"

 'Self-immolation' article 

I have experienced all manner of wikilawyering, hostility and disruption possible at the Falun Gong pages, which has turned me away as a potential sympathiser. I have officially retired from editing those articles, having concluded that it is pointless for me to continue there - Wikipedia seems all too tolerant of conflicted-out editors and disruptive point-pushers, by not banning  indefinitely. As I was the leading editor which got the 'self-immolation' article to FA, I felt closer to that article and thus decided to revisit it recently; I reserve my continue to do so from time to time, without feeling that I have violated any self-imposed 'retirement'. However, I do not intend on contributing to the ongoing discussion there. I hope that you will abide by my wish not copy my post across.

The fundamental problem I see is that the FLG practitioners appear to exist in a rarefied atmosphere of their alternate paradigm - like many Chinese, they subscribe to fatalism that everything is intended or planned by powerful forces. They cannot accept that independent acts of free will can occur, nor can they accept that any PRC source can be legitimately cited, because they are not reliable. The table which is currently subject to debate has been the target of removal by Dilip some time in the past, on the grounds that it was propaganda. By my reckoning, the table is carefully cited and attributed, and all the information therein belongs there. Just apply the same benchmark to any other piece of information there (such as name and occupation), and you will see that the practitioners' wanting to remove mentions that they may have been practitioners is wholly inconsistent bullshit, and an attempt at censorship. 

I believe the article was, at the time it was declared FA, materially compliant with WP:NPOV. It was in a very delicate state of balance, with neither side having the overall conclusion or last word, and with the readers being more or less able to decide for themselves what probably occurred. It has already been knocked off balance by those SPAs, who cannot tolerate any possibility, however remote, that practitioners may have been involved. What those editors want, IMHO, is completely at odds with the fundamental tenets of WP. They will work tirelessly to chip away at all those bits of text they find objectionable, so that a one-sided article exonerating Falun Gong will emerge over a period of time if vigilant editors like you are not around to challenge what they are doing - using a loose definition of the word. I just know I'm mentally exhausted from fighting them over the years.  ¡digame! "