"""Falun Gong and self-immolation""  an original synthesis== 
 This is just about the one section called ""Falun Gong and self-immolation"", which AnnaInDC removed. This section is a piece of propaganda; in wikipedia it's called a ""Synthesis of published material that advances a position"". The edict there is to ""not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources."" and ""If one reliable source says A, and another reliable source says B, do not join A and B together to imply a conclusion C that is not mentioned by either of the sources."" This section hovers between legitimate commentary and quotes, and synthesis/propaganda in its descriptions. I will write sentence by sentence, referring to the text. I thought it would be easier to present the sentence in italics first, then a starred remark. 

 Falun Gong stated that there had been no incidents of self-immolation among Falun Gong practitioners in the world before 23 January 2001. 
 *Neutral statement. 

 However, the China Association for Cultic Studies published details of 3 instances of Falun Gong followers who they claim committed self-immolation prior to 2001, the earliest one in 1997, and 3 further instances said to have taken place subsequent to the incident in Tiananmen Square. 
 *Propagandamaking this juxtaposition is not okay. It's not a reliable source to begin with, anyway. facts.org.cn is the CCP's very own attack web site. If you know Chinese, check the virulent original. Want to know more? Try searching ""凯风"" ""610"" site:gov.cn. It's a propaganda website which has no credentials to discuss Falun Gong. 

 Academics such as Chang (1991), Rahn (2001), Lindsey (2001) and Li Cheng (1997) recognised that suicide is a traditional gesture of protest in China; ter Haar (2001) postulated that former Buddhists may have brought with them the ""respectable Buddhist tradition of self-immolation as a sacrifice to the Buddha"". 
 *Next it refers to academics who talk about suicide as ""a traditional gesture of protest in China"" (no mention of Falun Gong?) and ter Haar who postulates that ""former Buddhists may have brought with them the ""respectable Buddhist tradition of self-immolation as a sacrifice to the Buddha"".""  this is also totally irrelevant. That link is dead now anyway so we can't check, but there's nothing here that indicates any relevance to Falun Gong, so it's all a subtle original synthesis. By referring to a ""traditional gesture of protest in China"" and ""former Buddhists"" etc., it kind of implicates Falun Gong without doing so explicitly. A form of original synthesis. 

 ""The Guardian commented that Li Hongzhi's new scripture released on 1 January 2001, Beyond the Limits of Forbearance, had confused his supporters. 
 *Next paragraph. I know Gittings is an old China hand. This could be attributed better though, and mentioned alongside other pertinent commentaries. These are cherry-picked opinions designed to give an impression, not a full representation of what commentators have said regarding whether it's likely they were practitioners or not. 

 Matthew Forney in Time magazine believed the message had spread into China via the internet and informal networks of followers, and reached more radical practitioners there. 
 *Forney in Time; this seems okay, but what it's building to and the context it's placed in make it problematic. 

 Falun Gong headquarters in New York admitted ten days after the release of the scripture that ""certain disciples had some extreme interpretations [and thought] we are going to resort to violence"", and asserted that Li's message merely meant time had come to let the truth be known about China's atrocities. 
 *The ""headquarters"" ""admitted"" could be better attributed or ommited, since these aren't the terms used by the entity referred to. I would suggest that in this context, they are words to avoid, or weasely. If they don't add anything (do they?) then why not just say what the Falun Dafa Information Center said, rather than what Falun Gong ""headquarters"" ""admitted""? 

 Jensen and Weston remarked it was clear from Li Hongzhi's messages that he advocated martyrdom over prudence, and that ""if the Chinese authorities lit the fire, Li just as clearly fanned the flames.""'' 
 *The use of this remark is misleading. The authors were not referring to self-immolation; in [http://books.google.com/books?id=OKNTJXvle9wC&printsec;=frontcove