightly uneasy about it, now that I haven't seen the page in a while, and have gained a bit of critical distance.--<font style="bold">]</font><font color="black" style="bold">]</font> 13:41, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

			== Move discussion in progress ==
	==Please discuss==
	In order to maintain the article's newly acquired ] status, and to avoid unnecessary edit wars, editors are kindly requested to discuss here all additions or deletions of substantial chunks of text before making them. Any which have not gone through a discussion process will be reverted on sight, irrespective of their merits. Thank you. ] (]) 03:50, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

			There is a move discussion in progress on ] which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. <!-- Talk:Tiananmen crosspost --> —] 05:30, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
	==Victims==
	It also seems like the first three paragraphs of the Victims section could well be in the 'reporting and analysis', since there is no more connection in that commentary than the other. The Time speculations re the nature of Li's message is also repeated; this may be better combined, along with the alleged clarification by Falun Gong. --Asdfg12345 08:58, 27 November 2007 (UTC) (''copied from Asdfg's talk page ] (]) 09:20, 11 December 2007 (UTC)'')

			== Possible changes to keep FA status ==
	==Disagree with Dilip's edits==
	This is a 'good' page now, we should discuss before making changes. In particular, putting that big motion image in the introduction seems to diminish the encyclopedic aspect of the article. Can you just make it a small image and put somewhere more appropriate. --<font style="bold">]</font><font color="black" style="bold">]</font> 19:48, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

			*There are apparently a few unsourced sentences or at least lacking in-line citations, including an entire paragraph in the "Falun Gong response" section.
	Goodness me, and those last sentences tacked onto the introduction should just plain be deleted.--<font style="bold">]</font><font color="black" style="bold">]</font> 19:50, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
			*Shouldn't this have an infobox?
			<big>]</big> ] 00:54, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 17:00, 24 November 2024

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

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

Article policies

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

China: History Mid‑importance

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

Death: Suicide Low‑importance

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

Human rights High‑importance

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

Religion: Falun Gong / New religious movements Low‑importance

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

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

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

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

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

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

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

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

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

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

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

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

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

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

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

Move discussion in progress

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

Possible changes to keep FA status

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

Skyshifter 00:54, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

Categories: