Talk:Tiananmen Square self-immolation incident

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 The Arbitration Committee has placed this article on probation. Editors making disruptive edits may be banned by an administrator from this and related articles, or other reasonably related pages.
Administrators: when banning a user from an article, look up this article on the list of active general sanctions, select the relevant Arbitration case, and list the user under the Log of Bans at the page bottom; additionally, make use of {{User article ban arb}}.
This article eschews the Wikilinking of dates.

"Wikipedia 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."

Source: WP:DATE
Good article Tiananmen Square self-immolation incident has been listed as one of the Social sciences and society good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can delist it, or ask for a reassessment.
This article is part of WikiProject China, a project to improve all China-related articles. If you would like to help improve this and other China-related articles, please join the project. All interested editors are welcome.
Good article GA This article has been rated as GA-Class on the quality scale. (add comments)
More information about this article...


Contents

[edit] I dont see why a special text box is needed

It's purpose is to add emphasis on one particular point of view. If it must be included, there simply isnt a need to make it all blue and fancy. EgraS (talk) 18:15, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

It's in the section reporting and analysis. It's also the prominent response of the wrongfully accused Falun Gong group. Don't forget this is one of the main facade reason for which the group is brutally persecuted in China. For example this is the reason when the CCP's mass media describes Falun Gong it sais that it's a practice that promotes homicide. Even though it's against all the Falun Gong teachings, even though the actions of a few individuals can not speak for all the group and even tough the self immolation act very theatrical and blatantly staged. It is thus the response for a huge, huge and painful lie (see Persecution of Falun Gong), which unfortunately the box itself, can not and does not emphasis enough. --HappyInGeneral (talk) 02:26, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
  • As a matter of fact, the stuff in the box is merely an assertion by FG media. I have now removed the blue box and displaced the contents. Ohconfucius (talk) 03:09, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
Have you looked at the video? It's not "merely an assertion by FG media". --HappyInGeneral (talk) 14:43, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Some concerns I've been having regarding the article

The version of the events - such as details of the victims and "outcome" are presented as facts. Objectivity seems completely missing. We need to point out that according to CCP controlled media reports, these were the self immolators and their outcomes. Dilip rajeev (talk) 08:12, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Then it should also be added that every pro-FLG source should be stated as such. I dont see how objectivity is compromised especially since it only states the outcome, not the cause of the injuries. EgraS (talk) 02:41, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

My point was that it is accepted by HR Organizations, all major goverments and the academic community that Falun Gong practitioners are being persecuted in China and associated with the CCP's persecution is an intense media campaign. So, how could we - if this article is to be objective, take info from the very people who are known to use their media for the sole purpose of defamtaion, framing and slander when referring to Falun Gong - as objective information for an encyclopaedic article - ( even without mentioning that these are the "outcomes" as per the CCP's claims. )? Even the "outcomes" are suspect in certain cases. We can only mention that these were the "outcomes" as projected by CCP media. I'll be editing the article shortly to address these concerns of mine. Dilip Rajeev 117.199.0.67 (talk) 08:16, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

I think it is extremely saddening that we are unable to maintain even this basic level of objectivity in these articles. Dilip 117.199.3.224 (talk) 08:49, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

While there may be some serious grievances on the part of FG practitioners - I would too feel aggrieved if I was stopped from practising my chosen religion - there are a whole host of agendas which contribute to positions of many governments, all of which have little or nothing to do with "the truth". Politicians in the developed world, and in the US in particular, have been keen to use China as a whipping boy since the end of the Cold War to further their protectionist agendas. They conveniently hide behind their own transgressions and point the finger at a country which has not embraced full transparency and the western way of doing things. Indeed, the whole 'self-immo' episode is suspect from "both sides", as both are keen to beat the other in the "propaganda war". However, neither party are credible IMHO. Each have a vested interest in perpetuating the perceived status. FG is particularly in need of this to "prove" that it is indeed being persecuted.
I am sorry you don't like the article as it stands. I think you are being hugely unfair about the article's objectivity. In arriving at the article in its current state, I was engaged in a constant dialogue with Asdfg, and we are more or less agreed that it is as neutral as we can get it. Partisan sources were only used where there was no other alternative. Indeed, the GA reviewer thought it was biased in favour of FG. The important thing, though, is that all the information which allows the reader to form his/her own opinion on the matter is included. That is what makes the article objective.
If you feel that it can be improved, then by all means. I would, however, urge you to go about the changes in a consensual manner. Ohconfucius (talk) 09:13, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
Objectivity is based on third party mainstream sources, such as CNN or MSN which did indeed report the Chinese version. Your own research and sources is certainly not third party or independent. Read about sources. EgraS (talk) 09:19, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Certainly. We can for most part count on 3rd party sources. But since this incident involves accusations being cast on Falun Gong Practitioners by the CCP , it is vital to report what they have said in response - it really is a very much acceptable 'source' for this article. If some aspersion has been cast on Mr X, it is necessary to report what Mr X has said in response. Anyway, we do have sufficient 3rd party sources.

Oconfucious, with each passing day more people lose their lives , more innocent families suffer. By letting people know about the persecution, Falun Gong practitioners are only hoping that more good natured people getting to know the truth will result in the killings and torture being stopped. Nobody is trying to "prove" there is a persecution. The world is already aware. It is more a matter of human conscience - when innocents are being persecuted, some may choose to speak out for them, some may choose to stay silent, some may even choose to cover up for the murderers - all are personal choices and in the end, I believe, we are all responsible for the choices we have made. I remember seeing this quote by Martin Luther King, Jr on a fellow editor's profile..

"I agree with Dante: The hottest places in hell are reserved for those who in a period of moral crises maintain neutrality, there comes a time when silence is betrayal." - Martin Luther King, Jr.

Am not saying this to argue with you friend - but please think about it - when innocents are being killed - how could anybody with a bit of human conscience keep silent? Would it help in anyway? Especially with the kind of persecution happening in China now?

I think who are suffering are innocent Chinese people. The corrupt CCP is not China. China is a Great nation with a Great Heritage. What is sad is what the CCP is doing to its own people. When other countries speak about it the CCP manipulate on Chinese people's patriotism to turn the opinion in their favor. Think of what they are doing to the Dalai Lama - because Dalai Lama spoke out against what was happening in Tibet he was labeled an "anti-China American spy". Isn't it clear how they are manipulating and playing on Chinese people's patriotic values - while at the same time utterly destroying them from within? Saddest part is that most mainland Chinese only get to hear CCP propaganda and are completely unaware of the perspective of the rest of the world. If they cared about their people and had no ulterior motives, why would the ccp cut the chinese people off from world media? It is as if the ccp needs constant brainwashing of the people to keep itself alive.

Anyway these are not things directly related to editing the article. Regarding the article - all we need to do is conform to wikipedia policies. Some amount of restructuring may need to be done on the article. As I make the changes, I'll try my best to point things out on the talk pages.

I hope you are aware the recent escalation in killings that have been happening in china as part of ccp's "preparation" for the olympics - please see this case related to murder of singer Yu Zhou ( http://www.clearwisdom.net/emh/articles/2008/4/5/96088.html ).

Dilip

117.199.2.60 (talk) 14:21, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

I am replacing the image strip on the left with a gif of the same. The new image sequence carries the same information but conveys it more clearly. Merging this with the div on the right which apparently was removed by some editor a few edits before. The Analysis is the most detailed to-date on this subjected and has been highly commented on by HR Organizations - worth mentioning is the comment made by the HR organization "International Education Department" at the United Nations ( Their statement on the issue is part of UN's official records.) The images help the reader appreciate the arguments of this report and is very relevant to the article. This documentary had won a Certificate of Honorable Mention at the 51st Columbus International Film & Video Festival. Furthur coming from NTDTV, it is extremely relevant to the article as it could be thought of as statements from the accused party on the issue, made in response to aspersions cast by the CCP.


International Education Development


Statement in the United Nations (part of UN’s official records)


Sub-Commission on the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights
Fifty-third session, Agenda item 6
August, 2001


International Education Development has followed the topic of terrorism and human rights for many years and we welcomed the appointment of the Sub-Commission's Special Rapporteur Mme. Koufa in 1996. ... We strongly agree with the Special Rapporteur that State terrorism in the form of government terror against its own people -- what she calls "terrorism from above" -- produces far more gross violations of human rights than any other form of terrorism. ...When a regime resorts to State terrorism, the international community can expect to be overwhelmed with cases under the international mechanisms and swamped with persons seeking asylum from that regime. Such is the case in China with the regime's violent assault on practitioners of Falun Gong.
In our statement under item 3 we described the Falun Gong Practice as we have found it to be. The government, in exercise of the right to reply, attempted to justify its State terrorism against the group by calling it an “evil cult" that has caused deaths and the break-up of families. In our investigation, the only deaths have been at the hands of the Chinese authorities; families have been broken up because family members have been killed by the regime; people have been broken down, not by Falun Gong, but by extreme torture, incarceration in mental hospitals with brutal treatment, hard labour in labour camps and other such practices. As was reported in the International Herald Tribune on August 6, 2001, the regime admits that it has officially sanctioned violence against practitioners in order to wipe out Falun Gong.'The regime points to a supposed self-immolation incident in Tiananmen Square on January 23, 2001 as proof that Falun Gong is an "evil cult”. However, we have obtained a video of that incident that in our view proves that this event was staged by the government. We have copies of that video available for distribution.
In his most recent report (U.N. Doc. E/CN.4/2001/66), the Commission's Special Rapporteur on Torture attests to tens of thousands detained and tortured practitioners. (Paras. 246-290). The Commission's Special Rapporteurs on Violence against Women and Extrajudicial Executions also attest to these abuses, with similar indications as to numbers. (E/CN.4/2001/73/Add.1, para. 19; E/CN.4/2001/[ ]). We are compiling evidence indicating that at least 50,000 Falun Gong practitioners are detained in prisons, labour camps or mental hospitals, of which thousands are beaten and many tortured to death. Hundreds of thousands (perhaps millions) of practitioners are severely threatened. The UN mechanisms clearly cannot handle this volume of verified cases, nor can the international community easily cope with perhaps millions of asylum seekers -- all of whom would clearly meet asylum criteria. Accordingly, the international community as a whole and the Sub-Commission in particular should address this situation of State terrorism as one of extreme urgency.

Dilip rajeev (talk) 07:46, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Changes to the intro

The intro states there were 7 people. I find sources such as Danny Schecter[1] and Philip Pan[2] saying there were only 5 self-immolators at the scene. I cannot find any 3rd party source saying there were 7 people.

On Faluninfo.net, I found:

On January 23, 2001, the day before the Chinese Lunar New Year, it was reported that five people set themselves on fire in Tiananmen Square, Beijing, China.
A week later, the Chinese government television station, CCTV, broadcast a program showing a video of the incident, but in the video, the number of victims was increased from five to seven.
.
.
other news agencies began to question the Xinhua[CCP controlled news] report when the number of burn victims was upped to 7 from the initial 5 that were pictured in the initial Xinhua news releases

If the number 7 is just what a later CCP controlled media report claimed - I think we should stick to 5 in the intro and then mention in the article that later CCTV reports claimed there were 7 people. Obviously, the CCP controlled news reports- considered mere propaganda by many independent investigators, HR activists and scholars - cannot be used to state that there were 7 people. For now, am changing the number to five. Dilip rajeev (talk) 10:41, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

  • No problem with that. Well spotted. Ohconfucius (talk) 05:50, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

I have made some changes to the intro. Basically, in addition to the existing content, I've made a mention of the Ian Johnson, schecter reports and FDI New York's response and IED's statement. I have restructured the intro for better flow - all of the existing content in the intro was retained. Dilip rajeev (talk) 14:41, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

  • You've made the lead too long and with excessive detail. What's more, it is arguable that it is better flow. Per previous discussions with asdfg, IED doesn't belong. It comes from a multi-page UN press release (primary source) which does not underline any UN position but is merely an instrument for all involved groups to get their points across. There are no secondary sources which have picked up on this AFAIK.

[edit] Concerns on the paragraphs that go under the title "Government Action"

If you look at statements from HR organizations such as the amnesty international - it is more than clear how such actions are but nothing more than part of the CCP's propaganda campaign. To add in such content to a wiki article , without no mention to the effect that it is but mere propaganda by CCP regime, is, to say the least, in violation of wikipedia policies. US Congress Res 188 , unanimously passed by the Congress points out[3],

"..campaign of persecution[against Falun Gong] has been generated by the Government of the People's Republic of China, is carried out by government officials and police at all levels, and has permeated every segment of society.."

Presenting actions that form part of this very campaign of persecution - without background - serves, in my opinion, little legitimate purpose, if any. I'll try my best to add context and background to CCP's "actions" but I am of the opinion that the content there needs to be shortened. I'll be shortening the content there and providing it with sufficient background - if any editor feels the entire content of the section needs to be kept, kindly share your views on the matter.

Dilip rajeev (talk)

[edit] "The act" section

As I had mentioned before, the content of "The act" section seems to completely ignore the fact that it is not known exactly what happenned there in Tienanmen on Jan 23, 2001. The section presents what was broadcast in CCP controlled news, which I am forced to repeat - is understood by scholars, governments and HR organziations alike - to be filled with false and libelous propaganda against Falun Gong, as absolute facts. 7 people.. 2 failed to ignite themselves.. these were the punishments given to them.. etc.

Let us not forget that many observers believe, with good reason, that the entire event was completely orchestrated by the CCP to frame Falun Gong. How could we present statistics presented by CCP propaganda machine as objective facts in this wiki article?

Dilip rajeev (talk) 17:45, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

  • Actually, I disagree with you that it is not made clear in the article that the circumstances in Tiananmen on Jan 23, 2001 were unclear, but I would not object to some further precisions, without 'flogging the dead horse'. Ohconfucius (talk) 05:55, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
The concerns I raised above was , in particular, about the content in the table in "the act" section as well as some other content in the same section. I do understand that the intro as well as the "reporting and analysis" sections make clear that it is not known clearly what happened and that many analysts consider it very likely that the event was orchestrated by the CCP. Remember that many believe, with good reason (such as photographic clues and speech analysis reports from Taiwan National University), that the self immoalators were played by different people. Remember that reports from The Amnesty International states: " Another important part of the government's propaganda campaign has been to publicise statements from people identified as former Falun Gong practitioners.."
Dilip rajeev (talk) 06:12, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Please slow down

You have made some quite radical changes to a Good article. I would like to applaud you for your new approach to editing. However, I would just say I do have a problem with some of the changes. I don't want this to be a two-sided thing any more, so would appreciate it if you kindly left some time for others' reaction before going any further. Ohconfucius (talk) 02:59, 5 May 2008 (UTC)


Friend, it is an Extremely Poorly Written article - not a good article by any standard. In particular, could you please address the above concerns of mine - especially regarding content in 'the act' section and the 'governmental actions' section? With such content still in it how can you call it a good article? A significant proportion of the article is propaganda directly sourced from the CCP and the article does require some radical changes - just look at the content in the "government actions" section.

I donot see how the changes I made can be characterized as "radical" I merely re-added a textbox that was removed with no proper consensus, replaced an existing image with a better version of the same and added some well sourced and relevant content to the intro.

I would also like to ask why you deleted the image. I had mentioned in great detail on the talk pages the reasons for my changes. The image carries content of High Relevance to the article.

I request that since it does not violate any wikipedia policies and contributes very much to structure, content and flow of the article, the text box on the false fire documentary be kept.

Why do you so much insist on removing the image and the textbox? Both of which , needless to say, carry a lot of very relevant content. Kindly do not remove the image or the textbox. This documentary has lead many HR activists and HR Organizations to state that the event has been completely orchestrated.

On this talk page I couldn't find any consensus on removing the text box as your edit summary claimed.

I think we should be focusing on cleaning up CCP propaganda in the last few paragraphs and also focus on adding objectivity by removing propaganda statements from CCP stated as absolute facts - that way we can improve the article - not be repeatedly deleting an innocuous textbox and an image which perhaps is of The Highest Relevance to this particular article.

Dilip rajeev (talk) 06:32, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

One neutral (and experienced) reviewer thought it met the criteria listed in WP:GA. If you disagree, then you are free to pull the GA tag from the article's talk page. I think it's dangerously close right now after what you have done. If the article's focus and bias continues to shift, I will pull the tag myself. I would also mention that I object to your rather weasely worded changes in the lead section.

I'm sorry about the image. It was just collateral damage when I replaced the insert as text. The text box is considered unnecessary by another editor and I happen to agree with him that it adds emphasis to a particular point of view. Ohconfucius (talk) 07:42, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

I know that asdfg123 and happyingeneral and myself wanted the textbox. That makes a complete lack of consensus in removing the textbox I think. I also see that you have blanked entire sections and images from the persecution page. While accusing me repeatedly of so called "weasel words" and stuff ( i donot appreciate it the least - i couldnt have been more comprehensive in explaining the changes i was doing) you never directly replied to the well-founded concerns I raised above. I am reverting the textbox again - revert if you must - I'll just let it be and carry on with other edits - but this raises very grave concerns for me. Dilip rajeev (talk) 08:19, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

  • In removing the text box, I just removed, well, the box - four strait lines arranged in a rectangular fashion around the "evidence". All the content remains. If you want to check the edit history, you will find that yours truly put the box there. Now, following comments from another editor who pointed out it the way of presenting it was rather biased, I concurred and I removed it. Not only have you reinstated it, you have ratcheted it up by saying False Fire is a "documentary"; The Chinese Govt put out some footage and you called it propaganda. LOL I'll get to tackling the weasel words some other time. Ohconfucius (talk) 08:44, 5 May 2008 (UTC)


    • It does give undue weight to one view point, why not incorporate it (and summarise) into the main text instead of having a separate box? --antilivedT | C | G 09:28, 5 May 2008 (UTC)


The video has been commented upon positively by HR organizations such as the IED and was mentioned in its official report to the UN. When Amnesty International, HRW, UN , Cong Resolutions, Scholars , Human Rights activists all tell us that there is a highly slanderous propaganda associated with ccp's persecution we are also obliged to mention that when we use CCP media as as source -its not me who labelled CCP's deceit and slander as "propaganda". There is no comparing this video that won a certificate of honorable mention at the prestigious Columbus International Film & Video Festival and was highly commented on by HR organizations and activists, to the slanderous and deceitful CCP propaganda. As for referring to the video as a documentary, if you look at the contents of the video it makes no conclusions but objectively mentions and analyzes discrepancies in the version of the story spread by the CCP. A documentary is defined as "a film or television or radio programme that gives facts and information about a subject"[4]. Anyway its just a minor thing and we could as well just refer to it as 'a video from NTDTV..' As for the question: is there undue weight - this is perhaps the only and the most detailed analysis to-date on the topic and carries substantial content of high relevance. In consideration of its relevance to the article I do not think putting it in a box gives it any undue weight.

Dilip rajeev (talk) 10:00, 5 May 2008 (UTC)


  • I've just replaced the last paragraph of the lead by removing the misrepresentation that there was "much skeptical suspicion" about the victims were FG practitioners. Even though there may be, (and there are indeed) holes in the Chinese Govt version of events, it does not mean that none of the victims could have been practitioners. Pan stated in his article specifically that "Other human rights activists say the five set themselves on fire to protest the government's crackdown on Falun Gong... All but Liu Siying, 12, had protested Beijing's actions against Falun Gong in Tiananmen Square previously". I note that Faluninfo retitled the article "Washington Post Reporter Finds Holes in China's Tiananmen Immolation Story" LOL Nowhere does Johnson deny that they could have been practitioners. Only Schecther does. Also, as stated by me above, IED is not a valid source, firstly because no evidence of any sort is offered to back up the claim that it was faked, and secondly that it only exists as a primary source. Ohconfucius (talk) 09:37, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
Yes, there is much skeptical suspicion . Please see the IED reports above atleast. I dont understand your logic - do you really mean to say that there is not much skeptical suspicion or that are you just trying to cover something up( i still dont think it could be so- but these edits by you - especially those paragraphs and images blanked on the persecution page really are making me think along those lines! )? I am re-introducing the statement - i'll try to restructure and better source it. I am awfully surprised at the way you selectively remove such info! If you want more sources, kindly see statement from the Kilgour -Matas report.:
According to Amnesty International, the Chinese Government adopted three strategies to crush Falun Gong: violence against practitioners who refuse to renounce their beliefs; "brainwashing" to force all known practitioners to abandon Falun Gong and renounce it, and a media campaign to turn public opinion against Falun Gong. [29] Local governments were authorized to implement Beijing's orders to repress the Falun Gong. Implementation meant, in part, staged attempts to demonstrate to China's population that practitioners committed suicide by self-immolation, ....Over time this campaign had the desired effect and many, if not most, Chinese nationals came to accept the Communist Party view about Falun Gong...This incitement to hatred is most acute in China
Dilip rajeev (talk) 10:00, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

It was you, not I, who cited Pan and Johnson, but neither were "skeptically suspicious" as you suggested. Now you're bringing in other stuff to justify your edits. I'm not sure K&M belong here. I know you feel a deep sense of injustice about this, and I do note the very much more positively editing approach. Before you got here, the lead was concise yet set out all the main points. Now it's risking getting bloated again. I certainly hope the Lead section won't be turned into the 'Main' section. Ohconfucius (talk) 10:27, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

I had said the story came under much skeptical suspicion when reporters "pointed out several inconsistencies in the government's version of events"

Schecter quotes Ian Johnson in his article:

The Wall Street Journal's Ian Johnson, one of the most insightful journalists following this story, had his suspicions aroused by the speed with which this story was covered, observing that the state media "reported [the victim's] death with unusual alacrity, implying that either the death took place earlier than reported or the usually cautious media had top-level approval to rush out electronic reports and a televised dispatch. The 7 p.m. local evening news, for example, had a filmed report from Mr. Tan's hometown of Changde, a small city in Hunan province. Most reports for the evening news are vetted by noon, so the daily broadcast rarely carries reports from the same day, let alone an event that happened at noon and involved satellite feeds from relatively remote parts of the country."[5]


That clearly shows that Ian Johnson did point out inconsistencies in the government's version of the story (i think it does also show strong suspicion and skepticism on his part on the story broadcast by the CCP). If we can spare a whole line in the intro for a particular time magazine article statement( am talking about the statement in the last para of the intro) .. these reports are at least equally relevant and this one sentence really doesn't, as far as i can see, add any "bloat" to the intro! This statement regarding skepticism coming from several sources belongs to the intro as it is factual and provides necessary background. K-M reports are indeed relevant because, it says a lot about the perspective on the issue within the Human Rights Community. IED reports are also highly relevant. I also dont understand why the particular time magazine statement in last para is given priority over all these sources ( remember that the time article was published at a time when the world knew little about the event except what was broadcast by the CCP ).

Anyway, I do appreciate your point that the lead should be kept short and so I'll try to re-phrase and shorten the sentence before I add it back in.

Dilip rajeev (talk) 11:26, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

  • You will be forgiven for being confused. I was, too! Tan is not the same self-immolator that is being referred to in this article. Anyway, as I said, just because there were inconsistencies does not mean they were not FG practitioners. Ohconfucius (talk) 01:40, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

thumb|right|Stills from [http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=8596819301616572094&q=false+fire&ei=_RsgSLb3I6GQrgP0odm4AQ False Fire] video documentary.

Thanks for pointing it out :) . And just go through the False Fire video ( http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=8596819301616572094&q=false+fire&ei=_RsgSLb3I6GQrgP0odm4AQ ). There are way too many discrepancies in CCP's story- this event, beyond reasonable doubt, was completely orchestrated by the CCP. The statements made by the immolators, the way that guy is sitting - none of these have any thing to do with Falun Gong. Take a look at this one case alone - the images to the right - this person who claimed to have been practicing for over 5 years can't form even the very basic hand position ( jieyin - where the "thumb tips slightly touch each other" - thats the first thing you learn when learning the exercises). His sitting position is not in anyway related to how a practitioner sits in meditation. The things he shouts out has absolutely no relationship to the teachings of Falun Gong. There arealso so many discrepancies in the stories of Liu Chunling( who, broadcasted videos suggest, could have been buldgeoned on the head by a policeman on the scene), Liu Siying who was never seen practicing Falun Gong by anyone and was described by her neighbors as a troubled person who "worked in a local nightclub and was paid to dine with and dance with customers."[6]
Dilip rajeev (talk) 09:48, 6 May 2008 (UTC)


Kindly excuse me for asking this again .. But I couldn't find anything on the edit summaries or the talk page edits on why this removal of content was done. Am I missing something here? Could you please clarify why you've apparently removed all this content?.. Dilip rajeev (talk) 11:34, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm afraid you'll have to be a lot more specific about which part, sentence or phrase - there were a large number of intervening edits, many of which were commented on in the talk pages in addition to the sometimes cursory edit summaries. Globally, this was all a part of the comprehensive restructuring and re-writing of the article on asdfg's watch. I'm not saying you have to agree with what he tolerated and not, but I removed a lot of duplicated stuff too and simplified the lead. Ohconfucius (talk) 02:13, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

What concerns me the most is your removal of around 10 Paragraphs of text and images, including content sourced from The Amnesty International. Asdfg seems to have been on a wiki-break during that time - please correct me if I am wrong.
Dilip rajeev (talk) 09:21, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Continuing with the Edits

I am doing some amount of restructuring to the article. As I had mentioned before, the end sections of the article presents CCP propaganda without any background. I also have contents on this I donot understand what legitimate purpose it serves to devote so much space of the article to repeat CCP propaganda - which according to Human Rights Agencies and Scholars are fabricated for the sole purpose of inciting hatred and gaining momentum for the persecution.

Kilgour-Matas points out:

"The Falun Gong in China are dehumanized both in word and deed. Policy directives are matched by incitement to the population at large both to justify the policy of persecution, to recruit participants, and to forestall opposition. This sort of vocabulary directed against a particular group has become both the precursor and the hallmark of gross human violations directed against the group."..."This incitement to hatred is most acute in China.".."Incitement to hatred is not specific enough to indicate the form that persecution takes. But it promotes any and all violations of the worst sort. It is hard to imagine the allegations we have heard being true in the absence of this sort of hate propaganda. Once this sort of incitement exists, the fact that people would engage in such behaviour against the Falun Gong ‑ harvesting their organs and killing them in the process ‑ ceases to be implausible."

Please note that this very CCP propaganda has been written into the wikipedia article by some editors without any mention to the background.( See section: government actions )

Amnesty International points out:

Another important part of the government’s propaganda campaign has been publicizing statements from people claiming to be former Falun Gong practitioners who denounce Falun Gong, speak of the damage the practice has brought to Chinese society, praise the government for its firm action against the movement, and eventually show their deepest gratitude towards the government’s saving them from being brainwashed by the “evil” cult.

In this article this very "testimony" from the "victims" is presented -again without any background.

As I had mentioned above, the content in the act section - especially the grid - is sourced completely from CCP propaganda. According to almost all 3rd party sources there were only 5 "self-immolators" on the scene( grid says 7). According to speech analysis reports from the Taiwan National University, Wang Jindong was played by at least two different people( grid talks about a person with such and such outcome). As for Liu Siying, Schechter notes that a CNN producer at the scene, "standing just fifty feet away" said she did not see any children.. my point is that the grid content completely ignores these controversies. Many scholars HR activists, IED all believe that the "self-immolation" was completely staged by the CCP. The grid contents obviously are just claims made in the CCP controlled media as part of its propaganda to slander Falun Gong - as evidenced by the countless discrepancies in their story that have come to light. It obviously carries no objective information and is of little relevance to the article. For the reasons mentioned here I am removing this grid and editing related content. Please review my edits. If any editor feels that this grid should stay, kindly share your perspective. Dilip rajeev (talk) 16:35, 6 May 2008 (UTC)


Digressing a bit to mention a couple of interesting quotes from Ann Noonan's article in the National Review[7].

Justin Yu, a journalist for World Journal, the Chinese-language daily, reflected on the confusion faced by many Chinese over what to believe. "The PRC's propaganda coup against the Falun Gong relies upon people's understanding of events in recent Asian history, such as the 73 year-old Buddhist monk in Saigon whose self-immolating is a form of protest to fulfill his beliefs, [like] Koreans cutting off their fingers, and the Japanese ritual of hari-kari. But this situation is not clear. Who do we believe--the Communists? They have lied to us so many times, another lie for them is nothing."
According to the human-rights activist Ann Lau, "The PRC is using its same old tactics even though they did not work in the past. For example, China's government insists that there was no famine in the late '50s and early '60s, yet that famine took 30 million lives."

Dilip rajeev (talk) 01:41, 7 May 2008 (UTC) Just to let you know I'm holding back from editing the article right now, but please don't read that as acquiescence. Ohconfucius (talk) 02:59, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Suggesting a change of title

I am suggesting a change of title from ( Tiananmen Square self-immolation incident ) to ( Tiananmen Square "self-immolation" incident ) for the reason that from from all the varied sources( mentioned above) there is much suspicion on whether it was a real self immolation or an orchestrated event. Many reports such as KM report, IED report at the UN state that the event was staged.Charles A. Radin of Boston Globe states: "In the slowed version, it appears that Liu Chunling . . . collapsed not from the flames but from being bludgeoned by a man in a military overcoat.” Few, if any, 3rd party analysts have characterized it as a genuine self-immolation incident - even the earliest reports that appeared in western media carried strong elements of doubt. For these reasons, I believe, it would certainly be inaccurate and speculative on our part to characterize it as a self-immolation incident in the title itself.

(Webster's defines self-immolation as the "deliberate and willing sacrifice of oneself often by fire". Certainly, what happened in Tainanmen on Jan, 2001 is much more complex than that.)

Kindly share your perspective.

Dilip rajeev (talk) 01:57, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

  • Objection! I totally completely and utterly oppose renaming the article in the strongest possible terms: Putting the 'self-immolation' in quotes is clearly inappropriate. There is no evidence at all (from FG or elsewhere) that there was coercion, or that someone else lit up the victims, so it clearly falls within the definition of the term. The complexity of the issues involve do not brush aside that it was a self-immolation  ;-). Whether someone actually died from setting themselves on fire (or whether they were clubbed to death as FG alleges) is totally irrelevant, IMHO. So don't try and soft-soap this one. Ohconfucius (talk) 02:59, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
I find this "no evidence at all" to be a really far-fetched statement. What about all the sources that were presented above??? Remember sources are varied and respectable - from journalists and scholars to the K-M reports and the IED reports and UN. Among those who have suggested that Liu was bludgeoned include Charles Radin of Boston Globe and International Education Department's Official Reports presented at The United Nations. Anyway let other editors share their perspective too. It differs very much from a "deliberate and willing sacrifice of oneself often by fire" because the "immolators", wearing protective clothing, as suggested by some, were, in all likelihood, aware that the flames would be put out. That is what staged as said by IED, KM etc means.
Dilip rajeev (talk) 11:02, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
What is IED? Who said they where "wearing protective clothing" ? --HappyInGeneral (talk) 12:27, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
IED is a Human Rights Organization . At their report submitted to the UN they affirmatively stated that the event was staged and called upon UN and government to take urgent action...( scroll up a bit.. i mention the report's contents there.. also see the report submitted at the UN ) . Nobody said they were wearing protective clothing. But the possibility that they could have been has been suggested by some.[8][9]. Please see the False-Fire video too.
Though we cannot use its contents in the article, of interest is the book "Poisonous Deceit( http://deep6-publishing.org/poisonous_deceit.pdf )." The author of the book who claims to to have first-hand information about the hoaxes perpetrated by the regime says..
" This is not hearsay, this is a fact — one I know first hand. However, after reading this chapter and seeing the slowed - down version of the film, I guarantee you'll come to this same conclusion on your own. Ask yourself this: Have you ever seen practitioners wearing thick padded fire- resistant gloves, clothes, and facemasks to their practice sites to do their slow moving exercises? However, the individuals in this immolation drama, all five of them, were absolutely wearing this type of clothing. This is not a hypothetical statement I am making here; this was actually part of the agreement they had with the State. Simply put, these immolators agreed to light themselves on fire, after pouring gasoline all over their bodies, ONLY if:
  • 1) they were handsomely compensated for their nefarious deeds
  • 2) they were provided with highly protective fire-resistant clothing (gloves, facemasks, pants, and jackets, etc.)
  • 3) the police firmly agreed beforehand to put out the flames in a rush
Could this be the very reason why the fabricators of this sham event, equipped two little police vans with approximately 25 pieces of fire-fighting equipment that fateful day? If the police weren't fully expecting to make use of this equipment, then why would they be carrying that many pieces around in just two vehicles? "


Dilip Rajeev 117.199.1.78 (talk) 13:50, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Even if I agree with your opinion, please make sure that what you are doing is not Original Research ... as far as I understand Wikipedia reports based on Reliable Sources, see WP:RS. So please point out each segment where did you got the info and who wrote it, then if it's well attributed and WP:RS we can add it in as such. For example deep6-publishing.org it's a good starting point, and I think we can quote from that. --HappyInGeneral (talk) 16:44, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Dilip's changes

I'm honestly tired of Dalip's radical changes to a good article. I'm sorry, he does not run the show. For example, both I and Ohconfucius have agreed to displace the contents of the box on the analysis section and have it presented as a regular bullet point, but Dalip alone has decided to change it with no regard to the consensus process of Wikipedia. The independent good article reviewer even said that the article was fairly neutral, slightly being pro-FLG if anything. Ohconfucius has made long-standing contributions FLG related articles and has done a good job, only to have this article blasted by Dilip as "extremely poorly written" above. What he has said above, which are innumerable in number, clearly demonstrates his political motivation for changing the article, and thus everything is to be reverted until a few weeks have gone by and input has been made by independent editors as per Wikipedia policy. EgraS (talk) 04:45, 7 May 2008 (UTC)


What radical changes? All content I've added are from sources of the highest reputation. I've not removed any content except for the textbox - and I have amde my reasons for doing so very clear. Instead of using the so called "good article" argument repeatedly - please address the issues I've raised above. The content is what I criticized - for reasons I've pointed out above. Kindly read what I have written above . I absolutely have not criticized anyone in person - it is the content I criticized - and for good reason. All content I've added are from IED, Amnesty etc. 'I couldn't have discussed my changes and the reasons that motivated it in greater length/depth. I find it sad that you are resorting to such whole-scale deletion of content from sources such as The Amnesty, The IED, The HRW, Kilgour Matas Reports etc.

The textbox was there for a few months and there was no consensus in removing it. At least three long term editors feel it should be there. Dilip rajeev (talk) 10:57, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

  • Yeah, I'd say they were pretty radical too, changing the entire tenor of the article in one fell swoop by bringing in stuff which is mostly from primary sources or stuff fed by Falun Gong. Now at least three editors have now come out against it being in a box. I think we'll start seeing sockpuppets very soon :-) Ohconfucius (talk) 15:11, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Let me please point out again - and you may verify this - the sources I had used when modifying the text are mainly Amnesty, Kilgour Matas, IED reports at the United Nations, HRW, etc. The change in tenor was only natural when we took into consideration content from the sources above. Sockpuppets? you mean sock voters? .. no worries .. we'll all just keep an eye out for them :) Dilip rajeev (talk) 19:10, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

EgraS you say "innumerable in number" ... Please state things more precisely than that. This will help for a healthy, point by point, discussion, otherwise we just sink to statements like "the other side is evil/misinformed/POV/etc.." which will have only feelings attached to it, not concrete stuff. --HappyInGeneral (talk) 12:32, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Amnesty International itself is an advocacy group, certainly not a third party source. Dilip has stated to Ohconfuscius above "Oconfucious, with each passing day more people lose their lives , more innocent families suffer. By letting people know about the persecution, Falun Gong practitioners are only hoping that more good natured people getting to know the truth will result in the killings and torture being stopped. Nobody is trying to "prove" there is a persecution. The world is already aware. It is more a matter of human conscience - when innocents are being persecuted, some may choose to speak out for them, some may choose to stay silent, some may even choose to cover up for the murderers".
I am not a fan of either the PRC or FLG, but POV should be considered. Dilip has changed the article into his soapbox. If he wants to express his point of view so strongly, he can copy and paste what he has written onto his own website, but not here. EgraS (talk) 00:39, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
I said that in repsonse to Oconfucius's statement "FG is particularly in need of this to "prove" that it is indeed being persecuted.". In the very same edit I pointed out "Anyway these are not things directly related to editing the article."
Dilip rajeev (talk) 19:19, 8 May 2008 (UTC)


Egra, Amnesty is a third party source. It's a reliable source of the highest calibre for this article. There's no doubt about that. --Asdfg12345 12:22, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Asdfg says a word

Quick note. Confucius came up with the idea for the False Fire box, in true form (he is an organised man), and I'm sure it was not initially conceived of as biased. Since these are a summary of the claims put forward purporting to show how it was staged, can we find something from the CCP setting out some points about how the incident was apparently real? This could go in another box underneath, if such claims exist. Some claimed that it was biased because it sets this information apart from the other information. I'm not sure this equals bias. These are a distinct set of arguments from a sole source, so it may be appropriate to set it out. I don't see the bias in and of itself. But if your average John Citizen sees it as biased then we should try to fix it. Making all that text normal paragraphs would add length. It might just go in a subsection, or be boxed but not just to the side, but going across the whole page. The box is obviously not biased in itself, but if it's reasonably perceived that way then hopefully something can be done.

There's obviously a larger body of evidence on this page purporting to show how it was faked and how that would have been strategically useful for the CCP than say, the reasons it might have been real. I suspect that this reflects the total availability of third party information on the incident. I am not sure who, apart from the CCP, has engaged with this issue in an attempt to show it was not staged. Even then, I suspect the CCP's reports aren't discursive arguments but hate propaganda against Falun Gong. This is probably unavoidable, too. On the other hand, there's a bunch of journalists and IED/Laogai Foundation type stuff which sets out to show how it was faked. Other journalists accept, assent, or suspect it was Falun Gong, but do not do so discursively. I'm not aware of the antitheses of these groups, who would in this case set out to argue, point by point, that it was real. In these circumstances I don't know that this is actually a case of bias, but of surveying the field and reporting the results. This is what wikipedia does; it inevitably brings out the mainstream views on issues, as determined by the reliability and prevalence of the sources.

These are general comments though. Without looking closely at the changes--Dilip says no deletions except the victims table--I don't want to endorse them. Consensus is a key here. And I think the intro may have grown too fat.--Asdfg12345 14:29, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

  • What I most seriously object to is Dilip's attempt to completely alter the tenor of the article by changing suppositions and allegations into fact. His attempt at changing the article's title is a leaf out of Falun Gong's propaganda manual (and we all know they photocopied it from the Chinese Govt's). Even if I may completely trust his Truthfulness, Compassion, and Forbearance, you will pardon me for not trusting his judgement on the matter. Ohconfucius (talk) 15:17, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
Friend, please point out what specific edits you have concern with an I will be more than happy to improve related content. I believe I had included details of all the sources ( most of them were sources of the highest repute) and reasons for the changes. Please compare this to the article that was previously there - am sure you'll agree that this one is better. I have never presented any suppositions or allegation as facts - please point out if i have done so anywhere. I have merely mentioned, i repeat this again - what sources of the highest repute such as HRW, Kilgour Matas, reports submitted at UN and Amnesty have said. Yes there was a change in tenor and that happened because we started considering statements from Human Rights organization, investigators and scholars instead of just repeating CCP propaganda in the article. I believe its only natural that the change of tenor has happened. Again, if you have specific concerns with specific edits - with a particular piece of info i added - with a particular edit etc - please point those out - I'll be very happy to discuss and improve upon them.
Dilip rajeev (talk)
  • In Dilip's defense, I see that he is trying to be as rational as possible so if you point out, point by point, the issues, I think we can get into an agreement. I think the last think we need is getting into irrational labeling. --HappyInGeneral (talk) 16:49, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
  • You don't have to defend Dilip. I think he's quite capable of defending himself. Ohconfucius (talk) 02:10, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
Until the regular editors begin coming, the burden of proof lies in the added information. This is especially true for a good article, which the reviewer has mentioned the article to be pro-FLG. Dilip has clearly stated above that his very purpose in editing what he has so far is because of “letting people know about the persecution, Falun Gong practitioners are only hoping that more good natured people getting to know the truth will result in the killings and torture being stopped.” I believe Dilip should read about what Wikipedia is not. EgraS (talk) 00:24, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
I said that in repsonse to Oconfucius's statement "FG is particularly in need of this to "prove" that it is indeed being persecuted.". In the very same edit I pointed out "Anyway these are not things directly related to editing the article."
Dilip rajeev (talk) 19:19, 8 May 2008 (UTC)


I can see no objection to correctly labelling where the source of information is from the Chinese authorities. In addition to attempting to put quote marks around 'self-immolation', being the most obvious example of overt bias, this is a classic case of undue weight being given. The mainstream press and the world at large have carried stories which lean one way. I don't object to there being citations from Amnesty, Laogai, and the large number of them which were used when asdfg and I rebuilt the article to give it objectivity speaks for that. Dilip's introduction of all this so called "evidence" is swamping the article with a very pro-FG point of view completely disproportionate to the weight of opinion as expressed in the press and even in academic literature, and is turning this into a HR piece if not a FG soapbox.

I'm not suggesting Dilip raised the 'doubt' to give him grounds to turn this into a FG propaganda piece. However, in one breath, Dilip was concerned the article was not clear that "it is not known exactly what happenned there in Tienanmen on Jan 23, 2001" (see above), on the other hand, he is presenting assertions of a 'setup' by CCP' as incontrovertible fact, and that I believe is sheer hypocrisy.

While Dilip gives IED prime currency (the last word in the lead section), I see that the only non-self-published information about it is from a bundled press-release from the UN in which each lobby group makes its own statement, so it's just another press release in my book. They apparently "discovered the incident "in fact, had been staged" and requested that the international community and the UN Subcommission urgently address the situation" - use of such an assertion, especially in the final sentence of the lead, is clearly meant to give it "factual weight".

I think the incident is a sufficiently notable one to have its own article. However, in terms of content, this article's scope appears to be excessively widening by Dilip's insistence on beating heavily on this "just the CCP's way of vilifying FG", and risks heading for a considerable duplication of the 'Persecution' article. Ohconfucius (talk) 02:10, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Please read, response to the above from Asdfg

Obviously the measure of what the mainstream and majority opinion is the prevalence of such material, the number of sources its from, and who they are. I can't really think of any other way of establishing which view should have more prominence. Everything needs to be discussed though, and we should try to see the different arguments, so I'm just tentatively putting this forward as a mode of assessing majority opinion. There's no formula we can plug things into and get an answer, so obviously we need to discuss it frankly and use our judgement to determine these kinds of things. HR orgs are high quality sources for this article.

I think, Confucius, that in essence there is still some attempt to determine on some prior grounds what the meaning of this incident is, rather than letting the sources determine that. Do you know what I mean? But I feel that that is not really our realm. All we have are sources and what they say. If a bunch of HR orgs have commented on this and featured it heavily, we can't exclude that with the argument that this incident isn't about human rights. That's what I mean about trying to determine the meaning of the incident prior to sources. If they are respected sources (like Amnesty), and they comment on this, they have every right to. The "problem" is that there is a much greater prevalance of these groups arguing that it was a set up than their antitheses arguing it was real. But this isn't a problem. That's the lay of the land. That's the meaning of majority and minority views, and these groups have taken up this incident and put it in HR discourse, and it's much more frequently talked about as a HR issue than it is as anything else. This is just how these things go. This incident is always contextualised within the persecution of Falun Gong, not as something the FLG did as a personal sacrifice for some spiritual reasons. But here I'm not arguing about the incident in and of itself, merely surveying the available reliable sources and this is their take on it.--Asdfg12345 12:58, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Back to Dilip's points

  • 1. I donot give IED prime currency. The sources I've used are diverse - includes Amnesty, HRW and Kilgour Matas. Perhaps if there is one source I have given "prime currency" to it is The Amnesty International.
  • 3. This article is not about POVs. We are obliged to report here what Human Rights Organizations such as the Amnesty have said on the issue - whether you like it or not.
  • 4. I donot appreciate the very least personal and emotional attacks being cast on me like this. I have repeatedly said - if a particular edit has such and such a problem. etc - you may point it out and I'll work on it. I find it surprising that you are so unsettled by well sourced information from Amnesty, Kilgour Matas etc. You label Human Rights reports submitted at the UN - "lobby". You have used 'time' as a source in the intro - without giving any background to the effect that the article is merely a particular author's point of view.. These reports are atlest as much ( if not much more) credible than what a particular 'time' article opined at a time when western media had little choice but to repeat CCP's propaganada.
  • 5. Falun Gong propaganda is an aefully wierd and illogical thing to say. What propaganda - if you report investigative reports and human rights orgs that becomes propaganda? Just look at the previous article - what was it?? Just a pile of baseless propaganda stuff from the CCP presented without any background or reason. You somehow seemed to like that very much. I had outlined reasons for every change and every is well sourced and legitimate content. When information from Human Rights Organizations are added and background provided, you become extremely unsettled.

Dilip rajeev (talk) 08:00, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Continue in this vein and you will be blocked.
Its not for you to decide. I will be judged by the quality of the edits I have done not by your words.
Dilip rajeev (talk) 08:41, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
*1. I donot give IED prime currency. The sources I've used are diverse - including Amnesty, HRW and Kilgour Matas. PErhaps if there is one source I have given "prime currency" to it is The Amnesty International.
Amnesty International itself is an advocacy group, as per their own mission statement. Hardly the independent third-party sources that is needed.
You mean to say AI cannot be used as a source?
Dilip rajeev (talk) 08:41, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
:*2. It is more than clear to any editor how you are rying to cover up content. You still have not given your reasons for deleting, without giving any explanation, around 10 Paragraphs text ( and images in addition ) of well sourced content, from the Persecution page.
As I mentioned, the sources are not neutral, and indeed partisan.
It is not for you to judge. Amnesty is a highly respected source in the Western World.
Dilip rajeev (talk) 08:41, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
*3. This article is not about POVs. We are obliged to report here what Human Rights Organizations such as the Amnesty have said on the issue - whether you like it or not.
This is perhaps the biggest shortfall of everything you've said. Wikipedia is not about propaganda. POV is one of the most important concepts in Wikipedia, on any article. Please read about WP:POV.
Obviously!! NPOV is a criteria. Amnesty, HRW etc are sufficiently NPOV. When you say Amnesty is POV you cant use Amnesty thats a really wierd thing to say. What i am saying is: The article is not about "point of views".
Dilip rajeev (talk) 08:41, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
*4. I donot appreciate the very least personal and emotional attacks being cast on me like this. I have repeatedly said - if a particular edit has such and such a problem. etc - you may point it out and I'll work on it. I find it surprising that you are so unsettled by well sourced information from Amnesty, Kilgour Matas etc. You label Human Rights reports submitted at the UN - "lobby". You have used 'time' as a source in the intro - without giving any background to the effect that the article is merely a particular author's point of view.. These reports are atlest as much ( if not much more) credible than what a particular 'time' article opined at a time when western media had little choice but to repeat CCP's propaganada.
This is not about CCP, but CNN and the other major independent third-party networks.
Yes it is CCP sourced info. Please do not attempt to mess things up like this . The bit of content i removed was merely stuff directly sourced from the CCP. Where did CNN come into the picture???
Dilip rajeev (talk) 08:41, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
*5. Falun Gong propaganda an wierd and illogical thing to say. What propaganda - if you report investigative reports and human rights orgs that becomes propaganda? Just look at the previous article - what was it?? Just a pile of stuff from the CCP presented without any background or substance. You somehow seemed to like that very much. I had outlined reasons for every change and every is well sourced and legitimate content. When information from Human Rights Organizations are added and background provided, you become extremely unsettled.
Any organization has it's own point of view. Our goal is to find what is neutral. EgraS (talk) 08:18, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
Our goal is to report from good sources. Not to do research.
Dilip rajeev (talk) 08:41, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
  • This article is not about POVs. You're barking up the wrong tree! Of course it's about POV's, and WP:NPOV in particular. Read my lips: We are not obliged to report here what Human Rights Organizations such as the Amnesty have said on the issue. WP:NPOV clearly states that" an article must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), representing fairly, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources". Amnesty and K&M, are advocacy/interest groups, which do not in themselves qualify as a reliable source, except insofar as they talk about itself themselves or what they specifically say. Where Amnesty has been cited by the press on this issue, can be included in wikipedia. Just because something can be sourced to Amnesty doesn't automatically qualify it for admission into a wikipedia article, nor automatically represents the uncontroverted truth. They can say as much as they like in their press statements and on their website, but we should, no must, ignore it if no third-party reliable sources have taken up the story. Ohconfucius (talk) 08:49, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Btw, you still have not given your reasons for deleting contents on the persecution page! Dilip rajeev (talk) 08:41, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

  • This line of discussion is not pertinent on this page. Ohconfucius (talk) 08:49, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Confucius you've got me confused here. You think Amnesty is not relevant to this article? What would be, then? Of course Amnesty is relevant to the article. Amnesty and other human rights orgs like them are among the most qualified to be commenting on this issue. I have resisted the urge to revert Egra's unproductive response to Dilip's changes. I am totally against wholesale reverts except in really egregious cases. We should be able to discuss this civilly and get away from this partisan advocacy. One thing I would do, short of reverting, is simply to go through and copy in all of the changes (excluding the additions to the lead), make sure they were neutrally written and did not mix fact with opinion, then start discussing. Excluding Amnesty from this article is so strange and unfounded, I'm surprised you would suggest it. What if I just randomly said that journalists should be excluded from this article? It makes as much sense.--Asdfg12345 12:27, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

There is a mutual responsibility to ensure that material inserted is done so in a consensual manner. Dilip expressed his concerns. I expressly asked him to slow down, which he ignored, and went ahead with wholesale inclusion of text even amidst the most vehement objections. What is more kept on doing so even as heated discussions were taking place. If we do not permit such stuff from being removed, Dilip's article becomes the status quo, and the onus on those seeking to remove the disputed material. Now that Dilip's edits have become considerable, and the article is once again a mess through a bloated lead section, duplication by an unthorough C&P and incoherent flow. The status quo must be protected if not defended - and it should be defended more strongly as it was a GA - and consensus must be established prior to reaching the next level. Looking back, perhaps I should have stamped on him more strongly as he was making his first edit, and reverted as per my GA warning. Ohconfucius (talk) 03:33, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Confucius, if you had added a bunch of text from third parties throughout the article showing how Falun Gong really did it, and Dilip came along and tried to pull it all off saying that he demands consensus, I would support that information staying. The reason is, that's the same as supporting wikipedia policies. As far as I can tell Dilip has just added such information from reliable sources and deleted that table. There is no such thing in my mind--and even less should there be in dealing with these articles, which are usually in a poor state--as a 'status quo' that should be safeguarded. Some of the pages just suck and need a thrashing, we don't need to defend them. This page was on GA, so if I had stumbled across the Amnesty stuff I might have found other ways to add it than all at once, I don't know, but we should always be willing to reassess things and look at them afresh. To me, the onus is the same whether we are talking now about what information to summarise or pare down, as if the article was as it was before and we are talking about why to exclude relevant information from quality sources. Egra's methodology of reverting with little discussion is troubling, though, it's not acceptable. Why don't you just go through the article and make the changes you think would be helpful. I can only imagine you do not advocate removing all of Dilip's additions? I can imagine it's not GA now anyway. Besides all these points, I raise a very imporant question in the section below which I hope you will help me to answer.--Asdfg12345 06:24, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Have everyone of you read "Poisonous Deceit"?

Has everyone of you read the "Poisonous Deceit" available at http://www.deep6-publishing.org/? --HappyInGeneral (talk) 09:36, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

It will violate WP:SPS as this is published by an unknown publisher of which this book is the only book published (as far as I can see from the website); it is written by someone under a pseudonym and has NOT been established in its field and therefore is not a reliable source. And do you mean "anyone" instead of "everyone"? Your expectation of everyone to have read this book would be quite absurd. --antilivedT | C | G 10:38, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
I meant everyone and as a suggestion, since the author claims to be close to the central leadership, which gives a good inside, good starting point to know where to look for things :) --HappyInGeneral (talk) 10:59, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Suggesting a sanbox as on the Falun Gong page

I think given the revert made by EgraS and the strong discussion between Dilip and Ohconfucius, it's in order to make a sandbox on the same model as the Falun Gong page has, see Talk:Falun_Gong#How_to_move_on and Talk:Falun_Gong/sandbox, one where competing content can be added without being deleted, and which then we can discussed to see which one is OK to go in and why. --HappyInGeneral (talk) 12:38, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

I understand that this is work :), so who wants/has time, to do it? --HappyInGeneral (talk) 12:40, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Issues, numbered, for discussion

  1. Whether the "victims table" (let's call it) should go or stay
  2. Whether the NTDTV analysis should be in a box to the side, or in point form in the article, or how it should be set out
  3. Whether some of the information added by Dilip should be summarised or stated more concisely

[edit] 1. Whether the "victims table" (let's call it) should go or stay

Go. I don't think it added much, it's not from a reliable source, it conflicts with other information, and the relevant parts can be summarised. Having a table seems needless.--Asdfg12345 06:32, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

I believe it is due to additional political motives that this change has been suggested, yet the table on false fire stays. The purpose of a table is to attract additional attention, and I believe neither tables belong in this article. EgraS (talk) 19:39, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 2. Whether the NTDTV analysis should be in a box or not

Don't think it matters. It wasn't originally construed as biased. If now it's thought to be biased then just incorporate it another way. I think a box is just neater. Originally I thought that it was actually biased in the other way, as in, it shoves those views away to the side and diminishes them, rather than builds them up. Funny, huh?--Asdfg12345 06:32, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

I will remove the box and displace the contents as necessary, which you, Ohconfucius, and I have agreed with. I believe this certainly has consensus, unless if you change your mind. EgraS (talk) 19:41, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 3. Whether added information to be summarised

The block quote from K/M can be surmised a bit and does not need to be indented block quote. I don't actually think the changes were excessive. Some more background information added, some more analysis added. I'm not here talking about which point of view it argues, but that it is added analysis.--Asdfg12345 06:32, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Moving forward; outstanding issues on the page

There is absolutely no need for a large scale revert. I'm resisting this time because it is such an egregious case. The edit was mostly just deleting a huge amount of content. There's no justification for that at all. Usually I think it's better to compromise and start going through what was deleted and adding it back in bit by bit to establish what the difficulty is, but I feel like I would be encouraging this kind of destructive behaviour. As far as I can tell, Dilip has just added a bunch of information. All of its from reliable sources, as far as I can tell. Claiming that Amnesty doesn't belong here is silly. The other thing he did was bulk up the lead and delete the table. So I try to sum up the issues here, and people should add to them, then we can discuss them in terms of these numbers and reach a consensus. There's no question about whether all the content should be blanked. To add an item, just put a "#" on the next line and neutrally state what the problem is. No more blank reverts. It's so destructive of editing morale, turning the whole thing into a fight. Please discuss. --Asdfg12345 12:46, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

  1. Whether the "victims table" (let's call it) should go or stay
  2. Whether the NTDTV analysis should be in a box to the side, or in point form in the article, or how it should be set out
  3. Whether some of the information added by Dilip should be summarised or stated more concisely
I would suggest, starting Talk:Tiananmen Square self-immolation incident/sandbox where content is added, discussed on the spot, but not deleted. --HappyInGeneral (talk) 12:53, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
Dilip added most of this without regard for consensus, and the burden of proof lies in the new information. Such information which is clearly NPOV, especially a recent event, should be reverted immediately.[10] Before such changes are made, they should be discussed first, not the other way around. Dilip's political motivation has changed this article into nothing but an opinion piece. EgraS (talk) 19:44, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
How many times did I point out that the sources used are sources of the highest repute? Any editor may review my edits and verify for himself/herself. Every single edit and every bit of information I added were well sourced and in most part from sources of high repute such as Amnesty, HRW, The Kilgour-Matas report etc. Which particular edit do you have a problem with? When I add something from Amnesty as a blockquote, where does this so called "burden of proof" you talk about come from? Most content I added are in the manner "According to a report by The Amnesty International "...." .. The Kilgour-Matas Reports state.. "...." . Why do you repeatedly and for no reason, attack me personally like this? I have repeatedly requested that if you have any problem with any specific edit of mine - kindly point it out - and i'll fix it - yet all you do are these vague personal/emotional attacks. Egras, no matter how hard you try to cover up information from these sources - you really cant.
  • You clearly nailed your political colours to the mast, you think it was a setup and that the article should reflect the fact that is was a set-up. I fail to see how challenging your edits by saying you have political motives can be construed as a personal attack. Ohconfucius (talk) 05:47, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
You keep saying Amnesty International reports are POV. I really do not know what to say then. That is just your "perspective", friend. It is one of the sources of Highest Repute in the Western world and in the Human Rights Community. It is not up to me to "prove" what reports by Amnesty, Kilgour Matas, HRW etc have said is true( if that the "burden of proof" you are talking about!!) - but to merely state that Amnesty or HRW has said so and to provide suitable reference(s)/source(s).
Dilip rajeev (talk) 21:11, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
You're just walking around the same bush. Amnesty International, and the other sources you listed are not of the highest respute. Check WP:Sources. A good source comes from a journal which is peer-reviewed, or a large independent publishing firm, not an organization who's goal is to advance an objective, however noble that may be. Much of what you have done has no citations. This includes putting quotation marks around the names of those involved in the incident, and removing citation needed from certain statements that are unsourced, such as the one in the lead paragraph. I mention CNN or MSN a lot because they are independent, large publishing companies, and they did make their own analysis despite using information from chinese reports of what had happened. Their reporting clearly is more important than what an advocacy group says. And, the rule of thumb is that the new information should not be added until it has reached consensus, not the other way around. EgraS (talk) 22:25, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Egra, a couple of things. Amnesty is a WP:reliable source when it comes to this article, it's a classic source that can be quoted here. There's no sense denying that. It's a large organisation which advocates for human rights. That doesn't mean they fabricate claims and make rash statements. They are very careful about what they say and what they put out to the public, and they are generally well regarded. I am not advocating for these people, just explaining the relation to wikipedia. If there are points in the article where something is said but not attributed, please indicate. Please give a non general response to what is wrong with the article in its current state, i.e. this particular part for this reason, or that particular part for that reason. That is much more productive than any other approach, I think. There are also some talking points above, numbered, which are potential issues which we should discuss. --Asdfg12345 00:53, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Finally, claiming that consensus is needed just to add in sourced information is a stretch, to me. Consensus is a core part of this whole process, obviously, but it seems as though you're just using it as a catch cry to express your dislike for what he has added. I think what we should specify what is wrong with the article according to policies, and work from there. As I have said above, there's much more prevalence of quality sources debunking this incident, calling it a propaganda stunt, than those upholding it. This is the nature of wikipedia. We don't nip and tuck sources to try to ensure the article presents an ambiguous picture to readers. We look at the sources and report what they say. If there's a heap more saying one thing and not many saying another, then there's a distinction between mainstream and minority views. But let's get specific on this article and work out the specific problematic points and fix them. --Asdfg12345 01:06, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

We don't nip and tuck sources to try to ensure the article presents an ambiguous picture to readers. We look at the sources and report what they say.
Wikipedia's purpose is to report on all the sources, and let the reader make up his mind. The article clearly gives precedence to FLG sources. There are quotation marks added to the names of the victims, and this is simply a none-too-veiled attempt to discredit the viewpoint of those on the other side.
Finally, claiming that consensus is needed just to add in sourced information is a stretch, to me. Consensus is a core part of this whole process, obviously, but it seems as though you're just using it as a catch cry to express your dislike for what he has added. I think what we should specify what is wrong with the article according to policies, and work from there. As I have said above, there's much more prevalence of quality sources debunking this incident, calling it a propaganda stunt, than those upholding it.
Changing the entire pitch of a good article in just a few days with sources completely from advocacy groups without large independent publishers just doesn't cut it. An independent group is one who doesnt care about either the FLG or PRC. The person who changed this article has himself acknowledged his need to turn this a call for advocacy, in other words, his soapbox.
If there's a heap more saying one thing and not many saying another, then there's a distinction between mainstream and minority views. But let's get specific on this article and work out the specific problematic points and fix them.
The problem here is not quantity, but quality. What has been written by the most unbiased sources have been swept under the rug. An excellent example, aside from adding quotations to the victims to give credit to FLG, is the placing of a very pro-FLG textbox promimently in the analysis section. Both I and the original editor of the box has decided to displace contents of the box into a regular bulletpoint, but Dilip alone has pushed ahead in his unbridled rush to turn this article into an edition he sanctions. EgraS (talk) 02:17, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

asdfg: You and I were jointly responsible for the article and agreed to all the contents until Dilip got here. I think you should be standing beside me and defending the article, instead of indulging the Rajeev "propaganda ratchet". This story has been around for 7 years, and frankly, I would express my enormous surprise if you there's something 'new' or you hadn't considered when we wrote the article. You will recall that we did look at most of the stuff, we debated and decided that that was middle ground. I don't mind saying that I have a huge problem with where Dilip is coming from, and also where he is going to with this, or indeed any of the FG related articles. His blind spot is that he believes none of the Chinese Govt's pronouncements worthy of inclusion in the article. Very few people in the world go around wearing a yellow "Falun Gong is Good" T-shirt. ;-)

I've never said so called CCP "sources" cannot be included - what i have said is it serves little legitimate purpose to present it to the reader as fact without providing sufficient background/context.
Dilip rajeev (talk) 18:45, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

I am sure your shock is misplaced, and would invite you to read again what I wrote above: I did not say Amnesty stuff has no place - you know full well that we put quite a lot of it in the articles already. I was merely stating that the additional stuff was out of place because Dilip stacked the article with material which was published by several primary sources but not carried anywhere mainstream; even scholarly texts only cite Amnesty in moderation. In trying to establish balance, we should always do it with due weight, and not be tempted to looking under the carpet to fill the information gaps in order to undermine the "CCP Propaganda". We must not accept the emotional claptrap that severe injustices have been dealt against FG practitioners and that we should thus give platform here to redress the balance. I do not accept that we should have huge block quotes of same from WOIPFG, Amnesty or IED or whoever for those reason. I also completely disagree with Dilip removing the victim table - the grounds ("irrelevant parts of CCP controlled media's story ") were flimsy and that same logic would permit me to remove all material sourced from Falun Gong from the article. I am sure that one could go around, find and cite the multitude of Chinese media sources which establish that FG practitioners had cut themselves open looking for the Dharma Wheel, or had burned themselves alive on CNY eve in 2001 and testified about their regret over their wrecked existences. If we were to truly give due weight as the sole consideration, we would be reporting what the popular press in China said - after all, the vast number of copies of these journals sold far outnumber the number of issues/appearances in Western media. Note that we do not: we cited Xinhua and left it at that, for I sincerely doubt citing the plethora of Chinese press to "cover all the bases" would result in a more useful, neutral, reliable or pertinent article. Ohconfucius (talk) 02:30, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

I believe that the best and most agreeable way to solve this is to have the article under the original edition with full protection, and discuss the changes on talk. I believe I am being very moderate about this.[11] EgraS (talk) 02:40, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Seconded. asdfg: are you with me? Ohconfucius (talk) 02:46, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Dilip's Response
The reason we absolutely cannot use propaganda from the CCP controlled press is that it is a long known and a well documented fact( by no means my personal opinion) that the CCP controlled press has been using the weirdest and the most slanderous propaganda against Falun Gong for the sole purpose of incitement of hatred. To cite just two sources: see Incitement to hatred, Considerations specific to Falun Gong. Kilgour Matas Report ; "Whereas propaganda from state-controlled media in the People's Republic of China has inundated the public in an attempt to breed hatred and discrimination;"- Resolution 188 ,Unanimously passed The US congress . This propaganda from CCP , needless to say, would fail to meet WP:RS. What surprises me the extent to which you are unsettled by information from these highly reliable sources - amnesty or HRW. I dont think you personally believe CCP's propaganda crap either- but if by any chance you do - just think about it - not a single such incident occurred before July 1999 and not a single such incident has occurred outside of china.
It is often said in CCP media that Dalai Lama, Falun Gong practitioners etc are "anti-china American spies who should be eliminated by the CCP". Am not joking - "anti-china-american-spy" - thats how CCP labels the Dalai Lama Himself. How about we use this very CCP controlled media as a source for the Dalai Lama article - without providing any background about the propagandistic stuff ( That is we put "The CCP media has 'established' ( your usage ) that , The Dalai Lama is an "anti-china American spy who should be eliminated by the CCP" and we do without providing any background that it is "probably" nothing but propaganda from The CCP) . I really dont think anybody in their right mind would do so.
Dilip rajeev (talk) 07:11, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

I might be, but let me clarify, just so I am clear on what the argument is. The problem is that these sources are supportive of the view that the incident was staged. Right? Let me clarify what I mean by giving an example. If Amnesty had published something saying that they support the Falun Gong's right to practice their beliefs, but decry the fact that practitioners would resort to self-immolation to protest, and condemn it, would this be allowed? Let me guess your answer. Of course it would. Because I understand you would see that as a balanced opinion, right? Before we go further in the discussion--and I am not ruling out blockquotes being shortened, repetitive information shortened, etc. (and the lede is now as slim as it was originally)--can I please get views so far about what I have proposed? (confucius, in answer, it seems natural when there's a dispute to go back to the undisputed version and look at the changes one at a time, and we'd effectively be doing the same thing with this version but looking to take things out or shorten them rather than put them in, but I guess I struggle in the first instance because some of the changes that were reverted aren't controversial (like the Ownby paragraph), and others don't need to be totally deleted to be resolved).

I actually think the outcome is the same though, whichever version is the working draft. I actually don't see why someone shouldn't just go through the article now and start paring things down or summarising blockquotes that are apparently excessive. But to be honest, looking at it now, I don't know what they would be. If I had been aware of this additional commentary from Amnesty and K/M I would have sought to include it in the first round of changes. I suspect the resistance here could be because of the editor and the rapid nature of the changes, rather than with the changes in themselves? I'm not sure. As far as I can tell there is a bunch of information added to this article--and it hasn't broken WP:V or WP:RS--but which reinforces the view that the incident was a setup. I want to know whether if Dilip had added some information from Amnesty that said they condemn the persecution, but also reproach Falun Gong's self-immalatory response. Would that be okay? --Asdfg12345 06:14, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

True, I agree on the whole. Deciding what to include or exclude is always going to be a bit subjective. However, I would once again say that what goes in would depend on what appeared in independent third-party sources in the first instance. From there, we would be permitted to look at the source text (in this case Amnesty) to ensure that the statement/argument has been taken in its correct context. Certainly, I would strongly consider countervailing arguments from that same text for the sake of balance, but I would exercise restraint in citing material which has not appeared in independent third-party sources.

The K&M stuff is very different in nature - the paragraph cited by Dilip is not acceptable in whole nor in any part. K&M merely took it verbatim from an AI report/statement and endorsed it. Lawyers would call that "hearsay". It's not a scholarly work, nor are those points anything which have not been hinted strongly at in the article, AFAICT, so there is no sound reason why it should be included. Ohconfucius (talk) 07:00, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

If I understand you correctly, you are in favour of a roll-back to an undisputed version. For me, that would be this one. I tend to agree that the end result should in theory be the same, but I certainly do not want to start with the one currently on the table. Ohconfucius (talk) 07:00, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Please read it once more.If I understood it correctly, It does not say he is in favour of any rollback - but says he can see no particular reason a roll back should be done - since the outcome would be the same anyway ( he points out that he can't find much that could be removed or shorten the content that has been added.) Asdfg also states: "If I had been aware of this additional commentary from Amnesty and K/M I would have sought to include it in the first round of changes."
"Ohconfucius", let me please point out again that to characterize Amnesty International Reports as "hearsay", is unacceptable. If K&M based on their investigative reports considers reports from Amnesty to be true and worth quoting, it only adds to the already high reliability of the Amnesty Report.
Needless to say, I am also not in favour of removing all this well-sourced content.
Dilip rajeev (talk) 07:43, 9 May 2008 (UTC)


  • I think asdfg can answer for himself. I deduced he favoured a rollback to that version because he said "it seems natural when there's a dispute to go back to the undisputed version and look at the changes one at a time". Maybe I got it wrong, but you're reacting that way just because you disagree. As for the "hearsay", I wasn't referring to AI being hearsay, but merely your citing in the article K&M's use of it. The difference is not even subtle, and shouldn't be all that hard for a Mensan like you ;-). Ohconfucius (talk) 08:24, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
Kilgour Matas quote Amnesty providing suitable reference- so how did the credibility of the report suddenly go down? Remember that Kilgour and Matas themselves have a high reputation in the International Community - if they say so in their investigative reports even without citing Amnesty it is worthy of mention in the article. Again we are merely objectively stating "According to Reports by Kilgour and Matas:".
Dilip rajeev (talk) 08:48, 9 May 2008 (UTC)


  • I see you corrected yourself. I also said that it should in theory work out to be the same, but I want it rolled back. If you think it will all be the same, why are you so opposed to rolling back and working through the changes one by one? Ohconfucius (talk) 08:37, 9 May 2008 (UTC)


I am by no means in favor of any roll back - especially when there is no reason, except that you are somehow are unsettled by the content added. I find it truly hard to accept that your motive behind wanting to revert all such well sourced and reliable content is benign. If you do have a problem with a particular change, you may point it out and we can discuss the change. Asdfg also apparently finds the changes all required and acceptable - pointing out that he would have done these changes in the first round of edits were he aware of the existence of these sources. Why should we run in circles? I am strongly against rolling back to any previous version.
Dilip rajeev (talk) 08:48, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
The reason, that you put through the changes to a good article without consensus, is plenty good enough to roll back. Questioning my motives is just being personal, and will get just you mentally tied up in knots even more than you are now. We are getting nowhere, and I will not comment any more until we have the views of some of the others. Ohconfucius (talk) 09:01, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

CIreland (talk) 08:14, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Just to clarify for Dilip and Confucius, I wasn't making a position on a rollback or not, just sharing some thoughts in the hope that we could understand the situation and work better together. I don't think it matters whether there is a rollback or not, because as far as I can tell the changes were mostly okay. I see Confucius's point about K/M on Amnesty--Amnesty ought to be quoted directly. That K/M put their support behind it is significant and can also be cited. It's important for readers to know how claims are received by other third parties, because that also determines where sources stand in terms of reliability. I objected to Egra's blanking of everything. If it were me and confucius editing the pages and I made a bunch of changes that he wanted more consideration of--and considering that it was GA and there was a request to discuss all edits--I would want a roll back as a gesture of cooperation, and that's the spirit it would be made in. Either way, I don't think the outcome will be much altered, but such gestures have significance, and I think making things stubborn and personal is the most counterproductive thing. When people can edit with a spirit of cooperation and truly wanting to improve the article, that will have the best result.

My rhetorical questions related to Amnesty were for this reason: I wanted to demonstrate that Confucius and Egra need to correct their thinking. Let's assume that the answer is 'yes', that if Amnesty had some opinions that 'balanced' the article, they would be encouraged to be added. But this reveals the problem. We are not here to tailor sources to the message we want to create. We are not here to create some ambiguous article where we nip and tuck sources to make sure that readers don't get one or another impression. I think we just have to survey what sources are available and draw on them and report them neutrally. Editing with the intention of creating a particular impression--whether for, against, or ambiguous--is still not doing it right, according to my understanding. If Amnesty had something criticising Falun Gong and we added it for that reason, that would be dodgy, because we would not be assessing Amnesty as a source in its own right, but trying to create an impression by using them that way. Of course I think opinions should be balanced and arguments presented from both sides, but if one set of arguments is stronger, there are more sources repeating it, they are of higher quality, then we don't sweep that under the carpet because it will make things look one way or another, I think we just have to report it and put up with it whether we like it or not. These are just some more thoughts, and why Dilip adding more sources should not be criticised. Looks like it's locked now anyway.--Asdfg12345 11:55, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Protection

Following this request and evidence of revert warring, the page is fully protected for 7 days or until disputes have been resolved. CIreland (talk) 07:05, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Notice and reminder

I would remind all participating editors that this article clearly falls under the sanctions and remedies of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Falun Gong and that they should be mindful of this. CIreland (talk) 08:17, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Please scroll up to "Issues numbered, for discussion", or similar title, and look at the points raised there. Please share thoughts about those issues. It looks quite poor to avoid this while the page is locked. Let's work through the above issues, and if there is another one that needs to be discussed, add it with a number and subsection for discussion. I added my thoughts already, but we ought to reach consensus on the changes.
On another note, I read through the page in its entirety recently and I think it's not that good. I don't think it's biased towards Falun Gong, or the other way around, but that the presentation of information is chaotic and unstructured. The key section is "reporting and analysis", with the other parts hingeing off it, but it seems like the arguments get buried. That's a separate issue, hopefully can resolve it. --Asdfg12345 01:05, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

1/ Whether the "victims table" (let's call it) should go or stay. - It is a legitimate piece of information, and serves as a central and visible reference and summary point for the article, as the names can sometimes be confusing, especially to a non-Chinese. I have no objection to it being clearly stated as having been sourced from Xinhua or wherever.


With the box I disagree because it adds little legitimate information for the amount of space it occupies - even the identity of the self-immolators are unclear - let alone the purported "outcomes".
Dilip rajeev (talk) 18:37, 14 May 2008 (UTC)


2/ Whether the NTDTV analysis should be in a box to the side, or in point form in the article, or how it should be set out - I personally didn't like it in the body of the text and do tend to think the box gives it a marginally undue bias. I was lazy with a C&P, but think that, if anything, we should consider summarising it in prose form in its own little paragraph of FG counter-allegations. Ohconfucius (talk) 06:42, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

3/ Whether the K&M should be summarised or stated more concisely - I hate "me too" citations. Yes, and the block-quote must be removed, IMHO, as it adds nothing of value by merely repeating what Amnesty said as well as repeating what has already been cited from Amnesty in the article. We don't need K&M to tell us what Amnesty said. A more direct citation from Amnesty is one option, or an existing citation can be beefed up, appropriately sourced. Ohconfucius (talk) 06:42, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

But if others have taken up and reinforced a particular argument, this shows the reception of this argument. It may be called "me too", but it's demonstrative and helpful for the reader to gauge the weight of the argument. Know what I mean? I though K/M summarise the situation well?--Asdfg12345 07:28, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
  • I think this point is problematic unless such views are universal, and in that case must be demonstrated as such. There may be a misconception that something is "more true" if it is repeated more often - it is not the case. I have a problem specifically with the paragraph cited as stated because I think block quotes should be used sparingly per WP:COPY, but all this does not imply I would necessarily disagree with some other paragraph which adds more value than just "me to". K&M wrote a whole bunch of stuff and the AI citation is just one of the building blocks, so there's bound to be material linking to AI which is more worthy of inclusion. Inclusion of purely "me too" comments is vulnerable to creation of an artificial or subjective consensus (Anyway, I don't think the comments from Amnesty really require endorsement by K&M, although it might not be the same in the other direction). It's a bit like Dilip saying Happy agrees with him on a given point, in trying to put down markers for "consensus". True consensus is far wider than us "usual suspects". In fact, we are not the consensus although we may represent it. Ohconfucius (talk) 02:13, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
I dont think the blockquote from the KM report should be removed - in particular because it provides a lot of background to the reader in a few words. They are indeed pointing out something very relevant there.
Dilip rajeev (talk) 18:34, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
  • If you insist, please find the original text and cite it. It is not acceptable in its current form. Ohconfucius (talk) 02:21, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
  • also, why was the table format removed? Ohconfucius (talk) 02:21, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
  • I think it's preferable to get the words directy from Amnesty, but I don't understand why it's unacceptable in its current form. I don't think that's true. If there is a policy or something I am not aware of, I would welcome looking at it.
  • Quotations are always better direct, and it was not adequately demonstrated why it had to be an indirect citation. Well, you highlighted the problem yourself : It now seems like the "quote" was a mish-mash of stuff from here and there, and we need to be sure who said what. Ohconfucius (talk) 04:15, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Okay, thanks. Yes, good point, and I see the sense.--Asdfg12345 11:28, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
  • The table was unnecessarily large, now the same information can be gotten across quicker and more simply--what did you like about the table?
  • Think that when there are several different pieces of info per line, it's better to have them in a box. It looks a bit scruffy, but I'm not hugely bothered by it as it is now. Ohconfucius (talk) 04:13, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Also, what do you reckon we do with the False Fire box? keep it or put all those dot points in a subsection in the reporting and analysis section?
  • yes, can you perhaps do that? Ohconfucius (talk) 04:12, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Okay, no problem. Will do it next "wiki-session" (which I am trying to make time limits and firm rules about--something difficult to do, as you might know).--Asdfg12345 11:24, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
  • My perspective on this is that its 'ok' either way. Either way we convey the same information. The box does add a bit of structure - and to me keeping it boxed on a side is certainly more aesthetically pleasing than having a bunch of starred points in the middle of the article. It also does contribute to the "flow" .. a reader going through the main block needn't read through all these points unless he is particularly interested in knowing more about them.
Dilip rajeev (talk) 19:00, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

I think it looks better now with the subsections and stuff.--Asdfg12345 03:41, 15 May 2008 (UTC)


What says everyone about trimming down that "government actions" section a bit? Is going into this much detail relevant? To the reader it may just serve to show how absurd CCP's propagandistic actions have been - but beyond that it seems to serve little purpose. We certainly could shorten it and convey the same information in a much more encyclopedic manner. Dilip rajeev (talk) 18:20, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

I believe a RfC is needed at this moment. Slowly and once more, your views are certainly not mainstream. As Ohconfuscius, I believe that it is simply pure hypocrisy that you mention that it isnt known what happened in this incident, but then use falun-supported or sympathsized sources ad lib as fact. Your continued discussion such as putting quotation marks around everything not consistent with your personal vendetta only fortifies claims about your political motivation behind these edits. EgraS (talk) 19:22, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
Have you watched the video false fire: [12]; have you read: "Poisonous Deceit" available at [13]? Other then that, sure you can find any WP:RS and you can publish it. But perhaps after documenting yourself you will understand Dilip, which is when presented with facts (as in the video, or as in the points proposed in "Poisonous Deceit") you won't find as hard to do. --HappyInGeneral (talk) 00:07, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
What is unsourced here: [14] ? --HappyInGeneral (talk) 00:12, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
What do you mean that Falun Dafa teaching claim to forbid killing? [15] Have you read them? I did, I can tell you they do forbid killing. FYI: [16] --HappyInGeneral (talk) 00:16, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
I can also post information from thousands of anti-Falun sources. But I'm not going to do that because it would be NPOV. Likewise, the sources are pro-FLG and state them as FACT not as opinion. Me and Ohconfuscius have been extraordinarily civil, but have been met with false accusations ranging from a fake checkuser to disrupt the discussion to edits which clearly do not meet Wikipedia's guidelines to outright derision at following WP's guidelines. A RfC will clear everything up once enough other editors pitch in. EgraS (talk) 01:25, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Please, initiate an rfc. Please don't delete the Washington Post paragraph again. The sources you seem to be objecting to are Washington Post, Amnesty International, and Kilgour and Matas. These sources are quite acceptable. If you have concerns apart from these, please let us know.--Asdfg12345 02:09, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

I was procrastinating on some work I had to do and I copied and pasted the text above, starting with Dilip's first entry, and ran a word count: there are 18,000 words above! Across the pages I think there would have to be hundreds of thousands of words written in discussion. that's heaps.--Asdfg12345 02:58, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] RfC

As the person who initiated this RfC, I believe that the root of this debate is simply if sources such as Amnesty International satisfies as a third party independent sources such that they can be counted as fact instead of opinion. EgraS (talk) 02:23, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Please see WP:ASF: "Assert facts, including facts about opinions—but do not assert the opinions themselves. ... When we discuss an opinion, we attribute the opinion to someone and discuss the fact that they have this opinion." -- Including Amnesty International's comments re this incident is an example of this in action.--Asdfg12345 02:29, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
This RfC is incredibly fair. If the sources are independent, the article should stay the way it is. If it isnt, then they should be balanced by other views. You need to read about sources. What opinion did I give? EgraS (talk) 02:33, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
That is correct, although, unless we have a reason to doubt the Amnesty International sources, they seem acceptable. Happyme22 (talk) 17:50, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Amnesty international is generally a reliable source. Without studying the article, I cannot say whether what it says needs to be specifically noted as being from them; however, their general reliability with regard to human rights issues is well accepted.Ngchen (talk) 20:08, 18 May 2008 (UTC)