Wikipedia

Talk:Kilgour–Matas report

Latest comment: 6 years ago by InternetArchiveBot in topic External links modified
Learn more about this page
Good articleKilgour–Matas report has been listed as one of the Philosophy and religion good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
August 20, 2007Articles for deletionNo consensus
June 26, 2008Articles for deletionNo consensus
September 14, 2009Articles for deletionRedirected
November 26, 2010Articles for deletionKept
May 9, 2014Good article nomineeNot listed
October 16, 2014Good article nomineeListed
Current status: Good article

This article still has NPOV issues

edit
Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The most glaring example of this is the use of the graph for organ wait times from the Kilgour Mattas report. The article is using the subject of the article as a reference for the subject of the subject... Sorry if that sounds convoluted but that's basically what's happening here. I'll be honest, I've got WP:DUE issues with having an entire article devoted to what is effectively a fringe document. I would advise against giving it a "good article" standing in its current condition and I think it's a tall hill to climb for this article to ever achieve it. Simonm223 (talk) 00:25, 1 March 2014 (UTC)Reply

Tens of thousands

edit
Latest comment: 9 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I noticed Ohconfucius remove the estimate that tens of thousands of Falun Gong practitioners were imprisoned because it's not cited in Ian Johnson's article. But you were the one who changed the sentence around in the first place.

Here's what it used to read:

The suppression that followed was accompanied by what Amnesty International called a "massive propaganda campaign," and the detention and imprisonment of tens of thousands of Falun Gong adherents; coercive “reeducation” of Falun Gong adherents sometimes resulted in deaths.

The 'tens of thousands' figure is best supported by the U.S. State Department reference that was provided, which states "some foreign observers estimated that Falun Gong adherents constituted at least half of the 250,000 officially recorded inmates in RTL camps." Other reliable sources are more unambiguous -- for instance, Freedom House states simply that hundreds of thousands of Falun Gong have been imprisoned since 1999.

But you then changed it to this, falsely ascribing the figure to Ian Johnson[1]:

Pullitzer-winning journalist Ian Johnson noted in late 2000 that the detention and imprisonment of tens of thousands of Falun Gong adherents; coercive reeducation of Falun Gong adherents sometimes resulted in deaths.

And then minutes later you edited again on the basis that Ian Johnson's article doesn't mention tens of thousands of detentions[2]:

Western journalists noted in late 2000 that Falun Gong practitioners in areas where the Falun Dafa was popular were targeted in systemic repression. Under orders from Beijing, practitioners were detained, imprisoned and "re-educated"; 77 deaths were recorded by Amnesty International.

Maybe you missed the State Department reference. Anyway, I added some more references to eliminate any remaining confusion. Also suggest keeping death estimates more general - Amnesty reported on 77 deaths way back in 2000, but that doesn't tell us anything about more recent trends (e.g. Amnesty also reported on over 100 Falun Gong deaths in 2008 calendar year alone; the NYT reported 2,000 deaths as of 2009).TheBlueCanoe 04:13, 27 March 2015 (UTC)Reply

Reference not accessible from website and not reliable information

edit
Latest comment: 9 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The ref [1]

Home > Topics > Outlawing Falun Gong Cult "Exposing the Lies of 'Falun Gong' Cult". http://www.china-embassy.org/eng/zt/ppflg/t263446.htm

is not listed under

Home > Topics http://www.china-embassy.org/eng/zt/

In this case it seems that the CCP is not keen to publicize its own information. This statement is incorrect "However, the cult remains rampant in the U.S. and a handful of other countries." as on http://en.falundafa.org/falun-dafa-global-contacts.html there are over 70 countries listed. So the information on this page referenced is unreliable and inaccessible. I suggest this reference is deleted. There are other references accessible from embassy websites, which directly attempt to refute both versions of this report. References to those pages should be included rather than inaccessible and unreliable references. Aaabbb11 (talk) 20:15, 8 April 2015 (UTC)Reply

References

  1. ^ "Exposing the Lies of 'Falun Gong' Cult". china-embassy.org. Retrieved 14 Jun 2010.

Lead section should be brief

edit
Latest comment: 9 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

from Wikipedia:Writing better articles#Introductory material

"Good articles start with a brief lead section introducing the topic."

The current version fails to adhere to this policy. Aaabbb11 (talk) 20:15, 8 April 2015 (UTC)Reply

For a topic as controversial as this, the lead section being all-rounded and balanced is much more important than being brief. -CharlieOQ (talk) 07:19, 16 May 2015 (UTC)Reply
Lum info is inaccurate and reference is dead, so not balanced or brief. Aaabbb11 (talk) 12:58, 19 May 2015 (UTC)Reply

Direct evidence

edit
Latest comment: 9 years ago7 comments4 people in discussion

Appendix 14. Transcript of Telephone Investigations http://organharvestinvestigation.net/report0701/report20070131.htm#_Toc158023107 has transcripts of 15 conversations where hospitals or other institutions in China admitted using organs from Falun Gong practitioners. The is direct evidence rather than circumstantial evidence. So to state the report is "based on circumstantial evidence" is incorrect. Aaabbb11 (talk) 20:15, 8 April 2015 (UTC)Reply

Questions about the Matas-Kilgour report went beyond the allegations about Sujiatun. A paper prepared by the U.S. Congressional Research Service concluded that the report for the most part "does not bring forth new or independently-obtained testimony and relies largely upon the making of logical inferences." It also questioned the transcripts of telephone calls, in which Chinese officials are said to admit using Falun Gong organs. Some argue that such apparent candour would seem unlikely given Chinese government controls over sensitive information, which may raise questions about the credibility of the telephone recordings," the research service paper said.

— Ottawa Citizen, Former MP pushes for Beijing Games boycott, AUGUST 9, 2007
I thought the speculations conjured by Matas-Kilgour report lost air almost immediately when no direct evidence could be proffered? And that Amnesty International, Harry Wu, US Department of State and other came out unconvinced? The evidence you cited came from an organization with a singular agenda: To promote Falungong at the expense of CCP. I might as well quote the State Spokes Person of PRC and yet my sources will have same credibility as yours. Can you provide a third-party sources with NPOV? If not, an isolated report conducted by two politicians based largely on the hearsay of one or two witnesses along with few dubious transcripts can only be deemed circumstantial in this case. Clergyboy (talk) 21:15, 8 May 2015 (UTC)Reply
Its common for transplant professionals and others to refer to the Kilgour–Matas report. On the US National Library of Medicine site there are 4 articles that reference or mention it.
On annual Congressional-Executive Commission on China reports, its mentioned or referenced - 2006 report 3 times, 2007 report twice, 2009 report twice, and 2012 report once.
organharvest.net evidence is reliable. Aaabbb11 (talk) 11:18, 9 May 2015 (UTC)Reply
I recall that after the release of the report, a Hong Kong media interviewed the doctors from the alleged hospitals and found that the telephone conversations were falsified. -WadeMacD (talk) 04:42, 16 May 2015 (UTC)Reply
I don't think you will be able to find a source for that. Aaabbb11 (talk) 12:58, 19 May 2015 (UTC)Reply

"Its common for transplant professionals and others to refer to the Kilgour–Matas report. " That's because there is no other source that can be referenced! The Kilgour-Matas turns out to be the ONLY report that makes those speculations, without any independent sources supporting its claims. This in turn proves the shakiness of those claims.

When we talk about direct evidence (smoking gun), we mean something that can be independently verified, something physical and objective whose presence definitively proves the claims one were to make. The telephone transcripts claimed by the report itself counts at most circumstantial evidence, if not just claims, since its veracity cannot be independently corroborated. One thing that baffles me is that, TEN YEARS after the release of the report, still NOT A SINGLE SHRED OF EVIDENCE was found to prove any claims made, which tells you a lot about how credible the report actually was. -CharlieOQ (talk) 07:14, 16 May 2015 (UTC)Reply

So far three books have been published about organ harvesting in China. Maybe you would like to read them. Aaabbb11 (talk) 12:58, 19 May 2015 (UTC)Reply

wu hongda

edit
Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

It's not clear to me why this should be deleted? I agree we shouldn't make a big thing of it (I heard the LGF changed their attitude??) but mentioning the contention here seems to make sense. Unless i'm missing something?Happy monsoon day 23:47, 27 November 2015 (UTC)Reply

edit
Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Kilgour–Matas report. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 22:11, 31 March 2016 (UTC)Reply

edit
Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Kilgour–Matas report. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 09:14, 2 May 2016 (UTC)Reply

This is one of the most absurd report I have ever seen

edit
Latest comment: 8 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

The authors qualified their findings by noting the difficulties in verifying the alleged crimes, such as: independent bodies were not allowed to investigate conditions in China, eyewitness evidence was difficult to obtain, official information about organ transplantation was often withheld, and Kilgour and Matas themselves were denied visas to go to China to investigate.

So... They actually did not go to China at all?Raintwoto (talk) 22:46, 3 July 2016 (UTC)Reply

It appeared that you have not read the report at all. There were many phone calls between investigators and hospitals in 2006 when this terrible incident was just disclosed. At that time many Chinese hospitals and doctors claimed in the phone conversations that they used good quality organs from healthy FG practitioners. On many hospital websites there were all kinds of organ advertisement indicating the crime. Later those web pages were deleted, but the investigators saved copies. Plus, there are many other evidences, including witnesses in China, for example Cao Dong in Beijing. For foreign investigators, even if they could get in China, do you think Jiang Zemin and his 610 office will just allow them to investigate his inhumane crime in China? Marvin 2009 (talk) 02:17, 4 July 2016 (UTC)Reply
I've been following this on and off for a few years. I just heard that a new report [3] and a U.S. House Resolution [4] have recently come out. Seems pretty much an established fact that Falun Gong are being harvested for their organs. TheSoundAndTheFury (talk) 04:30, 4 July 2016 (UTC)Reply
I just don't understand, how to produce this kind of report without going to China at all....Raintwoto (talk) 20:16, 10 July 2016 (UTC)Reply
edit
Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on Kilgour–Matas report. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:45, 5 May 2017 (UTC)Reply

edit
Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Kilgour–Matas report. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:45, 10 December 2017 (UTC)Reply

Add topic
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Kilgour–Matas_report&oldid=1217256992"