Wikipedia

Talk:2001 Tiananmen Square self-immolation incident/Archive 3

< Talk:2001 Tiananmen Square self-immolation incident
Latest comment: 14 years ago by Asdfg12345 in topic section changes
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5→Archive 8

"Government propaganda"

Latest comment: 16 years ago45 comments6 people in discussion

I strongly and wholly object the change in terminology in this regard:

  1. Although it has not explicitly said so, I would say the Chinese govt believes that it is not "propaganda", but is merely stating its side of the case, as it has every right to.
  1. I think it would be equally in breach of WP:NPOV if someone came along and ejected every view or pronouncement from FG's or WOIPFG or CIPFG and put that under the heading "Falun Gong propaganda"
  2. Govt actions is broader than Govt media actions (or "propaganda" as it been used);

I also strongly object to the increasingly flippant edit summaries being used (i.e. it used to be "wikipedia doesn't do euphemisms", now it's "we don't call a duck a "flying feathered animal"), so the change is not acceptable. Ohconfucius (talk) 04:55, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm...--Asdfg12345 05:28, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Let me organise these resources: Propaganda

http://www.cecc.gov/pages/virtualAcad/exp/expcensors.php -- scroll to 中共中央宣传部

http://books.google.com/books?id=zfZ4VV0WTeUC&pg=PA114&lpg=PA114&dq=chinese+ministry+of+propaganda&source=web&ots=qynVkK_SQv&sig=RfA5OwNCXj6zZBuy8-38LRb_LnM

The Ministry of Propaganda is a government department of the CCP.--Asdfg12345 06:03, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Few more:

http://english.cpc.people.com.cn/66102/5826534.html -- "As China battles with Internet pornography, the country's top propaganda official Liu Yunshan has put forward the idea of "building a web culture with Chinese characteristics"."

http://english.cpc.people.com.cn/66485/66495/66496/4533662.html -- "Under the influence of his seniors, Zhao Shiyan, Zhou Enlai and others, Deng began to study Marxism and do political propaganda work."

http://english.cpc.people.com.cn/66095/4468893.html -- "He [Mao] was the acting head of the Central Propaganda Department of the Kuomintang in Guangzhou and the chief editor of the Political Weekly."

Apparently it's nothing to be ashamed of, and they do use the description for themselves.--Asdfg12345 06:13, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

  • There is clearly a negative connotation of the word "propaganda" in the west, which the Chinese Govt may not yet have tuned in to. I'm not letting you off the hook so easily: You've attacked point 1, but 中共中央宣传部 - "宣传" can also mean publicity or advertising (which now you come to draw the analogy, is not totally inappropriate). What about points 2 and 3? Ohconfucius (talk) 06:19, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Falun Gong publicising its plight, torture and persecution, and explaining that it is a set of exercise movements and spiritual teachings, is 面目皆非 to the CCP's efforts to whip up hatred against practitioners, fabricating endless lies, up to the ridiculous extent of saying that practitioners practice cannibalism, bestiality, or go crazy and kill their family members. This much is obvious. Now please type "Falun Gong propaganda" into google, and compare the instances of reliable sources describing Falun Gong's response to the persecution as "propaganda" and those that describe the CCP's media campaign against Falun Gong as "propaganda." You'll quickly find there's not really a contest. This is the standard description of what the CCP has done. The media it publishes on Falun Gong is propaganda, and in nearly all instances of a scholarly journal, newspaper article, or other reliable source talking about the persecution, the CCP's use of media is referred to as "propaganda." There are also endless comparisons with the same propaganda as featured on the wikipage, i.e. of Cultural Revolution style propaganda, which is not a contentious description. You can find nothing like the same thing referring to Falun Gong's response, which is rarely characterised as propagandistic, despite what we may think.--Asdfg12345 07:16, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

The only part of the "Government actions" which are not propaganda is the first sentence. --Asdfg12345 07:18, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Also, we're not here to speculate that the CCP hasn't quite understand how stupid it is to refer to itself as engaging in propaganda, nor to make allowances for that. My Chinese dictionary translates 中共中央宣传部 as "Propaganda Department of the CCP Central Committee"; besides, I'm sure this is what they mean.--Asdfg12345 07:22, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

I thought you would be amused by those edit summaries.--Asdfg12345 07:26, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

It would help if the government themselves release an English name for the propaganda/publicity department. I encountered the same issue here. This really is an old discussion from like pre-1980s. Benjwong (talk) 14:58, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
OK User:Asdfg12345, why are you biting on a mist-translation (or better, outdated translation)? Quoting the etymology section of [1],
"From Modern Latin propaganda, short for Congregatio de Propaganda Fide "congregation for propagating the faith", a committee of cardinals established 1622 by Gregory XV to supervise foreign missions, prop. ablative female gerundive of Latin propagare (see propagation). Modern political sense dates from World War I, not originally pejorative."
The original sense of word corresponds better to "宣传" than the current meaning. Would flyers, 宣传单张, really mean "propaganda leaflets"? Even in a commercial setting? On the root of all this the translation between propaganda and 宣传 is plain wrong, so can you please stop using it as an argument because it is simply invalid. Also, because of conflict of interest, any publication on one party will be biased towards them, just like falungong publications are biased towards them is well. If you call what CCP publishes "propaganda", why not label the falungong publications propaganda is well? It will simply be violating WP:NPOV if we label one side of the argument as false (which is pretty much what labeling it propaganda does). --antilivedT | C | G 03:01, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

I wrote about a 500 word response which addressed the important issues you raised, and added in some more thoughts. Unfortunately I lost it all. I'm not prepared to write it again straight away, so just give me a day or so and I'll get back to you on this. Here's a link Persecution_of_Falun_Gong#Media_.26_education_campaign if you want to read about the use of media in the persecution of Falun Gong. You can decide whether you think that is propaganda or not.--Asdfg12345 05:13, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi. I'm sufficiently recovered from that episode. I'll try to condense what I wrote.

First about 宣传. We're not discussing how 宣传 translates, really, in other contexts. Of course characters have different meanings in different contexts. The point is that in this context 中共中央宣传部 often gets "Propaganda Department of the CCP Central Committee." There is also the fact that the CCP themselves refer to it as propaganda. They call it the Ministry of Propaganda. They say they are going to engage in propaganda efforts, etc., and on their website they say that Deng and Mao did their time as propaganda chiefs or whatever you like--posted some links above. I'm not criticising the CCP here; they don't have a problem calling it that, and nor should any self-respecting communist.

The other thing is that in every instance of discussion of the persecution in reliable sources, I would say every instance or nearly every instance, their media efforts to defame, vilify, and incite hatred toward Falun Gong are called "propaganda." And this term isn't necessarily meant to be derogatory. It's actually a legitimately descriptive term. It is also very often said in reliable sources that the propaganda campaign against Falun Gong mirrors the many other propaganda campaigns across the CCP's history of rule, notably the Great Cultural Revolution. This comparison is very frequently made, for obvious reasons.

When you type "Falun Gong propaganda" into google, nearly every hit you find will be about the CCP's propaganda against Falun Gong. With this self-immolation incident in particular, it is the most blatant propaganda effort in the whole persecution, and you will also find this in numerous reliable sources. In an overwhemling majority of reliable sources that comment on this incident. It's just very clear. It wouldn't even matter if they were Falun Gong practitioners who burnt themselves, the way it was handled was still propaganda, and it is described as such everywhere you read about it. That's another thing. You wonder why Falun Gong shouldn't be called propagandists also? As I say, it's 面目皆非, but consider this, if you will: the core difference is that Falun Gong is propagating information it believes to be true, while the CCP is engaging in widespread, horrific violence, and propagating information that it knows to be false. This difference is quite large. Apart from that, on a rather practical level, you will find next to zero reliable sources saying that Falun Gong is engaging in propaganda. I think you will find one or two, and in those instances their opinion should be cited. But they are not referring to this incident, I believe I have seen them referring to Falun Gong's general anti-persecution campaign. But the point is that in this instance, Falun Gong's counter to this self-immolation is not being described as propaganda. But the CCP's actions in this self-immolation are overwhelmingly being described as propaganda. Even if it weren't for everything else in the argument, this simple fact would be enough. --Asdfg12345 03:26, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

According to Google search, there is 1 result to the Wikipedia article "The Epoch Times", 3 mentions of "Falun Gong Propaganda" (ie. propaganda BY Falun Gong), and 4 mentions of "Anti-Falun Gong Propaganda" on the first page. Of those I think the most neutral is the first link, by Stefan Landsberger, which is well-backed up by examples and not overly biased to either side. There is also a systematic bias on this issue: searching in English will only turn up English results, and a lot of the links turning up on the Google search are related to Falun Gong itself trying to 宣传 (I think advertise would be the suitable translation here) their point of view, whereas a search in Chinese would probably be overwhelmed with the CCP point of view. From an outsider point of view, the advertisement of Falun Gong is not much better than the alleged "propaganda" of the CCP: they have a whole newspaper and TV channel dedicated to CCP bashing, various websites operating under the cloak of "religious freedom". If the issue is really about religious freedom the biggest complaint would be from the millions of Christians in China, not a newly-developed religion/cult. But, I am getting off-topic so I will stop here. I will just re-iterate my concern: labeling one side of the argument as false is in clear-violation of NPOV. --antilivedT | C | G 04:13, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Not sure I understand your point. The Landsberger is about the CCP's use of propaganda against Falun Gong, not about Falun Gong's counter. This isn't really related to how the CCP's actions on this particular issue should be characterised though, which is the point. It certainly isn't about labeling any view as false, but about reflecting the majority view in explaining the CCP's use of media to vilify Falun Gong. I'll wait until someone responds to that. Aside from this specific case, I might take the opportunity to respond to your wider concerns.

I think one thing you are forgetting in all this is that Falun Gong practitioners are innocent people who are being tortured and beaten to death for their beliefs. This is the bottom line of what is happening in China. You should recognise that first of all. Why shouldn't they then go and set up a newspaper and websites publicising that? Is that wrong? What's happening in China to Falun Gong is totally outrageous. You should be disgusted at the CCP's vicious killing of innocent people to entrench their rule (the majority death toll in the persecution are women past middle aged, did you know that?), rather than the peaceful response (setting up media to publicise it, sitting outside embassies to protest, handing out leaflets etc.). Don't you think it's wrong that this is happening? Aren't you upset by it? Suggesting Falun Gong is a cult is also playing into the hands of the tyrant. Falun Gong is a set of free exercises and books. It's 100% voluntary. No money is sought or collected. Practitioners do not distance themselves from society. They are wholly innocent. Calling Falun Gong a cult was merely a technique of legitimating the persecution. All this information is freely available, and much of it is actually right here on wikipedia. Please read widely and aim for a wider grasp of the situation, and please don't be afraid to engage your heart. It's a really simple question of right and wrong, really simple.--Asdfg12345 04:58, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

My point is that I did exactly what you say, googling "Falun gong propaganda", and the result is far from a landslide victory on the Falun Gong (henceforth abbreviated as FLG) side like you have assumed. Both sides have been accused of propaganda and thus if you want to label one side as propaganda, you must also do the same for the other side for the sake of neutrality.
Also, after reading your second paragraph, I must remind you of WP:COI, as you seemed to be quite set on the righteousness of FLG. --antilivedT | C | G 05:10, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
As for the now-off-topic debate...

As for the wider debate, as much as I want to stop, I do not consider either side to be reliable sources. I would like a citation for your "women past middle age" statistic, from a reliable source (ie. not websites operated by FLG). Also, does it not that handing out leaflets, running your own media to broadcast your ideologies constitutes as "propaganda" (propaganda (uncountable) - Speech or writing advancing one's cause or ideas, or denouncing one's opponents.) in the strictest sense of the word? If the internals of FLG is as transparent as you claim then why is there almost no neutral sources on describing what exactly FLG does other than protesting and trying to bring down CCP? Look at Teachings of Falun Gong, almost every single reference came from the central dogma of FLG, and none from outsider descriptions and eye-witnesses and other neutral sources. Look at Template:Falun Gong, it is dominated by persecutions of it and contains very little on what exactly is it. Compare it to other religion templates and you will see what I mean. Yes I agree the CCP had killed a lot of people to ensure its power, but it doesn't mean someone can operate under the cloak of avenging the innocent people to attack the CCP, it's just as bad as being lied to by the CCP itself. --antilivedT | C | G 05:10, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

I've seen only one source describing Falun Gong's efforts in the self-immolation propaganda. That's the NYT thing, it goes something like "With propaganda streaming in from both ends of the universe, the claims seemed hard to assess..." I haven't seen anything else saying Falun Gong is using propaganda in this case. We're just talking about this case, and talking about whether the subsection should be renamed. The fact remains that every source calls the CCP's efforts to vilify Falun Gong here propaganda. As I say, for the third time now, when reliable sources also say Falun Gong is engaging in propaganda, in those instances that should be cited in the relevant place.

The off topic stuff, I wanted you to realise that you should just be clear about who the aggressor is here. People are being tortured and murdered to death for their beliefs, this is well documented and widely accepted. The response has been peaceful. It's as simple as that, really. It is up to you whether you accept that or not. I won't say more on it.--Asdfg12345 08:47, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

OK I will break it down for you if you are still living in your assumption. Let's disregard links to either camp, so I'll skip over the Chinese Consulate link, Clearwisdom, Clear Harmony, Falun info, and any other website associated with FLG; Wikipedia articles, Google Books links (I can't be bothered reading the context of the comments) and any blogs as they are NOT (well most of the time) reliable sources. Here are the results from the first 5 pages:
And that concludes the 5-page analysis. Let's tally them up: accuse CCP of propaganda against FLG:4; accuse FLG of propaganda against CCP: 4.5; To be honest I was quite shocked at how little neutral sources are out there. Out of 50 links only 9 are usable links, and I can say a good 20 or more of the discarded associate with FLG, while Google Books results follows on a far second, and only 1 link from official Chinese sources. Now can we say we have definite evidence that accusation of propaganda is not one-sided? --antilivedT | C | G 09:29, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi. Yes, that is interesting. It's a shame we are so inundated with low-quality information, isn't it? These are the times we are living in I suppose. There's still gold out there, it's just a matter of digging around. Anyway, I appreciate this research, but we are talking about this self-immolation incident and whether the CCP's use of media should be described as propaganda. You can go to the article and check out all the links referenced there. Probably 90% of them talk about the CCP's propaganda. I don't know any other source apart from NYT that calls Falun Gong's efforts propaganda, and that is a passing comment. We are not talking generally about Falun Gong's counter to the persecution and the CCP's use of media in the persecution, we're just talking about this specific case, so I guess those links aren't relevant. Do you know what I mean? (By the way, I often find google is a poor resource for looking for the kind of research that should be used for wikipedia. Academic journals and respected newspapers are the go, I've found.)--Asdfg12345 10:35, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Just came across this, I think you would find it interesting and a good read. Take a look and let me know what you think:

HUMAN RIGHTS IN CHINA AND THE 2008 OLYMPIC GAMES

HUMAN RIGHTS IN CHINA AND THE 2008 OLYMPIC GAMES

Keynote Address by Hon. David Kilgour, J.D.

International Forum, Grand Hyatt Hotel Taipei, Taiwan

February 21, 2008

We are here to weigh the condition of human dignity across China and some other countries whose governments are subject to direction by the Beijing party-state. Our goal is to develop common approaches in attempting to improve human rights and the rule of law within China before the 2008 Olympics and Para-Olympics this coming summer. Hosting an Olympiad and simultaneously increasing oppression are incompatible with the modern Olympic Charter, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and a host of other international instruments.

The government of China hopes that spending vast amounts of money on Games facilities--and forcibly removing thousands from their homes with inadequate compensation--will improve its reputation despite its well-documented systematic violations of human dignity. The opposite seems more likely since the Games are now being used by the regime as a pretext for a crackdown on human rights advocates and other patriotic citizens of China. One Internet survey I saw a few months ago in Canada indicated that more than nine in ten of respondents favoured changing our trade laws with China presumably because of their human rights abuses; surveys in a number of other countries evidently also show mounting concern about the Hu-Wen government.

In Taiwan, for example, I wonder how many of your 23 million nationals think Beijing showed any concern for you during the SARs epidemic of 2003. This brings me to an eye-witness account of the World Health Assembly two years ago, which considered whether Taiwan should have observer status at the World Health Organization. The delegates from two African governments spoke in favour of admitting Taiwan; ones from China and another country spoke against. The applause from the delegates present as a whole indicated very clearly, I'm told by a someone who was present, that most countries represented wanted the motion to admit Taiwan passed. The presiding chair, however, refused to allow a vote, asserting that there was little support for the motion, presumably on the basis of her own private applause meter. A very shabby business, which must be changed soon partly because viruses know no borders. Health is an integral feature of human rights.

In 2006, the most recent year for which figures are available, there were more than twice as many arrests in China as the previous year for the offence of 'endangering state security', which is used by totalitarian governments everywhere to silence journalists, civil-rights lawyers and advocates of religious freedom. The number jumped to 604 arrests in 2006 from 296 in 2005. Among those arrested were the crusading defence lawyer Gao Zhisheng, who was nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize last year and who has been repeatedly detained and beaten; the human-rights, AIDS and environmental advocate Hu Jia; the blind self-taught lawyer Chen Guangcheng, now serving a four-year prison term; and the civil-rights lawyer Guo Feixiong, now serving a five-year term.


Stubborn Facts


Until about eighteen months ago, when David Matas and I began our independent study of organ pillaging from Falun Gong prisoners of conscience, my naiveté about China's party-state was regrettably both wide and deep. Several visits to the country, including ones as Canada's Secretary of State (Asia-Pacific), did not reduce it significantly for various reasons. Only when I began to read books and other material written by knowledgeable sinologists of independent mind did my eyes begin to open.

The world should draw conclusions about China from facts alone. For example, Carsten A.Holz, an academic economist who specializes in China, published an article on self-censorship about a month ago. He noted for example, that China experts often take at face value the country's business laws without mentioning the dominant role of the Communist party. He adds: "At the national level, the leadership of the 50 largest state-owned enterprises-enterprises that invest around the world-is directly appointed by the Politburo." Many studies have asked about the reason for the growing income inequality in China. Holz notes that among the 3,220 persons with a personal worth of $13 million or more in the country 2912 are children of high-level cadres.

China experts, Holz goes on, often speak of the Chinese "government" without further qualification, even when more than 95% of the "leadership cadres" are Party members. "Who questions the legitimacy of the Party leadership to rule China and to rule it the ways it does?" he asks. His conclusion is that many academics, researchers from private firms and even those from the World Bank and other international organizations normally will not speak candidly about China because their careers "depend on amicable co-operation with the Party." Separating wheat from self-serving chaff in reports about China thus remains challenging, especially as the Beijing Olympiad nears.

The Party seeks to equate itself with China as a country, to convince naive persons within and outside the country that it is China, and that without the Party there would be no China. This is despite the inconvenient reality that its ideological foundation is now widely discredited European Marxism. One farmer in China put it best, "Karl Marx does not sound like a Chinese name." This is a underpinning of the Party strategy to maintain power despite so much ongoing abuse of fellow citizens. It is necessary always to stress that our criticisms are directed at the unelected government in Beijing and never at the exploited and hard-working people of the country.

On a more hopeful note, Reuters News reported only a few days that the CCP's senior think tank, the Central Party School, has warned that it must limit its current absolute power through democratic reforms. The 366-page report, "Storming the Fortress" notes: "Citizens' steadily rising democratic consciousness and the grave corruption among Party and government officials make it increasingly urgent to press ahead with demands for political system reform." It also calls for restricting the Party's powers and expanding the rights of citizens, reporters and religious believers. Let's all hope that someone is listening.


Organ Pillaging - "Bloody Harvest Games"


David Matas, and I concluded to our horror following our independent investigation last year that since the end of 2000 the party-state of China and its agencies have killed thousands of Falun Gong practitioners, mostly without any form of prior trial, and then sold their vital organs for large sums of money, often to 'organ tourists' from wealthy countries (Our report is available in nineteen languages, including Mandarin, at www.organharvestinvestigation.net).

Neither of us are Falun Gong practitioners, but my experience with Falun Gong in the numerous national capitals Matas and I have now visited, seeking to bring these crimes against humanity to a halt by helping to raise public awareness, has been overwhelmingly positive. Falun Gong practitioners really do attempt to live their core principles of "truth, compassion and tolerance", which are shared by virtually all of the world's spiritual communities.

Matas and I have spoken in several countries to a small number of Falun Gong practitioners sent to labour camps since 1999, who managed later to leave both the camps and China itself. They told us of working in appalling conditions for up to sixteen hours daily with no pay and little food and many persons sleeping in the same room, making export products, ranging from garments to chopsticks to Christmas decorations for multinational companies. This clearly constitutes egregious corporate irresponsibility. The labour camps, operating across China since the 1950s, are remarkably similar to one's in Stalin's Russia and Hitler's Germany. They operate outside the legal system and allow the Party to send anyone to them for up to four years with no hearing and no appeal by simply getting their police to sign an order.


Rwandan Echoes


The propaganda phase of the persecution, begun in mid-1999 against a then estimated 70-100 million Falun Gong practitioners across China, demonized, vilified and dehumanized them in Party-controlled media. Many Chinese were thus persuaded to think of the community tragically as even somehow less than human. The phenomenon recalls a similar media campaign unleashed by another party-state in Rwanda against its minority Tutsi community prior to the genocide there between April and June, 1994.

There has been no independently reported instance of a Falun Gong practitioner using force to respond to police attacks since July, 1999. The former UN Rapporteur on Torture, Manfred Novak, concluded following his own visit to China more than a year ago that two thirds of the persons being tortured across the country were Falun Gong practitioners.

Why is it that in only one of the eighty or so countries where Falun Gong practitioners now live are they persecuted mercilessly? Their growing popularity among the Chinese people generally during the 1990s was clearly one major reason, but another no doubt was that the values of those in power in Beijing were and are at the opposite end of the ethical spectrum.

The Chinese Medical Association has now agreed with the World Medical Association quite recently that 'organ tourists' will obtain no more transplants in China. Whether this is anything more than public relations cant intended to benefit the Beijing Olympiad remains to be seen. Another concern is that organs seized from unwilling "donors" across China, including Falun Gong practitioners, will now go to wealthy Chinese patients instead, with the grotesque commerce thus continuing in the same volume.

None of these deaths would be occurring if the Chinese people as a whole enjoyed the rule of law and their government believed in the intrinsic worth and dignity of each one of them. Human lives generally across China appear to have no more value to the party-state there than does the natural environment, work safety, health care and social programs for all Chinese, or Buddhist monks in Tibet and Burma. In my judgement, it is the toxic combination of totalitarian governance and 'Anything is permitted' capitalism that allows this new form of evil in the world to persist.


"Genocide Olympics"


A number of the world's most brutal dictatorships, including North Korea, Burma and Zimbabwe, have fallen under Beijing's sway during its scramble to acquire as much as possible of the earth's natural resources. I'll discuss here only Sudan-Darfur as a representative case study, but I'd ask you to consider how any regime which is doing such terrible things in Burma, Tibet, East Turkestan, Zimbabwe and elsewhere in the world could be allowed to host an Olympiad?

Consider a largely forgotten incident in the Nuba mountains in central Sudan. On February 26, 2002, the town of Nahibloiu was wiped out to make way for a Chinese oil well that now operates in nearby Leal.

In Sudan's Darfur province, since April, 2003 an estimated 400,000- 450,000 additional African civilians have been murdered by bombs, bullets or swords of the Bashir military regime in Khartoum, or died of related causes, such as starvation and disease. The killing, raping and burning pattern in Darfur is essentially the same one used by Khartoum earlier in the Nuba mountains and across South Sudan.

The respected New York Times columnist, Nicholas Kristof, wrote last month in a piece headed " China's Genocide Olympics": "Just a few days ago, Sudan appointed Musa Hilal, a founding leader of the Arab militia known as the janjaweed, to a position in the central government. This is the man who was once quoted as having expressed gratitude for "the necessary weapons and ammunition to exterminate the African tribes in Darfur."

The ongoing role of China party-state across Darfur is clearly not the conduct of a responsible member of the international community.


Growing Shadows over Olympic Games


The peoples of the world look forward to every Olympiad because they feature the best athletic talent from our entire family of nations. Unfortunately, the Summer Games this year face increasing opposition because the host national government remains one of the world's most gross and systematic violators of human dignity.

China was awarded the Games by the IOC only after it pledged to respect the Olympic Charter and to improve its human rights record. Many independent organizations have since observed that an already appalling record is instead worsening as the Beijing Games approach.

Why, for example, do Falun Gong practitioners face continuing merciless persecution after eight long years? What principle of the modern Olympic Games, especially after the experience in Hitler's Berlin at the 1936 Olympics, allows a host government to bar Falun Gong or any spiritual community's members from competing in, or even watching, events in Beijing? What about Tibetans, Buddhists, Uighurs, human rights advocates, independent journalists, other spiritual communities and democracy activists?

The government of China's outrageous treatment of human beings deemed 'enemies of the Party' both at home and abroad in the run up to the Games has led to an understandable call for a boycott. Both the Olympic Games and human rights movements worldwide share a common goal: the unity, dignity and equality among the entire human family. When this precept is violated systematically by the host government of a particular Olympiad, as is the case this year, the modern Olympic movement as a whole comes into question. 


The Olympic Charter assigns to the IOC the oversight role for compliance with the regulations under the Olympic Charter. The IOC should demand from the organizers of the 2008 Olympic Games that they conform to the Charter and refrain from discrimination against any group or individual during their Games.

Mia Farrow, Stephen Spielberg, Prince Charles and many others have already taken stands on human rights and the 2008 Olympics. All of the rest of us should too.

Thank you.

Except what I did is exactly what you said, namely "When you type "Falun Gong propaganda" into google", which the hypothesis of "nearly every hit you find will be about the CCP's propaganda against Falun Gong." is blatantly wrong as I have pointed out in my analysis. That was your main argument earlier on so in effect you have disproved your own argument, so bravo on that. Even if you type "Falun Gong self-immolation porpaganda", the whole first page is still useless for any neutral research as it is simply DOMINATED by FLG-operated sites. With such a low Signal-to-noise ratio I am simply unwilling to do any more research for you as it is just a waste of time sieving through the useless links, and that no matter what I do you'll just change your argument while pretending your previous one never happened. I will stop here now, but I will definitely revert any further changes to "Government Propaganda". --antilivedT | C | G 05:45, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
I agree with the above. There is no use getting into intellectual contortions about this: you may continue to quote that "[source1] says such and such an act is Government propaganda", which is fine within reason, a priori. For every example you find, somebody will you examples saying that "[sourceX] says such and such an act is Falun Gong propaganda". I will not get stuck in arguments about what a particular Gsearch string throws up, as counting Ghits is not research. Insistence on using "Government propaganda" as a heading will definitely be vehemently opposed. Ohconfucius (talk) 06:19, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Below is a response to Antilived. I clicked save but server froze up or something. It is still relevant; the outstanding issue hasn't been addressed.:

I apologise if I have not been clear in explaining my point of view. I should not have used google search as an example of searching through reliable sources, and I apologise for giving the impression that I based my argument on that. I mistakenly equated, in my earlier phrasing, a google search with a search of reliable sources. Please take a look at the external links on the main page, then, because there are many reliable sources there.

The main point I meant was that in reliable sources the CCP's media actions against Falun Gong are described as propaganda[citation needed], and that with this incident in particular, all or nearly all reliable sources describe it as propaganda.[citation needed] This should be reflected on the page, and on this point you haven't responded to me. If you like, I can go to the main page and copy/paste them here. I think it's quite overwhelming though, and you'll work it out as soon as you go to the references section and look through the links. There are references there to Amnesty, Boston Globe, New York Times, Wall Street Journal, Washington Post, and they all describe it as propaganda. This is the main point I had to make, the google search being one way I thought would demonstrate this. You have shown that the google search does not show this clearly, as so much of what is turned up are not reliable sources. I understand what you are saying there.

I could have made more clear that I was referring to how the CCP's use of media in this particular incident was characterised in reliable sources. I acknowledge that in instances where Falun Gong's counter to the persecution is described as propaganda in reliable sources, that on those ocassions it's proper to be cited. But as I also said, I don't believe that this self-immolation is one such case.

But the CCP's media efforts to vilify Falun Gong here are repeatedly referred to as propaganda across a range of reliable sources.[citation needed] It's just a repeat of prior, classic propaganda campaigns in the history of the CCP. That isn't a controversial statement. It's the plain reality, if you stop and think about it for a moment. It isn't a biased statement. They are vilifying Falun Gong practitioners with every means available, concocting outrageous lies to incite hatred and drive forward the campaign of violence and repression. I say these things to you in the hope that you will understand this yourself. I am disappointed by your last remark. I never meant to annoy you, mislead you, or put up fallacious arguments, so I can only apologise if you got that impression. I firstly would wish you to look at the facts yourself, and come to your own conclusion about who is right and who is wrong in this persecution. This is personally what I most worry over, not the page. If you do not wish to engage in the reality of the situation that is your prerogative.

Besides, it's somewhat irrelevant to this case anyway, because as we know, wikipedia does not deal with the truth, but with what reliable sources say. The main point is that "propaganda" is the standard view being taken by the reliable sources who comment on this matter, and wikipedia ought to reflect that. I have said this now many times, and the examples are on the main page. This fact remains. If you are not satisfied with these few words of mine and an exhortation to check out the references section yourself, I can post them here one by one and number the instances where the CCP's campaign is described as propaganda in this case, or generally, if you wished.--Asdfg12345 06:43, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Last comment. Wikipedia isn't a process of making pronouncements, and articles aren't built by "You're just going to keep changing your argument anyway, so I will just revert X" or providing no real argument and simply saying "X will be vehemently opposed." It's about discussion, debate, and compromise, informed by policy. I welcome either of you to address the outstanding issue explained above; a good editing atmosphere isn't created with those kind of pronouncements. --Asdfg12345 06:51, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

It's not that we are not making arguments - because we have - but that you are not buying, so there is a difference. Let's say we agree to disagree and leave it at that - meaning no consensus for changing the heading. Ohconfucius (talk) 05:19, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

No, it's that you have not responded to the points in my notes. It's really simple. You have not responded to the fact that all reliable sources say it's propaganda. I've let this issue simmer for a while now, I'm still quite busy at the moment but please address that and don't try to shut the discussion down without addressing what I am saying. Thanks.--Asdfg12345 13:22, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Added {{fact}} without the categories (as to not mess up the category of articles that needs citations: talk pages aren't articles) in your latest comment, to signify where sources should be cited to back up your arguments. Also, please take into account of WP:WEASEL as I can see quite a number of such in your comments.
In fact I have looked at the references in the article and I was even more appalled because nearly half of them are affiliated with FLG, so I doubt are WP:RS, specifically, in violation of WP:SPS and Wikipedia:Verifiability#Questionable_sources. I think I will remove them once I have time. But otherwise, definitely not ALL of the other reliable sources in the references call it propaganda (eg.[2], the claims are made by a FLG practitioner, not CNN), and some are labeling the action of the government after the incident as propaganda, not its side of story of the incident (eg. [3]). Quoting from your comment, "..I was referring to how the CCP's use of media in this particular incident was characterised in reliable sources", the Time article is merely labeling the persecution of FLG after the incident as propaganda, not the official side of the story. --antilivedT | C | G 23:31, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand what you mean. Where Falun Gong sources are used in this article, as they have every right to be, along with the CCP's where also appropriate, it is explained. It says "WOIPFG, a Falun Gong front organisation, says..." or whatever. There isn't a problem with having Falun Gong sources in this article, but it's important that they are designated as such, and that they don't overrun the article. The majority of the commentary in this article comes from non-Falun Gong, non-CCP sources, and that's how it should be. I'm confused by your second part. That's my whole point--how the CCP used media to whip up hatred toward Falun Gong is called propaganda. Look at what it says in the Time article: "The immolations on Jan. 23 became a propaganda bonanza for the government and marked a turning point in its anti-Falun Gong campaign." If you have found one source out of 10 which doesn't say the CCP is doing propaganda in this case, this just proves my point.--Asdfg12345 04:23, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

I just did a quick count, could be wrong, but it looks like there are 8 different Falun Gong citations. some of these are from the same source though, but the referencing is not done properly. WOIPFG is cited twice when it could be cited once, as the "Second Investigation" and First one could be condensed into one citation, they probably say similar things.--Asdfg12345 04:31, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

That is exactly what turns me off: you are never wrong. First your Google search assumption, then you said ALL sources label CCP's action as propaganda, and when I point out that one source doesn't (the second source on the article, really. I stopped after that as you are wrong already), you just ignores the whole thing and still say I'm wrong. As you have said it, after the immolation is not "in this particular incident", and the propaganda is simply against FLG as a whole (I have been living through all that rubbish). Time is not labeling the CCP side of the story as propaganda, rather, it's the propaganda campaign against FLG after the immolation that they're referring to. --antilivedT | C | G 09:44, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

I know, that's what I'm saying man! Nearly all the sources say that the CCP carried out intensive propaganda against Falun Gong after the immolations (and also generally), this is what I've been saying a thousand times. That's what that subsection is about, and I see no reason why it should not be correctly labelled. If we're on the same page here I don't see what the issue is?--Asdfg12345 13:29, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Exactly proving my point, you have been ignorant to all my and Ohconfucius' arguments, and merely continues on your own over and over and over. There is no way a consensus can be built from this and so the result of this discussion is no consensus, which means a status quo should be maintained. You were the one that was saying labeling FLG-media as propaganda against CCP is irrelevant as it is not concerning this incident, well I can say the same for the CCP propaganda mentioned in the Time article, non? --antilivedT | C | G 21:27, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
Let me put it this way: CCP considers that it has a propaganda department [4] and also journalist consider it as being a society that rellys heavily on propaganda because it's Stalinist/Maoist/authoritarian foundation. Falun Gong does consider it's action as being SOS. Am I missing something? --HappyInGeneral (talk) 22:20, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
OK if you have been following this discussion you would have read that this issue had been addressed before, that it is a mistranslation and it is absurd to translate 宣传单张 as "propaganda leaflets". Also, now that you're talking about CCP media in general, what about people that label FLG media as propaganda? I have found quite a number of them earlier in this "discussion", if "journalists" label CCP media as propaganda, and thus everything they say are false, why not the same to be said for FLG, as there are "journalists" who label FLG media as propaganda? No, don't start saying it's irrelevant, because it just refutes your argument, as my argument is merely an extension of yours. --antilivedT | C | G 03:22, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Actually I was following the whole discussion, and frankly is was getting tiring ... You can't be serios about mistranslation, since I gave you a direct source from the CCP media itself. It considers that is has a propaganda department and it also have a chief "Propaganda Department (Chief: Liu Yunshan)".
  • Translating 宣传单张 as "propaganda leaflets", means that you are mocking the chinese language. You should know that Chinese characters don't have only individual meaning.
  • Falun Gong vs. CCP propaganda well in this case we can always rely on the reliable sources and on WP:DUE. Do you have any numbers? That would help.
  • Also if I may, you where way to quick in reverting, because if I would quote only you, there is no consensus, yet you enforce your version of reality. Which in Wikipedia is not correct. --HappyInGeneral (talk) 06:04, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
  1. Except its Chinese name got nothing to do with Propaganda. Which one should we go after, the obviously erroneous official translation, or the more appropriate, faithful translation?
  2. No I am translating it on a word (词) basis, 宣传 -> Propaganda, 单张 -> leaflet, ergo Propaganda Leaflet! You could split it into 宣|传单|张 but that just wouldn't make any sense would it? I would like to be enlightened on my error here, and to what you mean by "not individual meaning".
  3. Look above you, that Google search analysis which Asdfg commissioned me to do. Usually Google searches aren't reliable sources, but a tally of news articles concerning this matter should at least give an indication on the matters on hand.
  4. Because that was the original version, and since there was no consensus on the change a status quo should be maintained. It is YOU that should explain why you did that edit in the first place? Where is the consensus? Where did you get the notion that everyone has agreed on this matter? I am merely undoing the damage that you have done. Please, next time, don't go accusing the other party when you yourself are in the wrong. --antilivedT | C | G 07:54, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Antilived, simply because you ignore what I am saying does not make it go away. Among other things, the main point I have been repeating and repeating, which you have not refuted, is that the overwhelming majority[citation needed] of reliable sources characterise the CCP's use of media in this incident as propaganda. This is just the plain truth of it. Along the way I have made other points. Let's not pick nits. I fear you are failing to look at the objective situation and instead taking this as a personal issue. I'm not in any rush. Since the overwhelming majority of reliable sources[citation needed] characterise it as propaganda (as well as the CCP itself), the page should reflect this. As far as I can tell, this is how things stand, unless there is something I'm not aware of or new information/argumentation is brought forth--I'm totally open to changing my mind, it's just that based on this, the conclusion is obvious.[citation needed]--Asdfg12345 01:09, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

I might also make this point, to Antilived and Ohconfucius: failing to address the logic of the situation and then saying "no consensus has been reached" is a cop out. If there really is a good reason not to have the word propaganda there, then come up with it, but don't try to derail the debate that way. This isn't about oneupmanship.--Asdfg12345 01:27, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

That is the whole point of me adding "citation needed" in your arguments, since I have again and again proved your hyperboles and assumptions wrong I no longer know which part of your argument are actually true. Give me citations, sources, whatever, and stop using weasel-words-filled, vague arguments that you yourself have been shown to refute over and over. Also, an extraordinary claim requires extraordinary evidence, so a claim of everything CCP said is false (by labeling it propaganda) WILL require extraordinary evidence, which you so far fail to provide, whereas a more ordinary label of "actions" does not, therefore a status quo should be maintained until you can provide the said evidence. --antilivedT | C | G 03:10, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

At some point I'll click on all the reliable sources among those 40 in the reference section, and see how many call it propaganda. All I'm saying is that the overwhelming majority of reliable sources are calling it propaganda, this really isn't a big deal. I'll check for sure at some point. For now I think you're taking this too personally so I'm happy to drop it for a while. I think it won't matter what I say, even if all of them call it propaganda, I suspect you will not be satisfied with that. Please tell me if I am wrong--let me know, if the overwhelming majority of reliable sources characterise it as propaganda, will you accept that? Let me know. No rush though, seriously. I appreciate your concern to make the articles better. I don't think it's worth getting too worked up over though, in the end. I'm sure you agree. Have you read the persecution page yet? You might find it enlightening. --Asdfg12345 13:30, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

I just realised you may be quite disenchanted with that response, since you may feel like I have been barking about this the whole time, then when you challenge me to prove it, I say I'm going to do other stuff. I'm going to check all those ones there now, probably will take 15 min or so, then I'll copy paste the responses here. --Asdfg12345 13:35, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Some Examples of use of word "Propaganda"

It was less of a percentage than I thought. I did a quick count, and scored 10 articles somewhere describing CCP's use of media, either in this incident or generally as propaganda, and 7 not. Those were of the links clicked. But then one I opened had a number of other articles, a CESNUR site, and 4 of those said "propaganda". Counting those it's 14 to 7. There were a number of other articles in the references that didn't have links, I didn't check those. I'm going to struggle to understand why, if the majority of reliable sources describe as propaganda--and those that don't do not speak in defence of the CCP's use of media, so it is not like they are a -1 to the others' +1, they are a neutral to all the +1s in favor of the propaganda description--I might struggle to understand why this is still going to be an issue. There is a page called "Propaganda in the People's Republic of China." I intend to start a new section in it sometime soon about the CCP's use of propaganda in the persecution of Falun Gong. I'm a little tired of this argumentation though. Here are the sources:

Matthew Gornet, The Breaking Point, Time, June 25, 2001 –

“The immolations on Jan. 23 became a propaganda bonanza for the government and marked a turning point in its anti-Falun Gong campaign.”

“With the immolations, the government's six-month propaganda campaign portraying Falun Gong as an "evil cult" that unhinged its followers seemed more credible.”

“To ensure compliance, Lai holds weekly meetings at which practitioners read aloud propaganda screeds from the People's Daily.”

“Beijing's propagandists, who have worked overtime on the Falun Gong account, recently launched a variety show called The Voice of Truth and Justice in a Beijing theater.”


Amnesty International, PEOPLE'S REPUBLIC OF CHINA: The crackdown on Falun Gong and other so-called heretical organizations

“The government banned Falun Gong on 22 July 1999 and launched a massive propaganda campaign to denounce its practice and the motivation of its leaders…”

“In view of the government's political crackdown and massive propaganda campaign against Falun Gong, the impartiality of the government's information is questionable.”

“Another important part of the government's propaganda campaign has been to publicise statements from people identified as former Falun Gong practitioners who denounce the Falun Gong movement and its leader…”


Chrandra D. Smith, "Chinese Persecution of Falun Gong"

“According to government advisors, the strategy for a successful crackdown on the Falun Gong spiritual movement includes violence, a high-pressure propaganda campaign…”

“The propaganda capitalized on the alleged self-immolation of five Falun Gong members in Tiananmen Square on January 23, 2001…”


Danny Schechter, The Fires This Time: Immolation or Deception In Beijing?

(quoting Laogai foundation) “The PRC's propaganda coup against the Falun Gong relies upon people's understanding of events in recent Asian history”


Hannah Beech, Too Hot to Handle, Time

“Despite an unrelenting propaganda campaign, Beijing claims…”


Hamish Mcdonald, What's wrong with Falun Gong, The Age,

“There is also a hostile media campaign directed by the propaganda department of the 66 million-member Communist Party…”

“The skill with which Falun Gong has fought the propaganda war since the ban, according to French scholar Benoit Vermander, reinforced the impression…”


Jonathan Ansfield, Reuters, After Olympic win, China takes new aim at Falun Gong

“He said the propaganda campaign had been much more effective since the self-immolations of five purported Falun Gong members in Tianamen Square in January.”

“"It's only since the immolations that there has been a popular consensus," the diplomat said, noting recent propaganda had consisted largely of human interest stories and accounts of so-called "rehabilitation" efforts.”


Philip P. Pan, One-Way Trip to the End in Beijing, International Herald Tribune

“But even in Kaifeng, there are signs that the government's propaganda campaigns have lost some of their effectiveness.”


"Falun Gong Appeals for Help: Vigils Held on Eve of UN China Vote,”", published on April 18, 2001, The Boston Globe

(this one seems to have “propaganda” too much to count them all) The Chinese government’s oppression of Falun Gong is characterized by a “worldwide” propaganda campaign”

“I will attempt to shed light on the intention and goal behind the persecution, the methods Chinese authorities have used in this media propaganda war”

“To gain politically, party officials made Falun Gong a scapegoat: defaming propaganda against Falun Gong begun in June 1996”


Mickey Spiegel, "Dangerous Meditation: China's Campaign Against Falungong", Human Rights Watch,

“The internal propaganda campaign notwithstanding, Chinese officials continued to violate rights to freedom of association, assembly, expression, and belief; freedom from torture, ill-treatment, and arbitrary detention; and the right to due process and a fair trial.”

“…began propaganda and educational activities in one hundred cities using window displays, posters, leaflets, video displays, and lectures to advocate science and denounce Falungong”

“…Sponsoring organizations included the Party's Central Propaganda Department…”

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Asdfg12345 (talk • contribs) 14:18, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

I find this is all rather disingenuous. FYI, I also happen to think (purely for myself, that is) that the CCP stuff is propaganda, but I would say its use here as a heading is definitely in breach of WP:NPOV. You have been attempting to argue government propaganda as fact, whereas in fact your real agenda is to taint the affair by using the word according to its current definition, complete with underlying negative connotations. It's quite one thing to attribute "X says its propaganda" and "Y says its propaganda" in the paragraphs of text below. However, such views are not universal, as has been argued, I strongly feel it must not be used. I believe even writing "Time says its a propaganda bonanza" as a heading would violate WP:NPOV. Please do not insult Wikipedia, and everyone who edits here by trying to turn intellectual gymnastics over this one. Ohconfucius (talk) 01:42, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Third Opinion Ohconfucius notified me of the debate at hand, and asked if I would give my thoughts on the debate. As the article's GA reviewer some months ago, I don't really have any authority of what happens here, but I might be a bit more informed on the topic that the average user, so take my opinion as you will. Also please note that I didn't read through the entire debate above, so apologies if I repeat anything or seem ignorant to any points or arguments already made.

The word "propaganda" has alot of connotations that go along with it, much of it negative. That isn't to say the word is off-limits, but it should be used only where appropriate AND unavoidable. In this case, while it is arguably appropriate, it does seem entirely avoidable. So therefore, we should avoid it. Calling the section "Government actions" seems like a reasonable compromise: it doesn't discount the possibility that the Chinese government enacted a propoganda compain, but it doesn't shove it in the reader's face either. Like I said, if we can avoid using such a pejoritive word as propaganda, we should. In fact, a further suggestion I have would be to call the section "Government response", though that may be a whole nother debate. As it stands, I think the section should be left as "Government actions", in an attempt to avoid any shred of POV, and to give the reader the opportunity to make their own mind up. Drewcifer (talk) 02:14, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Okay no problem. Thanks for everyone's time. I did not actually think I was being unreasonable, nor was I trying to insult wikipedia with intellectual gymnastics. I really thought it was not too much to expect that the CCP's propaganda be marked as propaganda, and that this view was clearly demonstrated in the sources.

But we're in the midst of a historical process. I am sure that at a certain time, describing the propaganda during the Cultural Revolution as propaganda may have been difficult, though now it is common place. Given its own time to gestate in the public consciousness the same thing will happen here. --Asdfg12345 06:32, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

section changes

Latest comment: 14 years ago13 comments5 people in discussion

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

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

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

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

  • Your changes were distinctly non-NPOV. It is by no means clear they were not FLG practitioners, although this is what FLG organisation maintains. Although you cited Pan, mainly, the changes you made are straight out of The Epoch Times. Just because FLG is persecuted by the Chinese regime does not mean that FLG are always right, either - those two are independent. I have once again reverted you. Ohconfucius ¡digame! 02:22, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Please explain why you reverted the changes, each change at a time. I did not use Epoch Times. For example, I added a direct link to NTDTV and provided my reasons for doing so. It is in line with the trend set up of directly linking to the media source, as done with Xinhua, CCTV and Washington Post. Please explain why you reverted this change. I also replaced the link to New Religion with qigong. Would you like to have both links exist in that sentence? Falung Gong is a know qigong. Please explain why you reverted this. Also, checking Falun Dafa Information Center, a respected source, they claimed that 2 of the self immolators where investigated and were not seen practicing Falun Gong, as investigated by journalist Philip Pan: http://www.faluninfo.net/article/837/ This investigation is a basis of their bebuking the incident, not merely that it is "considered a sin" which is a hookie and weak claim. I've read the neutral point of view policy and it says Wikipedia requires that "significant views" be published. The point of view of the Falun Dafa Information Center is a significant view and should be included in the intro in an abbreviated but complete form, not just cherry picking the weakest points (e.g. killing is a sin). Please see above link for all complete points rebuking self immolation incident listed. AnnaInDC (talk) 04:14, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
It's very disturbing to see, years after trying to mediate these pages, that new editors are still inserting exactly the same language. It's enough to make one think that there is off-site direction happening, down to which references to use. 76.102.12.35 (talk) 04:18, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
"As most know, Chinese media is state run. CCTV and Xinhua news are not "reliable sources" as required by Wiki." By the same logic NTDTV and faluninfo.net are FLG-run media outlets, ergo not reliable sources, ergo should not be included (hey, it's your own logic!). "there is no evidence that any of the the people/victims involved where Falun Gong practitioners" There is no (solid) evidence that they aren't either. It's a matter of China says yes, FLG says no, and this is exactly what this article conveys. "Falung Gong is a know qigong." citation needed (and no, just because FLG say it is doesn't mean it is). If for once you FLG practitioners could actually be fair and apply the same principles to both sides it wouldn't be such a pain to deal with these conflicts. --antilivedT | C | G 05:14, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Antilived, "by the same logic", should the references to Xinhau and CCTV be removed? Why is it alright to extensively refernece Xinhau and CCTV with direct links on the page to them and not alright to reference NTDVT? Also, you wrote for reasons for reverting to the old version that I was refering to "a dead woman to be a whore... really?" This is not the content I added. Lui's profession was of someone who worked in a nightclub, which is what I added. See: "The mother was a quiet woman who kept to herself, the daughter a lively fifth-grader who never failed to smile and say hello. Neighbors recalled there was something both strange and sad about Liu Chunling, that she sometimes hit her child, that she drove her elderly mother away, that she worked in a nightclub and took money to keep men company." [P.Pan,"Washington Post: Human Fire Ignites Chinese Mystery," Washingtion Post, 2001] This article is a 3rd part investigation and was not referenced in this long Wiki entry. I have added it. Please leave it as it is a 3rd party source. AnnaInDC (talk) 05:53, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

I think you have missed my point there. By your logic NO sources would be allowed since it's mainly a battle between Chinese and FLG propaganda. I have not said anything about NTDTV other than applying your own logic on yourself, and indeed it is cited extensively in the FLG sections of the article. There has been extensive coverage on the doubts of the victims being practitioners, there is no need to relentlessly repeat what is basically the same thing (other than the allegation of Liu Chunling being a prostitute, which is bad taste for a deceased woman and although it no longer applies, I still think WP:BLP has some good points on this). Also, all of the allegations in your article are hearsays by neighbours. Don't know about you but I definitely wouldn't trust my neighbours to do my biography. Wikipedia does not REQUIRE the inclusion of every single third party source (it'd then be something WP is not). If it's redundant (doubts of practitioner-ness? Check. And that's probably it), why include it? --antilivedT | C | G 05:59, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
Since yesterday, this article has come under "concerted" attack from a single-purpose account and other IP editors with an obvious FLG perspective. Wikipedia is about verifiability and not truth. It is accepted that there is little possibility of objective reporting in this situation. Nowhere is it claimed that Chinese state media or Falun Gong-controlled media, both cited in abundance in this article, are reliable sources, but these sources merely advance the position of two opposing sides. How fresh it is to see use of a nine-year-old source as the main piece of evidence to show that "it has become clear that self immolation is not a part of Falun Gong". As to you saying "I was refering to 'a dead woman to be a whore... really?' This is not the content I added" – thanks to the transparency of wikipedia, that comment can easily be shown to be a lie. Ohconfucius ¡digame! 10:13, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for leaving the link to NTDTV. This is in line with the other direct links to the other media companies mentioned in the article. As you pointed out, most sources on this issue are 9 years old. Your first reference is not from FDI (though attribute to FDI) but from a Falun Gong practice website. That killing is "condisered a sin" is not a FACT, yet you have picked this as a main reason FDI rebuked the self-immolation incident. After the incident was extensively investigated, other reasons are now the main premise attributing it to being staged or not related to the burning of Falun Gong pracitioners and you have not presented those upfront. See bullet points herein:http://www.faluninfo.net/article/837/ Also, WP:BLP requires senstivity toward living people and that the same common sense can be applied to the deceased. However, "nighclub worker" as Lui worked in a night club was her profession, "that she worked in a nightclub and took money to keep men company." [P.Pan,"Washington Post: Human Fire Ignites Chinese Mystery," Washingtion Post, 2001] I have not added the more subjective observation that she took money from men to the caption.

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

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

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

Also, thus far, I've obvserved blind reverting of new contributions. Instead of reverting the changes without consideration for other points of you, why don't you help incorporate the additional information or views (such as those note above) in a way you feel is appropriate and would benefit readers seeking balanced and updated information on this subject. For example, this article by P. Pan is not cited or discussed, [P.Pan,"Washington Post: Human Fire Ignites Chinese Mystery," Washingtion Post, 2001] also, the book by Proffessor David Ownby published in 2008,"Falun Gong and the Future of China" (an updated source) where he researches and discusses extensively about the self immolation incident is not cited or discussed.[edit: sorry, you did cite it briefly to say that "Professor David Ownby of the University of Montreal[11] remarked it was possible for misguided practitioners to have taken it upon themselves to demonstrate in this manner." This is by no means a conclusion of the 200+ page book or the points he makes therein, yet you have cherry picked this statement to support what appears is a personal point of view. I suppose if more statements from the book are added, you will revert those?]. In summary, this article appears to rely extensively on old sources including those generated and copied from Chinese media around 2001/2002 and are given UNDUE WEIGHT, independent western media investigations cited herein are few and new sources for citation on this topic have been ignored and should be incorporated. AnnaInDC (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 16:33, 15 February 2010 (UTC).

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

Edits by 68.32.165.254

Latest comment: 14 years ago11 comments3 people in discussion

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

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

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

Warning, AnnaInDC, you've been persistently re-inserting your edit 4 times over the time period from 2010-02-15T15:41:19 until now. You have already violated WP:3RR which means you could be banned from editing for some time. Please refrain from edit-warring and talk before you act. Thank you. --antilivedT | C | G 07:34, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
Antilived, you and Ohconfucious have done the same by removing the {POV} and {unbalanced} tags. The tags explicitly state that these should not be removed until the "dispute" is settled and you have continued to do so. WP:3RR. Please respect this. Further, I have ADDED information and you have reverted these without remarks. WP:3RR I am concerned that that Ohconfucious is more than just a bit biased in his views as in this talk section, he calls the main subject in this Wiki entry the "Falun Gong beast". This isn't about member conduct however, it's about accuracy (as best as possible) backed up by reliable sources. Perhaps there needs to be a clear section or passage about free press in China in terms of reporting on the Self Immolation? http://www.cfr.org/publication/11515/ see section "How does China exert media controls?" This is from 2008. What do you think about Xinhau and CCTV news coming out in 2001? Do you think they are reliable in terms of reporting on the self immolation incident? As you may know, Falun Gong is persecuted and followers are tortured to death in China even to this day. See:http://www.faluninfo.net/article/956/?cid=84 Take a step back and consider the sources you are using, originating from the government run media in China and what this means in terms of reporting on the Falun Gong issue. At the very least, this Wiki entry is not "balanced" as it relies heavily on China's news sources and is "disputed". AnnaInDC (talk) 16:54, 17 February 2010 (UTC) AnnaInDC (talk) 16:54, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
This is not the first time that material from my userspace has been taken in an attempt to attack me personally. I know all to well how the Chinese regime works, as do I about Falun Gong. Both are equally sensitive and intolerant of criticism, except the PRC government uses a sledgehammer while FLG uses extensive lobbying. You keep harping on about most of the material being 'old', but this is not some 'ageist' website, but an encyclopaedia containing new as well as old subjects. 'New' research isn't necessarily 'better' research. As far as this is concerned, because it took place 9 years ago, one would legitimately expect a preponderance of sources from back then. That is not to exclude the fact that Ownby has written about it more recently. However, much of the material available is but a rehash, as indicated by your attempt to use the Philip Pan source to turn Li Chunling into a whore. What you are doing here is not original, and is straight out of the Falun Gong playbook. The tactics are already described in my rant, which you appear to have read. I will one day tire of this battle and leave you to it, but we are not there yet. In the meantime, I would refer you to this version, which will no doubt meet with your approval. Enjoy! Ohconfucius ¡digame! 03:56, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
Also, I have removed the section Falun Gong and Self Immolation. The entire section hangs on one reference from an "anit-Falun Gong" propaganda website based in China http://www.facts.org.cn/. The passage in the section recites claims from the am Institute of Cultic Studies based in China that there were incidents of Falun Gong Self Immolation pre-2001 yet, the reference is not even from the "Institue of Cultic Studies" and there is not mention of said "Institute" in the entire link. Where did this data come from? see herein: http://www.facts.org.cn/Feature/hand/Cases/200904/t90507.htm This is completely unverifiable and a propaganda website. Also, the section blends Buddhist self immolation incidents in. What does that have to do with Falun Gong? There are many incidents of Self immolation throughout history, by protesters in general see:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-immolation If self immolation was a part of Falun Gong, as this section Falun Gong and Self Immolation attempts to allude, shouldn't it have been repeated since 2001 somewhere else in the world? AnnaInDC (talk) 17:54, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
You challenge the legitimacy of the link and the contents therein, but the contents are as legitimate as any citation or link to Faluninfo. I deeply suspect, based on your comments here earlier, you removed that just because you just happen to disagree with it; the collateral damage you inflicted included contents attributed to ter Haar, Gittings of the Guardian, and David Ownby - there was a direct quote from him, circumspectly saying they were not FLG practitioners: "Ownby said nobody he talked to had seen it as a "green light" for violent action". You are right that there would be no such section without the Facts.org citation, but that is not justification for removing it. The relevance lies in the documented fact, per Ownby and others, that there were many followers of other Buddhist disciplines who 'defected' to FLG. Section of books dealing with the incident often refer to buddhist self-immolation as a respectable form of protest. Removal of same is censorship and tantamount to vandalism.
  • The problem is that this is still WP:OR rather than a presentation of something WP:V. "[W]hat counts is whether readers can verify that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source (see below), not whether editors think it is true." Also, Hindus 'defected' to FLG so by that reasoning, there should have been self immolation incidents outside of China.AnnaInDC (talk) 06:23, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

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

  • I see your point, and that is one reason why there are also no Epoch Times articles referenced (but maybe there should be). The major difference is that FDI is not persecuting and torturing members of the Xinhua and CCTV media. Also, overall, news put out by FDI is verified by various third party human rights organizations (which is not the case with data coming from China's media outlets so I think the evidence has to be stronger than a mere listing on a org.cn website) FDI has gained credibility as a respectable source for Falun Gong persecution news because what it puts out is verified by Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, etc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by AnnaInDC (talk • contribs) 05:25, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Human rights organisations use FDI/Epoch/NTDTV published information to supplement their own sources, and not without qualification. In fact, they do mostly as we do here: we habitually cite same by explicitly mentioning the source - Amnesty, HRW, Reprieve, RSF, HRIC - in the same breath as the claim. Although such usage is often read by some to be tacit endorsement, this is at least one step remote from treating as 'reliable'. Ohconfucius ¡digame! 06:34, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
  • That is not completely true. Amnesty International, HRW and the United Nations do their own research into the matter (do you need a verification of this? I can get that). They do quote details but also verify for themselves to determine if the whole of the claims are true. That can not be said with Xinhua and CCTV news or western news media in 2001. Xinhua and CCTV are state run while western media were blocked and the trail for investigation by western journalists went cold so there are few post-2001 news reports. The media that did go in to investigatelike Wash Post's Philip Pan found evidence that that the people who self immolated were most likely not Falun Gong. That's why media which is state run and used for persecution (like Xinhua, CCTV, or even "Pravda" in the former Soviet Union) can not be considered as WP:V or a reliable source. AnnaInDC (talk) 15:08, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

section changes

Latest comment: 14 years ago42 comments6 people in discussion

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

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

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

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

  • Your changes were distinctly non-NPOV. It is by no means clear they were not FLG practitioners, although this is what FLG organisation maintains. Although you cited Pan, mainly, the changes you made are straight out of The Epoch Times. Just because FLG is persecuted by the Chinese regime does not mean that FLG are always right, either - those two are independent. I have once again reverted you. Ohconfucius ¡digame! 02:22, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Please explain why you reverted the changes, each change at a time. I did not use Epoch Times. For example, I added a direct link to NTDTV and provided my reasons for doing so. It is in line with the trend set up of directly linking to the media source, as done with Xinhua, CCTV and Washington Post. Please explain why you reverted this change. I also replaced the link to New Religion with qigong. Would you like to have both links exist in that sentence? Falung Gong is a know qigong. Please explain why you reverted this. Also, checking Falun Dafa Information Center, a respected source, they claimed that 2 of the self immolators where investigated and were not seen practicing Falun Gong, as investigated by journalist Philip Pan: http://www.faluninfo.net/article/837/ This investigation is a basis of their bebuking the incident, not merely that it is "considered a sin" which is a hookie and weak claim. I've read the neutral point of view policy and it says Wikipedia requires that "significant views" be published. The point of view of the Falun Dafa Information Center is a significant view and should be included in the intro in an abbreviated but complete form, not just cherry picking the weakest points (e.g. killing is a sin). Please see above link for all complete points rebuking self immolation incident listed. AnnaInDC (talk) 04:14, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
It's very disturbing to see, years after trying to mediate these pages, that new editors are still inserting exactly the same language. It's enough to make one think that there is off-site direction happening, down to which references to use. 76.102.12.35 (talk) 04:18, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
"As most know, Chinese media is state run. CCTV and Xinhua news are not "reliable sources" as required by Wiki." By the same logic NTDTV and faluninfo.net are FLG-run media outlets, ergo not reliable sources, ergo should not be included (hey, it's your own logic!). "there is no evidence that any of the the people/victims involved where Falun Gong practitioners" There is no (solid) evidence that they aren't either. It's a matter of China says yes, FLG says no, and this is exactly what this article conveys. "Falung Gong is a know qigong." citation needed (and no, just because FLG say it is doesn't mean it is). If for once you FLG practitioners could actually be fair and apply the same principles to both sides it wouldn't be such a pain to deal with these conflicts. --antilivedT | C | G 05:14, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Antilived, "by the same logic", should the references to Xinhau and CCTV be removed? Why is it alright to extensively refernece Xinhau and CCTV with direct links on the page to them and not alright to reference NTDVT? Also, you wrote for reasons for reverting to the old version that I was refering to "a dead woman to be a whore... really?" This is not the content I added. Lui's profession was of someone who worked in a nightclub, which is what I added. See: "The mother was a quiet woman who kept to herself, the daughter a lively fifth-grader who never failed to smile and say hello. Neighbors recalled there was something both strange and sad about Liu Chunling, that she sometimes hit her child, that she drove her elderly mother away, that she worked in a nightclub and took money to keep men company." [P.Pan,"Washington Post: Human Fire Ignites Chinese Mystery," Washingtion Post, 2001] This article is a 3rd part investigation and was not referenced in this long Wiki entry. I have added it. Please leave it as it is a 3rd party source. AnnaInDC (talk) 05:53, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

I think you have missed my point there. By your logic NO sources would be allowed since it's mainly a battle between Chinese and FLG propaganda. I have not said anything about NTDTV other than applying your own logic on yourself, and indeed it is cited extensively in the FLG sections of the article. There has been extensive coverage on the doubts of the victims being practitioners, there is no need to relentlessly repeat what is basically the same thing (other than the allegation of Liu Chunling being a prostitute, which is bad taste for a deceased woman and although it no longer applies, I still think WP:BLP has some good points on this). Also, all of the allegations in your article are hearsays by neighbours. Don't know about you but I definitely wouldn't trust my neighbours to do my biography. Wikipedia does not REQUIRE the inclusion of every single third party source (it'd then be something WP is not). If it's redundant (doubts of practitioner-ness? Check. And that's probably it), why include it? --antilivedT | C | G 05:59, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
Since yesterday, this article has come under "concerted" attack from a single-purpose account and other IP editors with an obvious FLG perspective. Wikipedia is about verifiability and not truth. It is accepted that there is little possibility of objective reporting in this situation. Nowhere is it claimed that Chinese state media or Falun Gong-controlled media, both cited in abundance in this article, are reliable sources, but these sources merely advance the position of two opposing sides. How fresh it is to see use of a nine-year-old source as the main piece of evidence to show that "it has become clear that self immolation is not a part of Falun Gong". As to you saying "I was refering to 'a dead woman to be a whore... really?' This is not the content I added" – thanks to the transparency of wikipedia, that comment can easily be shown to be a lie. Ohconfucius ¡digame! 10:13, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for leaving the link to NTDTV. This is in line with the other direct links to the other media companies mentioned in the article. As you pointed out, most sources on this issue are 9 years old. Your first reference is not from FDI (though attribute to FDI) but from a Falun Gong practice website. That killing is "condisered a sin" is not a FACT, yet you have picked this as a main reason FDI rebuked the self-immolation incident. After the incident was extensively investigated, other reasons are now the main premise attributing it to being staged or not related to the burning of Falun Gong pracitioners and you have not presented those upfront. See bullet points herein:http://www.faluninfo.net/article/837/ Also, WP:BLP requires senstivity toward living people and that the same common sense can be applied to the deceased. However, "nighclub worker" as Lui worked in a night club was her profession, "that she worked in a nightclub and took money to keep men company." [P.Pan,"Washington Post: Human Fire Ignites Chinese Mystery," Washingtion Post, 2001] I have not added the more subjective observation that she took money from men to the caption.

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

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

Also, thus far, I've obvserved blind reverting of new contributions. Instead of reverting the changes without consideration for other points of you, why don't you help incorporate the additional information or views (such as those note above) in a way you feel is appropriate and would benefit readers seeking balanced and updated information on this subject. For example, this article by P. Pan is not cited or discussed, [P.Pan,"Washington Post: Human Fire Ignites Chinese Mystery," Washingtion Post, 2001] also, the book by Proffessor David Ownby published in 2008,"Falun Gong and the Future of China" (an updated source) where he researches and discusses extensively about the self immolation incident is not cited or discussed.[edit: sorry, you did cite it briefly to say that "Professor David Ownby of the University of Montreal[11] remarked it was possible for misguided practitioners to have taken it upon themselves to demonstrate in this manner." This is by no means a conclusion of the 200+ page book or the points he makes therein, yet you have cherry picked this statement to support what appears is a personal point of view. I suppose if more statements from the book are added, you will revert those?]. In summary, this article appears to rely extensively on old sources including those generated and copied from Chinese media around 2001/2002 and are given UNDUE WEIGHT, independent western media investigations cited herein are few and new sources for citation on this topic have been ignored and should be incorporated. AnnaInDC (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 16:33, 15 February 2010 (UTC).

Quick analysis of some reverts

AnnaInDC is no sock of mine, just to be clear. I'm also not going to be a cheerleader for anyone who adds what appears to be "pro-FLG" content. But I am interested in this discussion, and I looked at one set of changes. I'll write what the edits were and whether I think they were appropriate per wiki content policies. Note that in italics are the edits or changes that AnnaInDC made; they were all reverted in this particular skirmish.
Example 1 (where the new editor is called out as a possible "Falun Gong propagandist"):
  1. changing a description of Xinhua from "press agency" to "state media" -- probably not necessary, given it's already described as "official Chinese". But somewhere in the article a clarification that Xinhua is the CCP's official "throat and tongue" (mouthpiece) would be helpful to the reader, along with the background of the propaganda campaign that particular publication lead.
  2. changing Falun Gong from being described as a "new religious movement" to a "qigong movement" -- what's wrong with this? Ownby, Penny, and even Palmer subscribe to this view. I think it should be left. "Qigong" has far more scholarly support than NRM. If that's disputed, let's see some good sources.
  3. adding and at least two of the victims were never seen practicing Falun Gong, as reported by the Washington Post -- it's also unclear what's wrong with this.
  4. putting a citation tag -- unclear what's wrong with this.
  5. adding that "The video footage was deconstructed into slow motion"' -- unclear what's wrong with that
  6. removing the claims, used in the anti-Falun Gong propaganda campaign (and that description, "anti-Falun Gong propaganda," is given by scholars, not me), that the individuals were practitioners since 199x -- this is removing the bias from the table. It was a clear violation of WP:DUE to have those state media descriptions in a prominent, official looking table like that. That should be obvious
  7. adding an explanation that she "took money to keep men company" -- why should this be deleted?
Okay, those were all the changes in italics, and my thoughts in plain font, for what it's worth. That was just for one edit. The changes do not seem tendentious. The hostile response, particularly to a newcomer, and willingness to edit war rather than discuss the changes are the actual problem, in my view, not these individuals edits.--Asdfg12345 05:08, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

Finally, some of the explanations for removing the content are nonsensical by wikipedia's content standards. The explanation for excluding parts of Philip Pan's investigation, according to Antilived, is that "There has been extensive coverage on the doubts of the victims being practitioners, there is no need to relentlessly repeat what is basically the same thing (other than the allegation of Liu Chunling being a prostitute, which is bad taste for a deceased woman and although it no longer applies, I still think WP:BLP has some good points on this). Also, all of the allegations in your article are hearsays by neighbours. Don't know about you but I definitely wouldn't trust my neighbours to do my biography." -- the added information was a few sentences, I don't think that's "relentlessly repeating"; BLP is obviously irrelevant; and the "hearsay by neighbours" and the quality of neighbours as biographers is also irrelevant, since those were reported by Philip Pan in his article, which is a reliable source for the purposes of wikipedia. The information excluded was "and at least two of the victims were never seen practicing Falun Gong, as reported by the Washington Post" (from the lead) and that she "took money to keep men company". This appears to be sourced, relevant information, presented in a straightforward way. The reason for removing it does not stand up to scrutiny, in my estimate.--Asdfg12345 06:01, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
Now before you start lawyering me about how BLP doesn't apply because she's dead, let me ask you: what is the purpose of WP:BLP? To protect someone's namesake from baseless slander and libel is the correct answer. In that regard, does it really make any difference if the person is alive or dead (other than Wikipedia's liability)? Don't you think spreading the rumour that a dead woman is a prostitute disgusting? Yes, they were reported by Philip Pan, but he reported the neighbours saying those things, and have been perfectly clear on that, giving the reader warning to apply a pinch of salt. "her neighbours say..." is VERY different from "she is... because we've investigated...". He does not personally endorse the comment, and gives big caveat before the quote. Take that out of context, and you make it sound like Washington Post said she's a prostitute, when it's merely Washington Post reporting her neighbours saying she's a prostitute. (hope you see the difference there). As for the "practitioner since.." thing, you seemed to be fine with it here... A big caveat is given before the table; we aren't presenting it as facts but as what Xinhua has said. As Xinhua is the only one to release information on the "victims", how is it undue to include what they have said about the centre piece of this whole incident, the victims? I personally don't care about the other edits, but in the face of Anna's repeated edit-warring (she has far exceeded WP:3RR) I've simply reverted her changes to promote discussion. --antilivedT | C | G 07:08, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
In my experience, discussion does not rely on reverting someone's changes. I don't know how that is supposed to work. About what you said, yes, I can see what you mean. Neighbours are just neighbours. But this is wikipedia, and WPost is a reliable source. It's very easy to have a few words in there "according to neighbours interviewed" or whatever it is. You could make a change like that rather than reverting, right? Wouldn't that be a nicer way of handling the issue? I think so. Regarding the table, please see this part of UNDUE: "Wikipedia aims to present competing views in proportion to their representation in reliable sources on the subject. This applies not only to article text, but to images, wikilinks, external links, categories, and all other material as well." -- under the circumstance where the issue of whether they are practitioners or not is precisely what is in dispute, it's obviously biased to put that information in a table, making it look very neat and official. Xinhua's reports on this topic are anti-Falun Gong propaganda; not a reliable source. I don't think anyone is disputing that. I also don't see how presenting such propaganda claims that way is neutral. In fact, I disagree with having a table at all, as long as all that information if from Xinhua and has not been verified by any other source. Also, saying the editor has edit warred, and you are simply reverting him/her (I want to clarify that, it's annoying using the slash or calling "her" when not sure), is a cop out. The real issue is the subject of the changes. I numbered them above. Please feel free to respond, perhaps clearly explaining your objection in terms of relevant policy. I totally don't understand why you are bringing up BLP here. She's dead, apparently.--Asdfg12345 09:19, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
I told you I don't really care about the other edits since they are so minor, as 80% of the edit is the insertion of the nightclub thing. It is removed because I have the decency to not to baselessly cast a dead woman's name in negative light, and that it is completely irrelevant to the incident. Tell me, how does whether she is a prostitute or not matter? The view that she is a prostitute is of the neighbour's and neighbour's alone (ie. fringe view until it's proven to be more widespread), Washington Poste does not endorse it but merely reported such view exists. To put in such a serious claim as truth when it's merely hearsay is a grievous attack on her (deceased) person, and as it is completely unconstructive to the content it should be immediately removed. As for the table; as Xinhua is the only source of information on the victims and was a major player in creating the controversy, how is it undue to state what they have stated about the centre piece of this incident? The whole thing is a China vs. FLG fight, and that is reflected in the article with opposing views having their own sections. This is journalism, in the same vein that Philip Pan reported the neighbour's view, we are reporting both Xinhua's and FLG released information. We do not and should not judge whether it's true or not, whether it's propaganda or not, merely that it exists, can be traced to a significant party, and report as it came from that party. The rest should be left to the reader to decide. --antilivedT | C | G 09:56, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
I think at this point it would be helpful to get the views of outside editors. If you still dispute including that information about the woman from Pan, let's take it to a noticeboard and get another opinion. Same with including Xinhua propaganda in the table. I think it's obvious that that format of presentation violates the undue and NPOV policies, and I explained why. If we can't agree, let's take it to the NPOV board and see what others think. Agree?--Asdfg12345 10:32, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
Of course I dispute it, as you (or Anna) still have not stated why it should be included (the burden of proof is on you to say why it should be included, not on me on why it should be removed). Feel free to ask for outside editors' help (although I can hardly say I'm "inside"), but this is not a matter of NPOV or not. Anna inserted slanderous material on a dead woman that's completely irrelevant to the article, and I have deleted it. It's simple as that, no FLG politic involved (unless you wish to admit that you are/she is trying to discredit her by alleging her to be a prostitute). --antilivedT | C | G 02:07, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
Generally, if it's sourced, neutrally worded, and relevant, there's grounds for including it. The reasons you've offered for keeping it out don't make sense. I'm not alleging she's a prostitute, neither, as far as I can tell, is AnnaInDC. The point is to accurately transmit the research of third parties on the background of one of the immolators. It's relevant that she took money to keep men company. Please stop trying to keep that information out. Saying it's slanderous of a dead woman in China makes no sense.--Asdfg12345 08:04, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
You still haven't answered my question: how is it relevant? What are the grounds of including it? Do we need the occupation, date of birth, blood type, star sign, their favourite food and favourite colour for every one of these "victims"? Why does her occupation of night club worker matter? How does alleging her to "take money to keep men company" help with a reader reading on this incident? You say it's relevant and has its grounds but NEVER said why it's relevant, what are the grounds for its inclusion? It's nice to see you so vehemently defend a single purpose account's edit and suggest the removal of a section, which that single purpose account promptly removed too. --antilivedT | C | G 08:46, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
Not only are these 'neighbours' unidentified/anonymous, verbal testimonies of this nature should be regarded with extreme caution. Any journalist snooping around searching for information on a 'suspected Falun Gong believer' would raise defensive comments from interviewers. It is well conceivable to be neighbours with somebody without knowing anything about them. It is only natural that those who genuinely know would want to distance themselves; those who don't might be inclined to bluff it. Ohconfucius ¡digame! 09:42, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
And yes, Anna did assert, in this little piece of original research, that she was a prostitute. Now can we move on? Ohconfucius ¡digame! 10:00, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
The information about the woman is relevant because it is part of the argumentation that seeks to show that she was not a Falun Gong practitioner. Pan said it, not me or AnnaInDC. I don't know why we are indulging in the speculation about the reliability of neighbours and whatever else. If it's in a reliable source, and it's relevant, then what's the issue? Such argumentation is notable because it pops up in Falun Gong sources, and also in those who argue that the immolators were not "real practitioners." It's a small piece of info. Regarding the veracity of neighbours etc., I would not have a problem with the logic you're both employing, but the giant problem with that is that it's going to diverge on different issues, and there's no rule for saying which logic should be dominant in which situation. Someone thinks something makes sense, someone else doesn't. It won't work as a methodology. I have stated why I believe it's relevant (I thought I had already, apologies for not being clear sooner), and no one disputes that it's sourced, is the conclusion that you both still oppose it? If so I'll open a note on the RS noticeboard (or should it be NPOV?) PS: I don't support the note that she was a prostitute; that's a possible reading of the source, but not explicit in it. Whatever's quoted or paraphrased should be very close to, or the same as the source. If you both still disagree with including the note from Pan about the woman, please advise whether you believe it's a NPOV issue, or a RS issue. I'll take it to the relevant board. Since you (plural) are disputing it, you'll need to point out exactly what's in dispute, so I can seek to resolve it. If outside editors agree with what you're saying, of course I'll drop it. It's just a novel form of argumentation for me on wiki.--Asdfg12345 16:38, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
I've put up an entry on WP:RS/N##Anonymous testimony in journalist piece. --antilivedT | C | G 00:55, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
In other articles I have worked, unattributed quotes or those from unnamed individuals are never used. I personally believe it's not a RS, but a NPOV issue -specifically WP:UNDUE. The source itself, Washington Post, is generally considered reliable, should it be chosen to use it, it ought to be clearly attributed. Using it, however, can lend support to a minority, fringe or totally unsupported position just because somebody happens to be around when the reported passed by. Ohconfucius ¡digame! 06:42, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
Sure; I'm just wondering why we can't say what Philip Pan said, though. If it's good enough for WPost, I don't see why it's not good enough for us? It's certainly not perfect, but please consider what reliable and verifiable information there is about these people: virtually none. The CCP blocked access for nearly forever, and tightly controlled everything else. This is a glimpse into what the people who had seen and interacted with this person had said. So a neighbour is not identified; that's still more reliable than the barrage of calculated anti-Falun Gong propaganda from CCP mouthpieces, sprinkled around the article.
That's one thing. The other is that "practitioners since 199x" according to CCP propaganda is still in the table. Does anyone else see a problem with this? If it's going to be a table, which includes photos, and other information--I mean, if it's going to be presented in a format which grabs attention, draws the eye, and confers a kind of legitimacy by doing so (and not everyone is going to see the above disclaimer); and given that Xinhua is not a reliable source on this subject--why should that info come from only one side? I think the information there should not be so controversial. The whole dispute is over whether they were "practitioners," or not, and further, what it means to be a "practitioner" when Falun Gong forbids suicide. Putting the info in a table like that undercuts the whole debate and asserts the POV of the propagandist as fact right from the start. That's a serious violation of NPOV right there. I'm wondering whether it's an oversight on OC's part, or the intention is to keep it like that. If so, I can start another noticeboard thing, just to air the issue. To draw a comparison: why isn't there a table of the "participants" based solely on Falun Gong-sourced information, right underneath? In fact, Falun Gong sources actually have third party verification, as Ownby notes, and are regarded as reliable and sound. How would having a Falun Gong-sourced table telling us all about their perspective on the participants be any different to this? I don't think it would be useful at all, just as including these propagandistic up front claims is not particularly useful.
Ohconfucius, regarding your apparent acknowledgement that parts of the "Falun Gong and self-immolation" section were original synthesis, and apparent integration of that content into an overall discussion of the dispute, I acknowledge your spirit of fairness and compromise, and willingness to examine your own work, prejudices, etc.. --Asdfg12345 14:01, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

...and so should Islam be described as "a form of Christianity Muhammad developed"? All of your quotes say FLG is a form of qigong at 1992, but what about now? Your third quote goes against your agenda, because if FLG is a separate entity it can't possibly be a form a qigong now can it (it can, however, originate from qigong). The very title of Ownby's paper, "A History for Falun Gong Popular Religion ...", further points it towards the religion rather than qigong. Let's now look at the definition of religion: A religion is a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe check, especially when considered as the creation of a supernatural agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances check, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.check I would say that's a good fit, do you? --antilivedT | C | G 07:17, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
We don't need to dispute such basic things as verifiability and reliable sources. If you can bring more sources, and more mainstream sources, supporting your POV, do so. If you can't, that's fine, too. At the moment we have reliable sources supporting the wording "form of qigong." Yes, they're not all unanimous, and it's not so clear cut, but it's obviously more sound than relying on your original research and quirky logic.--Asdfg12345 09:06, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
It is an absolute fallacy to play battle of the sources here - I'll match your Palmer and I'll raise you a Cheris. Of course, most scholars who believe the 'qigong' label is appropriate, because it is largely what FLG is. Due to the nature of FLG, though, it belongs to other categories. We all know the ACM refers to FLG as a 'cult'; there are many scholars who see religious traits within FLG; Cheris is only one of those who refers to FLG as a NRM, "with cult characteristics". These categorisations are not mutually exclusive. I note that FLG dislikes the NRM label, but that is not a reason not to use it. Ohconfucius ¡digame! 09:24, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
Actually, "playing the battle of sources" is probably the only reasonable way to resolve such issues. If you can think of another objective method, please share it. The best and fairest I can think of is to look at all the major, reliable sources on the topic, and see which forms of categorisation are most common. Otherwise it's just one person's word against another's, and that is never going to resolve anything. We need to submit to this kind of scrutiny, or it's all just opinions, right? There are far more reliable sources classifying Falun Gong as a form of qigong; of course it's more than that, or different, or whatever, but that's the subject for the main Falun Gong article, not for a single sentence that addresses the issue in passing on this page. We should defer to the simplest and least controversial description. These three or so above are only a drop in the bucket. I stopped searching after these.--Asdfg12345 09:38, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
Maybe add both! "five members of Falun Gong, a banned but popular new religious movement originating from qigong" Or maybe instead of "new religious movement" or "qigong movement" how about just "five members of Falun Gong, a banned but popular practice based on meditation"? --antilivedT | C | G 10:01, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
Why not just "five practitioners of Falun Gong, a banned but popular form of qigong practice..." (I don't know what preceded that, presuming it fits in context. I believe the term "practitioner" is standard diction by now. If we want to find out which is more common ("member," "practitioner," "follower") across various sources, we can, but I think practitioner is the simplest and least disputed. The other terms should be used depending on the source etc., I guess. But let me know if we want to do the source test on "practitioner." Regarding combining them, at the moment I have only one source saying NRM. And I can put my hands on another half dozen good ones that use "qigong practice" or variation thereof. Yes, it's nice to compromise, but if it's compromising away from reliable sources, is that what we're meant to do? I think let's play this with a straight bat. If "members" was more common than "practitioners," I would submit to that, too.--Asdfg12345 10:16, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
So I tried to make concessions with you by suggesting to incorporate both sides or none at all, and you ignore it and keep your stance? Bravo on that collaboration, Asdfg. If we want to find out which is more common ("member," "practitioner," "follower") across various sources, we can, but I think practitioner is the simplest and least disputed. Why don't you apply that same logic on this whole qigong thing and you'll see where I'm coming from? The selective application of you FLG people's logic amazes me. --antilivedT | C | G 02:11, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
I am not sure the word "religion" as applied to Falun Gong works. Historically, religions are institutions with a structure, heierachy, a sort of church, etc. Of course one can use the term "religion" loosely as in e.g., "I workout religiously" but that is coloquial English. I am alright with Antilived's suggestion of using both in the sentence, though. AnnaInDC (talk) 16:32, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
Ohconfucius appears to agree with qigong/practitioner. These terms seem to have the balance of sources. We should defer to reliable sources, and work together to make sure that they are best represented in the pages; that's what policy requires of it. It's not about just setting arbitrary whims about how things should be, then meeting half way. I did apply the same logic to the qigong thing; it's the term that has the most balance of sources. I'm trying to resolve these issues in the most objective and scientific way possible: source mining. If there's a better approach, I'm open to it. Wikipedia requires we defer to reliable sources, and that's all I've tried to do.--Asdfg12345 08:00, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
If reverting the change = "appears to agree" then I have nothing left to say. If something is conflicted, differs between sources, and non-essential, why not just remove it altogether? Why do we have to categorise FLG? Or do you really love pushing your agenda that much (well, it IS the only thing you do here...)? This is a conflict that can go away instantly if we just remove the controversial label, and it's fair to all sides since it leaves the reader to decide what FLG is. Does a tiny thing like this really necessitate your time to do so much research on? It certainly isn't worth mine. --antilivedT | C | G 08:54, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
Antilived, above I showed a bunch of good sources that refer to Falun Gong as "qigong" or variation thereof. You haven't shown how it's a particularly controversial or disputed label; so far you have not produced any sources for your argument. Wikipedia is based on reliable sources. The remarks about my "pushing an agenda" etc. are getting a bit old. Instead, I think we should engage in rational debate and do research to back up our opinions. At the moment it seems that we should go with the "form of qigong" description, given that there is no serious problem with it.--Asdfg12345 16:45, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
When your source points it away from qigong I wouldn't call it "a bunch of good sources". --antilivedT | C | G 00:31, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
  • I hate it just so much when we have to descend into political correctness and use certain language/wording because it's simply 'uncontentious'. Our extensive use of the term 'practitioner' is already an appeasement to FLG because they eschew the concept of membership, despite the fact that many many articles I have read use the term 'member'. But of course, you're right that such a discussion doesn't belong here but in the main article. I can see the argument for simplifying it here, for expediency. Ohconfucius ¡digame! 10:35, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
Actually, we shouldn't use "practitioner" as an "appeasement to FLG," but because the term has textual support. I think Falun Gong's self-reference should count for something, but mainly, I suppose it should be RS. My understanding is that often, in any kind of discourse, certain words will become standard to refer to certain people. I thought for Falun Gong that this has come to be the word "practitioner." I just did some quick searches now (for "falun gong practitioner" and "falun gong member") and "member" is far more common on google ordinary search, but "practitioner" far more common on google books and google scholar. Amnesty defers to "practitioner" (192 instances to 6), so do all .gov sites (263 to 136), .gov.au sites 330 to 6, and NYtimes is 91 to 83 for practitioner. It's actually not as clear cut as I thought, but there's a definite trend. However, better sources carry greater weight, like Tong's recent book, which uses "practitioner," (I just did a very non-scientific test, saw three instances and none of "member") and Ownby's 2008 text. I guess those count for relatively more. Anyway, "member" is obviously fine for a bit of variety sometimes and if that source prefers it or (obviously) in quotes. Just my thoughts. I think in the lead though, or in general, maybe "practitioner" is a simple default.--Asdfg12345 13:38, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2001_Tiananmen_Square_self-immolation_incident/Archive_3&oldid=1259338104"