Talk:Kilgour–Matas report/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

Veracity of Falun Gong's Allegation

Update - Additional cites against FLG's organ allegation

UPDATE - The Ottawa Citizen has published a report refuting the Sujiatun story, a key element in Falun Gong's organ harvesting allegation(page 4). It also refuted the Kilgour report(page 3):

http://www.canada.com/ottawacitizen/news/observer/story.html?id=2c15d2f0-f0ab-4da9-991a-23e4094de949&p=3

bobby fletcher 11:30 17 December 2007 (PST)

UPDATE 2 - The photo evidence in the Kilgour report Appendix 20 Case 1 involving a practioner name Wang Bin has been further reviewed by a second physician blogger, Dr. Ramana:

http://www.rodneyolsen.net/2007/09/could-this-evil-really-be-happening.html (last comment)

I asked Dr. Ramana to review the photo mentioned in (5) below as a second opinion, after reading his blog post where he had reviewed other evidence of torture presented by FLG and found them to be medical in nature, including one photo of breast cancer mis-represented as evidence of sexual torture:

http://rambodoc.wordpress.com/2007/09/17/is-the-falun-gong-going-wrong/

Bobby fletcher (talk) 00:31, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

I would like to encourage everyone to look into the facts of the case regarding the "Auschwitz/concentration camp" allegation made by Falun Gong.

I have been following the story since March. I researched this matter after being given a flyer in Chinatown - and I have found many things wrong with this allegation.

In my opinion Falun Gong's actions not only discredited their own cause, they also detracted from honest examination of China's problems. Falun Gong's indictment muddles the rational discussion of issues such as China's legal reform, and Chinese society's moral, ethical standards on dignity and treatment of the condemned.

It is in this spirit I would like to bring to your attention some contrarian facts surrounding Falun Gong's recent media activity:

- US State Department investigated and found the allegation not credible. (1)

- A Congressional brief on China and Falun Gong questioned the veracity of Falun Gong's claim of genocide. (2)

- Long time Chinese dissident, Mr. Harry Wu, investigated the allegation and found Falun Gong's witness unreliable. (3)

- The hospital Falun Gong accused is partly owned by a Malaysian health care company and subject to oversight beyond Chinese authroity. Malay officials have documented prior year visit, and the facility has been open to public for years. (4)

- The Gory photos used by Falun Gong for shock value are not evidence of torture or vivisection.

One example is the autopsy photo of Mr. Wang Bin. Pathologist review contradicted Falun Gong's claim. (5) Even according to Falun Gong's own evidence, an autopsy was performed as part of Mr. Wang's murder investigation held by local authority. (6)

Another photo that is widely mis-used by Falun Gong is of Mr. Liu Yufeng, it too does not prove torture or vivisection. In reality these autopsy photos prove the opposit is true. Chinese government was not complacent and investigated death of citizens while under police custidy.

In conclusion, while China's human rights record should be examined, writing allegory of "Schindler's List" is not the way. If we in the west can not be precise with our accusation, only resort of nefarious political indictment - why should anyone take what we say seriousely?

References: 1) http://usinfo.state.gov/xarchives/display.html?p=washfile-english&y=2006&m=April&x=20060416141157uhyggep0.5443231&t=livefeeds/wf-latest.html

2) "The Collateral of Suppression", a report critical of China written for Senator Dianne Feinstein, member of Congressional Executive Committee on China (CECC).

3) http://www.zonaeuropa.com/20060806_1.htm http://www.cicus.org/news/newsdetail.php?id=6492

4) http://crc.gov.my/clinicalTrial/documents/Proposal/TCM_Stroke%20TrialProtocol%20synopsis.pdf (page 3)

5) Review by Dr. Friedlander, Chairman of Pathology Dept. at Kansas City University of Medicine.

Specifically, the Kilgour Report Appendix 12, Case 1 involving Mr. Wang Bin, where the photo showed 'Y' incisions in the neck and baseball stitch suture, which are typical of autopsy. The fact organ removal by medical examiner during autopsy is routine, is omitted.

6) http://clearwisdom.net/emh/articles/2000/11/16/6164.html

Sowing Confusion; Embarrassed by reports of live organ harvesting, China's sympathizers launch a high-tech disinformation campaign

Please see this article. The notes above are written by the person referred to in it. It's a wonder this guy uses the same name in his letters. If you haven't read it please read the Kilgour/Matas http://organharvestinvestigation.net report:

Copyright 2007 Western Standard
All Rights Reserved
Western Standard (Alberta)
April 9, 2007 Monday
Final Edition
SECTION: NEWS; Pg. 24
LENGTH: 699 words
HEADLINE: Sowing Confusion; Embarrassed by reports of live organ harvesting, China's sympathizers launch a high-tech disinformation campaign
BYLINE: Kevin Steel, Western Standard
BODY:
He posts his messages everywhere under several different names on Internet blogs and discussion groups. He writes letters to the editor anywhere and sends e-mails to anyone--anyone who might take seriously shocking evidence that the Chinese government "harvests" and sells live organs from political prisoners. His main message is that the Falun Gong--the group which first brought evidence of live organ harvesting to light--and the Epoch Times newspaper that broke that story are spreading propaganda against China's Communist government. And he's not even Chinese. He is Charles Liu, a 40-year-old Taiwanese-born technology consultant who lives in Issaquah, Wash., and does business in China.
Liu has been so active and so pro-Beijing in his writings that some Falun Gong supporters--in particular Epoch Times reporter Jana Shearer--have accused him of being an agent for the Chinese government, waging a disinformation campaign against them, trying to confuse people, and deliberately wasting everyone's time.
It's a charge that upsets Liu, who dismisses it as "a bunch of kooky friends making unfounded accusations. It's just a bunch of blog BS." As for why he devotes so much energy to attacking the Falun Gong and the organ harvesting allegations, he says, "My position is that I simply don't agree with their brand of politics, because I observed their politics turning from anti-Communist party, to anti-China, . . . and recently it's morphed into this anti-Chinese hysteria and that's going to be hurting people," he says. As an Asian-American, he says he decided to speak up.
He doesn't really explain, when asked, why he started a blog last year called "The Myth of Tiananmen Square Massacre" under the name of Bobby Fletcher (one of his online aliases, which he also uses to comment on the Western Standard's online blog). On that blog, he pushes the minimal 250 casualty figure that the Chinese government has always maintained died that night in 1989 (more reliable estimates put the figure at at least ten times that).
Liu's actions mirror disinformation campaigns waged by the Chinese government in the past. Typically, these include the deliberate spreading of false or misleading facts to sow confusion or doubt among the conflicting accounts. The classic example is the Tiananmen Square massacre; the Chinese government has maintained that no one died in the square itself, that there was only pushing and shoving on the streets around the square, resulting in a few military casualties. Overseas, the CCP relies on its United Front Work department, part of the Chinese intelligence service, to propagate its message. During the Cold War, the Soviets employed many overseas flunkies through their Disinformation Department.
Former Canadian MP David Kilgour, who co-authored a report on China's macabre organ harvesting industry, has received many propaganda e-mails from Liu. For instance, Liu has written repeatedly that a U.S. congressional committee looked into the organ harvesting allegations and found nothing. "[David] Matas and I gave evidence to that subcommittee and got support from both the Republican chairman and the Democratic vice-chair," says Kilgour. "I just came to the conclusion he was trying to waste my time, and I have other things to do."
Winnipeg-based human rights lawyer, and Kilgour's co-author, David Matas, really doesn't know what to make of Liu. "I don't know who he is, but what he does is spend a lot of time replicating nonsense to defend the Chinese government," Matas says. The only concern Matas has is that Liu seems to know who he and Kilgour met with in the United States to discuss their report. Matas discovered Liu had sent e-mails to politicians--and their staff--prior to the meetings. "The only people who would have that information would potentially be the Chinese government. I can't imagine how Liu would know we were meeting with those people," Matas says. "We're not super-secretive, but you can't find information on the Internet or in any public place about who we're meeting with, where and when." He himself has received at least 10 e-mails from Liu, all of which he's ignored. Maybe Matas is onto something with that approach. --Asdfg12345 08:52, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Mr Liu can at least portray an alternative view on the subject, outside the fanatical FLG media portrayal that is common throughout the Western world. His evidence sources do indeed have some credibility, and it's highly possible for FLG activitists to use random patients in Chinese hospitals and claim that they're FLG practitioners, knowing that their claims will never be boardcast inside China. One claim was that FLG practitioners received cancer as a result of police brutality, which is medically impossible. And by the way Matas and Kilgour selects their evidence and dissmissing everyone with opposing opinions as CCP agents, I suspect these two political opportunists have an ulterior motive.--PCPP 06:06, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

And let's not forget Epoch Times's "journalists"/FLG practitioners running wild on blogs[1]--PCPP 06:07, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Everyone does things for a reason. Some do it for money, some to keep the families safe, some choose a higher motivations. But one thing is for sure, you can't crack open someone's head and look inside for their motivations- you have to look elsewhere for clues. Ohconfucius 00:58, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

"Sowing Confusion;" Not Factual; Insinuation And Personal Attack Disputed

Hi, I am Charles Liu, the subject of the article. I am an Asian-American comunity activist. I blog/wiki under the handle "bobby fletcher" (my favorit charcter in "Crank Yankers").

I will publically refute the insinuations made (yes, there is no factual evidence) in the article against my character and my research, specifically the insinuation I am associated with the Chinese government.

1) David Matas claims: "The only people who would have that information would potentially be the Chinese government." "I can't imagine how Liu would know we were meeting with those people" "Matas says. "We're not super-secretive, but you can't find information on the Internet:

These statements are FALSE - a) By the fact Kilgour/Matas' appearances are heavily promoted by FLG meida outlets Epoch Times, Minghui, and disciple bloggers. b)The fact they are readily available to me, an Asian-American community activist, via Google.

(Everyone who "Google" from news.google.com, search.blogger.com with keywords "Kilgour Matas" will find the same information as I have.)

Thus prove the "only Chinese government" insinuation David Matas made to be unreliable and not factual.

2) Kevin Steel, author of the article, claims: "under the name of Bobby Fletcher" "Liu's actions mirror disinformation campaigns waged by the Chinese government" "deliberate spreading of false or misleading facts"

These Statements are FALSE - a) I use lower case 'b' and/or 'f' in my blog handle. b) Use of blog handle and/or nickname is a common convention, millions of bloggers unaffilated with the Chinese government do so. c) All of the citations are obtained from public record by "Googling" (US government, Chinese dissident based in the West, Western media, non-Chinese physician bloggers) are unaffaliated with the Chinese government. d) these facts are gathered by me, an Asian-American community activist also unaffaliated with the Chinese government. e) These facts have been vetted and published by mainstream media.

Therefore they can not be seen as proof of my affaliation with the Chinese government, or contradict any of my research without providing specific factual evidence.

3) Epoch Times reporter Jana Shearer claims: "Epoch Times reporter Jana Shearer--have accused him of being an agent for the Chinese government"

Above Statement is FALSE - a) I deny such unfounded allegation against me. b) Jana Shearer has not once produced any proof whatsoever after being challanged by me. c) Jana Shearer has a track record of making similiar accusation against other bloggers who disagree with her: http://falungongpolitics.blogspot.com/2007/04/epoch-times-reporters-gone-wild.html d) Other Epoch Times reporters named in the above blog entry have made similar personal attacks, demonstrating Epoch Times's MO in intimidating and silencing critics with unfounded "spy" allegation.

Therefore FLG's unfounded accusation, made by its media staff members and/or affaliates, is easily proven false.

Based on the above facts, I strongly dispute the article written agaisnt my character and research.

Bobby fletcher (talk) 23:58, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

misc

• Everyone knew that Falun Gong was the dog of Li Hongzhi,and he was the dog of some pro Taiwan Independence groups.Just took a very simple acts to see how Falun Gong,a banned religeous group set up a large propaganda networks with Epoch Times paper and New Tang Dynasty Television?The Epoch Times papers are free for acquiring with little or no ads.I cann't imagine such a group could make the ends meets when they are not supported by some groups.There must be someone who trust the Falun Gong,but for most sane people,they won't trust a religion which persuade the illed people not to go for doctor rather than praying--Ksyrie 06:05, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
  • The point here is not to prove or disprove the information, but to present it as close to a neutral point of view as possible Coradon 02:37, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Mr. Kilgour can not divorce himself from the fact his report is sponsored by a Falun Gong group in Washington DC that is evidentely political.

http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0608/S00251.htm

Just want to add another site: http://zonaeuropa.com/20060509_2.htm 151.201.9.156 06:20, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Renaming/merger - Exclusivity to FG?

Either China engages in organ harvesting of dissidents, or it doesn't. China has admitted to taking organs from executed criminals with approval. I don't believe that the Chinese authorities would perform this act on FG activists alone. Certainly, FG appears to be making the most noise about it.

If it were targeting FG acticvists exclusively, then the contents should be moved to Persecution of Falun Gong because leaving the title as it is is extremely POV, and would eventually be a POV fork; However, I believe this exclusivity does not exist, and the article should be renamed Organ harvesting in China, which is at present being redirected back to Persecution of Falun Gong. Ohconfucius 04:09, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Please read the 3'rd party investigation report, located here: http://organharvestinvestigation.net/. You will notice that according to this report only Falun Gong practitioners are blood tested, which is necessary when building a compatibility database.

The title is not POV because it does not state that organ harvesting is actually happening to Falun Gong practitioners, it just states that the notion of organ harvesting and Falun Gong is linked in the human knowledge. The title will look like Organ Harvesting from "Falun Gong practitioners under the Chinese Communist Rule", only when this will be proven by court beyond doubt. The current situation is that there are enough reports to mandate a full scale investigation, which is to this moment blocked by the communist regime.

Merger is not really feasible, because there is a lot of material to cover for this issue. --HappyInGeneral 09:32, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Discussion in progress here: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Falun_Gong_and_live_organ_harvesting --HappyInGeneral 11:08, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Call for improving the article

Is there a TAG which we can use for a call to improve this article? --HappyInGeneral 09:34, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Removing transcripts

I strongly feel that the transcripts are completely unencyclopaedic, and should be deleted. As a tertiary source, wikipedia is not the place to pick up such details from primary sources which nobody can verify (per Harry Wu). What is more, could this be an enactment? - this "evidence" is easily fabricated, and completely lacks credibility. Wikipedia is not the forum to prove or disprove allegations of organ harvesting. Ohconfucius 04:14, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

The transcripts should appear in full in some capacity as they very important. This subject was discussed with Kilgour on Lateline, an Australian political television program which interviewed him. They have the phone records. They weren't faked. Do you think Kilgour and Matas would get up to that kind of thing? Faking phone interviews? Is everything a communist dictatorship says acceptable, but everything a vilified and repressed group of people says propaganda? Have you thought about the right and wrong? But actually, wikipedia is about documenting things. Everything should be properly documented. If you have taken it as an attempt to prove or disprove something or other, you may have missed the point. This is an extremely relevant piece of information on the question of Falun Gong and live organ harvesting, and it would be very remiss of us as editors to want to exclude it. Further, the transcripts appear in a reliable source, and have every right to be here. I haven't yet given much attention to this or the persecution page. I find much of my time is taken up by scrutinising your edits, which I am finding inadvertently include deletions of some things. So I need to restore those and it takes my time. But I think much of this page needs to be seriously looked at.--Asdfg12345 00:19, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for providing the context to the telephone conversations - there was none in the article, and made me think it was unencyclopaedic rubbish. Perhaps I will eject these to insert boxes, when I have time. Ohconfucius 09:01, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

I may be assuming too much. I keep forgetting WP:AGF, when even outside wikipedia I really believe in that principle. You may see this page: http://organharvestinvestigation.net/ -- and take a look at their report. The telephone conversations are one of their points of evidence. When I get around to doing this page, I think I would like to clean a whole lot of things up and make sure things are documented properly. I get the impression right now that there is perhaps not enough discrimination in the article about which claims are the central ones (and by who) and which are peripheral. They have a series of conversations with medical staff around China boasting organs from Falun Gong. The interview I referred to which discusses this briefly may be found here: http://www.abc.net.au/lateline/content/2006/s1715849.htm.--Asdfg12345 09:49, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

I have so far refrained from a wholescale revision of this article, because of numerous issues I have with its content, and the frankly appalling state of the article from almost every point of view. Whilst they may be relevant direct evidence, I as a wiki editor am unconvinced of the transcripts' credibility, as they are not exactly as reliably sourced as I feel we should have (ie they come from WOIPFG), and much more work is needed to establish that. Even if K&M published the transcripts in their report as evidence, the important thing is not to regurgitate the transcript verbatim, but maybe to write about K&M's findings in their connection, with a prose summary of the transcripts' key points (ie we would use of the report as a secondary source). Ohconfucius 04:49, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I definitely don't think this wikipedia article should have a big repeat of all those transcripts. It would be tedious and rather unencyclopedic. I'd propose a type of coloured box, those ones you are so famous for employing, with some parts of the transcripts in that coloured box. You know the kind of box I'm talking about? Something like that I think could keep things interesting. In presenting this subject on wikipedia this is a strong point of evidence going toward it, so it would be remiss to exclude it entirely (I think I said that before?). The point is correct balance. That's why we're here. It's like a see-saw. How much do you weigh? (the article definitely needs a complete revision. so does the persecution one. time will see all this fulfilled) --Asdfg12345 06:32, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

merge from 'Persecution'

I have moved the entire block of text concerning organ harvesting from the 'Persecution' article, replacing it with the lead section from this article, and have begun to rearrange the various sections and paragraphs here in order to macro-merge the article. Detailed copyediting would still be required. I thkni that the media coverage section can probably be merged with the international response section, also the article is a bit thin on K&M findings. Ohconfucius 03:41, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Yeah don't worry I reckon it needs an overhaul too. I mentioned before about some way of managing daughter articles and their summaries on the main pages to which they belong. I am not so sure about that as a strict rule. Do you know if there is a wikipedia guideline on the correct management of daughter articles and how they should relate to/appear in their "father" articles? heh. One point is that perhaps it would be worthwhile to include 'subsections' from daughter articles in their main counterparts, if those counterparts aren't getting too long. I'm not sure how people read wikipedia. Some other articles I see seem to be quite, quite long. The Falun Gong one isn't that long, but there is a lot of content. thoughts? --Asdfg12345 06:12, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

possible dialogue as of 20/10/07

It is indeed a shame that Falun Gong practitioners at times are perceived as making excessive claims about the persecution, which then leads to credibility lost for the cause. It's also a big shame that independent observers could not look past that, and assess the actual facts for themselves. There was a broohaha about the Sujiatun claims, but now the kilgour/matas report is out it has not been seriously challenged--indeed, the evidence is already there. The Australian is owned by Murdoch anyway, so I wouldn't be surprised at some editorial control for political purposes. The zoneeuropa article appears to be just about Sujiatun, not about the organ harvesting evidence generally. There is a massive and evil persecution going on, that can't be denied. Falun Gong is just a qigong exercise with spiritual beliefs. Is there contesting either of these propositions? Even without the organ harvesting the persecution is still incredible, horrible and evil to the extreme. The organ harvesting evidence is even more damning and evil. Do you contest the Kilgour/Matas report? Which parts, specifically? (have you read it?) Kilgour is for sure sympathetic to FLG, just look at his website--but why not? Falun Gong just meditate and read books--whose side are you on? Be clear about where you stand. Do you think there is something actually wrong with Falun Gong? In it's beliefs or in its function? What, specifically? I would post such things on your talk page but you have not deigned to create an account.

The link http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0608/S00251.htm was not posted by me, but an anonymous writer. After your Steel article, I went through google and found the endless blog wars between that Charles Liu and Jana Shearer. And Jana seems to be the one with more time. Independent of this blog war, however, China Matters blog probably describes it best: "I found the document relatively thin" (http://chinamatters.blogspot.com/2006/11/falun-dafa-newsline.html). To me, this whole ordeal ended up in square one -- it's the CCP's words against Falun Gong's, and frankly, I don't trust either. 151.201.9.156 13:48, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

What are you talking about? I am talking about this: http://organharvestinvestigation.net/ -- Falun Gong had very little to do with this. As far as I know they just ask the Davids to look into it. Most of the evidence there is from the CCP itself. I am asking you to carefully read that report, and if you do not come to the same conclusions--that organ harvesting has been inflicted on living Falun Gong practitioners--to specify the pieces of evidence you dispute. This isn't a Falun Gong/CCP discussion. It is about a large body of clear evidence pointing to the crime. If you want to engage in this question meaningfully you will need to respond to the evidence. It's sitting right there, you just have to read it and think about it.--Asdfg12345 14:15, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

some comments re your edit:

• comes from a Chinese source
• a source not usually considered "reliable" across these articles
• contains original research (did not make it to the international community)
• how can I find the english version of that?
• is that claim from Falun Gong, or from a supposed miliatary doctor?

generally I think the article is a mess, and a lot of these epochtimes claims should be shortened drastically. There should be a Sujiatun specific section which deals with the controversy in a contained fashion. Anyway, that's for another day.--Asdfg12345 14:28, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

See my response above. I edited it after reading the blog wars between Liu and Shearer. I also included a comment by China Hand blogger. His comment can partially reflect my feeling about this whole Falun Gong organ harvest allegation and the Kilgour Report.

It's okay if you want to delete my paragraph. My reasoning was that 1) I quoted from the very same source, i.e. Epoch Times, that originally produced all the other allegations, and this article is about "Falun Gong and live organ harvesting", NOT just about organ harvest; 2) An English version was deleted for no apparent reason, since the articles before and after that date are still kept intact. An analysis was posted on http://zonaeuropa.com/20060509_2.htm as I posted before, which includes a partial translation, but I thought it was a little opinionated and perhaps not appropriate for wikipedia. I believe that the validity of this Epoch Times article is as good in Chinese as it is in English, and therefore should be made known as part of the allegation. Either Falun Gong intentionally keeps this information from the international community, or someone sabotaged the effort. But that is not my concern. BTW, I thought you said somewhere else that you understand Chinese.151.201.9.156 13:49, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't want to delete things form the article to cover things up or something. I won't work on this article for another week until I have some time. I would imagine that if this kind of allegation was made in Chinese, and not translated into english, it would probably be for the reason you or that person accuse--that it's too unreliable, difficult to prove, and people would probably see it and think "that's ridiculous" and epochtimes and Falun Gong would lose credibility. Don't you already think negative things about Dafa practitioners making up persecution claims? Isn't it already so difficult for people to just be clear in their thinking and simply condemn this evil bullshit? Why would epoch times make that kind of claim, which would be incredibly difficult to prove? the sujiatun case turned out a debacle in the end anyway, though I don't doubt it was happening. Where's the critical thinking behind this, though? Isn't it obvious that the CCP would do this to Falun Gong, and that they could easily cover up sujiatun if it were real? It was a week before the inspection team came, and the communists could easily have made it look identical to a normal hospital. Why'd they let the inspectors into sujiatun, and not anywhere else they want to go? Why are people who try to investigate in China constantly attacked, arrested, have their films confiscated, etc. etc., yet there is a special show for the US inspectors on this claim? This was just a cynical and disgusting propaganda opportunity for the CCP--discredit Falun Gong! look how much easier things become. Isn't it an obvious set up? Are you so dewy-eyed about the wicked mafia running china right now? There are people around who would just love the opportunity to discredit Falun Gong, play the persecution down, anything but to stand up for it. It is just a lot more comfortable if there is not this sickening, huge, evil and shocking organ harvesting crime taking place, so out come denials, obfuscations, delays etc.... The Australian government is doing this very well. I would just urge you to read the kilgour matas report and consider the evidence on its own grounds.

I think epochtimes can be used very sparingly only when there are no other sources, and only quickly to frame things. It can be said that they made the claims and briefly what the claims were, but I'm not sure what else would be appropriate/necessary. I don't think there's any need to speculate on the motivations between which parts of a report they translated and which they didn't.

I am only learning mandarin, not long yet. I can read zhuan falun sort of, but still don't know stacks of characters, and the meaning is not clear to me. I can follow along during Fa study; I have a copy of the book with zhuyin which helps. I can't read newspaper reports or anything, and I can't carry on a conversation in Chinese. I can say simple things, etc. The reason I wanted the Chinese/english Fa was because I could look at it myself, put it into njstar, or ask a chinese practitioner to take a look. Deliberate distortion in translation just wouldn't happen, though. You have not retracted that claim either. You seemed to imply that some practitioners would translate the Fa deliberately to soften some condemnation of homosexuality or something. That's just completely wrong, and a misunderstanding. No one would do that kind of thing.

Sorry I won't reply or work on these pages for approximately two weeks, I have spent too much time already I had budgeted on other urgent things. Each time I write something like this it will take around 15+ minutes. All this is energy being spent specifically for you.--Asdfg12345 15:29, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Kilgour and Matas are nothing but political opportunists funded by FLG to provide a little credibility. Their so called claims has already been challenged by the US Congressional report and Harry Wu himself. Not to mention their ad hominem attack on Mr Charles Liu shows their desparation.--PCPP 07:21, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Since we are all speculating here, I think that Harry Wu has some deals regarding this aspect. I read the reports available here: http://organharvestinvestigation.net/ and let me tell you, I think it's well sourced and highly credible. --HappyInGeneral 15:40, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Kilgour receiving money from Falun Gong is not a speculation. Appendix K of the Kilgour report states CIPFG, the political arm of FLG (ref: Lum's CSR cited previousely), promised to give Kilgour money in terms of "reimbursement". The amount floating about in the blogsphere is over $50,000.

bobby fletcher 19:40, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Talk about ad hominem attacks. Of course to FLG, everyone who doesn't agree with their narrow views about Chona is automatically an agent of the CCP. It doesn't matter what you think, Kilgour/Matas are certainly given WP:Undue weightundue weight here, thus a violation of the WP guidelines.--PCPP (talk) 07:03, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Here's a recent article from the Ottawa Citizen on the veracity of FLG's organ allegation, and credibility of the Kilgour/Matas report:

http://www.canada.com/ottawacitizen/news/observer/story.html?id=2c15d2f0-f0ab-4da9-991a-23e4094de949&p=3

bobby fletcher 3:00 17 December 2007 (PST)

• I don't know what specifically you are referring to, but I read somewhere on RickRoss or cult news (but I can't find the article again) that Harry played his 'get out of jail free' card by signing a renunciation letter, which may explain why he started denouncing FG henceforth. Ohconfucius 00:56, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

I have a problem with the following edit:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Falun_Gong_and_live_organ_harvesting&diff=178483849&oldid=178482051

So, why is it Asdfg12345 believe the summary should mention Kilgour's statement that his report has not been refuted, but subsuqent refutaiton by the Ottawa Citizen can not be in summary? Bobby fletcher 3:30 17 December 2007 (PST)

simply because it isn't a refutation--Asdfg12345 11:51, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

I disagree with you. The Ottawa Citizen article refuted the Kilgour report in the following ways:

- Vetting the US CSR report (page 3) against the updated Kilgour report

- Describing issues that are questionable around the allegation, such as location of the Sujiatun hospital (page 4) and the flaw in bruning bodies using a boiler (page 5) not addressed by the updated Kilgour report

- Vetting the conclusion made by Harry Wu (page 7 & 8) against the updated Kilgour report

Who gave you the right to decide what is a refuation or not? Based on the above I will put what I wrote back, please reframe from removing it - you've done it twice already.

bobby fletcher 11:00 17 December 2007 (PST)

I'll have a closer read of this fellow's work. I know the US CSR report certainly isn't a refutation of their report. The Sujiatun issue is quite separate from the Kilgour/Matas report also, as you point out. I wasn't aware of Harry Wu refuting their report--let me read that again and get back to you. I never deleted it, I wouldn't do that. I moved it from the top and tried to make it more accurate. What you call "Falun Gong's accusation", etc.--the Sujiatun affair--can be more accurately worded. As I said, I think it would be better to expand on the issues raised in that article, and also give the response to them, published in the same paper, by Kilgour and Matas.--Asdfg12345 23:07, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Again I disagree. The CSR report page 10 clearly refuted the Kilgour report (the "nothing new", "relied on inference" paragraph).

While you feel you have the right to put uncited text in the summary - where did Kilgour say their "updated" report "has not met with any substantive refutation"? I for one have refuted it. See the original open letter above. You don't have the right to move what I wrote, as I feel subsquent refutaiton such as the Ottawa Citizen and Dr. Ramana's review of Appendix 20 Case 1 deserve to be mentioned in the summary.

if you disagree, please back up your objection with citation and reason. To unilatterally delete other people's edit, twice, is wrong.

Bobby fletcher (talk) 00:17, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Okay, my response is below. I didn't delete your edit though. I just narrowed down the source to disputing the k/m conclusion, which is what I thought was an accurate depiction. That thing about the corpse that was supposed to be an autopsy was again disputed by k/m; they said that in the case of someone tortured to death, why would they need to remove the organs to establish the cause of death. This dispute with the photograph, along with the response, should also be mentioned. Let me apologise again for any rudeness you may have perceived.--Asdfg12345 10:55, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Kilgour/Matas Report Evidence Disputed

In above 10/20 dialgue section - "to specify the pieces of evidence you dispute". Well here it is:

1) The Sujiatun death camp allegation made by, witness "Peter", "Annie" produced by, FLG - as recorded in Kilgour report have been refuted by investigations (ref: Lum CSR report, Harry Wu, The Ottawa Citizen)

2) The alleged photo evidence in the Kilgour report Appendix 20 Case 1, has been reviewed by two physician bloggers (Dr. Freidlander and Dr. Ramana) per my request, and both came to the same conclusion that the photo is not proof of vivisection.

3) The anecdotal claim of short wait time is misleading and not proof of live organ harvesting. After some research I have found that thousands of people in US also received organ transplants in mere days or weeks, making the short wait time claim misleading. According to 1995-2004 clincal data compiled by USTransplant.org:

http://www.ustransplant.org/annual_reports/current/105_dh.htm

- USA with 1/4 of China's population, performs over twice as many liver transplants yearly (10,000 in 2004.) - 2004 data shows top 10% of wait list average 10 day wait - 2004 data shows top 25% of wait list average 43 day wait - Majority of median wait time, for all type of transplantation, do not exceed one year.

4) The inference in equating increase in number of transplant to increase in number of execution/death is logically insufficient and not proof of live organ harvesting. Number of transplant performed is not dictated by number of available organs alone. There are other factors, such as improvement of western medical know-how in China during the last decade, ability and capacity to perform various types of transplant.

The increase can be attributed much more resaonbly to increase in number of hospitals/surgeons performing more types of transplant procedures, thus making use of previousely available but unused organs.

This finding was presented by Melbourn-based anti-CCP dissident Mr. Zhang Hetse in an OpEd: http://www.observechina.net/info/artshow.asp?ID=40224

5) Beyond US government and Chinese dissident investigations discrediting the death camp allegation, the fundamental flaw in Kilgour and Falun Gong's claim is the fact Falun Gong disciples are not put to death.

Rather, Falun Gong disciples who break laws are sent to deprogramming centers via custodial detention (also known as Laogai). Cult deprogramming is a debatable subject, but what is true is disciples are only dead in the sense the sect loses hold on these people after deprogramming - with their organs intact.

Here's an article unflattering to the Chinese government that speaks to the fact western anti-cult experts were consulted in the Chinese government's effort to deprogam Falun Gong disciples:

http://bernie.cncfamily.com/acm/falun_gong_deprogramming.htm

CONCLUSION: There probably are isolated cases of police abuse contrary to stated law, but if there's no death camp then there exists a very different reality than what's alleged. Bobby fletcher 01:26, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

I find some of your comments deeply disturbing. I think "deprogramming"

I disagree; "you think" is a layman's opinion and is not factual. I disagree with what you "think" based on the fact cult deprogramming is a debatable subject. Deprogramming for the benefit of the subject or not has factual substantiation both ways. If you agree/disagree please cite relevant evidence for/against deprogramming.

However, the fact western anti-cult experts were consulted in the Chinese government's effort to deprogram FLG disciples who broke the law while under the influence of FLG indoctrination is cited by the Christian group CNC Family.

The article's neutrality is further demonstrated by the fact it does not agree with the Chinese government.

Bobby fletcher (talk) 18:07, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

is a foul and awful

Name calling and employing personal attack is not consistent with Wikipedia. Neither is the fact you unilatterally removed my edit from the summary twice.

Bobby fletcher (talk) 18:23, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

way of referring to the torture of people for their beliefs. I don't object to any sourced content being sensibly added to the article. The authors themselves maintain that there has been no refutation,

The authors claim is not proof there's no refutation. I have demonstrated refutation from many sources: Government, NGOs, and Asian-American community activist such as myself.

Bobby fletcher (talk) 18:23, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

and they published a response in the same newspaper (Ottawa Citizen) shortly after.

The fact Kilgour/Matas had responded to refutation is PROOF there has been refutation - making their claim of no refuation less than neutural.

Bobby fletcher (talk) 18:23, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

I apologise if I have put your nose out of joint with any edits.

You should apologize for unilatterally removing my edit from the summary twice. Looks like it is your nose that's out of joint - Kilgour's claim that there's no refutation is not correct, and I have put forth volumn of refutation, including some they have been compelled to respond to.

Bobby fletcher (talk) 18:26, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

This is definitely not my intention. The comment dangling there at the end of the intro seemed better located. You are right, and I am grateful to you, for bringing all this information forth. All relevant information should be added to the article. That people dispute the conclusions of the K/M report is an obvious and important piece of information to add to the article. Wikipedia is merely a re-presentation of things found in other places, with some rules attached, so we needn't argue about the factuality of organ harvesting--that you show such great callousness

Once again I must object to your appeal to emotion and personal attack, as they are not consistent with Wikipedia. The fact is cult deprogramming is a debatable subject. Deprogramming for the benefit of the subject or not has factual substantiation both ways. If you agree/disagree please cite relevant evidence for/against deprogramming.

Bobby fletcher (talk) 23:28, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

toward human suffering demonstrates very well that any discussion along those lines would be meaningless. You are ultimately responsible for what you do.

And FLG will be ultimately responsible for falsely accusing those doctors and nurses at Sujiatun hospital, who saves lives everyday, when the live organ harvesting allegation is proven false.

Bobby fletcher (talk) 23:28, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

As for the article, that some writers dispute the conclusion of the K/M report should be noted in the lead,

Right, and I believe, based on the evidence I have presented, you are wrong to removed my edit mentioning refutation from the summary/lead. Additionall while you believe "substantive" should be in the lead, my edit disputing neutrality of such subjective and uncited description should not be in the lead?

What thought process did you employ to make this decision? Who gave you the right to decide what is "substantive"?

Bobby fletcher (talk) 18:32, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

as well as that K/M stand by their conclusion and maintain that no one refutes it.

The fact they had to respond to refuations prove their claim of "no one refutes it" to be incorrect.

Bobby fletcher (talk) 18:32, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't think there are any problems here, and I really am sorry to have done the wrong thing by you. I absolutely think all this information should also be added to the article. There's a lot of work to go, and I hope to engage in this in the near future. The links and arguments you have brought up are relevant and very useful, which I appreciate.--Asdfg12345 10:50, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

I disagree re "There is a detailed, independent report published by respected, established individuals", as this in no way substantiates the live organ harvesting allegation. Volumns of refutation from neutural sources (US government, Chinese dissidents, mainstream journalists, Asian-American community activist) have contradicted the Kilgour report.

I for one have no respect for neither Kilgour or Matas, based on personal dealing with these individuals. The Kilgour report's independence is also in question, as Appendix K of the Kilgour report states CIPFG, FLG's political arm, will pay Kilgour in terms of "reimbursement". Other China bloggers, such as John Kennedy of Global Voices, have said that David Kilgour has no credibility. When I contacted Amnesty International they tell me the allegation is unsupported.

Based on these facts, I must insist the live organ harvesting allegation made by FLG is, to date, an unproven allegation.

Bobby fletcher (talk) 18:41, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

• Kindly note that some of the sources you cite (i.e. blogs, privately exchanged emails, etc) cannot be considered reliable sources according to wikipedia's definitions. Ohconfucius (talk) 02:52, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Subject unarchived for continued discussion

If you do not respond in one week, I will move this out of the archive, so the discussion/dispute can continue in a more obvious place.

Bobby fletcher (talk) 20:26, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

No one has responded. Bobby fletcher (talk) 01:03, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Inherent bias and proposed renaming

I personally think this article is totally biased and can never be anything more than an attack page against the Chinese Communist Party. What is more, it is a crap (unencyclopaedic) article, warranting deletion on all these counts. I know, I did work on it, because I cannot stand seeing a crap article and want to make it better, but regret having wasted the time on the harvesting article. In my view, it doesn't stand a cat in hell's chance with the title we have now. I tried to change it, but a number of partisan editors, including most notably Dilip rajeev, vehemently opposed it. I think we would stand a much better chance of creating an encyclopaedic article if it was moved to "Bloody Harvest" or somesuch and concentrated the article on the report, and the discussion generated. For sure, the Sujiatun stuff also ties into it, and kicked off the whole thing. However, these are mere allegations made by two, maybe three individuals with absolutely no corroboration of any sort, and perpetuated by an organ which is committed to the destruction of the CCP. Of course, it could be cited as background. Structurally, there could also be a brief synopsis of the 33 different pieces of the circumstantial evidence; a section about the public reaction to the report, as well as, possibly with counter-arguments from Harry Wu, CRS, the "China's crematorium" source, for example. Ohconfucius (talk) 01:18, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Let's start with the title. "Falun Gong and live organ harvesting" needs to include the word "allegation" - facts demonstrate 1) this allgestion has not been substantiated; 2) the allegation of live organ harvesting was originally made by Epoch Times NY, a documented Falun Gong media outlet.

So I would like to support your effort in renaming this article. My beef is it needs the term "allegation" or other appropriate term indicating the fact FLG's claim of systematic illegal organ seisure agaisnt the Chinese government remains an allegation with little credibility.

Bobby fletcher (talk) 03:54, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

There is a detailed, independent report published by respected, established individuals. These aren't mere accusations. I don't mind changing the title in principle, but I can't think of what would be more suitable. By naming it "Bloody Harvest" or somesuch, would mean culling a lot of the Sujiatun stuff and keeping it as background--this would mean having a single page for Sujiatun, and one for Bloody Harvest, right? Or simply deleting a lot of Sujiatun info from wikipedia. I don't know if it makes sense to split them, since they are so closely related (about alleged and purportedly evidenced "live organ harvesting of Falun Gong"). No one can argue with you when you say the page doesn't paint a rosy picture of the CCP. I asked you to check out the page on the Holocaust and what you expect to find therein about the Nazi regime. Just in terms of the practical issues with changing the page to that name, how would you deal with that problem?--Asdfg12345 11:39, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

• First of all, recall that 'Sujiatun Concentration Camp' was deleted. Of course, I believe, as was the consensus at AfD, that most of that material does not belong here in wikipedia for want of reliable sources. Without "Bloody Harvest", Sujiatun is nothing at all. Only two witnesses, not too credible at that, and the spin of a journal overtly seeking the downfall of the CCP at work - this is not evidence. I have already suggested what little worthwhile material there was on the subject be incorporated as background in this article, and I believe that would leave quite a lot of leeway as it stands. I have been watching you argue against PCCP regarding the substantial differences between Sujiatun and K&M, now you appear to be saying the opposite. You also argued with me on the 'persecution' talk page that the report is far more important than the Fg allegations. As for the holocaust, now that there has been a major war, and history has rendered its judgement (by the victors, I might add). Some day, I hope soon, history will render its judgement on Sujiatun. The regime must change or will collapse, but we are not there yet! Ohconfucius (talk) 13:27, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

oh, in some ways I really agree with that. I didn't mean to say Sujiatun is so important. I was just thinking in terms of wikipedia, like the idea of documenting everything. Really, I am happy to have all the details of this affair gutted, and have it appear as a background to the wider issues associated with the organ harvesting. I have a reservation though, that while the obvious focus, and the whole driving issue begin the idea of Falun Gong and live organ harvesting is currently the K/M report and evidence therein, I mean, the issue is still falun gong and live organ harvesting, the report being an entity driving it. Does it strike you as too narrow to base the article around the Bloody Harvest report? I do think Sujiatun is like a footnote to the report, the thing that brought everything into the public, and which in the wider picture only plays that role. There seems like nothing to substantiate those particular claims, though the wider issues, and evidence is the important factor. So we are thinking of calling the article: "'Bloody Harvest' report", keeping on the bare bones of Sujiatun info as a way to introduce the report, then making the article mainly focus on the evidence in the report, and the ongoing disputes surrounding either the evidence in the report, or how that evidence leads to the conclusion? Am I following your idea?--Asdfg12345 14:07, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

• Yes, I think you are getting my drift. To me, "Bloody Harvest" just seemed like an acceptable title along those lines. My thoughts are to entitle it just like any other book, but we can still discuss that. Ohconfucius (talk) 14:37, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Amnesty International's Refutation of FLG Organ Allegation

Here's the reply I received from Amnesty International Seattle chapter, after enquiring why they have rejected Falun Gong's invitation to protest. Here's the relevant quote:

"AI never supported those allegations (as far as I know). The allegations were researched and found to be unsupported.

The idea of participating in the FG event was tabled largely because AI's International Secretariat has asked its members not to participate in the Human Rights Torch Relay. As far as I know the basis for that decision is that (1) the event will primarily be about the FG and not human rights, and (2) AI has no position on the FG per se and cannot verify its claims vis-a-vis Chinese organ harvesting.

As I said in an earlier email, we'd prefer to have nothing to do with the FG."

Anyone wish to receive a copy of the email can leave an open request with something like "name (at) email (dot) com".

Bobby fletcher (talk) 22:56, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Disputing Asdfg12345's alteration of other's edits to lead section

Asdfg, I disagree with your edit of my edit in the lead. You stated: "only the CCP has criticised k/m or the report" Above statement is FALSE, by the fact: 1) In the Nov 24th 07 Ottawa Citizen report Harry Wu criticized the updated Kilgour report (page 7) "There is no such corroboration of the systemic execution of Falun Gong prisoners" 2) The Nove 24th 07 Ottawa Citizen report also vetted US CSR report's citicism of the updated Kilgour report (page 3) as 3) I have presented my rationale in criticizing the updated Kilgour report in the talk page

Therefore, your statment that "only CCP" is proven false.

I also disagree with your "switch-o-roo" of my edit in the last sentence in the lead. There's no compelling difference between "while there're refutation, k/m claims no dispute" and "while k/m claims no dispute, there're refutation". If there's reason to this switch please provide evidence. My edit should stand. Bobby fletcher (talk) 01:34, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

What you cited isn't criticism, Liu. I will reference where they say there has been no refutation now.--Asdfg12345 01:53, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

I disagree with your opinion. If you have proof it isn't criticism you need to back it up with some evidence. Here're the factual citation I have presented to back up what I said:

1) In the Ottawa Citizen article established mainstream news reporter Glen McGregor wrote "neutral criticism came from the U.S. Congressional Research Service" - establishing the fact the CRS report is a criticism.

2) I have personally presented volumn of research critical of k/m report.

Therefore, your statement "isn't criticism", having no evidentiary support, is INVALID. Further your statment "only CCP" continue to be FALSE

Additionally, the Ottawa Citizen article, dated November 24th, came after the Kilgour statement you cited.

I also disagree with Oh's edit of my title in the talk page. My complaint is directed specifically at Asdfg, and the title should reflect such.

Bobby fletcher (talk) 17:43, 21 December 2007 (UTC)