Talk:Tiananmen Square self-immolation incident

Recent changes (2)

OhConfucius, please stop and discuss changes, as other editors had the courtesy to do last year when this page was revised. You are reintroducing problems of bias, original synthesis, and misrepresentation of sources. The lede, which you just reverted back to your preferred version, is representative: you deleted any mention of the inconsistencies in the official narrative, conflated and misrepresented the views of scholars, and removed any mention of the fact that this event resulted in the increase of systematic torture against Falungong adherents. You also added several times that Falungong is illegal. Please show me the law. My understanding from Tong and other sources is that the campaign is actually extralegal, and run by the party.

In the section on 'background,' your edits 1) misrepresented the chronology of event in the spring of 1999, and 2) You added a synthesised collection of material about Falungong's teachings, which serve to bias the reader into believing that these teachings resulted in the self-immolation. The equivalent would be to point out how much authorities were struggling in the first years of the campaign to rally public support, and how desperately they needed a propaganda coup against Falungong. Do you see that that's not appropriate? This was all discussed.

In the section on 'respectable Buddhist tradition', you again misrepresented sources. User Homunculus explained at length in a previous discussion thread why changes were made, and you're reverting those changes. You also introduced a source from the China Association for Cultic Studies, saying there were other self-immolations. That is a Chinese government source, closely affiliated with the 610 Office. It is not a reliable source on Falungong. The point is that no independent sources have ever corroborated self-immolations of Falungong practitioners.

Please stop and discuss before undoing the efforts of multiple other editors.—Zujine|talk 15:47, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

I suggest referring to this edit [1] when assessing the changes. I don't intend to get involved in the content/editing side of this. I am preparing a note for Ohconfucius's talk page now. Ohconfucius spent 4 or 5 hours basically rewriting the page, to make it look like what it looked like in 2009 when he edited it, without any discussion or attempt to form consensus. It is a highly controversial page. It is not customary practice on Wikipedia to make such vast changes to such a topic without any discussion. In response to Zujine's concerns, which he has not yet answered, he alleges that the changes are basically due to a Falun Gong conspiracy and wrote "don't make me laugh" in an edit summary where Zujine disputed part of Ohconfucius's changes. Below, Ohconfucius seems to volunteer that his own interpretation of the event take precedence on the page. I intend to address the broader issue with him directly. I won't edit the page amidst in such a polemical atmosphere. My views on this will be stated more clearly soon. The Sound and the Fury (talk) 16:50, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Here we go again. I support user Ohconfucius' changes to this article. Let's not kid ourselves. The page was taken to Feature Article status about two years ago. This was done through a rigorous process of peer review from a wide range of users, and this included checking for facts, biases, references, and due weight. That such a controversial article was taken to FA status is one of User Ohconfucius' greatest achievements and speaks volumes to his neutrality and high sensibility as an editor. Accusing user Ohconfucius of bias is bound to look foolish in front of non-involved editors and all those users who worked hard in collaboration with this user to take the article to FA in the first place. Colipon+(Talk) 17:14, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

OhConfucius worked on the page in 2009. It achieved FA status. Other editors improved the page through exhaustive collaboration in early 2011. That collaboration, as you could see by looking at the discussions overhead, was also carried out through a rigorous process of establishing due weight and checking and double-checking to ensure that sources were not misrepresented. It retained FA status and, in my view, was made an even better article. SilkTork, who oversaw this process, wrote at the time that "I think there is some editing to do to get this article fair and balanced, and with the appropriate amount of information. However, I am very much encouraged by what I have seen so far. I think people are on the whole working well, and listening to each other. Well done." OhConfucius has now disregarded weeks of work and discussion that went into the page in 2011. He has done this unilaterally, without ever seeking consensus. Setting aside the question of bias, this is not appropriate conduct for an article subject to the Arbitration Committee, in my opinion. I do not want to be drawn into an editing war here, but if some users insist on another major round of revisions to this page, I hope it can proceed in good faith. —Zujine|talk 17:44, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

• You imply that your efforts made it retain FA status, I'm saying perhaps it retained it despite those efforts. I'm not saying my wordings are the best and most orthodox, but similar wording got through FAC. I just contend that it beats the FLG propaganda piece version that shocked my pants off. The entire weight given to the FLG's position was utterly outrageous. I am reminded of the very stern opposition and hostility I faced, from Dilip rajeev, when I attempted to clean up the Falun Gong articles when I first started here. I'm more than happy to work with you on improving them, but I can only cope with intellectual honesty. Please don't insult my intelligence that the Falungong's teachings have no relation to this event; numerous sources mention them when describing the incident. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 18:12, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

You're saying that the article that I worked on, along with several other editors, is a "FLG propaganda piece." That's quite insulting. In previous discussions, editors hashed out the question of how much weight should be assigned to different views, and reached a consensus. Part of this assessment was made by looking at the treatment of the subject by David Ownby, who devoted more space to addressing the third party and Falungong perspective than the official narrative. As to Falungong's teachings, they are only relevant if the self-immolators were Falungong practitioners, and that is the heart of the dispute (at least two of them were not). Therefore, putting this into the background section is an endorsement of the view that the self-immolators were practitioners. Do you understand why that fails NPOV? Ultimately, whether there is a connection between these teachings and the self-immolation is a matter of subjective opinion and speculation, so should not be part of an objective, factual background section. Their possible role in this event is addressed in the appropriate section later on the page. I point this out in more detail below. —Zujine|talk 18:50, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

I did not intend to insult; it was my opinion of the article upon reading it. It's plain as day that the focus of the background section was the banning and the persecution of the Falun Gong. I believe it is necessary and I seem to recall I agreed to expanded at the urging of other editors, who may have included FLG practitioners. Heck, I may even have expanded it myself. Whether or not the victims were practitioners, to have such a focussed section and then deny the paragraph exposing 'Beyond the limits of Forbearance', published days earlier and with an ambiguously reactionary message, is devoid of cogent logic. It just seems plain wrong that this version completely sidelines any mention of the scripture and the surrounding commentary.

Inclusion of the paragraph in question presupposes nothing more than was presupposed before my edits of yesterday. However, its exclusion clearly exposes the patent pro-FLG bias of the piece. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 04:53, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Whatever the merits of the changes since 2009 might be, it's obvious that with them, it isn't the same article that passed FA. I will observe this discussion; if the disagreements cannot be resolved over the next days, I will take it to FAR to potentially have this article demoted. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 03:35, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Recent reverts

SInce the end of 2009, when I largely stopped editing this article, I note the article has changed substantially. Judging by its general tenor, and looking at the contributors' list, the article seems to have been heavily edited by Falun Gong devotees, amongst others, during this time. What was once a fairly balanced piece read like the incident had nothing to do with the Falun Gong, which is a totally unacceptable state of affairs. I had promised myself I would stay away, and it was only on a casual drive-by that I noticed its appalling state of bias, filled with dishonest speculation, weasel words. Sourced material unfavourable to Falun Gong has been mysteriously banished (for example Jansen and Ostergaard). So despite my self-imposed topic ban, I thought it was time to restore that balance to an article that I, a specialist in NRM, and a current arbitrator, nursed to Featured Article status. The recent reverts undid my work in cleaning up the mess for the best part of today. I do not accept that the scriptures and pronunciations of Li Hongzhi have nothing to do with this incident, and anyone who says they do not are, IMHO, not being totally honest with themselves. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 15:55, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

OhConfucius, I think that as a matter of protocol, if you want this to remain a FA, you should be more careful and collaborative when making radical changes to the page. In general, when editing controversial pages, I think it's advisable to present proposals and problems on the talk page first. You've spent many hours unilaterally reworking this page, with a distinct POV and no discussion, to undue changes that were discussed and agreed upon by multiple editors. When I sought to restore some balance and remove some of the problems you introduced, you quite curtly and condescendingly reverted, with edit summaries like "don't make me laugh." If you insist on breaking your voluntary topic ban, I would at least ask that you adjust your tactics and address changes individually to explain your views in a collegial way.

You and others worked on this page in 2009, bringing it to Featured Article status. About a year ago, in January 2011, other editors discussed proposed changes at great length. These editors were not all Falungong devotees (not that a person's religion should disqualify them from editing anyways); also involved was myself, Homunculus, and SilkTork. Edits to the page were made through discussion and consensus, and the page retained its FA status. You have now undone almost all of that work, without ever engaging in or responding to the previous discussions where changes were agreed upon.

I'll address some of the changes you made individually.

• In the lede, you wrote that Falungong is illegal, and suffers only "perceived mistreatment." My understanding based on James Tong's work, and legal literature, is that the campaign is actually extralegal. Moreover, there is no question that Falungong suffers mistreatment.
• Also in the lede, you conflated the views of David Ownby & Time magazine, ter Haar and Sisci. These people all had different views, which is why I changed it (you reverted me) to address them as individuals. Specifically, you wrote that Ownby thinks these were Falungong practitioners. But as has been discussed in earlier threads, he does not think that; he thinks the event might have been staged, or they might have been new and unschooled practitioners. He does not issue a conclusive judgement. You're misrepresenting the sources.
• You removed from the lede any mention of inconsistencies or holes in the official narrative, such as the fact that the self-immolators who died were not actually Falungong practitioners. These inconsistencies are highly notable, and they form the basis for the dispute.
• You removed from the lede the Falungong perspective. Falungong's position is not just that their teachings forbid suicide. It's that this event was staged as part of a propaganda campaign intended to justify the repression and torture of members. NPOV would hold that this view should be explained. You also deleted the fact that Falungong's teachings do not support the notion that self-immolation will take one to paradise. Again, that seems a violation of the NPOV policy.
• You removed from the lede the fact that the self-immolation cleared the way for authorities to intensify the systematic torture of Falungong adherents. Yet that was probably the most lasting source of notability. This event, staged or not, was a turning point in the campaign against Falungong, and was followed directly by staggering violence against the group. Why would you remove that? You wrote in your edit summary that it was biased and loaded. No doubt it's loaded, but that's because state-sanctioned, systematic violence is serious stuff. That does not mean it's biased.
• In the section on background, you wrote that the government decided to crack down on Falun Gong on July 22, 1999. You sourced this to a Chinese government newspaper. It is incorrect. I edited it to note that the decision was actually made on April 25, and that the campaign began on July 20 (really, it was set in motion on July 19. Began on 20. The MPS notice came out on 22nd, but the campaign was already underway). I used a far better source. You reverted. Why?
• In the background section, you added a great deal of cherry-picked material about Falungong's teachings, the scripture 'beyond the limits of forbearance,' etc. I don't think this is appropriate. No one knows with any certainty that these teachings had any connection with the self-immolation, because no one knows if the self-immolators were really Falungong practitioners. Some observers have speculated that there may be a relationship, and that is addressed later on the page in the appropriate section. Putting it in the background served to bias the reader. It implies that there was, indeed, a direct connection between Falungong doctrine and the self-immolation. The equivalent, from the opposite POV, would be to stack this section with information on how the government's campaign against Falungong was struggling. How they could not bring public opinion on their side, and how they desperately needed a propaganda coup against the group, and how they had a track record of staging anti-Falungong propaganda. Neither are appropriate. The section should be an impartial, factual narrative.
• In the section on 'respectable Buddhist tradition', you misrepresented sources. Namely, you wrote that Falun Gong headquarters issued a notice saying that some practitioners thought Li's latest scriptures were an invitation to violence. This is not true. Homunculus explained at length in a previous discussion thread why this was a problematic misrepresentation of sources. What actually happened was that a group of practitioners from China (not a Falungong HQ) published an essay saying that some people "in society" (ie. not Falungong practitioners themselves) had misinterpreted the scripture. I fixed this, and you reverted.
• You also introduced a source from the China Association for Cultic Studies, saying there were other self-immolations. That is a Chinese government source, closely affiliated with the 610 Office. It is not a reliable source.
• You misrepresented Philip Pan's investigation in Weifang, writing that Pan "obtained statements from a neighbour, who said that Liu "worked in a local nightclub and was paid to dine with and dance with customers. None ever saw her practice Falun Gong." Your edit makes it appear that Pan interviewed a single witness, and also implied that the quote 'no one ever saw her practice Falungong' came from that witness. That's not the case. Pan interviewed multiple people, and among them, none ever saw the victims practice Falungong. This was not the result of a single interview. Do you see how you misrepresented the nature of the investigation?
• You deleted the sentence, "According to David Ownby, a University of Montreal historian and expert on Falun Gong, Pan’s portrayal of Liu Chunlin is highly inconsistent with the typical profile of a Falun Gong practitioner." Why?

I hope you can address these individually, or correct them. If you do not, I will.—Zujine|talk 17:22, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Since you did not respond, I have resolved these issues. Regarding the background section, please read previous threads. This was discussed a lot. The relevance of Li's scriptures is addressed on the page in the appropriate context. No one is trying to delete it. Keeping it out of the background section is just a question of being neutral, and staying away from novel synthesis or undue weight. I hope you can appreciate that. If you think that there are still problems to be addressed, let's discuss them in good faith. —Zujine|talk 21:09, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

OhConfucius, you edited the paragraph that contains the Philip Pan quote, changing it to read: Reporting two weeks after the event from Kaifeng, the hometown of the Liu, Pan obtained statements from a neighbor, who said that Liu "worked in a local nightclub and was paid to dine with and dance with customers. Another said she beat her mother an daughter. None ever saw her practice Falun Gong." This quote—and you put it in quotation marks—does not appear like this in Pan's article. I have fixed it again so that it does not misrepresent Pan's words. If you have a different interpretation, please discuss.

You also added a fairly long sentence to the leading paragraph about how Falungong was declared illegal on July 22 by the Ministry of Civil Affairs. I raised this issue above, and you didn't respond. The campaign was actually decided upon by the Party authorities, and began on July 20 after a politburo meeting on July 19. On July 22, the Ministry of Civil Affairs issued a notice saying the Research Society of Falun Dafa was not properly registered and therefore illegal. That does not amount to Falungong itself being illegal. Nor does the Ministry of Public Security notice the same day. It is my understanding from the secondary sources that neither of these things carried the force of law. This is a complicated issue, and several sources have described it in more detail. I think the lede needs to be kept more simple, as this probably is not the right place for a nuanced explanation of the law. Just say that authorities began a campaign to suppress Falungong in July 1999, or something. Would that be alright with you? —Zujine|talk 14:29, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes, perhaps there is some conflation between Falun Gong (the organisation otherwise known as 'Research Society of Falun Dafa'), and the concept and practice. In China, which operates on continental law as opposed to Anglo-saxon law, any activity is deemed illegal unless expressly allowed. There are a whole panoply of bureaucratic authorisations exist to ensure arbitrary and easy plug-pulling. Many commercial and political organisations live in a limbo of quasi-illegality because bureaucratic compliance is often impossible; even if previously given, the withdrawl of operational licence alone is sufficient to render an organisation illegal. Let alone Li Hongzhi's decision to disaffiliate from the Qigong Association. Notwithstanding, being a dictatorship, the politburo surely has the power to decree any organisation illegal; likewise for any practice it may deem inappropriate. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 15:24, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

I see that you've fixed some references and formatting. Thank you for that. However, you have also made changes that have quite substantially altered the presentation and balance of the article. You have been asked to discuss substantial changes on the talk page before making them, and I am going to repeat that request again. Please attempt to discuss and, if possible, establish consensus before making potentially controversial changes.

In light of your recent edits to the introduction, a reader now must read two paragraphs of Chinese government views and quotations before they learn anything about the dispute, Falungong's position, or the views of third parties. This does not appear to accord with WP:NPOV. Accordingly, I am going to make some changes to the lede that I hope you will find reasonable. I will ensure that the views of both the government and falungong are concisely stated in the opening paragraph, and note that third parties have also described problems with the official account. If for some reason you do not think that's fair, please explain why. —Zujine|talk 16:50, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Don't see it. The second paragraph is rather descriptive and factual, except for the Falun Dafa quote. As for the third parties, I hope you will reinstate some of them, like perhaps Ownby, ter Haar, Jansen and Johnson. I'm unhappy that only Schechter is mentioned.--Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 16:58, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for engaging. I actually think the Schechter quote is sort of redundant (HRW said essentially the same thing), so it could potentially just be removed from the introduction (I assume it's elsewhere on the page?). As I mentioned above, part of the reason I disagree with the presentation you put forward with Ownby, ter Haar, Sisci, etc., is that it conflated and oversimplified their views. For instance, the version you wrote said that Ownby believed they were new or unschooled practitioners. But Ownby also said that the event may have been staged, and that the profile of the self-immolators presented by Philip Pan was uncharacteristic of falungong practitioners. Moreover, the question would arise: how would you decide which individual's views are notable enough to describe in the lede? Why single out one journalist, but not include someone like Philip Pan, or Noah Porter, or the Laogai foundation? For these reasons, I think it's better just to present the range of third party views in general terms. They are elaborated upon in depth later in the article. Let me know if that makes sense, or how you think it might be improved. I need to go now, but I'm glad we're able to discuss.—Zujine|talk 17:32, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

• "Why single out one journalist, but not include someone like Philip Pan, or Noah Porter, or the Laogai foundation?" Why indeed? That was the main reason I objected to it being the lone quote in the lead. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 01:24, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
• And as for "The Falun Dafa Information Center suggested the incident may have been staged by the Chinese government to turn public opinion against the group and to justify the torture and imprisonment of its practitioners" – I recall that their rejection was much more categorical and vehement. I suppose ten years has mellowed them. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 01:32, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Your recent changes have again restored a mishcharacterisation of Falungong's response to the 'beyond the limits' scripture. This issued was discussed at length in a previous thread, and I also pointed it out and fixed it. You again restored the problem without discussion. So I'll say it again: the statement that Gittings cites to a Falungong 'center' in the US was actually part of an essay written by practitioners in mainland China and published on Minghui (not by the Falun Dafa Information Center, nor a 'Falungong headquarters,' as was written in the 2009 version of the page). Evidently, Gittings does not have deep knowledge of Falungong organisation, but since we know better, we shouldn't repeat his error. Moreover, the article says that it was people 'in society' (ie. not Falungong practitioners) who thought that the scripture foretold the use of violence. If we are going to quote this essay, we should do so accurately (though I'm not sure about its overall significance to this topic). Also in that section, you added other quotes from Li Hongzhi, cited to Craig Smith and David Ownby, respectively. They are original synthesis. Neither author says that these quotes have any direct connection to the self-immolation. I am going to fix these issues, and remove the Schechter quote from the lede once the page is unlocked. —Zujine|talk 20:17, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry. This is POV-pushing par excellence almost exactly in the same manner as banned Falun Gong SPA's. Scrutinizing beyond an RS to the teeth to find the RS's source, attacking sources as 'not knowledgeable' or not 'specialized' enough, saying that things are 'mischaracterized' in a way that maligns Falun Gong, obfuscating and changing due weight to tip the POV balance in favour of Falun Gong, and going on about esoterics and bombarding talk pages with excessive wikilawyering. It's though nothing as changed. Get an uninvolved admin to look into this matter. Let them settle it. Ban the problematic users. Colipon+(Talk) 21:26, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

So is this going to be a front-page FA under review then? There are about 2 hours left... Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 21:51, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, I thought the green lock meant the page couldn't be edited except by an administrator. I've resolved these problems. Colipon, surely you are not suggesting that there is something wrong with wanting to avoid original synthesis, or with ensuring that sources are not misattributed. I think we should welcome scrutiny, discussion, and work together in good faith to identify problems and arrive at solutions. All the more because this is such contentious material, I think caution is in order. Anyways, I would love an admin to moderate this discussion, and also support blocking problematic users.—Zujine|talk 22:38, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Spin

I still wholeheartedly believe that the immediate post-FA version (December 2009) of this page is much more neutral than the 'watered down' version that have emerged since to tip the balance in favour of FLG again. (Ohconfucius recently made some constructive edits to get it back to NPOV status - although granted, he shouldn't have to, since the FA version was perfectly fine.)

The version I am talking about:

“ Time magazine reported that the Chinese government's media campaign against Falun Gong gained significant traction following the act. Posters, leaflets and videos were produced, detailing the supposed detrimental effects of Falun Gong; the authorities ordered regular anti-Falun Gong classes to be scheduled in schools to highlight the dangers of the practice. Human Rights Watch (HRW) believed the incident was among one of the most difficult stories for reporters in Beijing at the time to report on because of a lack of independent information available. Time magazine and Professor David Ownby of the University of Montreal remarked it was possible for misguided practitioners to have taken it upon themselves to demonstrate in this manner. Barend ter Haar, sinologist at Leiden University and Francesco Sisci, Asia editor of La Stampa, believe the event was an authentic protest by practitioners, but that the Chinese government's botched handling of it made it look like state propaganda. ”

The current version:

“ Human Rights Watch (HRW) believed the incident was among one of the most difficult stories for reporters in Beijing at the time to report on because of a lack of independent information available. Falun Gong sources, as well as some journalists, noted inconsistencies and anomalies in the Chinese government's account of events. A wide variety of opinions and interpretations of what may have happened emerged: the event may have been set up by the government, it may have been an authentic protest, the self-immolators may have been "new or unschooled" practitioners, and other views. Journalist Danny Schechter notes that the Chinese government's claims about the incident remain unsubstantiated by outside parties, because no independent investigation has been allowed. ”

I do not believe Schecter's reporting on Falun Gong to be authoritative, and even if it were, his views do not deserve such added emphasis in the intro - when all the other opinions have been 'watered down' to tip the POV balance in favour of Falun Gong. But more importantly, note that in the latter version the due weight given to the event being an 'authentic protest' has been all but obfuscated into half a sentence. I believe the former paragraph is a much more neutral and due-weight survey of views on the subject. It has the legitimacy of an FA-sanctioned introduction. We should revert to that version. Colipon+(Talk) 18:46, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

I have already agreed that Schechter's comment does not need to be singled out in the introduction (though, for the record, Schechter did far more research into this event, and seemed much more familiar with Falungong beliefs, than just about anyone else cited on this page with the possible exception of David Ownby). As for your suggestion to roll back to a version from 2009, I will state again: in early 2011, additional scrutiny was applied to the page, and several editors—including SilkTork—made revisions through consensus and extensive discussion. Through that process, it was found that there were problems with the previous version of the page (SilkTork seemed to agree that the page required work after these problems were identified; some were quite serious). As has already been stated, the previous lede section conflated and oversimplified the views of individual scholars and journalists. Among other things, it implied 1)that Time magazine and Ownby, and Sisci and ter Haar, had identical views, and 2)that Ownby believed the self-immolation was an authentic protest (he thought it was equally likely that the event was staged. The previous version of the page omitted this). If you want to get a sense of the weight that should be afforded to different perspectives, I suggest you read Ownby's "Fire in the Square," which is pasted above. This isn't about "tipping the balance in favour of Falungong." It's about presenting contentious material in a fair, neutral way, and not distorting the views of the people being cited.—Zujine|talk 20:17, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

"Schechter did far more research into this event, and seemed much more familiar with Falungong beliefs". Er, maybe. When I read the Schechter articles, I mentally compared them to everything I have read in the Falun Gong press and websites. The divergence between the views was to me next to indistinguishable. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 01:22, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

"respectable Buddhist tradition"

Can we please find a better heading than "respectable Buddhist tradition"? It is extremely confusing for the average reader. Perhaps "Link to Li Hongzhi's writings" or "Buddhist tradition and Li Hongzhi." The paragraph is about the speculation that the protest was in fact authentic, and the would be best reflecting it as such. Colipon+(Talk) 21:17, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

background

I just updated the background section, as other editors had started demanding additional sources for things. I hope this wasn't too bold. I think it could still be improved, of course. Ideas on how to do that are welcome. It might be worth saying a little more on the persecution itself. For instance, the responsibility systems, arbitrary imprisonment, societal discrimination, reeducation, torture, and other coercive methods. I also think that we should note that Falungong's resistance in Tiananmen Square was very much unexpected (Johnson called it arguably the most sustained resistance in 50 years of PRC rule), and was a cause of considerable, ongoing concern for authorities who had vowed to eliminate the practice. Any thoughts? —Zujine|talk 03:44, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

• There's little need for that bloat. Most of it is already in the 'History of FG' article. As such, the background section makes it difficult to navigate compared to the benefit it brings. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 04:04, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

OhConfucius, I really can't keep pace with the volume of your edits. Among other things, you keep restoring inaccurate information regarding the source of Falungong's response to the scripture. I've pointed out the problem several times now, and you have continually reverted without discussing. With this edit[2] you reverted a substantial amount of work. I added sources, gave a more detailed and nuanced explanation of events, and had the courtesy to come to the talk page and try to start a conversation on how it might be improved further. What I wrote wasn't perfect, but I think it was nonetheless superior to the very selective history that it replaced. I would appreciate more explanation for the reversion. Here [3] you deleted mention of the function of the 610 Office. I think this is relevant information, particularly as this article addresses the media coverage and prosecution of Falungong cases. Please explain how your views diverge. I'm willing to compromise here, and won't assert that I know what is best, but I would at least appreciate a conversation. With this edit[4], you deleted the thing about how Jiang resolved to defeat Falungong, saying that we don't know what he resolved, only what he wrote. But the letter that Jiang wrote (which is provided in the source) said that the party must defeat Falungong, didn't it? I see that a request for mediation has been made. That's excellent, and certainly needed.—Zujine|talk 04:14, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

I've restored some of what I added before to the background section, and tried to condense it a bit. The version I wrote here is, I think, far more accurate, complete, and detailed, without being substantially longer than what was there before. I am not going to edit war over this, but again, if there is disagreement or suggestions for further improvement, I hope they can be discussed.—Zujine|talk 05:29, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

• While the background section appears to be largely factual, its existence as "background" in this context, and its overall weight in the article tends to steer the reader to the inevitable conclusion that Falun Gong are the helpless victims in this, and that the big bad CCP set up the whole charade so that the public would get behind the clampdown on the "evil cult". Therefore, it needs to be dramatically pared back so as not to give undue weight. Most of this detail is already in repeated in the 'Falun Gong' and 'Persecution of Falun Gong' articles, but I wouldn't object to much of this existing background section to be transferred to the Falun Gong response section instead of outright deletion, though. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 06:38, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

• The fact that some of this information is found on other articles is of little consequence. This article should be able to stand on its own, don't you think?
• I don't know why any of this information would belong in the section on Falungong's response. This is background information. 'Falungong's response' refers to its analysis and views on the self-immolation, not on the genesis of the campaign against them. Moreover, this background section is sourced entirely to non-Falungong sources, so...yea, I don't understand your proposal.
• Could you be specific about how the presentation of information here is not neutral, in your view?

I need to leave this alone for a while. I'll revisit it later.—Zujine|talk 07:18, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

OK, you guys win. I've put the lead and the background section back to its state as at 26 March instead of tagging it {{NPOV}} – not that I regard it as neutral but it's a darn site preferable to the one before. I consider the previous version highly problematic for the reasons already stated above. That restored version seemed acceptable to Homunculus, TSTF, and Zujine for several months, so hopefully it shouldn't be an issue. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 01:12, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

I don't understand what is happening here. This version,[5] seems, on a whole, to be an improvement from what was there before (though there's always ways to improve further). For example, the background section had more references, and gave a broader view of the dynamics with the party-state through the 1990s. How was it "highly problematic"? You raised some concerns, Zujine answered and asked for clarification on the specific problems you perceived. You didn't respond, then reverted to a previous version. I don't know, this is frankly bizarre. Homunculus (duihua) 01:55, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Kinda confused too. How are these improvements, OhConfucius? You didn't respond to Z. The Sound and the Fury (talk) 02:02, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

We might benefit from reiterating some basic principles and suggestions for conduct.

• In the interest of maintaining a constructive and professional editing environment, editors should refrain from commenting on the motives of others, and instead focus on content issues. In particular, sarcastic comments, comments that others are POV-pushing, propagandising, and so forth, can quickly sour the atmosphere. (I am referring to things I’ve seen across several discussion threads).
• Battleground behaviour and rhetoric should be avoided. The tendency to make significant, undiscussed changes intended to alter the balance of the page is somewhat alarming. There also appears to be a propensity to unilaterally edit war, while failing to heed requests for discussion. Finally, we should refrain from the use of language like “you win,” which could be construed to imply some kind of battle.
• Given that this is a highly contentious Featured Article under ArbCom, I have proposed several times that potentially contentious changes should be calmly discussed on the talk page first, and consensus attempted. I think that’s still a reasonable request.

Now for the specific content issues here. Your latest edit returned the lede and the background section to how they were a week ago. In general, I believe that where there are informed editors collaborating in good faith, a page will almost always benefit by way of iterative changes, compromise, and discussion. As such, I think that the version from earlier today was, on balance, superior to what was there a week ago.

• Regarding the lede, I was under the impression that you agreed with the version from earlier today. Several of the recent changes were in fact made by you (eg. removing Philip Pan, removing information on the rise in Falungong torture deaths). Others were changes you requested (eg. that the Schechter quote be removed). I found that version of the lede to be agreeable, and sought compromise. I have seen zero explanation that would justify rolling back to the version from a week ago.

• Concerning the background section, you raised some vague concerns and suggestions above. In particular, you said that the section suffered from undue weight and bias. I am obviously not as attuned to the politicised nature of this topic, and did not understand how the version I wrote was problematic. Essentially, the only difference was that I added more sources, expanded on the chronology and chain of command behind the suppression, and gave a more general and representative overview of tensions from 1996 onward. Since I do not understand what the undue weight or POV issues were, I asked you to clarify exactly what your problem was. You did not do so.

I am asking again that you explain specifically where you see problems. I will do my best to address them. —Zujine|talk 04:54, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

• No,I utterly reject that the concerns are "vague". The background is not a summary, it goes into too much detail that is not directly related to the incident. It's really quite simple: if you read nothing further than the background section, the inevitable conclusion is that there has been a massive setup. No reading of any of the narrative that follows will suffice to give the necessary balance that the incident was not set up by Jiang Zemin and pushed through the politburo, let alone that it is indeed disputed. The lead and background section has been acceptable to the assembled Falun Gong sympathisers for at least a year, if not more, so if anything is a consensus version, that one is. I recall reading an essay about the consequences of "upsetting a delicate balance", and it seems that I certainly did that, disputable though that "balance" was at the time. I put in a few changes, and these brought about a flurry of falun Gong responses in an attempt to "neutralise" the changes, and the end result is this disgraceful POV mess. Now it's even more imbalanced that I fear the article is a lost cause. It should definitely be put up for FAC review. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 02:23, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

I didn't respond to this because it just seemed so improper, but I might drop in a word now. I think the above remarks are wholly inappropriate. Can any of us imagine a content disagreement on a page relating to homosexuality resulting in one editor calling others "the assembled gay sympathizers"? It's puerile name-calling. This is why I suggested OhConfucius just stop editing these articles. I assume the actual content issues in question will come out in the wash (i.e. through iterative editing and discussion among consensus-minded editors, rather than the current, what I would characterize as political warfare). The Sound and the Fury (talk) 18:22, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Fair-use images

There's an awful lot. The ones in #People involved are very poor, and I doubt the FUR is valid (it's essentially FU pictures in a list, which we don't allow for discographies or other list-type articles). File:Chen guo.jpg also seems to have a poor chance at passing the FUC Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:50, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

• You might be right. I'll remove them. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 04:52, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

The lead image was used under the same rationale, and I assume it therefore also failed fair use. My knowledge of these issues isn't stellar, so correct me if I'm wrong. I replaced the lead image (actually restored it) to the previous one. It seems to be a screenshot of CCTV footage published by Minghui, which apparently authorises reproduction of images.—Zujine|talk 05:29, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

• I think the three currently used have decent chance of passing a check of their compliance with WP:FUC. The lead image is from the event (one of only a few available, I think), and the other two are used as evidence which is discussed in depth. Crisco 1492 (talk) 06:09, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
• As most of the victims are still alive, it's true that their portraits ought not to be used here. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 06:16, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Discussing faulty/dead links

• The Clearwisdom.net link to the Press statement released by the Falun Dafa now redirects to en.minghui.org. This is just one instance for now, I'll keep an eye out if there are others. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 06:42, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Images

• File:Liu chunling burned.jpg

The recently inserted image is a rather gruesome representation for the article. Can we please revert back to the earlier image? — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 07:02, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

• Is there any getting around it? Both images are equally gruesome, IMHO. So is the act of self-immolation itself and its consequences. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 07:09, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
• Oh, FYI, it wasn't recently inserted. It was already there when the article was put up for FAC. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 07:10, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Yea, I'm not sure why it was changed back. I replaced the Liu Chunling image because it apparently failed fair use (it was under the same license as other images that were deleted for that reason). Also, yes, it's certainly gruesome. But now it's back. Hmm. There are ways to get around this. The photo of Wang Jindong is not nearly as gruesome, and it seems to be ok as far as fair use goes. We may even want to consider using a generic image of the square, though that undeniably has some disadvantages as well.—Zujine|talk 07:18, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

I have replaced the image as per this discussion. The chief concern for now is the problematic fair use rationale. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 10:00, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

It seems that you replaced the image because it's aesthetically discomforting, but let's just face the fact that self-immolation is horrendous way to die. The FUR for the current image is no more or less problematic than the one for File:Liu chunling burned.jpg. Perhaps we should consider replacing it with this soothing image instead. ;-) --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 13:34, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

:( I could not tolerate it...

I just couldn't tolerate such thing to be a featured article, as a Chinese. :( --Sky6t (talk) 13:26, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

:( … I feel terrible about this! Sky6t (talk) 13:34, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Like Cool design.

Can you perhaps elaborate? Colipon+(Talk) 14:09, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Well... All of a sudden the talk page has changed a lot... And you know the Chinese version of this article is as if it were written by fa lun gong participants. But why the English version is featured? That might be a shame to us Chinese, as well it does not reflect the fact.Sky6t (talk) 11:19, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Aftermath - proposal

I was just attempting some corroboration, and revisited HRW's 'dangerous meditation' document, which provides good information. I'm not going to edit (or, not right now), but thought I would write a proposal for a new, short section under 'aftermath' to reflect some of this material, plus a couple other things I picked up. Thoughts/suggestions/objections welcome. I recognize this is a FA today, and is also under arbitration, so I am refraining from bold, unilateral changes. Here's what I propose:

The self-immolation necessitated a change in tactics for Falun Gong. Tiananmen Square had been "permanently contaminated" as a venue for protest, according to journalist Ethan Gutmann, and Falun Gong's daily demonstrations in Beijing nearly ceased altogether. According to Human Rights Watch, practitioners may have concluded "the protests had outlived their usefulness for demonstrating Chinese abuses or for informing an overseas audience of Falungong's harmlessness." Diaspora practitioners living oversees focused their attentions on getting the word out about the treatment of practitioners by the Chinese government, issuing reports to the United Nations and human rights organizations, staging public marches and hunger strikes outside of China, and documenting human rights abuses on websites. Within China, practitioners used mass mailings and handed out literature to "spread the truth" and counter the government's charges against them. In an August, 2001 press release, the U.S.-based Falun Dafa Information Center noted this shift in strategy, and said that Chinese practitioners "sometimes also manage to post large posters and banners in major thoroughfares. They even set up loudspeakers on rooftops or trees around labor camps and in densely populated areas to broadcast news about the human rights abuses."

This actually segues very neatly into the television hijacking incident. I might suggest that that sub-section simply be folded into this one, and the whole thing renamed accordingly to 'Impact on Falun Gong's resistance,' or something.

One other thing that caught my eye on the page is that this section 'links to Buddhist tradition' has been pulled out from 'dispute,' expanded, and made its own section. This seems to have happened in the last couple days, but I'm not going to take the time to pinpoint when it happened. It would seem to me that the section belongs under 'dispute.' That is, it is a collection of scholars and journalists opining and speculating on what may have happened. I am curious if the reasoning was ever explained. Other third-party theories—that they were novice practitioners, that the event was staged by the government, etc—are not singled out in this manner.Homunculus (duihua) 13:50, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Seems fine. I'll add it, and also add a couple more sub-headings. I don't know why the 'links to Buddhist tradition' is standing on its own. I'd also like to propose that after the activity dies down a bit, it may be necessary to take stock of the changes that have been made, and allow concerned editors to list any new or ongoing problems they may have. Then we can ask for a FA reassessment. Zujine|talk 16:57, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

A couple of notes

Can I make a few suggestions? Well, let me not wait to hear the answer. I'm just reading through the piece again and will write what comes to mind on the various sections. These notes may or may not be helpful. I'll leave it to the editors of the article to decide.

The incident

Does not mention that CNN's film was confiscated. Seems kind of an obvious thing to have?

Chinese state media reports

• This section admirably conveys the informational aspect of state reporting following the incident, but obviously that is not the most prominent, or noted aspect, of the activities of state media following the incident. There should be some explanation here of how the incident was immediately seized on to attack Falun Gong. The vituperative nature of state reports does not come through.
• I suggest the first paragraph be curtailed since it is all unreliable state propaganda. It is undue weight. I suggest a terse summary of the detailed claims made in the first paragraph. They are entirely unverifiable, and presenting them as factual, in such detail, is in my view a disservice to the reader. These cannot be understood as "facts" as we usually understand that term, and should not be reported as such. The first paragraph should be reduced to about a third its size.
• The affiliation of the "China Association for Cultic Studies" is not mentioned. This seems very strange. (i.e. it's a state run organization that was set up to spread propaganda on the practice.)
• Certain terms like "required spiritual level" should probably be in scare quotes, to emphasize the fact that they are from state propaganda outlets. Just like "avid practitioners." All this content is strictly speaking propaganda aimed at defaming the practice, in the context of a well-documented violent persecution. Its presentation here does not make that clear enough.
• The unusualness of the fact that Xinhua released details of the incident hours after it occurred is not noted. Several writers have pointed out that this is strange for such a political incident. We heard recently about a self-immolation on Tiananmen Square by a dispossessed farmer that was completely suppressed by state media until a British tourist brought it to light, who happened to be there on the day. The alacrity with which these reports emerged should be noted in this section rather than elided.
• The final line by HRW doesn't belong in this section.

Falun Gong response

• I seem to recall slightly more sophisticated in the FLG response, in that they said that so much around the incident remains unknown. This would be worth noting. The fact is that they cannot know for sure the individuals were not practitioners; their original PR seemed to emphasize the need to approach the matter with caution.

Third Party findings, links to Buddhist tradition; Dispute

• I'm taking all these as basically the same thing. They are a big set of claims and counter-claims, some based on facts, some based on opinions, many a combination of somewhere inbetween.
• Why not simply call this whole section "Dispute" or "Issues in question" and then a series of subsections like "The identity of participants," "Falun Gong's teachings," "Access to victims," "Possible state involvement," which go through and look at the issues in question. Either of those may be better than the confused sections we currently have, which are really a series of claims and counter-claims, many of which have no evidence, on a range of the issues at stake, without any overall guiding logic to the presentation. Most of these are just pundits sounding off, but it's cloaked as something else.
• Such a schematic presentation would also prevent the POV-pushing that is currently taking place across these three sections.

I will do Aftermath later. Maybe I should just start editing myself. Other highly charged pages, such as that around the shooting of Trayvon Martin, which I have edited, benefit from a much wider constituency of editors. If only were the same for this page. I've just pointed out some of the issues I see above. The Sound and the Fury (talk) 17:27, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for coming to the talk page first. In the case of clear, unambiguous problems, you can go ahead (cautiously, I hope). If other editors raise divergent views, they can be discussed. If we do choose to make larger structural changes, or changes that could potentially alter the balance of the article, I think they should be made through a process of consensus-building. Your idea of a systematic, issue-based approach to the dispute may have some merit, but I'd like to see what other editors think.—Zujine|talk 18:18, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

• Thanks. I'm not going to edit. Obviously there is rarely such a thing as "clear, unambiguous problems" on a page like this. But you knew that. My main proposal, above, remains. The Sound and the Fury (talk) 18:30, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

To someone who is involved or even a cursory knowledge of Falun Gong, TSTF's 'suggestions' smacks of the exact same sort of tactics used by banned Falun Gong users to advance the Falun Gong world view (just read through the archives of this talk page and follow the arguments of asdfg12345 (talk · contribs), dilip rajeev (talk · contribs) and Olaf Stephanos (talk · contribs). To TheSound's credit, he does not engage in personal attacks or overly emotional language. But he, aided and abetted by two other users who consistently patrol all Falun Gong articles, is trying to single out User ohconfucius, an editor with a clean and flawless (and neutral) record of editing a wide range of articles, of 'bad faith editing' along with a series of other far-fetched accusations. If they succeed, God help this encyclopedia. Colipon+(Talk) 04:10, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

I suggest you refrain from making personal attacks, or impugning the motives of other editors. Please discuss content. —Zujine|talk 04:58, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

These were not personal attacks, merely assessments based on my experiences editing these articles. I have engaged in 'content discussions' before, both at this article and at other Falun Gong-related articles. They are not discussions in good faith. They are always fruitless. And they intimidate non-involved editors. No matter what arguments are presented, what sources are referenced, there will always be a problem with it as long as it does not suit Falun Gong's dualistic world view. I cannot countenance such a 'content discussion' when I know it is not in good faith. Engaging with such supposed 'content discussions' is not only a waste of time, it also lends legitimacy that this is somehow a battle between pro-FLG and anti-FLG, which it is not. Colipon+(Talk) 13:25, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

TheSound, in previous discussions from last year, we grappled with the presentation of these 'issues in dispute,' so to speak. The current format was arrived at organically as a way to coherently present the counter-narratives, while also separating Falun Gong's response from other third-party findings. I think it served the purpose, but it's true there may be better approaches to the organization. I'm just going to write some considerations and thoughts here. (I hope that observers don't get worried that this is a harbinger of massive changes. I'm just sharing ideas). A possible organization, based on the current one, could go something like this:

• Background
• The incident

• People involved

• Chinese state media reports
• Falun Gong response (remove some of the specific points of evidence, and discuss in general terms what FG's views and positions were)
• Issues in dispute (based on the information already on the page, with presentation just formalized. FG's evidence and that of third-parties is sometimes difficult to separate, so might be mixed together, making clear which statements come from whom. Each of these points would be quite short, working from material already on the page. In the event that Chinese authorities have responded to the challenges raised, we can add that.)

• Identity of self-immolators
• Behavior of self-immolators
• Availability of fire extinguishers
• Source of footage
• Death of Liu Chunling and Liu Siying
• Speed of official media reports
• Lack of independent corroboration (/ access to victims?)
• Role of Falun Gong scripture (to replace what is now 'links to buddhist tradition')

• Interpretations (I'm proposing this as an alternate name for the section currently titled 'dispute')
• Aftermath

• Media campaign and public opinion
• Violence and reeducation
• Impact on Falun Gong resistance
• Fate of the self-immolators

Again, these are just ideas. I don't know that a reorganization is a pressing need. It might improve readability and navigability, but ultimately would affect little change to content. There might also be a concern that some disputed issues are not covered by these sub-headings. Anyway, I hope we're not just going around in circles, and that each iteration is actually an improvement. I assume more editors are watching this page now — any outside feedback on the page organization or other issues would be helpful.

Regarding the article's FA status, I'm not sure of the appropriate procedure here. Significant changes have occurred over the last several days, and some problems have been identified along with new proposals for improvement. Should we try to agree to changes, make them within some predetermined timeframe, ensure the page is stable again, and then seek FA reassessment? Or should the page be assessed now (and probably be delisted on account of recent instability), then fixed, then assessed again? Homunculus (duihua) 16:16, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Homunculus, thanks for your productive engagement. I think that organizational structure looks pretty interesting. I'd actually suggest that the focus in both the Chinese media section and the Falun Gong section have more on the perspectives that are projected, and also third party analysis of them to the extent that its present, rather than emphasizing the "factual" nature of what each side is saying. It's basically a war of PR - although, each does make a series of factual claims.

The sections look fine. I don't think we need an "interpretations" section which is again just a space for various sources to sound off on their pet theories. One could fill that section with Schechter types or Sisci types, but I don't think that necessarily helps the reader. Better to present it in the schematic structure above, addressing whatever evidentiary or argumentative point is appropriate, rather than a sort of free-for-all. I really agree with Colipon's point about this not being a pro-Falun Gong or anti-Falun Gong issue. In fact, I think presenting the issues like this, in their complexity, will really help unwind the juxtapositions and sharp (false) dichotomies that sometimes build up on pages like this. The Sound and the Fury (talk) 03:49, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Can you clarify what you mean by the proposal that "both the Chinese media section and the Falun Gong section have more on the perspectives that are projected, and also third party analysis of them to the extent that its present, rather than emphasizing the "factual" nature of what each side is saying."? That might get tricky. I mean, we don't want the section on Chinese media to be full of secondary sources commenting on the propagandistic nature of the reports, right? Maybe I'm not understanding your suggestion. Regarding the dispute section, as I said below, I think there's still merit to including it, though that doesn't mean that it can't be tweaked. Secondary source analysis is still valuable to readers trying to figure out what to make of such divergent narratives. Such is my opinion.Homunculus (duihua) 05:46, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

It'd probably be sufficient to move some of the stuff from the first subsection of the Aftermath section, in the first paragraph and a few things from the second--whatever relates to the immediate actions of Chinese state media channels. The Aftermath can then be for the aftermath, say, a month or more down the road, not the immediate response. There may have been some attempt to pare away the Chinese state reporting on the facts of the incident from the propaganda aspect of their reports, but such a division could only be artificial. Seems to make more sense just to put the immediate stuff in one place, and the repercussions in another. That's all I mean. It's along the lines of logic-guided content partitions that I mentioned above. The Sound and the Fury (talk) 15:22, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Taking stock

In the last week or so, this page has been through something approximating 150 edits. In the course of this activity, there have been some rather significant changes—some perhaps for the better, and others maybe less so. Some new concerns have been raised that have thus far not been adequately addressed, and there are some old issues to resolve as well. As this article is now up for FAR, I hope we can identify and resolve these issues in a timely manner. I will suggest, as other editors have done elsewhere on this page, that this discussion focus strictly on content. Editors who find that they have difficulty refraining from accusations of bad faith or ad hominem attacks, or who do not wish to see the article improved, are strongly encouraged to recuse themselves. I, for one, will simply ignore any comments that do not relate to improving the page.

I am going to consolidate here the problems I've seen raised by others, and a few I've seen myself.

1. There is some inconsistency in the use of British and American english
2. The last sentence of the lead, regarding the rise on Falun Gong death tolls, is a primary source, and may be considered original research in that the source does not directly connect this trend to the self-immolation. Unless a better source can be found, this should be removed.
3. Some editors have objected to the background section singling out the views and findings of particular individuals. I cannot tell if this is still an objection.
4. The 'background' section, as it stands at the time of writing [6], is lacking some references. As I raised in a discussion thread[7] last June, this version of the background section also oversimplifies the dynamics between Falun Gong and the party-state in the 1990s (namely, it implies that Falun Gong was merely being criticized by a couple skeptics between 1996 and 1999. Really, the Ministry of Public Security was monitoring them, their books had been banned, and factions within the party-state were sanctioning criticism of Falun Gong (and other qigong practices) in the media and other fora. That was the wider context in which folks like He Zuoxiu were acting). A different version of this section,[8] seemed on the way to resolving these problems, and also included more detail on the chain of command and legal framework established around the crackdown, some of which may be relevant to this article. That version been reverted on the ground that it gave too much detail and undue weight. The precise concerns have not been specified.
5. It has been proposed that the background section should contain slightly more information (even more than was in [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tiananmen_Square_self-immolation_incident&direction=prev&oldid=485643694 this version) regarding the nature of the persecution and the...shall we say, audacity of Falun Gong's continued protests (and the problems that presented for China's leaders). It seems there is disagreement about the ideal length of the background section, and it is not clear how we are to determine which details have direct relevance.
6. As has been pointed out several times on the talk page, there is a misattributed quote in the article. Specifically, the response from Falun Gong to the scripture "Beyond the Limits of Forbearance" currently quoted in the article is credited to a Falun Gong center in New York. The secondary source (in this case the Guardian), made a minor error in attributing the source; this quote actually came from a group of practitioners in Mainland China, and was published as an essay on a Falun Gong website. My understanding of WP:V is that, when it is clear that a secondary source made a factual or interpretive error, it can be fixed through reference to the primary source.
7. The 'incident' section does not note that CNN reporters had their tapes confiscated
8. Concerns were raised that the section 'Chinese state media reports' did not make sufficiently clear that the details are from a government sources. It was also suggested that this section should focus more on the intended message and tone of these reports, including the timing of them.
9. The government affiliations of the 'China Association for Cultic Studies' is not made clear
10. A quote from Human Rights Watch does not belong in the section on 'Chinese state media reports'
11. It was pointed out that the Falun Gong PR immediately after the incident was perhaps more reserved and nuanced than the page currently suggests.
12. It has been proposed that the matters in dispute be explicitly delineated (a proposal is above) to make this section more easily navigable. Doing so would also provide a venue for Chinese government responses to third-party investigations, where available.
13. Ian Johnson's views (or evidence, I should say), is not currently included, but may be notable (this relates to the strange timing of the official news reports)
14. It has been suggested that we might reduce or dissolve the current 'dispute' section. (Personally, I disagree; third party interpretations of this event are still helpful in making evaluations of all the relevant facts)

Did I miss anything? I hope we can move forward on these issues within the next couple weeks.Homunculus (duihua) 05:05, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

• This is helpful. On number 14, that is not what I meant. Please re-read the suggestion I made in full. It's more nuanced than just deleting stuff. A lot of these changes shouldn't be controversial anyway, and the time it takes to write about them could be spent fixing them (i.e. wrongly placed content) On 8, I think it's clear that it's government sources. It just seemed that odd weight was given to the factual details, which are not the main thing, and not enough explanation of the general direction and purport of the reports (i.e. that this incident proves that the Falun Gong are an evil religious cult that burn themselves to go to heaven and the central government's decision was correct.) or perhaps that is clear enough. The Sound and the Fury (talk) 15:28, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
• This article is not "now up for FAR"; see WP:FAR instructions, specifically:

  ... should not nominate articles that are featured on the main page (or have been featured there in the previous three days)...

  and

  Before nomination, raise issues at talk page of the article. Attempt to directly resolve issues with the existing community of article editors, and to informally improve the article.

  The hope is that mainpage exposure will result in issues being resolved on talk, or at least encourage editors to work towards that before nominating at FAR. The FAR nomination was out of process, and was removed. FAR is not dispute resolution: editors should attempt to resolve issues first on talk, rather than rushing to FAR, which is at least a month-long process. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:35, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. Hope we can work through issues regardless.Homunculus (duihua) 15:37, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

I just took care of a couple of the items listed above, and it seems some were already addressed as well. The only ones remaining are issues 3(?), 5, 8, 11, 12, 13, 14. It's nice to see progress—thanks for working on this.—Zujine|talk 04:50, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

If there are no clear and articulate objections, I think someone should just go ahead with these suggested improvements. The Sound and the Fury (talk) 18:15, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

I don't think neutral edits are being made according to the above problems. Please discuss further about possible edit structure and wording, especially Ohconfucius, Homunculus, Zufine, whom all seem to have differing POVs in their revisions on this article. - M0rphzone (talk) 22:02, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Hi M0rphzone, regarding your rolling back to the March 26th version of the page[9], there were some changes that occurred between March 26th and now that did seem to achieve consensus. Specifically, several images were removed because they failed fair use; some non-controversial content was added to the 'aftermath' section; primary source research was removed from lede; American english was changed to british, references were fixed, etc. Please see earlier discussion threads where these issues were identified and resolved. There are unresolved issues, to be sure, but things generally seem to be moving forward. If you're not sure about something, please ask (and if there are specific diffs that look funny to you, perhaps you can identify them individually, lest good edits get reverted along with questionable ones). Thanks for looking over the page. Homunculus (duihua) 22:17, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

H, I'm not sure why you added a POV tag here[10] (or maybe you just restored it along with other things). It's been on the page for a while without any explanation. We've identified areas for improvement, but none among these seem to be POV issues, so I removed the tag. Correct me if I've overlooked something.—Zujine|talk 04:48, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

A Funny Joke

-Why do the authors of this propaganda piece... I mean article feel the need to remind us about the "state-run media" every other sentence?

-Why is it overloaded with emotionally charged, POV, opinion-based phrases such as "torture and imprisonment of its practitioners", "a belief that is not supported by Falun Gong’s teachings", "campaign of state propaganda", "eradicate Falun Gong", "widespread use of torture, sometimes resulting in death",

-Why does it give undue weight to conspiracy theories involving men in dark overcoats, complete with fuzzy photographs that prove absolutely nothing? The general consensus is not that this incident was staged by evil fu-Manchu sinister Chinese government officials in dark overcoats who appear out of nowhere to strike deadly blows upon burning human beings without anybody noticing.

Could it be, shock horror, because this is another FLG propaganda article policed by FLG SPA's? AnAimlessRoad (talk) 15:36, 22 April 2012 (UTC)