Talk:Tiananmen Square self-immolation incident/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

A list of qustion we try to answer in this article (please feel free to add more):

Who were the self-immolators?

Wang Jin Dong (王進東)

Liu Chun Ling (劉春玲)

Liu Si Ying (劉思影)

Hao Hui Jun (郝惠君)

Chen Guo (陳果)

Liu Bao Rong (劉葆榮)

Liu Yun Fang (劉雲芳)

Why did they set themselves on fire?

When did this incident took place?

2001/1/23

How did they do it?

What happened on the square after they set themselves afire?

What did the Chinese government say about it?

What did the FG say about it?

What happen to these people now?

Were they interviewed?

What did they say in the interview?

What prompted the self immolation? It happened soon after Master Li's "Goning Beyond Forebearance" article in January. Whatever happened to the New Years article that stated "opening the floodgate"?

Reports of the incident

Let's pile up as many reports of the incident as possible here. Please list only the title of the articles, the names of the reporters and the date published, most importantly, a link to the article. --Yueyuen 08:10, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Not much coming to mind currently, but I'll start with two of my favorite articles FLG choose to twist or neglect. --Yenchin 09:27, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

"Too Hot to Handle" by Hannah Beech, Time (Asia Edition), Febuary 5, 2001, retrieved July 28, 2006

"A Beijing arm of the outlawed spiritual group Falun Gong strongly suggested the protesters, one of whom died, were devotees. "We heeded a call from our master to strengthen our fight against evil," said a member of the group based in the Chinese capital. Yet hours later, Falun Gong's New York head office distanced itself from the act: "This so-called suicide attempt on Tiananmen Square has nothing to do with Falun Gong practitioners because the teachings of Falun Gong prohibit any form of killing." "

"Tiananmen tense after fiery protests" by CNN Staff and wire reports, CNN, January 24, 2001, retrieved July 28, 2006

"Moments later four more people set themselves alight as military police detained the CNN crew, which had been taping the events."

Self-Immolation Survivors Denounce Falun Gong People's Daily, April 10, 2002 "'I don't want that kind of tragedy to happen again,' said Chen Guo, her face scared with massive grafts and her hands missing. Chen then a 19-year-old gifted student at the Central Conservatory of Music set herself on fire in Beijing's Tiananmen Square over a year ago."

One-Way Trip to the End in Beijing International Herald Tribune/February 5, 2001 By Philip P. Pan "Other human rights activists say the five set themselves on fire to protest the government's crackdown on Falun Gong, which has resulted in thousands of arrests and as many as 105 deaths in police custody. All but Liu Siying, 12, had protested Beijing's actions against Falun Gong in Tiananmen Square previously, according to the Hong Kong-based Information Center for Human Rights and Democracy."

Survivors say China Falun Gong immolations real Reuters/April 4, 2002 By Jeremy Page "'We wanted to strengthen the force of Falun Gong,' said Chen Guo, 20, lying in a hospital bed in her home town of Kaifeng, her face a blotchy mass of grafted skin with no nose and no ears. One eye was open, the other covered by a flap of skin. 'We decided burning ourselves was the best way,' said Chen, who also lost both her hands. 'It was totally due to our own will. We were not forced by anyone.'"

The Breaking Point Time (Asia Edition) June 25, 2001 By Matthew Forney "Falun Gong's leaders badly flubbed their damage control after the immolations. Instead of acknowledging that the five protesters might have been misguided practitioners, they denied any connection with them. Implausibly, the Falun Gong website insists the episode was set up by government provocateurs. Few were convinced by that line.

Falun Gong response

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE Falun Dafa Information Center January 23, 2001 http://www.clearwisdom.net/eng/2001/jan/23/vsf012301_3.html This so-called suicide attempt on Tiananmen Square has nothing to do with Falun Gong practitioners because the teachings of Falun Gong prohibit any form of killing. Mr. Li Hongzhi, the founder of the practice, has explicitly stated that suicide is a sin.

Epochtimes Interviewed Falun Gong Spokesperson, Zhang Erping, Concerning the Self-Immolation Incident at Tiananmen Square http://www.clearwisdom.net/emh/articles/2001/1/28/4943.html Master Li Hongzhi, the founder of Falun Gong, has always explained to us that it is absolutely forbidden to take a life and this includes taking your own. Therefore the people who did the supposed self- immolation could not have even been remotely connected to Falun Gong.

"I strongly suspect that this was staged entirely for the tricking of CNN and outside media" Clearwisdom.net January 24, 2001 http://www.clearwisdom.net/emh/articles/2001/1/24/zip.html#0 ""I strongly suspect that this was staged entirely for the tricking of CNN and outside media""

Companion article: http://search.minghui.org/mh/articles/2001/1/24/7148.html (Chinese)

I am going to join you guys here, I will write something up. --Samuel Luo 07:19, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Next Step

Good job, Samuel. We can then start citing stuff and expand. --Yenchin 13:54, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

I will add citation to it when I have time. Could someone try locating the self-immolation video? --Samuel Luo 18:33, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

At best I could only find the "False Fire" video or the one from "焦點訪談", which, frankly speaking are both 2nd handed. "False Fire" of course could be easily found on FLG websites. I think Fang Zhouzi's website has some 焦點訪談 videos[1]. The unfortunate part is that "False Fire" mutilated and doctored some bits of the video while the file on xys.org is low quality. I skimmed through 草色新雨 and couldn't find any file or link. --Yenchin 15:03, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Neutrality

This article seems to very one sided. Many of the statements would benefit from rewording to sound more neutral. Wikipedia is not a place to profess beliefs, for either side. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 157.174.221.169 (talk) 20:47, 1 February 2007 (UTC).

Prod

Instead of deleting, can we copy the section from Suppression of Falun Gong and then summarize the incident on the Suppression page? The Supression article is 51kb long right now and could use shortening. If the self-immolation incident is indeed notable, then I don't see any problem with keeping that article, albeit with the content from the main page. - Zepheus <ゼィフィアス> 23:27, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Yeah it's fine by me. If you want to get cracking on a faithful short summary of the content I support you. Two things motivated me for proposing deletion, one was duplication of content and the other was the opposite, I mean, very different content describing the same thing. The things on the current version of this page are still quite below wikipedia standards, in my opinion. It was sort of the same on the Persecution page but I added a lot of content from the other perspective, and hopefully now the entry gives a neutrally worded explanation of both sides. There is still more info from the side claiming it was a hoax than that from the CCP, but I'm not sure what to do about that. I would propose the entry on the suppression page being pasted over the top of the existing material on this page, and maybe broken into subheadings. If you do not do it I will do it, but unfortunately I cannot make it high on my priority list right now. Okay, cheers.--Asdfg12345 01:31, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

I'll do it later today. - Zepheus <ゼィフィアス> 18:06, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

• Technical note: article with such a history should be put on AfD, not prodded. I removed the prod for this reason, please feel free to nominate it for deletion. Pavel Vozenilek 12:44, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Facts of the so called "2004 UN Joint Report"

• The title is "United Nations Reports on China’s Persecution of Falun Gong"

I don't even want to go into the grammar of this.

• Page 7(of the PDF), Background.

"This book is a compilation of excerpts from the 2004 annual reports of the United Nations Human Rights Commission’s Special Rapporteurs, documenting cases of human rights violations committed by the Chinese government against Falun Gong practitioners. An introduction is given here to provide significant background information."

• Page 19 and 20 mentions about the incident, however, it is citing the 53rd Session which is nothing new, a mere NGO making a statement. Note that the text STILL attempts to connect IED with UN by using the phrase "a UN NGO"
• Further mentioning of the incident mentions nothing about an investigation. In fact, the whole "Reports" have no mentioning of an actual investigation, with an actual report.

I'm sorry but try harder. --Yenchin 17:54, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

By eliminating this reference, you are basically doubting any international legitimacy. The UN stamp is not something you can just toss around and borrow. In fact it might actually be illegal to say something came from the UN, when it didn't. No offense but you are taking the lazy approach by claiming everything as old. Quite frankly this whole report is an investigation. I hope you understand that nearly 100% of the state resources are owned by the CCP. So there is a good chance everything in English/Chinese/printed outside of the PRC regarding this event.... may go through FG in some combined effort. In that case, there will never be any references good enough. Benjwong 19:03, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Incorrect. As the Background says, it is a collection of excerpts of what has already been mentioned before 2004. This is not an investigation. It is not even a report. It is just a booklet repeating FLG claims, and cherrypicking publications. The publishers of the book itself don't even mention an UN endorsement. Your final reasoning on "go through FG" is even more ambiguous. The CCP owns a lot of media, but not all of the media. For instance, they don't own the UN, or else this booklet couldn't even cite any UN publications since they would obviously be censored. Sorry but I'll have to rv your edits again. --Yenchin 15:30, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Do you even know what you are saying. You expect an oppressed under-financed group like FG to have the same publication strength as a trillion-dollar government with total dictatorial authority like the CCP? You seem to have no problem turning down any source that have even the slightest association with FG. Yet somehow you seem to happily accept any beijing sources. Given all the persecution/human right circumstances, a pdf bypassing the censor and made publicly with any UN association at all is a miracle in itself. Now you are calling this "Cherrypicking"?! Please change the sentence the way you see fit so that it doesn't say "citation-needed". At this point I am not sure I know what you're looking for. You are looking for some definitive 3rd party yes/no answer, which is crazy considering how politically unbalanced FG and the CCP really are. This UN pdf is probably as good as it gets. Benjwong 03:11, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

1. Of course I know.
2. This is irrelevent on whether this publication is valid, or really endorsed by the UN.
3. FLG sources have bad reputation. However I've also pointed out why this publication is not valid.
4. And doesn't care to show proof on why the immolation event is a hoax?
5. Of course, because the context is using excerpts with the long winded rants of FLG.
6. I'd rather see you try harder on finding something solid.
7. All we need is a 3rd party research to back up the claims that the whole thing is a hoax. It is totally irrelevant on how much political power either side has.
8. Unless you can show a UN source, this is a FALUNHR pdf, NOT a "UN pdf"

--Yenchin 14:53, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Actually I'd like see you go out and find some sources saying FG made all this up. You seem very positive that FG has a bad reputation and the communist have a very trust-worthy reputation. While you are at it, don't stop there. Please tell us there is no human rights issues in China. Benjwong 14:39, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

If I can get a dollar every time people start saying I support the PRC, I help suppressing FLG...etc by just questioning FLG claims, I'd be really rich now. It's always the same MO. Here's a hint for you: try backing up your claims

--Yenchin 00:00, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Last I checked, I gave you 4 sources to back up the statement. You accused them of being old, cherrypicked, pro-FG, not UN enough, and a fake investigation. The problem is that you are not actually questioning FG claims. Your mind was made up long ago.... to deny anything reworded from an oppressed group. The pdf has been legally published online since 2004, and the UN doesn't mind their big name on the first page, why should you?? Benjwong 05:32, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

4 sources which did not show anything to prove the claim. The absence of evidence was the evidence of absence. This has nothing to do with my mind making up anything. The truth is there was nothing to back up the sentence. The only reason the UN doesn't mind the name is because at least the FLG publishers have only claimed that it was excerpts of a series of UN reports. The UN not minding its reports being cited does not mean that it is a UN report (As the way you attempt to cite it). The reports themselves do not back up "The incident has mostly been dismissed as a hoax and staged event created by the Communist Party of China." since in them we only see FLG members making statements and no official endorsement from the UN. Then, pray tell, according to what source the incident is "mostly been dismissed as a hoax.."? Mostly as in what sense? Was there a vote in the UN? Collection of international reports? Dismissed for what reason?

The pro-FLGers whine about persecution all the time, but whining will never get you anywhere until you show some substance over your style.

--Yenchin 17:25, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Ok Let's change it up and state the obvious instead. If these two statements are mentioned in the intro as is, I think even the most anti-FG folks can come to accept it.

1. Controversial or not, FG has printed something on behalf of the UN. CCP so far has not printed anything outside its state-owned resources.
2. Look for the word "detained" in the english translated doc of this link, which is basically a translated version of this. What should be mentioned is that CNN reporters were detained by beijing police and were forced to sign documents to prove their interview was illegal.

Benjwong 19:59, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

1. False. It is not "behalf of the UN", it is a collection of excerpts, which means any conclusions not in the original UN reports are not endorsed by the UN. This a lousy attempt to appeal to authority. Oh, and I fail to see how "CCP so far has not printed anything outside its state-owned resources" automatically disqualifies any claims from CCP. FLG publishes tons of info on its clone websites, does that make their claims false? Pot calling the kettle black.
2. You must be joking. Look at the 1st paragraph on beelink.com.cn, see how the CCP suspecting the reporters on knowing the incident beforehand, and might accuse them of assisting suicide. The whole article mentions that the CCP suspects that FLG is working with reporters to gain attention. Now look at zhuichaguoji.org, it only cites the 2nd paragraph, and the whole article is accusing the CCP. What are you trying to show me? That a FLG clone site can cut and paste whatever they like? That zhuichaguoji.org is publishing "on behalf" beelink.com.cn?
3. So what if the reporters signed documents to prove their interview was illegal? They didn't give a damn and still made a report, and another.

--Yenchin 16:57, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Hey like I said. FG in the PRC is a pretty suppressed group, about as beat up and man-handled by the beijing police as they come. So any source is better than no source given the situation. What you are doing is far beyond the usual reference filtering. In fact, people who didn't know the CCP before, probably are starting to wonder.... why in the world you are trying so hard to decline stuff that are already out in the open? Benjwong 02:33, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

See WP:Reliable sources and Wikipedia:Verifiability, on self-published sources and questionable sources. According to WP:V, "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth"--PCPP 06:56, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but you see verifiability is done by giving sources and let the reader decide which one to believe. Verifiability does not mean that one has to go there. --89.35.149.202 11:19, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

When CNN claimed they smelled people burning, everyone agrees. When CNN journalists claimed they were detained, Yenchin is saying this fact is useless. Can someone care to explain why even 3rd party sources are being filtered down to individual comments. There is no consistency here. You guys are the ones violating WP:Reliable sources and Wikipedia:Verifiability by claiming which sentence is acceptable and which ones to deny. These sources are all in the open and you guys doing your own blocking. Benjwong 15:21, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

On the 1st reply: Benjwong, answer the question: Is there really such a thing called the "2004 UN Joint Report" or not? Show us a UN source to back up this claim. You can whine about my stance, FLG getting persecuted...etc all the time, but it is totally irrelevant to the source. Hint: Ad hominem

On the 2nd reply. Suddenly I say the CNN journalists' claim is useless? Back up this accusation. I was merely pointing out the fact that you brought up a paragraph from 2 very different contexted sources, as well as your hypocricy on mentioning this.

--Yenchin 20:17, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

On the 1st reply: You are absolutely going out of the way to prove the pdf has nothing to do with the UN. You are nitpicking on the names, and organization structure. I already asked you to rephrase the sentence however to make it fit. You haven't done it once. All you are doing is denying everything as pro-FG. It should be reworded to "The incident has mostly been dismissed as a hoax and staged event created by the Communist Party of China according to a report published by FG in conjunction with the UN. Though the UN was mostly involved through the human rights investigation, and has not made a direct claim against the CCP." This sounds very fair. Benjwong 21:33, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

On the 2nd reply: You said CNN "didn't give a damn and still made a report". Why did you make this comment at all? Does it prevent me from using it as a source? No. You wanted 3rd party source, and you have it. BTW the definition of 3rd party means not CCP or FG. Benjwong 21:33, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

1. Incorrect. A "UN report" informs the reader that the report is published and endorsed by the UN. Unfortunately in this case, it is not. It isn't even published "in conjunction with the UN". Your rewording is still creating the false image that the UN has actually held out some investigation or supported the conclusion that the incident was staged. Which so far, it hasn't. I'm still waiting for that UN source.
2. Because you cited this and this for your argument. In the 1st article, like I said, the CNN reporters were suspected by the CCP Government in "assisting suicide", pray tell how that supports the pro-FLG? On the 2nd article, published by a FLG clone merely translated the paragraph from the 1st, where the detained CNN reporters signed that they were doing "illegal interviews". Pray tell how that supports the pro-FLG stance again? And since CNN made the report anyway, pray tell how that supports the pro-FLG stance again?

--Yenchin 08:12, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Hello I'm sorry to step in somewhat unprepared, but could you please tell me exactly which PDF are you guys talking about? Or even more which article diff is debated? Thank You. --HappyInGeneral 08:55, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

The diff I guess is this: [2].

Here is how I searched for the document: [3]

Here is the document I found: http://www.unhchr.ch/huridocda/huridoca.nsf/e6edd4810aee9fc0c1256a2a004578bd/2b378f12e7a8e907c1256e580039672a/$FILE/G0316900.doc

How is this document relevant? There are only two mentions of "Tiananmen" which are about the 1989 protest, and only one mention of Falun Gong. I don't see how this document is relevant at all to this matter. Kent Wang 13:56, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Basically if you take a look to this PDF (http://www.falunhr.org/reports/UN2004/UN2004.pdf) you will notice that it is a compilation of relevant reports made by the UN. I hope this solves your dillema. Best Regards, --HappyInGeneral 10:50, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

The only relevant phrase I can find in this PDF is:

These holes prompted International Education Development, a UN NGO, to issue the following statement during the 2001 session of the UN Sub-Commission on the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights:

"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."

However I cannot find this report that they cite. All Google searches for that phrase point to Falun Gong-related websites. Kent Wang 13:56, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Also, International Education Development is not an UN NGO. It is a separate NGO. This is very clear from the IED website. I think this really puts the nail in the coffin that this passage in the PDF is completely false and unreliable and this PDF should not be used as a source for this article. Kent Wang 00:18, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

I have already asked Yenchin to rephrase the sentences to make it work. In fact you can say "FG said it is a hoax, with the claim made through the IED". Even that would seem more fair than completely erasing the source. Benjwong 05:40, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Removal of unfair summary in first paragraph

I deleted this phrase from the first paragraph:

The incident has mostly been dismissed as a hoax and staged event created by the Communist Party of China Since the event, Falun Gong's reputation has been severely damaged.

without reading this Talk page. I apologize for that. HappyInGeneral reverted my change. I would like to discuss this matter here now.

I feel that this phrase is not a fair summary of the rest of the article. It's better to have the reader just read the rest of article. The second paragraph is more fair and makes the above sentences redundant anyway. Kent Wang 14:04, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

The debated source is this pdf. All the other sources are pretty much secondary in the discussion. The statement you mentioned above is the one in dispute. Yenchin has expressed some opinions about it. I have proposed that the sentence be rephrased to make this source fit. "The incident has mostly been dismissed as a hoax and staged event created by the Communist Party of China according to a report published by FG in conjunction with the UN. Though the UN was mostly involved through the human rights investigation, and has not made a direct claim against the CCP." As I mentioned earlier, I think this sounds fair. Benjwong 16:57, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

I am disputing the PDF source. Please see above. As for this phrase here, can we just move it to the end of the criticism section? This phrase is very detailed and not appropriate as a summary. The second paragraph adequately summarizes these issues anyway. Kent Wang 18:19, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Benjwong is not grasping the point. Unless there is proof that the PDF is really backed up by the UN (which again, we've yet to see), so far the only connection with the UN in the PDF is the excerpts from previous UN reports, any commentary outside the excerpts are made by FLG. --Yenchin 10:55, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Yenchin, I just told you that the PDF is a compilation of several portions of different UN reports. How to check it, well I just showed you. You can take a unique sentence of the PDF, one that is part of the report itself, google it and see where it shows up. It will show up on one of the UN's websites. This should be quite an enough prof. —Preceding unsigned comment added by HappyInGeneral (talk • contribs) --15:21, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Please see my replies in the above section that show the citation is false. I put "The regime points to a supposed self-immolation incident" into Google and only got Falun Gong websites. If this cannot convince you, then I think we need to escalate this dispute as per Wikipedia:Resolving_disputes#Discuss_with_third_parties. Kent Wang 22:12, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

There is really no point in that search. Google will come up with all Falun gong websites, because that is exactly what they are trying to tell you. Is like doing a search on "Falun gong is a cult" and that return a ton of hits from Communist-beijing-owned websites. Searching for the preferred opinion of a particular group is not going to help. The big question is..... why should we only accept communist-owned-publications? Even if I agree the pdf has 0% association with the UN, it still shouldn't be denied. I have already asked Yenchin to rephrase the sentence multiple times to make the source fit. If you guys can't figure out how to make it fit, then we definitely need Wikipedia:Resolving_disputes#Discuss_with_third_parties. Benjwong 05:40, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't even show how the incident is "mostly been dismissed as a hoax". You want a rephrase? How about "It has mostly been dismissed as a hoax by FLG members". --Yenchin 13:04, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Request for Comment: "mostly been dismissed as a hoax"

Dispute over the phrase in the first paragraph:

The incident has mostly been dismissed as a hoax and staged event created by the Communist Party of China Since the event, Falun Gong's reputation has been severely damaged.

Statements by editors previously involved in dispute

• Remove the phrase entirely - No evidence of "mostly been dismissed". Also, this phrase is not a fair summary of the rest of the article. It's better to have the reader just read the rest of article. The second paragraph is more fair and makes the above sentences redundant anyway. Kent Wang 16:29, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
• Reword the phrase to make the source fit - No reason why we should only accept sources published through beijing-owned-communist party. An oppressed group should be able to voice their concern, even if they were semi-printed through UN, IED or any other NGO. They claimed the event was a hoax, and it should appear exactly like so. What we are doing is saying "yes" to the trillion dollar authoritarian government, and saying "no" to an oppressed group. Benjwong 16:47, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
• Reword it so it does not sound so ambiguous. It needs to be stated that Falun Gong and others dismissed the event as hoax, but maybe the difficulty is the "mostly". Using ambiguous words like that is not very scientific. If it is stated who dismissed it as a hoax then that's fine I think.--Asdfg12345 23:38, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
• Reword For me it would sound good to say UN, IED or any other NGO's consider this as a government staged event, if we can find the sources for it :) --HappyInGeneral 10:34, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

yeah IED can work, since that's what they said. Amnesty might have also said that, I think. if nothing happens here we should just change it to that. What does everyone reckon? This seems an amusingly bureaucratic step, this discussion, but I think it is an excellent thing in this kind of environment, and I support it! Kudos to Mr Wang.--Asdfg12345 12:02, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Just to clarify, I am disputing that anyone, including International Education Development (IED), has actually said it. I cannot find independent source from non-Falun Gong site that says IED has made this statement. Kent Wang 19:28, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

There is a weird assumption that statements made (including those 6+ years ago) are all publicly made available online. If you go to the UN, IED or any other website involving similar groups, nobody keeps a record of every statement ever said. These groups deal with alot of human right problems. FG was just another blurb on their radar. Benjwong 19:39, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, you are correct. But the burden of proof is still on you to provide evidence that this was actually said. You need to contact IED or the UN to get them to send you proof of this. Falun Gong source is insufficient proof, especially since that PDF has mis-identified IED as a UN subsidiary. Kent Wang 20:22, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Really? Where in wikipedia's policy does it require a user to send letters to the UN for statement and source requests. If the pdf mis-identified any association with the UN, have you considered that the first page of the doc in gigantic letter saids "UNITED NATION" in size 50 fonts. Wait, maybe that was size 70. Benjwong 00:47, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

You clearly do not understand burden of proof. FG is a biased source and this PDF has already been shown to mis-represent statements. I have disproved that IED and UN have said it, so now the burden of proof is on you to prove that they actually did say it. The way to do this is get independent corroboration from UN or IED. Corroboration from FG source is insufficient as it is clearly biased. Kent Wang 15:25, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

This is your own made up policy. The quote should go in exactly as is. You can definitely say "FG said it". True or false in all cases, it is not up to you to just censor because you have a personal opinion against it. Benjwong 16:00, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

• Remove the phrase the use of "mostly" is on the edge of weasel word, the disputed source is inappropriate since there is FLG commentary mixed with the UN reports and the PDF is not endorsed by the UN. A simple example would be page 19,20 on the incident. Everything is FLG commentary until the last part where it cites the IED. And guess what? Even if we take this document for granted, nowhere does it show "mostly been dismissed as a hoax" since only the FLG and IED are stating it. --Yenchin 12:53, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Comments

• Comment: yes, it should be stated who is saying what, and that is the requirement. Not to do that is certainly weasel words. That's why it should be altered to reflect who is saying that: IED. Anyway, there is certainly more than just IED, and I'll dig those up before too long. I don't understand how this would lead to deleting a statement like this altogether, in fact, eliminating a significant viewpoint like that at all is not acceptable.--Asdfg12345 13:56, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
• Comment: If we say the viewpoint came from FG and IED without mentioning the UN. The source should work, even in the intro. As I was suggesting earlier, Yenchin wants to do his own blocking. Just remember, if everyone treats the communist party like FG, every statistics and info released by beijing would be denied or seriously challenged. So far everytime beijing says something good, nobody dare complaint. But when an oppressed group speaks, everyone starts deleting. This is a nasty pattern that has to stop. Benjwong 19:23, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
• Comment: Yeah right, like 2 sources can define "mostly", and I'm an evil agent from China editing stuff from PRC sources in the article. Wake up and get a life. --Yenchin 21:10, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

First off your name calling and personal attack on me is a complete joke. Don't waste your time on it, cause I have seen better. Secondly I didn't say you were some evil PRC rep, but you need to check your own edit history. All you do is camp out at Falun gong articles including your last 500 edits. I happened to be doing some cleanups/improvements. Maybe I wouldn't be here, if you already put the article to GA with your "expertise". Benjwong 06:10, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

lol see who's obsessed here. Last 500 edits? What's this? God of Gamblers? Anyone with simple logic can point out the holes in the FLG material, which in case you didn't notice, is what I'm doing. --Yenchin 03:40, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Above comments are made by editors previously involved in dispute, not from outside third-parties. Kent Wang 12:45, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

• Remove entirely The article already contain enough sources on criticism of the Chinese government and hoax allegations. This is not a place to vent your personal opinions on Falun Gong.--PCPP 15:30, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
• Remove phrase entirely - I do wonder if editors have actually read the source. The United Nations didn't state that the incident was a hoax. The source is a collection of UN human rights reports, compiled together by the Falun Gong Human Rights Working Group. It was in the Preface to the reports, written by the Falun Gong group itself, that states that the self-immolation incident was a hoax. However, the UN reports themselves never even discussed the self-immolation incident. It is the Falun Gong group that is claiming that the incident was a hoax, not the UN. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 22:22, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Just analyze this block. Benjwong 06:10, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

"These holes prompted International Education Development, a UN NGO, to issue the following statement during the 2001 session of the UN Sub-Commission on the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights:

“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.”"

This quote has been thoroughly refuted above, in this section and the previous two sections. Kent Wang 07:07, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

This quote is only refuted if you can prove the IED does not exist and have no ties to the UN. In this case, they exist, and have taken stands on previous human rights issues before. see below. In theory we should not even have to dig this deep. Benjwong 15:11, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

I just answered this above. See "You clearly do not understand burden of proof...". Kent Wang 15:25, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

You guys are violating WP:CENSORSHIP in complete denial. If FG said it, then it should appear exactly as is. Where are the arbitrators. Benjwong 15:56, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

• Remove entirely due to lack of evidence I am sorry, but if after “Darfur” and Sudan was still “uncontestedly” elected to member, I can use the same argument on UNCHR - stating that it’s a bias organization. The commission is useless, and a report/statement from a bias, useless commission? Remove until further evidence TheAsianGURU 07:52, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

That quote is in that report. There is no way this stuff can be not mentioned in this article. It is just not going to work to try to keep out relevant information published by reliable sources. That is not going to happen. I am going to put back in that quote you deleted and request no one else delete it. It does not matter if you think Falun Gong is a load of crap. This stuff is fine for wikipedia standards in terms of what can be reported, and I think everyone should just get on with it. I am a little surprised that it has got to this extent, because it is really a non-issue. I will add as a footnote an explanation of the nature of the pdf document, and the important comment Hong Qi Gong makes that the part where it mentions the hoax was part of the Falun Gong organised "background" section, not part of a UN report specifically. It is important to clarify this, and we should be clear. But trying to delete this stuff altogether is clearly outside the scope of wikipolicies.--Asdfg12345 12:31, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

I like how people do personal attack as soon as they run out of words~! This guy is in a stage of denial! You can believe the stuff is fine for wiki standard all you want, but I disagree. First of, stop the attack!! I don't think & have never believed FLG is, a quote from you (see above), "load of crap." Second, the so called UN article has a hard time proofing its authenticity. Anything that’s written with UN Letter Head (or a department from nowhere & nobody had ever heard of before) doesn’t constitute a UN Statement. In fact, I am writing this very sentence in the UN Lobby in NYC, is this a UN Statement? Third, the key here is to proof the statement - “Mostly been dismissed as a hoax.” For one, I don’t think it was a hoax, I think it was real, but I am not “Mostly.” In order to say that it’s what the general pubic thinks, then tell me why. (Maybe a poll in English? Or Maybe a poll in Chinese?) so until then, I will say it again --- Remove entirely due to lack of evidence TheAsianGURU 17:29, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

• would it not make more sense just to say that FG has stated it was a hoax, because that is the simple fact? However, note that that has been said or implied more than once in the article, so will it hurt to say it once more? Ohconfucius 13:47, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Right, the only attribution (as the attribution to UN and IED are refuted by me above) we can make for "mostly been dismissed" is to FG. And since their criticism has already been covered in the article it just makes sense to remove the phrase in question entirely. Kent Wang 15:20, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

• What I did have an issue with, and which is echoed above, is that the article suggested that the "joint report" emanated from the UN - which I'm afraid does not. There is nothing 'joint' about it, FG compiled it and made their own inferences, so the statement is a misrepresentation. Your footnote is acceptable, but the text should still be changed. Ohconfucius 14:12, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
• See below. The IED have always been one of the "many" representive voice of the UN. It so happens this time they are speaking for FG, and everyone has a huge problem with it. The statement stays, preferably taken exactly out of the pdf the way it is. Benjwong 14:59, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

• Comment - Look, guys, the best way to support that the UN says this was a hoax is to actually find a source that is published by the UN itself. What we have is a Falun Gong source claiming that the UN stated this incident was a hoax. That is extremely problematic, because Falun Gong is a bias source for this article, just like the Chinese government would be a bias source for this article. We can no more present a Falun Gong source as if it was fact as we can present a Chinese government source as if it was fact. So my question is - did the UN really say this was a hoax, and if so, let's see a UN published source, something that is hosted by a UN website. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 16:29, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
• Comment - It is a FG source, everyone agreed on that from the beginning. Whether the UN or the IED said it exactly, nobody knows. If it is quoted exactly as is, then at least we have a deal. According to Falun gong: "These holes prompted International Education Development, a UN NGO, to issue the following statement during the 2001 session of the UN Sub-Commission on the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights: 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." Even if the UN never made this statement at all, it was said at least said by one side. And belongs in the article. Benjwong 19:46, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

• Comment What FLG fails to point out or show, is according to the press release, after IED said this nothing happened, no further release on this subject, examination, approval, denial...etc or anything else. The UN backed up nothing, they just let IED make their statement and it was over. If one makes a statement at a group meeting, does that automatically mean that the group agrees? Denies? That's a big leap of faith. --Yenchin 03:53, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

International Educational Development

Who the heck are they? They seem to be totally non-notable, but just a lobby group within the United Nations with little or no visibility elsewhere. Their statement is buried within a lengthy press release whose importance is not clear. A Gsearch of International Educational Development turns up a few thousand hits, but most are for university courses being offered and not directly relevant. Unless its notability is properly demonstrated, all references to this organisation should be expunged. Ohconfucius 09:07, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

The earliest record available for IED looks to be related to WWII work on human rights.

(1) Books: The Comfort Women: Japan's Brutal Regime of Enforced Prostitution in the Second World War by George L Hicks.

- Look up Karen Parker chief rep to the UN of the IED who co-authored the 1989 Jaudel-Parker Report on human rights in Japan during world war II.

- Look up Totsuka Etsuro, east asian representatitve of IED for League of human rights.

(2) Books: Recolonisation: Foreign Funded Ngos in Sri Lanka by Susantha Goonatilake

- Look up IED and you will see they were one of 17 other NGOs at the 50th session of the UN commission on human rights held in Geneva, switzerland in Feb 4, 1994.

(3) Even the United States Congress has no problem admitting the voice of International Education Development IS one of the voice of UN in 2003 for other events. I am hoping you can read this link. If not, it saids "Between 16 and 20, 2003, I paid a follow-up visit to the United Nations Commission on Human Rights, which meets in Geneva, Switzerland. Represented by two non-governmental organizations (International Educational Development and the Washington Center for Peace and Justice)."

These are all in books regarding subjects totally not related to the incident. In a list of hundreds of NGO, they seem to be just another, with no major online or web presence. You can even say they are quite old-school. Benjwong 14:39, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Here's a hint, cited from A UN Source [4]:

Q. Are NGOs in consultative status part of the UN?

No, they are not. They are not representatives or agents of the UN, nor are they authorized to enter into business arrangements on behalf of the UN. Consultative status does not entitle them to special privileges, tax exemptions, diplomatic passports, etc.

Q.Are NGOs in consultative status entitled to use the UN logo?

NO!, they are not. Not unless the NGO obtains a written authorization from the UN Office of Legal Affairs first. Under no circumstances is this permission granted for use on stationery or business cards.

Scratch another confusion. --Yenchin 04:16, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Rewrite of 22/8/07

As with other articles in the FG group which I have worked on, I have largely rewritten the article with a large number of commented edits. I have also added from sources already cited in the article, and reduced the reliance of block quotes which were close to violating WP:COPYVIO. Ohconfucius 09:53, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

I would leave copyright issues out. We are at most working with a few sentences in the entire pdf file. Benjwong 14:43, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Good job. I have skimmed over it and it looks fair and reasonable. I still want to remove "A report released through the United Nations in 2004" as I am claiming above in Talk that there is no independent corroboration that this report was ever issued by IED through the UN. The explanation in the footnotes are insufficient as to have the phrase in the article is rather deceptive. Kent Wang 15:33, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

I went ahead and deleted that sentence. Take a look and see. I think it still preserves the aspect that third-party commentators have criticized it, while removing the suspect PDF cite. If you disagree, you can revert and we can discuss it here. Kent Wang 15:37, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

I have requested page protection until RFC arbitrators have at least arrived. Benjwong 16:16, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure you understand how RfC works. All the new editors here have already arrived through the RfC invite. The majority of them are in favor of removal. RfC is not arbitration, it is a request for comment. If you want, you can escalate this to mediation. At the moment, the majority is for removal, so I think it is fair to remove it and only add it back in if you can win at the mediation. I will not ask for mediation, but you should if you disagree with the majority here. Ohconfucius, as you rewrote this, what do you think about this? Kent Wang 19:06, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Yep I admit I was under the assumption that Rfc is the starting point, with mediation of some sort to follow. Benjwong 19:30, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

I see that you got the article protected. How do you want to proceed, informal mediation with mediation cabal, or formal mediation? See Wikipedia:Resolving disputes#Further_dispute_resolution. I'm OK with informal if you are. Kent Wang 22:39, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

• I do not feel the request for protection was at all reasonable. There was disagreement, no edit wars, and a healthy debate was taking place, for once. IMHO, Benjwong jumped the gun to have the page protected as he was the only one appearing not to agree with the consensus. I removed the phrase in question in line with what the consensus view was (as noted in the eidt summary). I also happen to have an issue with the explicit comment in the article of a UN view which in reality was a wolf in sheep's clothing. The statement as it stands is an utter misrepresentation and cannot be allowed to remain per WP:NPOVWP:A until at least it is absolutely clear who said it and in what context. Ohconfucius 01:36, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

{{editprotected}} Please revert to this version. This has consensus as it removes disputed phrase as discussed above. Only Benjwong is disputing. The phrase should be removed while we await arbitration, which Benjwong has not agreed to accept yet. Without removal, Benjwong has no incentive to accept arbitration, while factually inaccurate information remains in the article. Kent Wang 08:00, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse. I have already asked protecting admin to completely lift protection. Storm in a teacup. No request for mediation or arbitration has been filed. Rightly so! Ohconfucius 08:09, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, protection lifted. I reverted back to my version with the phrase removed as this is the consensus. Benjwong, if you disagree you need to file for mediation yourself. Until mediation decides otherwise, you need to respect consensus opinion and leave the page as is. Do not start a revert war. Kent Wang 08:33, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Hey sorry about the protection there. I jumped the gun thinking an arbitrator was supposed to show up. I should have gotten the protection moved. Benjwong 23:43, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

I have decided to give up on this article. Because of three reasons.

1. If the The Wolf in Sheep's Clothing was brought up then it is clear. People still do not understand the history of the many suppressed groups who never saw any daylight. FG has actually gone pretty far in comparison to all the others.
2. I take the Voltaire approach. "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it". In this case, I am referring to allowing FG speak about their UN experience even if it seems unlikely to all the doubters.
3. Totally not related, but I just found out a Hong kong actor Chow Yun Fat got censored in Beijing in the PG13 movie Pirates of the Carribean. So, I think I will be moving to other topics.

I sure hope you guys know who you are censoring. Benjwong 23:53, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

• The wolf in sheep's clothing expression was not perhaps the most aptly chosen. Wiki does not endorse putting words in other people's mouths. Could it be a question of mastery of English - (mine or yours)? The removed statement, as constructed, implied that the quote came under the auspices of the UN itself, but upon scrutiny, there was no evidence in support it was anything but a FG comment. You yourself stated above, "The UN stamp is not something you can just toss around and borrow. In fact it might actually be illegal to say something came from the UN, when it didn't." We are agreed that if you have the source document linking the "hoax" statement directly to the UN, we would welcome it. Perhaps you may feel that the current group of editors was trying to censor you (or FG), but I think you are wrong. I certainly was not. The approach was to make the article as verifiable as possible whilst stating all relevant points of view giving due consideration of their importance. That FG denounces the immolations as a hoax is already well represented in the body of the article, and does not warrant repeating ad nauseum. Same goes for the "CCP practises heavy media censorship" and "Chinese authorities engages in vicious propaganda against dissidents". Do not take it personally - you need to accept that you were in "a minority of one" - the opinion to delete or restate included FG practitioners. It would be regrettable to lose your input. Ohconfucius 02:00, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Don't worry. I won't take it personally as I try to approach many articles with this level of detail. In fact, if I was afraid to be challenged, I would have started my own website instead of throwing my comments wide open on wiki. Benjwong 03:14, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

If we put all political stuff aside, there are so many logistical stuff that may in the future prove this was a hoax. Especially the distance, time and position calculations. I know this is supposed to be a wiki-article-related only forum. But I'll throw a little comment out, you can call me crazy. How fast did the fire extinguishers get to the victims. What was filmed prior to the event by the same camera. How fast did the cameras zoom in. What was their exact position on TS. How burnt should they be by the time the medic gets there. Did they ignite on film. Did the film shoot them from the start. How many other people were in the square at the time. Do the shadows correspond to time of day. Wind factor on that day. How many other people did they watch before the same camera focused on them. There is truly an endless number of ways to show this is a hoax. Hopefully someone will analyze this like the JFK case one day and make a movie out of it. Benjwong 03:14, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Third-party support, or response to criticism

In order to make this more fair, there should be third-party commentary supporting the government's claims, or otherwise responding to the criticism from Falun Gong. Currently there is only third-party criticism. I will do some research into this later, but would appreciate help. Kent Wang 10:38, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

I just spent about two hours on Lexis-Nexis and found no detailed analysis of the video. I doubt journalists will have this information as it's highly detailed and technical. I tried a Google search but was swamped by Falun Gong sources. Kent Wang 18:04, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

more sources

I am not surprised you did not turn up anything with a detailed analysis of the video which showed any more than that it was a hoax. Think about it, if it was Falun Gong doing it in protest, why would everyone be denying it even now? If it weren't against what Falun Gong is about and what it stands for, why would Falun Gong deny they were practitioners? Isn't it obvious? Furthermore, even if it was done in protest, let's pretend--what would they be protesting about? Does that mean you acknowledge the persecution?

Anyway, here are some more sources which will be added in due course. I think all these except one will be traceable back to the original location, and only one of them is Falun Gong-linked, and can still be used anyway:

http://faluninfo.net/DisplayAnArticle.asp?ID=3222 http://www.faluninfo.net/displayAnArticle.asp?ID=3381 http://faluninfo.net/DisplayAnArticle.asp?ID=7394 http://www.mediachannel.org/views/dissector/falungong2.shtml http://web.amnesty.org/802568F7005C4453/0/881234C280E6469B802568B00057ED13?Open&Highlight=2,falun http://www.faluninfo.net/mediacontrol/IED_UN_Statement.htm

But if it's a video you're after, you could see www.falsefire.com, where I got most of those sources. Might be a good idea to watch the video and take notes, too, to report what the video reports in this article in a concise way.--Asdfg12345 15:49, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm not going to argue with your speculation. See WP:Original research.

Four of your links are from FalunInfo.net and are biased. The Amnesty article doesn't even mention the immolation incident. MediaChannel.org is all secondary analysis compiled from sources, like Philip Pan, already included in this article. Kent Wang 22:05, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Sorry I wasn't clear. Let's not fight. They link to third party things, not falun gong things. faluninfo just compiles and stores them. It is a simple matter to trace them all back to the source.--Asdfg12345 11:34, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

• The mediachannel article is good source of material, and has now been incorporated as a source. The others have either aready been used in some other guise, or are of no great additional benefit, so I have ignored them. Ohconfucius 04:46, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Chrandra Smith

• I have to ask if anyone knows whether Chandra D Smith is a respected academic? Ohconfucius 04:46, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

I couldn't find anything about her on Google. The best I can surmise is that she was on the staff of the Rutgers Journal of Law and Religion. I sent the editors there the following email:

Howdy,

I am researching the matter of Falun Gong persecution and am interested in an article written by Chrandra Smith released on 2003 in your New Developments section. Can you provide her credentials and possibly contact information?

The article in question is linked from: http://www.lawandreligion.com/2003.shtml

Thank you, Kent Wang

Kent Wang 15:58, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Liu Chunling

Ohconfucius, Asdfg12345 and I (Kent Wang) all have varying opinions on this paragraph about Liu Chunling. My version is below:

Liu Chunling's neighbours in Kaicheng established that she was not a native of the area, she was deeply troubled. A Washington Post journalist could not locate anyone that had ever seen her practicing Falun Gong. However, a Xinhua article reports that Huo Xiuzhen, Liu's adoptive mother, spoke of her daughter's "obsession with Falun Gong", her "worshipping of Li Hongzhi", and how she would teach her daughter to practice Falun Gong.

Ohconfucius:

Liu Chunling's neighbours in Kaicheng established that she was not a native of the area, she was deeply troubled. She had apparently never been seen her practicing Falun Gong. However, a Xinhua article reports that Huo Xiuzhen, Liu's adoptive mother, spoke of her daughter's "obsession with Falun Gong", her "worshipping of Li Hongzhi", and how she would teach her daughter to practice Falun Gong.

Asdfg12345 version:

While a Xinhua article reports that Huo Xiuzhen, Liu's adoptive mother, spoke of her daughter's "obsession with Falun Gong", her "worshipping of Li Hongzhi", and how she would teach her daughter to practice Falun Gong, it was established that Liu Chunling was not a native of Kaicheng, and was deeply troubled. Further, she had apparently never been seen practicing Falun Gong.

"It was established" is a weasel phrase. This comes only from one source, the Washington Post article by Pan. It would be better to state that specifically that Pan could not find any evidence. "Established" implies there is a broad consensus on this. Please discuss. Kent Wang 16:15, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Yeah good point, I don't think phrases should be used which allude to more than the source itself actually says. But also, flg sources have some claims to make that she is not a genuine practitioner... just thinking, I looked at the page now. I think it might be a good idea to move those two final paragraphs which appear in "the act", move them to reporting and analysis. These are not strictly descriptions of what happened on that day, but are claims about the participants. I think this should be moved. The other thing which may make things easier, is that there are a number of points of contention across the whole incident. One is for example, Liu Chunling's relation to Falun Gong. So that point should get it's own paragraph, and there should be CCP view, Falun Gong view, third party views. Then the next point of contention, say, I'm not sure what, but the next thing. The point is that on any item there appears all possible viewpoints, and that they are clearly signified as xinhua, falun gong, X third party. But actually, it should be stated that Pan talked to the neighbours who said xyz, not just that he could find no evidence. The suggestion is further, that he found negative evidence. It could be at least interpreted that way, but the fact that he refers to what neighbours said needs to be mentioned. Yeah but move those two sections and we can squabble over the technicalities later. What do you think? --Asdfg12345 00:54, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree that it should be moved. I created a new section "Were victims actual practitioners?". I hate the title, but that's the best I could come up with. I moved the paragraph in question and all other phrases about whether the victims were actual practitioners into that section. Please take a look. Kent Wang 13:53, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Yeah I think that's not too bad. The title is a bit mediocre though, I'll have to agree with that. I changed it to "nature of the victims", but this is probably still not the best. Feel free to change it. I'll think on it. I also took out one sentence from 'the act', the ccp claim they were avid practitioners. I took this out because it is a claim of a different nature than 'they did this, then they did that, then this'. I don't know about disputes for those kinds of claims, so I guess xinhua can just say xyz as it wishes. I think it is just better to, whenever stating an opinion, to state other opinions too. If it is just reporting physical events that took place like x met y then that is of a different character. Do you know what I'm saying?--Asdfg12345 08:09, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I agree about "avid...". Good call. I also changed section title. Kent Wang 09:54, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Mr Tan

The Danny Schecter article mentions somebody by the name of Mr Tan as if he was one of the victims, but I find no mention of him elsewhere. Any ideas? Ohconfucius 09:43, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Actually, this is a completely separate incident, if you Google "Tan Yihui". See NYT article. Schecter's book also mentions that it was a separate incident. I have removed the entire paragraph about this.

P.S. - Schecter quotes Ian Johnson of Wall Street Journal, but I couldn't find this article in Lexis-Nexis. I searched for several unique phrases. It may be possible that L-N doesn't have all the WSJ articles. Googling only turns up three hits. One from FalunInfo.net has the entire article verbatim. It gives a date and time but not when it was published. This deserves some skeptical scrutiny, as I wouldn't put it past FG to have just fabricated this article. Kent Wang 10:18, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

• I take the view that a press article picked up by FG should equally exist elsewhere. I prefer direct citations. If it is the real thing, Ross will probably also have a copy on his website. Ohconfucius 11:53, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Why on earth would Falun Gong fabricate a news article? Aside from being just the easiest thing to prove wrong, the whole thing is not to lie and do bad things. I think you may have totally failed to grasp what Falun Gong is and what is it about. Falun Gong practitioners are actually sincere about what they are doing. I think I can access wsj from my uni database, so I can check this out later. There are some useful comments generally in that article which may be used. There is the sentence, for example: "Over dinner recently, a group of Falun Dafa adherents living underground in Beijing expressed amazement at the self-immolations. "These people can't be true adherents because Master Li forbids suicide," said a practitioner. "We don't understand where people got this idea from." this is pretty relevant. --Asdfg12345 07:18, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

There are FG practitioners (nebulous) and FG headquarters in New York. FGNY has pretty much mastered the propaganda game, and rides piggyback on the United Nations, sometimes direct, but also by implication and inference (some might call it smokes and mirrors). It does no harm to have a bit of healthy scepticism. A direct citation is always better - you can't beat something from the horse's mouth. Ohconfucius 10:56, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

I guess I don't know what you mean by much of that... If you are saying Falun Gong gives its side of the story and thinks it is right, I can agree with that completely. Falun Gong practitioners think it is true that there is nothing wrong with Falun Gong and the persecution is wrong. In my understanding that is pretty much the only message being sent out there in all of this. I mean, no one wants everyone to come practice flg. When I talk to people about Falun Gong I am not like offering to teach people the exercises and lend them Zhuan Falun. It's a pretty simple to me. Pracititoners just want to be left alone and not be persecuted... I don't see anything wrong with that--you seemed to indicate similar sentiments? So in a sense I don't know what you mean about piggyback the UN, smokes and mirrors. If I saw some things in Falun Gong statements that deliberately misrepresented secondary sources I would speak out and disagree with that strongly. That's not what it's about. No practitioner I know would do that kind of thing. If you have specific examples where you see Falun Gong statements attempts to deceive their audience on some factual matter.. or whatever, you know, doing something a bit underhanded, please point it out to me. I would like to scrutinise that. That wouldn't be right at all. The article:

a) for the arrangement of introduction: it should be logical in terms of claims. 1) claim that they were real practitioners organising of their own will to immolate themselves. 2) claim they were 'misguided' practitioners and the opp. was used by ccp. 3) claim they were not practitioners at all. 4) claim incident was a government hoax for political gain. This delineates the logic of the claims, in order of closeness to falun gong. It is the CCP's game to begin with, in terms of the fact that it would not 'exist' to us if it was not publicised by their media. So it should start where it started. It is a step-by-step of the different views on the incident, following a logical order. This seems the most natural way to structure the introduction, on a scale of agreement to disagreement. These are my thoughts on that.

b) the statement from Zhuan Falun: I see this the same as any other point of evidence that ought to be presented. Information about the incident, the backgrounds of the people involved in it, the teachings of falun gong, essentially the context of the incident, will be taken into account in any assessment of the incident. This is simply relevant information related to the incident. The neighbour said she hits her kid and mother. Zhuan Falun says practitioners should not get angry at their kids. This is as relevant as when Zhuan Falun says that killing is wrong, or when Li Hongzhi says that suicide is wrong. It's material of the same order.

Well, I am of course just presenting my opinions on those two matters in the article. Through reasoning it out in a transparent way with objective evaluation criteria it's inevitable that we'll come to some agreement. Right now I am finding that text is a limited communication tool, since it is more difficult to communicate friendliness, a willingness to cooperate and so on, than it is in person. Anyway, if you revert or change those things I won't change them back again until we come to some agreement about the best way of going about it. Saludos.--Asdfg12345 14:12, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

• I believe that the logic should not be the 'subject' of the claims (ie who the alleged victims were) but who made the allegations. Both sides have now come to rely heavily on the incident, and are milking the event for all the propaganda value they can get out of it, and they both "win". For the Govt, it "proves" FG is an evil cult, for FGNY, it "proves" that the Govt is out to persecute it. My rational can be further broken down as follows:

1. The unescapable fact is that there are basically two protagonists (shome mishtake shurely!), the Chinese Govt, and Falun Gong
2. Had it not been for the CCTV/Xinhua/PRC Government propaganda, this would not be such a big deal. The article/incident is therefore founded on the allegations that they were practitioners to start with.
3. Rebuttal from the accused faction must come next.
4. then come the third party views, which are always likely to be a mish-mash, and some more credible than others. In this, we can include comments that the victims "may have been misguided practitioners" as stated in Time.

In using the expression "smoke and mirrors", I was trying to describe one method of deception which I came across. It is often found in propaganda (and dare I say, in advertising). One would be the outright lie, two would be the attempt to mislead through suggestion and inference, as we have argued about the FG compiled UN report. The UN reports are freely available on the UN website, and it would not serve any purpose to compile and reissue it unless the intention was to insert something intended to mislead, I would contend that explictily using the word "hoax" in the introduction is demonstrates this propaganda. Ohconfucius 02:04, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

• I think we should not allow indirect citation from either FG or the Chinese government in this article -- both sides are biased and have been known to misrepresent sources. FG, for example, tried to claim that the IED quote was by an UN NGO. This seriously undermines their credibility.
  
  If the Chinese goverment or Xinhua cited a quote from WSJ, I will not allow it in this article, either, unless we can find the original article from WSJ. The fact that Lexis-Nexis could not turn up the original for this WSJ is pretty suspicious.
  
  Whether you agree with me or not, this specific WSJ quote is completely irrelevant as it's not even about this immolation incident. It's about something that happened a month afterwards. If you want, you can start a separate article about that. Kent Wang 23:41, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Isn't IED a UN NGO?? Wasn't there a discussion above which went over this? Given the source is legitimate, the information itself is relevant to contextualising and understanding this issue. I won't reinstate it until I find it. Schechter quotes the wsj article anyway.

"Remove Liu Chunling child abuse. See [[WP:OR]. You need a seperate source that says Liu's child abuse meant she could not have been a FGer. If you disagree, take it to Talk." -- I never wrote "because her neighbour says this, and zhuan falun says this, it must mean that", that would be OR and you'd be right for picking me up on that. But I did not. I just put in what her neighbour said, and what Zhuan Falun said. An original source would be needed to make the connection explicit, but simply presenting the relevant information is not at all original research. Both are relevant pieces of information. I hope I havn't missed anything. You can recheck the definition of original research. I think you mean the part about no new syntheses. If I have missed anything feel free to remove again and we'll discuss, otherwise probably best to just leave it.--Asdfg12345 13:34, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

• IED is an independent NGO, not a UN subsidiary. This is all discussed above. Yes, I'm talking about "no new synthesis". By mentioning that child abuse is against FG practice, immediately after I think is definitely making an original argument. Ohconfucius, what do you think? Kent Wang 13:39, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

for the WSJ: I can't log into my uni database now because my internet is behaving weirdly. getting downloads of 5k and pages freezing. But doesn't Schechter quote the wsj article anyway? I would find it screamingly hilarious if FDI made an article up. It would be a joke. I know some of them, and like I say, if you wanted to do something devious and lie to people... falsifying an entire news article would be just about the dumbest way to do it you could imagine. If it is a fake i'll cut off one of my fingers and mail it to you.

• I'm not going to argue about the WSJ article anymore, as it's irrelevant to this article -- it's about an entirely different immolation incident. If this issue of indirect reference comes up again, I'll argue with you then. Kent Wang 15:00, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

for the zfl quote. Here is the section:

Synthesis of published material serving to advance a position

Editors often make the mistake of thinking that if A is published by a reliable source, and B is published by a reliable source, then A and B can be joined together in an article to advance position C. However, this would be an example of a new synthesis of published material serving to advance a position, and as such it would constitute original research. "A and B, therefore C" is acceptable only if a reliable source has published this argument in relation to the topic of the article.

Here is an example from a Wikipedia article, with the names changed. The article was about Jones:

Smith says that Jones committed plagiarism by copying references from another book. Jones denies this, and says it's acceptable scholarly practice to use other people's books to find new references.

That much is fine. Now comes the unpublished synthesis of published material. The following material was added to that same Wikipedia article just after the above two sentences:

If Jones's claim that he consulted the original sources is false, this would be contrary to the practice recommended in the Chicago Manual of Style, which requires citation of the source actually consulted. The Chicago Manual of Style does not call violating this rule "plagiarism." Instead, plagiarism is defined as using a source's information, ideas, words, or structure without citing them.

This entire paragraph is original research, because it expresses the editor's opinion that, given the Chicago Manual of Style's definition of plagiarism, Jones did not commit it. To make the paragraph consistent with this policy, a reliable source is needed that specifically comments on the Smith and Jones dispute and makes the same point about the Chicago Manual of Style and plagiarism. In other words, that precise analysis must have been published by a reliable source in relation to the topic before it can be published in Wikipedia.

This is really clear. It is saying if you synthesise two arguments to make a new unique argument. It says nothing about just stating two arguments. I never tried to say "therefore she isn't a practitioner", I just presented the two relevant pieces of information. Honestly, that is completely okay. Judging by this logic, all the stuff about the CCP saying practitioners did Falun Gong this or that, said dafa hao, or did the exercises smoothly, that is all in the same category. It is just information relevant to the incident that can be used to evaluate the situation. it is of the same nature as everything else. Definitely does not qualify for the above. Cmon. I won't reinstate it now because I have to eat some noodles now and go to sleep. You could do so yourself as a sign of goodwill. I think there was something else you did that I didn't feel right about. Anyway, we'll chat about it later. Thanks for being fairly reasonable in communication etc.--Asdfg12345 13:54, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

• Zhuan Falun says that killing is wrong, Li Hongzhi says that suicide is wrong and, we already have a quote from FGNY saying that exactly in those terms which defend the faith and integrity of FG, which makes it acceptable to restate here. I cannot access the source article right now, but from what I recall, there was no mention in the article that 'ZFL says you must not beat your children', nor that FG says it is wrong to beat your children. Inserting that 'fact' where you intended (where it does not belong, IMHO) lacks proven relevance, as the "relevance" you state is clearly reliant upon making that logical leap that FG practitioners don't beat their children. If however that was stated explicitly in the source, that would be another matter, but let us be clear that it does not. Therefore, inserting that fact into the paragraph out of context would be misleading. It is synthesis in spirit, and thus I do not think this juxtaposition should be allowed, as it would lead the reader to come wrongly to his conclusion which is not supported by the underlying source. Ohconfucius 02:12, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Basically it is as relevant as everything else on the page; its relevance is evaluated in exactly the same way as anything else on the page's relevance is evaluated. The same logical process of evaluation is applied. It would be arbitrary to exclude this. Would all testimony of the neighbours be excluded on the grounds that they are irrelevant? Or that "no one saw her practising Falun Gong"--it is the same, isn't it? It is precisely the same kind of information in essence. It is all information directly related to the nature of Falun Gong, the victims etc., being presented on this page. There is a process of making logical connections between every piece of information for anything to make sense. Without any kind of mental faculty like this there would be no article, no wikipedia. The quote I have proposed from Zhuan Falun does not violate any policy. This is a simple piece of information that belongs on the page alongside all the others. I havn't tried to exclude any information presented which suggests they were 'practitioners' on the grounds of relevance. There is a raft of such inclusions. This case is identical. It is obvious. Please reciprocate. --Asdfg12345 15:11, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

• I agree with Ohconfucius. You are clearly violating the spirit of "no original synthesis". Ohconfucius and I out-vote you on this. If you disagree, you can seek dispute resolution. Until dispute resolution decide otherwise, you should respect our majority and do not revert. Kent Wang 17:12, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a democracy, nor is it the place for bully-tactics. I have demonstrated that this piece of information from Zhuan Falun is of identical nature to everything else in the article. The fact that neighbours saw her beat her child and was 'mentally unstable' is drawn attention to in many of the Falun Gong rejections I have read. I can dig one up very easily. While I just quoted Zhuan Falun, I don't have to do just that. That information that she was so-and-so was originally from xinhua. That's the CCP line. So let's have the Falun Gong line, and the third party line. I feel that you are trying to get rid of the Falun Gong perspective. I don't want to call this censorship, but I am left wondering 'why?' The 'no new syntheses' section quoted above never says you cannot present two pieces of information which are related to each other and which together may lead to a new idea. The point is that you cannot explicitly say that. If I said "therefore she must not be a practitioner" that would be violating OR. Just having the relevant quote from Zhuan Falun, and the words of her neighbours is not original research. Both are pieces of information from acceptable sources. Perhaps Benjwong would like to weigh in on this.--Asdfg12345 00:11, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

By the way, I will take out the Zhuan Falun comment now until this is resolved. This is an attempt at a gesture of cooperation. While we are at opposite ends on this, I think everything should still stay very gentlemanly. --Asdfg12345 00:13, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

I took it out. While I'm not at all upset or annoyed, at this point I would like to express my surprise and perhaps disappointment. You are quite happy with the xinhua quote, that she 'worshipped li hongzhi', was 'obsessed with flg', taught her daughter to practice and so on--all this is fine. And you have allowed the secondary source perspective. But you are denying the Falun Gong perspective on this. Basically all I am asking is that all viewpoints be represented, but that is being attacked. So I am seeing this situation and I don't think it is very good for you guys.--Asdfg12345 00:18, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

As I said, I just do not think the sentence belongs in thhe article without proper contextualisation provided by sources. However, if there are sources which carry this analysis, then we can look at it again. Even if a FG press statement saying that she cannot be FG practitioner because she beat her children would be acceptable - like the one which said that the immolators cannot be FG practitioners because suicide is prohibited by FG. I would also comment that I think Kent was a bit too harsh on you: after all, there were only 3 of us in active discussion, so it's too few to draw proper consensus, but thanks for your cool. Ohconfucius 03:44, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

If the communist party was allowed to say someone was obsessed with FG. Then FG should equally be allowed to say the wannabe practitioner was beating kids and violating FG practices. Both should appear in the article for fairness. This is the original problem I had with these discussions. It always come down to who should be allowed to talk. Benjwong 20:45, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

• Now that is better - At least we have a source! It troubles me somewhat that the [FG] source, in the attempt to distance itself from her and her actions, attempts to smear a poor troubled woman who was merely trying to make ends meet. It is clear that "evidence" is circumstantial and not anecdotal (same as saying that FG prohibits suicide, ergo cannot be FG practitioners). FG is so desperate to distance themselves from this imperfect specimen of a human being that its behaviour is questionable ("不善?"). Two wrongs don't make a right. Ohconfucius 01:53, 12 September 2007 (UTC) By an extention of the 'circumstantial' logic, could I not validly state that FG statements are all sincere by virtue of "Zhen Shan Ren", and anything which is not cannot have come from FG? :-) Ohconfucius 02:02, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

I still don't know why you've got it in for Falun Gong, but it is not an issue of lack of compassion. What is being made clear is that Falun Gong does not teach anything like this, and no practitioner would immolate themselves in protest. That is the first point that is being made. And by referring to anecdotes about Liu Chunling (troubled life, beat her daughter and mother, worked as a bar hostess, mentally unstable) the point is being made that she cannot be a practitioner. Perhaps you ought to read this: http://www.clearwisdom.net/emh/articles/2001/4/28/9139.html:

We feel a lot of sympathy for those poor souls who were used by Jiang Zemin. I cannot fully express the compassion we feel for those people and for the millions of Falun Gong practitioners who are still suffering under the persecution of Jiang's regime.

Actually, that would be a good page for you to visit and read. Who should you be pointing the finger at here? A bunch of qigong practitioners doing absolutely nothing wrong, or a psycho government who has the blood of millions on their hands? They are the ones that did this to those people, and even had Liu killed and her daughter badly harmed. It seems that you do believe it was set-up, and this being the case, your ire should be firmly directed at the brutal party, not at the Falun Gong practitioners who are just trying to be kind and simple.--Asdfg12345 06:02, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

By the way, now that the source is there, why did you delete the Zhuan Falun reference? Didn't you say above that if there was a source to join the dots it was find to provide this additional context? Apart from that, I quite liked all the other changes in terms of sentence structure etc. that you made--thanks. (But the Schechter quote is okay. He is another voice saying it was a set-up and should be represented. Please don't delete.)--Asdfg12345 06:05, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Sorry I am trying hard to leave these type of discussion, but can't help myself but to make another comment. Psychological instability of victims is always one of the major item presented in court cases. This is not a court of law, but if it was... it would almost undoubtedly go in as the first exhibit. Benjwong 12:38, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

But isn't FG all about consummation and about eschewing the 'Adversarial' style [of courts]? Ohconfucius 02:57, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

I am not sure what you mean by that. I was implying that in a normal international court, this would be basic presentable evidence. This is obviously not something that can ever be presented in a state-run People's court. But here at least on wikipedia it is new information. New enough that I have never heard of it. I think other readers will benefit from having it on the article. Yes this one comes directly out of FG. But if you are waiting for a state-sponsored doctor that presents a medical report showing the immolator was unstable, good luck. Benjwong 05:01, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

• I think we are talking cross purposes. I was merely speaking about how FG lives by its own philosophies, nothing more. Ohconfucius 08:50, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

For my part, I do my best. If you knew me you would know what I am talking about. If you asked any of the people that know me well (friends, parents, siblings) they would make a bunch of remarks about positive changes etc. There is always going to be a gap between the ideal and the practice. Just a moment ago I expressed indignation at a family member. But I realised immediately afterwards, felt regret, and thought I should be kinder and calmer. Those thoughts would not have crossed my mind 3 years ago. It may be hard to judge Falun Gong without much contact with practitioners. At the very least, Falun Gong has taught me to be a kinder and more rational, along with all the other practitioners I've come into contact with. In any case, in this situation, people are being killed for their beliefs, and we are talking about Falun Gong practitioners doing what they can to put an end to that. The CCP uses a bunch of innocent people to further its political objectives and ramp up the persecution, and Falun Gong practitioners deny those people could have been practitioners. Are you saying there's anything wrong with that? Please be clear about where you stand on this. Falun Gong hasn't done anything wrong by anyone, and the only resistance to the persecution is for the purpose of being left alone. It's not so crazy. I'm conscious that this page isn't for discussion so I'll stop and not re-engage. --Asdfg12345 12:18, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Weather data for January 23, 2001 in Beijing

• Please see WP:OR. Kent Wang 21:54, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

This is not going into the articles. Just some basic data for anyone interested in the science aspect. Benjwong 22:07, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

• Do not add information to this Talk page if you have no intention to add it to the article. Talk pages are for improving the article. This is a not a Falun Gong discussion forum. I have edited your post and removed content violating WP:FORUM#FORUM. Kent Wang 13:23, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Just because I am not adding anything. Does not mean someone else won't find the data useful. Sorry but blocking weather data goes alittle to far to protect your POV. I have said 2 things, and I am not spamming. This is hardly a violation of any wikipedia forum policy. If you can only reference politics, then this entire section is not for you. Benjwong 13:47, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

You are violating WP:NOT#PUBLISHER, WP:FORUM#FORUM and WP:COPYVIO (Copying and pasting the weather data). Please read these rules pages before you respond. You have consistently shown a lack of understanding of Wikipedia policy, especially during the previous RfC dispute. If you revert again, I will request another RfC, both on the article and on you specifically for user conduct. Kent Wang 17:07, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Let me see. I meant to drop alittle data here and leave. You violated WP:NOT#ANARCHY and WP:NOTCENSORED by deleting talkpage data that may be relevant to someone interested in the science. You didn't hesitate to blank it, even when I explicitly said I had no intention of putting this into the article. How about just ignoring it if it's not your cup of tea. Am I really violating anything if you delete it faster than anyone can make a judgement call? I would appreciate it if you just said I violate original research and don't delete.

You can run all the admin checks you want. Your odds aren't very good. I am squeaky clean with a long history of positive contributions. BTW you also told me to "get a life", a direct user conduct violation. May I add, your overprotection of the talk page is very suspicious. Benjwong 14:01, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

• I have never told you to "get a life" or made any ad hominem attacks against you. Perhaps you have your critics mixed up. If you claim that I have violated policies, please file an RfC or otherwise seek dispute resolution. I think it's quite clear that it is you who will come out poorly out of it, as you did out of the last RfC. Kent Wang 19:48, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Filing Rfc and complaints is not what I do. I am too busy with too many articles. I swung by to drop off a little data, not to debate some more. Had I known people will accuse me of all these offences I would not have even bothered. Benjwong 20:35, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

The CNN crew did witness an immolation incident, plus there is no info on where the camera is located. Fulfilling anyone's curiosity. --Yenchin 23:38, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

You also said CNN didn't "give a damn" and still made the report public after being detained. To be honest I am not sure what opinion you have of CNN. I can only agree that so far there is no data on where the camera was positioned exactly. Benjwong 01:09, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

And what does CNN not giving a damn to the PRC government have to do with whether the incident was staged? Red Herring fallacy. --Yenchin 18:45, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

I find it funny you picked CNN to prove the event happened, when just a few paragraphs ago you tried to discredit them. Benjwong 14:01, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

I find your reading ability astonishingly poor. I would suggest you cite my attempt to "discredit" for this accusation. --Yenchin 18:26, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

You are entitled your opinion. If anything I'd been told the opposite in the past for reading too deep into things. Benjwong 17:48, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

The sentence in question is this: So what if the reporters signed documents to prove their interview was illegal? They didn't give a damn and still made a report, and another. Anyone with basic English reading can see there is no attempt to discredit anything. --Yenchin 15:47, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

CNN don't play by mainland rules. CNN bad reporters. Thats what I got out of your message. I believe I am entitled my opinions too. Benjwong 20:56, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

You are suffering by ignorance to the English language. Go look up/ask the definition of "don't give a damn". If you want to edit and discuss an English article, you'd have much to learn. --Yenchin 22:59, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

On 2nd thought, I'll just put it here:[5]

Verb S: (v) care a hang, give a hoot, give a hang, give a damn (show no concern or interest; always used in the negative) "I don't give a hoot"; "She doesn't give a damn about her job" --23:06, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Schechter, FLG press release

I've added a bunch of stuff from this schechter book, as well as information from a falun gong press release about how xinhua's reports were taken up by the western media. Please, no one delete these.--Asdfg12345 16:30, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to reword some of it so that it incorporates better. I'm also going to check the sources in detail. Will do so soon. Kent Wang 17:18, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

No worries. Please don't dilute the message. I picked this book up at academic remainders for a paltry sum. If there's not one in your local library, maybe you could ask them to get a copy in. Good book. --Asdfg12345 00:02, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

• Actually, Google has the full text. Kent Wang 01:09, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

• I think the Schechter stuff needs to be used with care. Simply comparing the Philip Pan article with Schechter's paraphrasing of him reveals a "ramping up" of arguments and allegations concerning Liu Chunling'. She is described by Schechter as "depressed and mentally unstable" while what Pan actually said was that Li "a woman who led a troubled life" and also quotes a neighbour saying "There was something wrong with her," Ohconfucius 10:10, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Background

Comment to Asdfg: I note that the background section has grwon while I slept, and is now beginning to resemble the Persecution of Falun Gong article. Are you going to suggest merging this article into the abovementioned? If not, I think expansion should stop. From this background, a reader may be mistaken for concluding that some FG practitioners were indeed responsible for torching themselves, as there were no other means of peaceful protest. Ohconfucius 04:15, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

It is quite reasonable to contextualise the events associated with the persecution. If you like, some of that material can be taken out, perhaps not all of it is necessary. I remember reading some journal articles on the persecution which suggest that it wasn't going to well with the public image of beating practitioenrs etc., but then the self-immolation happened and they were able to ramp things up. This should appear in the background section. I think what you are saying is a good point. There isn't too much of a need to give a general background on the persecution itself--this can be very brief. It may be better to present the background, as commentators would have it, of the self-immolations themselves. Oh and I think it is fine to use the Schechter. Maybe not instead of Pan, but the source is certainly qualified, and his view on that issue ought to be represented.--Asdfg12345 10:22, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

• Reading some of the reviews of Schechter's book, he does seem pretty fair, though not as knowledgeable as Pan. One critic says the book uncritically republishes a lot of stuff from FLG websites, so this should be checked for. Schechter also made a video documentary about this, and has wrote about many other media-related topics. Haven't gotten around to checking the actual content you added to the article yet, will do so soon. Kent Wang 13:28, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, he's obviously quite sympathetic to Falun Gong. In his defence though, when the CCP started their propaganda campaign they from the beginning framed the terms in which Falun Gong was to be discussed. For the first few years western media repeated the CCP discourse. In this context (2000, 2001), his sympathetic presentation of Falun Gong perspectives, including interviews, recounting of experiences, the kind of thing you find on Falun Gong websites etc., I don't think is out of order. I understand that some of the reason he put the book together was in response to the CCP propaganda and the western media's subsequent adoption of it. Some editors decry the kind of media which present Falun Gong perspectives, calling it propaganda etc.--but in a situation of overwhelming persecution and propaganda, with no one reporting on it, essentially leaving a large number of people without a voice in the face of violent repression and lies, it seems quite natural that the kinds of things you see now (tv, newspaper, websites, radio etc.) would evolve to explain another perspective and clarify the situation. Much has changed since the start of this and generally people in western society are probably clearer on the situation (peaceful practice with some quirky beliefs being viciously persecuted by totalitarian regime), but in the context of 2000, 2001, I'd say it's appropriate that someone present the Falun Gong line and allow it to enter mainstream discourse.--Asdfg12345 15:07, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Reverts by Asdfg

I must say that I strongly disagree with the reverts of my edits:

1. Contextualising with Amnesty brings nothing to the party, as this is stuff for the Persecution article - it's probably there already. I feel that the background section here should be more narrow, and restricted to the protests in Tiananmen, and that by introducing it makes it POV for lack of relevance (or WP:UNDUE). I'm not saying I want it merged, but he only way I see the Amnesty stuff staying is if this document was merged with 'Persecution'.
2. my objection to the quote from IED is more specifically covered by WP:QUOTE. It can and has already been integrated into the body of the article so that much has been covered, thus I object to this paragraph being unnecessarily lifted verbatim from a 19-page press release (ie it's lacking in conciseness), IED's opinion that the video was fabricated is already correctly integrated into the text of the article per WP:QUOTE, thus making it a breach of WP:COPY and not covered by "Fair Use"
3. I also objected to the re-ordering of the assertions in the lead paragraph, as the "distance from FG" argument is not valid for the reasons stated. In addition, would the 3rd party views not be "equidistant" from FG views when compared with CCP views? On the other hand, I believe that you have not successfully argued what is wrong with my logic of having Time at the end, together with third party views.
4. I don't care much for the ZFL quote, but I do feel that it is out of place and an attempt at synthesis. At present, it does not quite fit because ZFL is not mentioned in the source.

I will sleep on the changes you have made. Ohconfucius 08:34, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

I welcome compromise on all points.

1. Whether it's Amnesty or whatever, the background to the event needs to be clear. There is a nasty persecution going on. It's not going well. Along comes a very convenient event.
2. If every point in that paragraph is stated with equal force, like a summary, that might be okay. The point is that what they have actually said needs to be very clear. If you simplify and reduce things to such an extent, the message may be lost. I don't want that to happen. Basically, there's a certain element of determinacy in their view, being summed up very well in that quote, that is not reproducible otherwise. I would suggest removing any other part of the IED view, then, and just keeping it to that paragraph to avoid their idea being duplicated. We can't have every paragraph end with "oh and by the way IED said it's a hoax!"
3. The logic to the order of the introduction is the logic of the order of the claims. The view that says it is Falun Gong practitioners doing what Falun Gong says. The view that says it was misguided Falun Gong practitioners and the state used the opportunity. The view that says they were not Falun Gong practitioners and it was a set up. This is a clear delineation of the logic behind the argument. You want: The view that says it is Falun Gong practitioners doing what Falun Gong says. The view that says they were not Falun Gong practitioners and it was a set up. The view that says it was misguided Falun Gong practitioners and the state used the opportunity. I can only wonder why. There is no internal logic to this structure. The other follows an internal logic in terms of CCP/Falun Gong role/agency, and it goes from one end to the other. Or would you prefer to start with Falun Gong, like Falun Gong is on the attack? But we know Falun Gong is not on the attack, but on the defence. There should be a logical thesis/antithesis in assessing this. That's what I'm suggesting.
4. I am lost on this point. I feel it is obvious that it's a relevant piece of information, and that having it there clearly doesn't touch synthesis. I don't want to keep repeating that. We should do dispute resolution if you or Wang are set on deleting it.

I'll go sleep in a minute, too.--Asdfg12345 14:51, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

• As I already mentioned, I feel that this has been made into a polarised situation, so the paragraph should first deal with the two main poles, all the others, whichever side they are on (pro-setup, anti- or sceptical) belong at the end. The controversy is not linear, thus I do not believe a linear logic applies. As this is a controversy, the truth is probably somewhere in between (though not necessarily in the absolute middle -I hasten to add), and the reader should be left with some doubt - it is not wikipedia's role to eliminate this doubt. On point 4, something I believe "fair" as you have explained it quite well, I may have found a way to link the ZFL quote, but I think it is borderline and may be challenged by another editor. I would add that the background to the event is clear. We already have the Falun Gong article, then we have the 'persecution' article and also the Backgground section in the article - all the FG articles are now all linked by the {{Falun Gong}} template. On the IED citation, what you say is that it exists, and should be included; I say that including too much would tend to violate WP:UNDUE, as a)most of the stuff is already in the article and b)IED's importance is but two paragraphs in a UN press release of 19 pages. Losing some of that information is a means of dealing with the problem of undue weight, which you appear to deny existing. As some editors would have it "Oh, by the way, there's a persecution going on" at every convenient juncture. I have tried to remedy that. Ohconfucius 04:32, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

From a historical perspective. This event affected a mere few people in the square, and the communist party showed absolutely no sensitivity to chinese culture by turning small news into national news on a holiday. It should have been delayed, if ever televised at all. Assuming this was a karate student playing with fire, the communist party would overlook. Taking that into context, the background section should not be about offence or defence. It should make clear that FG is seeking justice. After all, the communist party purposely send the message out on new years to millions of people unchallenged. Benjwong 17:47, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

• Maybe that's why CCTV put off diffusing the graphic images for a whole week ;-) BTW, I note that there has been a needless edit warring between you and PCPP over occurrences of the word "persecution". I have gone back to the source, which in neither cases state "persecution" nor "crackdown". As the source (referring to 'persecution') cited in the lead paragraph is not online, I have not been able to verify, so I have not changed it. I have fixed the other relevant occurrences, and I believe that the warring should end here. Ohconfucius 01:45, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

I am not saying anything about graphic or non-graphical images. If anything, I never saw the broadcast live. I am saying the local news involving a few people turned national headline should have been delayed or avoided altogether. You know the chinese phrase "choy"? It applies here. PCPP has some interesting edits. That's about the only comment I have time for. Benjwong 20:59, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

• Wikipedia's role is not to uncover the truth. That you think the truth lies somewhere in between doesn't matter and shouldn't affect how we present the case. What you said about poles is right. That's what I meant. There is a thesis->antithesis. I would suggest that this is a natural way of presenting information in situations like this, where there are competing views. First you start at one end, then move through the views before arriving at the other end. I outlined this before and this is what I meant. The IED quote definitely doesn't violate UNDUE. Just because IED is repeating that it is a hoax, which has already been stated by other third parties, doesn't mean that it is undue. That's precisely the important thing--who's saying what. The quote should just be left there. I don't mind taking out info from the background section. Maybe one of those Amnesty paragraphs could be removed, or both of them trimmed down. But the idea should be clear.--Asdfg12345 00:39, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

1. I still have misgivings about including the IED quote in its entirety, as some of its clearly out of context. I believe some of it (the part not specifically about the 'fabrication') could be moved elsewhere, but it doesn't belong here. However, I have deleted to sentence leading up to it which repeated that they believed the event was a setup.
2. Even stronger than before, after you added the last paragraph to the background, which I believe is fine, I believe the Amnesty paragraph can be severely pruned if not deleted altogether.
3. BTW, I noticed that we were busy rubbishing what Xinhua?the Govrt said, but there was precious little about their allegations. Along the way, someone deleted that they were "avid FG practitioners" from The Act section. I have therefore added a new paragraph. Ohconfucius 03:37, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Ohconfucius 03:37, 17 September 2007 (UTC)