Talk:Kilgour–Matas report/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 9

How do they know they are FLG practitioners?

Just a general question: how do the sources know they are FLG practitioners? It's a relatively well known fact that a lot of the organ for organ transplantation come from executed criminals, but how do they know that they are FLG practitioners? Any registrars of executed FLG practitioners? It seems that the whole article is twisting the fact that a big source of organs is executed prisoners, and applying it to FLG, without much proof at all. The evidence (the Sujiatun crap that requires bending the law of spacetime, and the phone dialogue, which does not imply exclusivity, and had been doubted on) seems quite circumstantial to me, so is there something that I am not seeing? --antilived^{T | C | G} 22:18, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

You see what you want to see. This evidence is an admission by the doctor to what he said on the audio recording. It's as plain as day. There's a longer report, too[1].--Asdfg12345 10:18, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Not sure what your point is with the second link, having nothing to do with FLG. In fact it goes opposite of what you're trying to convey: most sources out there simply deals with organ harvesting from executed prisoners, bearing no mention of FLG. Even th dialogue does not mention anything about the organs being exclusively from FLG practitioners, so why do we have such a huge article on organ harvesting from FLG practitioners, yet Organ harvesting in the People's Republic of China is in comparison so much smaller, when we don't know how much of the executed prisoners are really FLG practitioners? I am a skeptic, and that means holding your opinion but being open to any substantiated claim, and yet I don't see any in here. Anything else I should see? --antilived^{T | C | G} 12:14, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

lol, sorry, I was doing things in a rush. This is the link I meant to post [2]. If you read that you may get what I mean. There's no death row in China, if someone is going to be executed they're killed within a week of their execution being announced. So there's not even a population of regular prisoners up for grabs for organ transplants. And the numbers of executions are far, far less than the organ transplantations. Basically, if you've read the Kilgour-Matas report, you've seen the new audio/video evidence, and you read this link above--if after all that you still choose not to believe this, or raise frivolous arguments or obfuscations (like, the recording must be fake because of the hz, even though the doctor himself admits that it was his recording), that's your choice. I won't argue with you, but you're ultimately responsible for what you choose.--Asdfg12345 12:22, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

"even though the doctor himself admits that it was his recording" I would like to see a source on that...

You still haven't answered my question: How do you know that they are FLG practitioners? Most of these death row thing have got nothing to do with FLG and should go to Organ harvesting in the People's Republic of China, which is diminutive compared to this conglomerate. Is there a statistic anywhere, from a reliable source, detailing how many executed prisoners are FLG practitioners, from which we can infer how much of the organ harvesting is focused to FLG practitioner? Without this there is no point to this article as this implies that it is a targeted operation towards FLG practitioners, when there has not been a single source proving that. It is well known that they use organs from both men and women, so should there be another article on "Reports of organ harvesting from live Female inmates in China", or they use organs from minorities so surely an article on "Reports of organ harvesting from live inmates of minority ethnicity in China"? I am not even questioning the validity of the K&M reports, just that there has been NO evidence of this being a targeted operation, focusing on FLG practitioners, instead of being a subset of the normal execution procedure. --antilived^{T | C | G} 03:54, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Why, there's a report on this very topic by two highly respected Canadians, one a human rights lawyer, one a former MP. You can read it here: organharvestinvestigation.net. I believe it has everything you need to know.--Asdfg12345 16:24, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Hah, you think I'm new? Tell me specifically where there's any evidence at all on how this targets FLG practitioners? Without this the article shouldn't even exist at all, as a section in Organ harvesting in the People's Republic of China would surely suffice. --antilived^{T | C | G} 05:25, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

As a Canadian I have to say that neither Kilgour nor Matas are highly respected. Matas is mostly unknown and Kilgour is a divisive figure.Simonm223 (talk) 16:34, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

K&M response to Phoenix TV programme

"Yet, on the audio, what the doctor denies saying is interspersed seamlessly with what the doctor admits saying. Once the doctor, in the video, admits to saying most of what is in the audio, the conclusion that he said everything he is recorded on the audio as saying is inevitable. Only through video and the audio in combination do we have the admitted implication of this doctor and his hospital in Guangxi in the organ harvesting of Falun Gong practitioners and the hospital in Guangzhou in the nationwide organ sourcing of Falun Gong practitioners."

WTF? The doctor never admitted to say most of the things of the transcript, if anything it's the opposite. From the Phoenix TV transcript: "She then said that she heard I could perform kidney transplanting operation. I denied and told her that was not my major. ", "She kept on talking and said that she heard I could do it, and repeated several times how to cure uremia and mentioned kidney transplant. I hung up the phone and then stopped explaining anything.", "She said that one of her relatives suffered from uremia and it was very urgent. She wanted to receive kidney transplanting operation as soon as possible and asked if our hospital could do it. I clearly answered her question that we were not able to do the operation and suggested her going to Guangzhou organ transplanting center."

If by "seamlessly" and "most" they mean both deferring them to Guangzhou (because they cannot do organ transplantation) then they will need to write their own dictionary to come with their reports. The dialogue are both sourced, so there wouldn't be any implications by Wikipedia policy to examine what the response actually mean. Any objections in presenting the real difference? --antilived^{T | C | G} 12:27, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Please see WP:OR. Any meta-commentary needs a source. We don't dig through the primary sources and present an analysis about the "real difference," as sensible as I think this idea would be in a lot of situations.--Asdfg12345 12:30, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

No I'm proposing the actual dialogue as given in the article, since the K&M dialogue is already on the article. With both sides of the story the user can make their own decision about how is it "seamless" and "most". --antilived^{T | C | G} 03:57, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Proposed merger with Organ harvesting in the People's Republic of China

I propose a merger with Organ harvesting in the People's Republic of China because there has been no evidence that this organ harvesting is targeted and specific to Falun Gong (FLG) practitioners, and is what I would call conspiracy theory.

Notability

The major source of this article is one single report, initiated by FLG members, and is not notable enough to be worth all 53 kilobytes of its text. A simple Google search reveals not many relevant links once you filter out sites that are ran by either side of the argument, or ones that simply state what the report allege. Actual analysis is scarce at best (quoting User:Asdfg12345, "...and I think that's simple: the sources don't say so themselves. Media haven't debated this. They've ignored it."), and the quality of third party analysis is also not without its tarnish, quoting User:Asdfg12345 again: "But there's still a large amount of reliable literature on the subject [..]. See for instance, this article by John Kusumi speculating". This lack of independent sources is to me a major indication that it is not notable, at least not for such a mammoth of an article, therefore suggesting the merger.

Neutrality

It is well known that China harvests organ from executed prisoners ([3], [4], etc.) so most of the information in this article should really go into Organ harvesting in the People's Republic of China, since they apply for every prisoner, not just FLG practitioners. Having such a huge article specific to FLG practitioners imply that it mostly affects them, which is clearly not the case, especially since the number of FLG practitioners dwindled after the government had banned them. Therefore it would be much more neutral to have a brief mention on the main article than its own article.

Enlarging editing base

Currently the editing base for FLG related articles is meager and presents lots of conflict between FLG practitioners/affiliates and other people, including a few FLG-haters but are now banned. A prime example of the disadvantages is a recent good-faith IP edit in the talk page reporting a source from Chinese-ran website had seen quite a flurry of bad-faith name calling, labeling the IP as Chinese operative and immediately dismissing the source, without even looking at it. (see #Phoenix TV) This to me is very alarming as this is a prime example on how much source selection is practised in these articles, how it is used to skew the article and violate WP:NPOV. In moving to a more neutral and public article, one that treats all organ harvesting the same instead of focusing on one group of people, it encourages more input by different people and therefore better article.

Therefore I propose a merger with Organ harvesting in the People's Republic of China, creating its own section in that article and consolidating the main points of this article to a nice, bite-sized section. --antilived^{T | C | G} 06:12, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Responses

They are separate topics. It's as simple as that. There was already a movement to merger these, but this topic has itself generated a large amount of media coverage and secondary reporting. I say media haven't debated it and largely ignored it--this is true. But it doesn't mean that hundreds, if not thousands of reports haven't been written about this issue as a whole. What I mean is that they are unwilling to look at the conclusions properly--they are scared to touch this subject in any great depth. I suppose that is not 'ignoring', but it's still basically a media blackout in my books. There's already a large body of secondary literblatature on this subject though, it's just that mainstream newspapers in the West have not given this nearly as much air time as it deserves. There's no problem here. It doesn't make sense to merger the article at all, these are related topics, not the same topic. It's like Human rights abuses in China -> persecution of Falun Gong -> reports of organ harvesting. Within the persecution of Falun Gong there's even one or two other sub articles. The main point is that this specific subject of organ harvesting from Falun Gong practitioners is the subject of a large body of secondary literature, cultural memes, etc.--Asdfg12345 07:59, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

I am afraid you'll have to provide evidence for that: Google says otherwise. Care to link or even name a few of those reports? Most if not ALL secondary media it had created are in some way related to FLG (oh I don't know, Epoch Times?) or the few links from Chinese consulate. All the other do not mention FLG in any way, and is much bigger in size. Does this justify of having a huge article on 1 single report when the main article is tiny in comparison? In my opinion the main stream media is no where near scared, there had been plenty of reports of organ harvesting on executed prisoners (see links above). The reason why the mainstream media hadn't picked up this story? Maybe because this is just so ridiculous and suspiciously smelling like a conspiracy theory that just doesn't live up to their standards? You do see what you want to see, but at least don't go around proclaiming on things that conflict with your interest. --antilived^{T | C | G} 08:51, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

PS:I've put down a recruitment notice for more third party opinions on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Religion#Additional input appreciated since FLG IS a religion. --antilived^{T | C | G} 08:53, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

You can simply check the sources already in the article about where this has been reported/discussed. There are sixty, I just had a quick look and it appears that only one or two are Epoch Times. Apart from these there are many others which aren't referenced. Didn't someone say that "counting Ghits is not research"? --Asdfg12345 16:28, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Ghits is at least better than no research at all, which you have completely failed to show. My ghits are simply to disprove your claims that third party literature is wide spread, so perhaps you want to cite some sources? You want me to look at the sources? OK, here goes:

Sources 1, 2, 3, 11, 38 : Epoch Times

Source 4, 7, 9, 19, 22, 31, 33, 40, 41, 42, 44: Simple report of the allegation, no independent analysis

5, 10, 12, 37: K&M report itself

6, 18, 28, 29, 56: dead link

8, 20, 51, 58: Mentions harvesting organs from executed prisoners (ie. not only FLG practitioners), report on the K&M report, no analysis

13: Not specific to FLG practitioners, cannot be verified (article name?)

14, 15, 16, 36, 39: No mention of FLG, not specific to FLG

18: Recounts FLG horror stories from a FLG related person, reliable?

21: Allegation against this article by a presumably notable person

23, 52: Interview with Kilgour, so count as official word

24: US gov denying the report

25: "Ethan Gutmann is the author of Losing the New China. He has been a frequent speaker at forums organized by the Falun Gong-associated publication Epoch Times." says it all

26: Phoenix TV's programme denying the report

27: K&M response to 26

30, 54: Chinese embassy denying report, simple report on the K&M report

32, 43: Written by Kilgour, so official word

34, 35, 53: K&M report being spammed on mailing lists, sloppy editing

45: Someone's testimony, no evidence on how this is specific to FLG practitioners

46: Hosted on K&M, so official word?

47: Unverifiable (at least for me), but from a Google search it seems to be widely endorsed by FLG groups

48, 55: FLG media

49: Writing on the report itself, no new information

50: Press release by FLG

57: Focus not specific to FLG, they stopped because of harvesting from prisoners, not speciifc to FLG

59: Official statement by K&M and FLG people

60: Official statement by Matas

So out of "60" sources, we have plenty of duplicates (sloppy editing), numerous reports on the report (do we really need that many?), abundant in FLG-media(5 Epoch Times, to be exact, plus 1 NTDTV, and various other FLG puppets) and no third party study/discussion. A lot of these sources also have nothing to do with FLG but is used here to twist it to make it appear to specific to FLG practitioners. You still have not answered how do we know it's specific to FLG practitioners from an earlier discussion, and I'm afraid neither do the sources.

It also shows the level of workmanship as a consequence of a small editing base, numerous dead links, inappropriate sources, duplicates, almost smells like a totalitarian state doesn't it? :p --antilived^{T | C | G} 04:39, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

File:AdultKidneyTransplantWaittimes.jpg

Comparison of average wait-times, in days, for an adult kidney transplant, in different countries

I wonder why you missed mentioning, among other relevant sources, these:

• A Yale university PhD thesis, corroborating the reports.
• US Congress stating that it remains highly concerned about the reports independent of the Sujiatun case.
• British Surgeons stating that China has such an ongoing practice of organ harvestation - BBC article.
• FRCS Dr. Tom Treasure's analysis published in a royal society journal
• The concerns raised by UN Special Rapporteurs
• Kirk C Allisson's analysis from a medical perspective.
• The exceedingly short waiting times, as evidenced by data on right
• Blatant self incriminating evidence on archived Chinese transplant websites.
• Congressional Executive Commission report noting that, Huang Jiefu, China's Vice Minister of Health, had indicated in July of 2005 that as high as 95% of organ transplants in China derive from execution.Also that the report states circa 65% of "capital offenses" in China are for nonviolent "crime".
• Amnesty International noting that CCP denials are in-consistent with widely documented evidence.
• That Amnesty has been paying acute attention to and is continuing in analysis of the reports.
• Washington Times, Sky News reports, Christian Science Monitor's coverage etc.
• Australian Hospitals abolishing training programs for Chinese surgeons
• The changing transplant policies and international discouragement of chinese organ transplantation tourism following these reports
• ....

Dilip rajeev (talk) 17:16, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

I wonder why you have not read the discussion - are they specific to FLG? Do you really think China has such a stockpile of FLG prisoners that they still make up the bulk of their prisoners more than half a decade after their crackdown? --antilived^{T | C | G} 23:22, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

I would urge you to note that 66% of labor camp population still are innocent Falun Gong practitioners. I wonder why you have so much personal worry over these things when so many independent analysis conclude the veracity and corroborate the reports. That said, this peice of personal opinion that you mention above is no good reason to go ahead and add such a tag to a topic that has captured international attention. You may want to read WP:N.

Dilip rajeev (talk) 06:08, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

I appreciate the trouble you have gone to in providing this list. I haven't cross checked your notes here with the ref list. I can think of a dozen or so independent reports/articles off the top of my head, some of which are in the article. I'm not sure if you want me to list them like you have, like make a big list of all the secondary reports and sources? Just firstly, the "Source 4, 7, 9, 19, 22, 31, 33, 40, 41, 42, 44" as far as I can tell (only looked at a couple), counts for wikipedia's purposes. There have only been less-than-I-can-count-on-my-fingers-and-toes number of independent analyses on this topic, but I don't see how that's a problem. There's the K-M report, the Kirk Allison report, and the Yale PhD thesis, all independent sources which give an extensive look at these allegations and come to the positive conclusion. Then there are other high profile sources which have reported or analysed the topic case with or without really adding more investigation: Nowak, Harry Wu, US State dept., Amnesty, journalists from major western media around the world (e.g. Macgregor, Gutmann, Hamish McDonald, some Lateline interviews and other ABC reports (that's just for Aus, I assume it made comparable in other countries) etc.), then there are things like Tom Treasure's article, and support from other high-profile people like Edward McMillan-Scott. Then there's a couple of hundred hits on google news when you do "Falun Gong organ harvest", then there are these giant lists on the Canadians' website: 2008, 2007, 2006. So I don't think you're arguing that the topic hasn't received sufficient secondary coverage to meet wikipedia notability requirements, are you? Maybe just that the article currently doesn't reflect the scope of secondary reportage? I assume the latter. Most of the sources I mention above should be in the article. I don't know where they appeared in your list. It strikes me that it has obviously far and away surpassed the notability threshold as a topic in its own right. You're free to add more reliable sources to the article of course. --Asdfg12345 15:21, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Not necessarily on reliable sources here, but just a note, and there should probably be a section called "In popular culture", as I've seen in some other articles. I just want to note how I remember seeing this topic in popular culture: Some guy made a LEGO vignette of the organ harvesting from Falun Gong and it got kicked around on blogs, cartoonists for major western media have satirised it, John Birmingham had a note about it on the top of his Olympics blog entry, and uncyclopedia had a picture of "organ harvesting from Falun Gong" as a joke Olympic sport--a joke in poor taste, in my view. Though I just mention these things to say that when a topic has gained enough popular currency to be bounced around as a cultural meme like that, according to my understanding at least, it has of course already become notable enough for wikipedia. This isn't serious a note on how the topic meets wiki notability requirements, just a personal addendum, heh.--Asdfg12345 15:27, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

I won't be so concerned with all those simple reports if they are not almost exactly the same in content, it's like a press release being duplicated over and over. If there's no new content, why cite so many? Kirk Allison is basically a condensed version of the K&M report, with no evidence that this practice is specific to FLG practitioners, as all of the things he had said would also apply to normal prisoners, so it would be a huge insult to ignore all the normal executed prisoners. I can't find your "Yale PhD thesis" as that's kinda vague so that brings the total number of reports to 2, one that's extensively covered in the article and the other basically a condensed version. What does this tells you? It tells me that it has not gathered wide spread coverage, so belongs to the fringe theory section and certainly does not deserve such a mammoth of an article. None of the sources you have so far cited derive any form of evidence that this is specific to FLG practitioners, but there is overwhelming evidence by Harry Wu that it is applied to all prisoners, so why the focus on FLG? I thought you have just said ghits is not valid research yourself but I would hardly call a list littered with Epoch Times links and links that have nothing to do with FLG a reliable indication of media coverage, unless of course you could go through the trouble of verifying every single one of them, as I surely don't want to do it again. Plus, all the relevant links cite FLG and/or K&M report, so is that the only evidence there is on this topic? :As you and your sources have failed to establish the exclusivity of these treatment to FLG practitioners and there's great evidence proclaiming otherwise, don't you think it's a great insult to all those non-FLG executed prisoners when you are twisting all those non-FLG sources to this article and make them appear as exclusive to FLG?

As for that "popular culture" thing, you're not a reader of xkcd are you? If those are indication of how notable and widespread it is, this should be speedy-deleted for NN. After all, are you seriously suggesting we include everything featured on Uncyclopedia? --antilived^{T | C | G} 05:41, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

I hope the following addresses your concerns. There is a section called "Considerations specific to Falun Gong" in the Kilgour-Matas report, I think it would be appropriate for you to familiarise yourself with at least this portion. I will outline briefly, just from memory, why this is specific to Falun Gong, according to the sources: exclusive medical testing (blood, urine, organ examinations); skyrocketing transplant rates after the persecution started; no other known sources of organs because of cultural aversion, no organ donation system, and no death row in China; insufficient executions to meet the 41,500 transplantations anyway, even if executed prisoners were a reliable source, but they're not, because there's no death row (this means when someone is to be executed they're executed within a week of that being decided); claims of "instant" organs--or waiting times of days or weeks whereas in other countries (which have organ donations systems) it is years--which can only be provided by a living bank of donors, and which executed prisoners are not; a population of imprisoned Falun Gong practitioners who have refused to identify themselves in custody; numerous telephone admissions from across China, at least one of which where the doctor has admitted that he was the person who received that call, all the others of which Kilgour and Matas say they have the telephone records of; and there might be more points. Of sources there are many: The Kilgour-Matas report, Kirk Allison's study, the Yale PhD thesis, Tom Treasure's article, interviews with UN Special Rapporteur on torture Manfred Nowak, repeated UN submissions (by Nowak and Sigma Huda, UN Special Rapporteur on Trafficking in Persons) for the CCP to explain the issue, including statements about the issue in UN reports, statements about it from Amnesty International, the US State Department, the US Congressional Research Service, Harry Wu, and hundreds of newspaper reports (which you can see by clicking the links above or searching google news) whether analyses/criticisms/press releases with a bow-tie, TV appearances, documentary appearances, and probably more, which are all specific to organ harvesting from Falun Gong practitioners.

By the way, of course I am a fan of xkcd! And my remark about popular culture should be taken in jest.--Asdfg12345 15:09, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

The thing is, how do you know they are exclusive? Medical testing? They bought all those vans of death for a reason, so they can facilitate medical testing on the fly, which is quite hard evidence, compared to this baseless assertion. Skyrocketing transplant rates? Why hasn't it dropped when all the practitioners have been persecuted? Do you really think they have that many FLG practitioners in their stockpile, more than 5 years after they started putting them all in prison? No other known sources? You know, how about the rest of the prison population? No death row, instant organs? Maybe they have such a large execution number (as lots of sources say) that statistically it's quite viable to match people on the fly basis? Phone recordings? You mean the ones from FLG practitioners and thus have a conflict of interest? This one statistic,

"After the pause, about 80% did not admit that they used Falun Gong practitioners' organs. About 80% of those who did not admit to using Falun Gong practitioners' organs did admit that they use live bodies who are prisoner"

provides more evidence to the contrary, that these things are not exclusive to FLG practitioners, than all the other evidence combined. The ones that simply state they have FLG practitioners but do not state whether it's the norm or not? That section (and the whole report) is filled with weasel statements and it doesn't help that most of the "witnesses" are FLG personnels. Harry Wu specifically says that this whole thing is just hearsay, and he is one of the best informants who had actually been in the Chinese prison system, so I'm guessing you probably shouldn't bring that up. Exclusivity established? No? I still don't see hard evidence for this argument, but I do see one hard evidence to the contrary, inside the K&M report (oh the irony). --antilived^{T | C | G} 23:22, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Basically what you're arguing is irrelevant. this is not about what we think, it's about what sources say, and since the sources make these arguments they go into wikipedia. Your reasoning is deeply flawed, but I'm not going to argue about it, because that's not what we do. We're more like cataloguers than independent analysts. It's clear that the notability has been established, and the claims of the various parties have been faithfully and accurately recorded in this article. You may disagree with it, and that's your prerogative, but that doesn't have much to do with wikipedia.--Asdfg12345 00:10, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

No I'm not seeing any evidence how this is any more notable than any other groups of people. There are quite a number of evidence that these treatment apply to all prisoners, so why don't we reflect that? Why is FLG so special? It's been a week and it still haven't been answered, and without this vital piece of information there is no need for a separate article. --antilived^{T | C | G} 00:54, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Also, have you seen the source analysis I did above? Cite me sources with exact passages that claim any sort of exclusivity. Even the report itself provides evidence that most do not (admit to) use FLG organs, and as the conclusion does not establish whether it is specific to FLG practitioners we can only gather that it had happened to FLG practitioners, but whether it's the norm, that it's exclusive to FLG, we don't know and thus most of the article is moot. --antilived^{T | C | G} 01:09, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

I will just respond here to stop the discussion from being scattered. If you can find this enormous amount of reportage and evidence with regard to other particular prisoner populations, then they would deserve their own articles as well of course. That isn't so much related to this article anyway, whatever else is going on is a separate issue. We're just talking about this issue here. I've only seen this about organ harvesting from Falun Gong practitioners though. There's certainly more work to be done on the general article about organ harvesting in China, and that's also another, related issue. Also, I'm very puzzled by this: " Cite me sources with exact passages that claim any sort of exclusivity." -- I don't really know what you mean. The list of sources I just gave above are all exclusive to Falun Gong. They talk about these specific pieces of evidence with regard to organ harvesting of Falun Gong practitioners. Many of them are already in the article. You can click in there and read it for yourself. The title of the Kilgour-Matas report is called "Revised Report into Allegations of Organ Harvesting of Falun Gong Practitioners in China," Tom Treasure's article is called "The Falun Gong, organ transplantation, the holocaust and ourselves," there is a specific section in the K-M report on the specificity, and I repeat again that the list of sources I gave above are all about organ harvesting from Falun Gong practitioners. I understand that you disagree with their assessments, but please be clear that the important thing is what the sources say, not what we think about that.--Asdfg12345 02:12, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

You mean the links to these links? If you have read my response a few sections above you would have seen that a lot of the links don't even mention FLG at all. Or perhaps you are referring to something else? It is well known (heck even Epoch Times say so) that China harvests organs from executed prisoners. Some FLG practitioners are prisoners and get executed and had their organ harvested. Why is it such a big deal? Why is the emphasis on FLG not organ harvesting? Yes your sources conclude that they have harvested organs from FLG practitioners, so what? That's the normal deal anyway! I don't like this because it's using people's empathy for the wrong cause. Instead of empathetic on all executed prisoners whose organs are harvested this article make it seem like China only does it to FLG prisoners, which is plainly not the truth. Most of the evidence (short waiting time, unexplained transplants, organ trade etc.) are general and apply not only to FLG practitioners but to all executed prisoners, so why is it being used here to imply that organs are coming exclusively from FLG, when it is plainly not the case? Now to think of it I think you misunderstood my meaning on exclusivity: I'm not asking for sources that exclusively deal with FLG practitioners, but sources that prove that all organ harvested came from FLG practitioners (hence exclusivity). With strong evidence to the contrary and no strong supporting evidence so far most of the article should be better placed in Organ harvesting in People's Republic of China, condensing this article to things that are particular to FLG (which there aren't much, as far as I can see) and probably made into a section. --antilived^{T | C | G} 02:47, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

I understand what you mean. But what you have said is not the criteria for inclusion in wikipedia, and is not related to the matter of whether a topic should have it's own article. It's untrue that it must be proven that all transplants in China comes from Falun Gong practitioners for their to be an article about organ harvesting from Falun Gong practitioners--you should know that. It only requires that many secondary sources have covered the issue, which is clearly the case here. And they're not claiming that, anyway.--Asdfg12345 03:01, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

No I never said anything about being required, just that for most of the article a better place for inclusion is Organ harvesting in the People's Republic of China, since a lot of the sources are neutral, to confine with WP:NPOV. Since the proportion of the organs that are coming from FLG practitioners is undetermined, we should not give it undue weight, when we know that it is systematic to all prisoners. --antilived^{T | C | G} 03:36, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

The weight certain subjects are given is determined by the sources which have commented on them, not on the original research of wikipedia contributors. And your remark "when we know that it is systematic to all prisoners" is untrue and contradicted by the sources cited above.--Asdfg12345 04:14, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Original research? How is what original research? Contradiction? Cite please? Seriously, what's with you guys and vague sources... --antilived^{T | C | G} 04:31, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Your argumentation so far has been your personal understanding, ideas, and original synthesis of arguments and evidence in the sources. What I'm saying is that this is less valuable than what those sources say themselves, and that wikipedia is based on what the sources say, not what we say about the sources.--Asdfg12345 05:06, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Uh... How? Have you even been reading my rationales? Let's go back to some basic set theory: organ harvesting from FLG practitioners is a subset of organ harvesting from general prison population, agreed? Even the report itself cannot determine the proportion of FLG practitioners out of the whole prison population that's being harvested, so the FLG subset has an unknown weight to the parent set of organ harvesting from general prison population. However there is no doubt that FLG subset exists, and I have never doubted that. Now you have a parent set and a subset with unknown weight, so what do you do? Document so that the subset has substantially more weight than the parent set, and use items from the parent set to support this subset? No, since the weight is unknown it should be given equal weight to all the other subsets, and should only be brief compared to the parent set. I mean seriously, more than half of this article is not specific to FLG practitioners. Unlike you I will actually cite my examples, quoted directly from the article

"China has been accused of taking organs from executed prisoners to supply the international transplant market." - FLG? Nope.

"She stated that her ex-husband, a neurosurgeon, was involved in removing cornea from more than 2000 live prisoners" - FLG? Well you sure make it sound like it, but no.

"Earlier reports on the issue include a 2001 report that appeared in The Washington Times of a doctor, who, according to his statement, was involved in removing corneas and harvesting skin from more than 100 executed prisoners, "including one who had not yet died". Wang Guoqi, a "burn specialist", said in his written statement that he had also seen other doctors remove vital organs from executed prisoners and that his hospital, the "Tianjin Paramilitary Police General Brigade Hospital", sold those organs for enormous profits."

"According to a 2006 Congressional Executive Commission report, Huang Jiefu, China's Vice Minister of Health, had indicated in July of 2005 that as high as 95% of organ transplants in China derive from execution." - Uh huh, and?

The rest of the article tries to make it sound like that China only harvests organs from FLG practitioners, providing evidences such as

"The authors also point to evidence that Falun Gong practitioners are systematically blood and urine tested, and have their organs examined while in custody, while other prisoners, who are not practitioners, are not tested."

"The Falun Gong constitutes an additional prison population which the authorities vilify and dehumanize even more than executed prisoners sentenced to death for criminal offences."

Even though evidence to the contrary (that such practice is not limited to FLG practitioners) also exist, but completely unmentioned

Mother: China Stole My Son's Organs

"China's deadly scheme to harvest organs" - hey, even hosted on Kilgour's website

China officially admits executed prisoners are the basis of organ trafficking

and others [5] (hey I can throw around lists of articles too!)

And since even the report it self agrees that "since 1999 have put to death a large but unknown number of Falun Gong prisoners" which we are unable to estimate because such information appears to be unavailable", one can only conclude that China harvests organs from prisoners, which includes FLG practitioners, and that the problem with that is organ harvesting and not FLG right? How is any of these "personal understanding, ideas, and original synthesis of arguments and evidence"? Unlike you, I have cited every bit of my sources, and I have tried to use various different ways of trying to convey my concern, except you have repeatedly ignored them, dismissed them, and trying to maintain the article focus on FLG instead of organ harvesting. I guess it's hard to stand outside to the picture when you yourself are involved in it. --antilived^{T | C | G} 07:25, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

That is all fine, but it's a discussion for another article. This article is a presentation of the argumentation, evidence, and sources surrounding the reports of organ harvesting of Falun Gong practitioners, not about the general prisoner population. It just treats that issue, and as far as I can tell it faithfully and with due weight presents the sources which have commented on that topic. That topic fully meets wikipedia's notability requirements, and it is a single subject of a large body of secondary reportage, despite its relation to other subjects. Please note that I am not going to get into the argumenation surrounding the validity of these reports, something which you seem to have focused on here. Actually, I will say one thing: even using your set theory argument, the K-M report and others are precisely arguing that Falun Gong practitioners make up the majority of the organ harvesting cases in China. They don't know how many, they say that, but they're saying "where else are all the organs coming from?" and even include this total lack of explanation for where the organs are coming from, and the CCP's inability to explain it, as part of their evidence. The Yale PhD thesis says, for example: "There is no group in China’s prison system other than Falun Gong practitioners that has the requisite population size, health and intensity of persecution to explain the rapid growth in the organ industry from 2000 to 2005. An accumulating number of non-economic evidence supports the conclusion of this analysis.", and there are related commentaries. I mean, if it was just one or two practitioners I don't think anyone would know about it. They're talking about systematic practices, and it is suspected that the 41,500 unaccounted for organs came from Falun Gong practitioners--during that period of time the execution rate remained the same. We could argue about this all day though, these are our own responses to the reports and how we understand the situation. I don't hope to convince you of anything, and in the end it doesn't particularly matter whether we think these reports are great or inadequate, they have been published in reliable sources, picked up by media, have attracted a lot of attention, etc., so it is perfectly acceptable to have an article on the topic. I just wanted to make this note so you don't again say I'm ignoring your arguments. What I'm saying is that I disagree with your arguments, I think they are badly flawed, odd, and selective, but that in the end it does not even matter, because we are simply talking about direct quotes from sources here.

If your argument is merely one of semantics, i.e., that all I have said is all well and good, but that Falun Gong practitioners are actually still "prisoners", so it should be in an article about executed "prisoners," then I'd have to laugh. I hope we haven't spent all this time over such a simple matter of how we are defining our terms. The result is the same: Organ harvesting from Falun Gong is both a daughter page to organ harvesting in China and to the persecution of Falun Gong. If you want to beef up the other page, go right ahead. Then you could make a subsection with this article in it, and link to this one. That's fine, but it doesn't mean half this page should be deleted and merged as a subsection to the other one. The issue is just that these are separate topics, and this one is the subject of hundreds of reliable sources, it clearly exceeds notability requirements. I think that if you simply acknowledged that this is a subject itself, even as it is related to other subjects, there wouldn't be a problem.--Asdfg12345 07:47, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

I would attribute it to those new high tech bus of death (or whatever they're called) that made organ transplantation easier than trying to make a negative proof. It's quite suspicious that there have been no study that explores the flaws of the K&M reports, perhaps due to the excessive Google poisoning FLG does that I cannot find any, but hey I'm not going to argue that. Well it does mean removing half the page as a lot of the sources are not specific to FLG (as evidenced by my source analysis). By merging most of the non-relevant content to organ harvesting in China only materials that are specific to FLG are retained to this page. Since major work is imminent I may as well bring some of my other concerns and proposed changes below, comments welcome. --antilived^{T | C | G} 08:34, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Proposed Changes

• Move sources 14, 15, 16, 36, 39, 44, 58 and its related content to Organ harvesting in the People's Republic of China

These sources are not relevant and not specific to FLG practitioners, better placed in the other article

• Condense "Corroborative reports"

These are almost as big as the report itself, and certainly bigger than the real doubts section (ie. not considering that huge section for K&M's response. Does the reader really want to know what some random physician from a random hospital thinks? Or some PhD thesis? If those are okay then are you suggesting we include a mention in some article on every single thing a doctor says or every single thesis?

• Remove transcript

Not counting its dubious copyright, it introduces clutter, make the article look awful at low resolution and biased - if we include this why don't we include the transcript by the doctor as told on the Phoenix programme?

• Cite better

The K&M report is tertiary source for many cases. When you can, please cite the evidence given by the report, instead of saying things like "The authors also point to evidence" - What evidence?

• Reduce number of quotation of K&M

Is this article an outlet of K&M or what? Half of the article are said by them! Is this article really about the K&M reports? Or are they a mere piece to the whole picture?

• Balance between doubt and response

Some doubts have a response paragraph that's even bigger than the doubts paragraph itself. Is this balanced, is this neutral? I mean just look at the Phoenix TV paragraph and its "response", we might as well mirror the whole K&M site.

K&M section

• Condense K&M section

Most of the information there are not specific to FLG (China had so and so transplants? And? They did it in secret? So?).

• Remove anecdote in K&M section

Not relevant to FLG at all, or any other parts of the article tbh.

• remove fluff from FLG specific consideration section

"FLG prisoners may refuse to give their names for fear of persecution against their families. " Oh come on, they can put you in jail, and yet it's so hard to find your family? "Practitioners regularly die in custody due to torture or ill-treatment,"? Yea that's nice, now get back to persecution of FLG.

• Merge "mixed responses" with "doubt"

They seem to have the same content, so why not merge them so the doubts section is better organised?

Specific responses

You will notice I simply replaced a prior response with this. I did not feel my previous response adequately addressed your concerns, so I will respond to each point, and number them in order that you gave them. I think this is a far more helpful approach to take, I am sure you will agree. If we keep the points numbered that may be simplest way to keep track of them.

1. move sources. it is fine for them to be duplicated to an extent, they are relevant to both. Here they are of course highly relevant to this case. It is necessary to give sufficient background for the reader to understand the issue. Please remember that this is not only a part of the organ harvesting in China article, and having read that should not be assumed knowledge. Many will have clicked through from the Falun Gong main page or the persecution page, or from search engines. This page is a daughter of more than just organ harvesting in China, so it needs to stand on its own in providing enough background. I'd say it's already quite thin on that.
2. condense. these are all reliable sources. I don't know what you're argument is here for getting rid of them. They're reliable sources and they should stay. That's basically what it comes down to. If you can find more reliable sources, or more in-depth arguments from reliable sources which have doubted or refuted the K/M claims then they should be included. I have not found any.
3. remove transcript. there's no copyright infringement here. These transcripts are an important part of the evidence of the Kilgour-Matas report, and this one in particular has gained even wider notoriety given the Phoenix thing. It doesn't clutter the article, it does not make it look awful and biased. This and Phoenix TV are completely different. Please see WP:RS.
4. cite better. agreed. It would better to specify what they refer to in cases where they make specific reference to things.
5. reduce quotations of K/M. case by case. If there are obvious cases where things can be said in less words without loss of information then it's always good to do that. Prose should be crisp and clear. K/M are obviously the main parties in this, though, so that is another consideration. This would not be a topic if they did not publish that report, and the article basically hinges on their work. This has been acknowledged by editors for a long time, and is obviously true. Confucius wanted to rename the article to "Bloody Harvest" at one point. Their report is, still, part of the wider subject, but it is a central part of it nevertheless.
6. balance between doubt and response. I tend to agree with this--certainly needs examination. I think the key thing is to communicate the key information in as little space as possible. Neutrality is a method rather than a goal, however. We cannot cut down the sections to make them the same size if that means simply deleting sources or deleting information, and putting in filler. This depends on WP:UNDUE and the simple availability of sources. Again, in this context the primary reason that Phoenix should be in the article is because Kilgour/Matas have made such a fuss about it. I think it would be good if we could find some more reliable sources disputing the Kilgour/Matas report, however. I am not actually aware of any except for what is in this article, and I think that could be part of the problem: the range and extent of the arguments of proponents outweighs that of doubters, so wikipedia will inevitably reflect that, for better or worse. This is just a question of what sources we can bring to bear.
7. condense K/M section. this is also about background, which cannot be assumed. The information about organ transplant and policies, numbers etc., is actually all essential for coming to grips with the Falun Gong issue. It's unclear why part of this information should be deleted--maybe you could flesh out your understanding on that.
8. remove anecdote. It's also unclear why you would have it removed. Please see Holocaust and the anecdotes therein. It is illustrative of a piece of evidence part of the K/M report, and therefore an important piece of information for the reader to be aware of. Again, please flesh out why this should be deleted.
9. remove "fluff" from specific considerations. I don't really get your comments here. The unidenfied prisoner population of Falun Gong practitioners is an important piece of information. If they do not give their names the police do not have any way to identify them and harm their families. I don't know what you're doubting. It's in the sources anyway and they think it's relevant. I see no reason to delete it. I also don't think it's "nice" that practitioners regularly die in custody due to torture or ill-treatment. You may want to rephrase that statement or strike it out.
10. merge mixed responses with doubt. Don't know what you mean. the "doubt" section is about Sujiatun, the "mixed responses" section is about the Kilgour-Matas report. --Asdfg12345 10:40, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

---

1. I'm more on proposing a concise statement and link back to the main article, so the reader can read that on the main article if they want. No point in duplicating exact same content and exact same sources.
2. WP:UNDUE: Why should we care what they say, even if they are reliable? How is some comment by a random physician or some PhD thesis notable?
3. Why no copyright infringement? I can't see a copyright notice on it so it gets automatic full copyright, and inclusion of a whole section is beyond fair use. Have you seen the article at 800x600 or even 1024x768? It makes the conclusion quotation a thin box and everything in that section hard to read. Inclusion of what both sides claim is for WP:NPOV, as it is certainly not neutral to include one side of the argument and its response to the argument of the other side, but nothing on what the other side says.
4. No disagreement there.
5. Well perhaps we should establish a baseline on what should be shortened? We can certainly do away with those full quotations of Chinese hospital sites as referenced by K&M. As for other direct quotations by K&M, for example the quote "This differential testing occurs...beyond a shadow of a doubt." could be shortened to "(continuation from first sentence), as reported by numerous testimonials heard by Kilgour and Matas". My rationales are that doubt is not introduced here so there's not much point in that "beyond a shadow of doubt" statement; the locations is rather useless as that's basically all the places a prisoner could end up in.
6. The Phoenix TV response section basically copied over the whole of what K&M said, whereas the programme description itself is made very concise and uses very little material. Yes the amount of proponent arguments are higher than doubters, but don't make this even worse by being unbalanced in doubter and response!
7. As I said, I was kinda proposing a background section with brief words on China's past organ harvesting conduct, and a link to the main article where the reader can read more about it. That way no matter where you came from such data is accessible, without cluttering the page and introducing clutter in the report's argument.
8. Because it's out of place: "oh here is an anecdote which they referenced." and then goes on with other things and not exploring on the anecdote at all. What does it do that linking it with a reference doesn't? Don't we already have enough evidence from the report for the reader already? We are not mirroring the whole of the report, but a condensed version with the gist, and that is certainly not the gist. The user can read about it on the real report, through a ref link, if they want to.
9. Uh that's a figure of speech/sarcasm (quite common in my experience, not sure about you), used when you want to make someone end what they are saying, like "A: blah blah blah; B: Yeah that's nice, now can we get on with stuff?". Do you really think the Chinese government is that useless? It won't even work in the Western World, so why do you think it would work in China? I'm proposing its removal for the sake of the report, because it is a very weak argument, not notable when there are plenty of stronger ones involved (and mentioned).
10. Well I think a consolidation of doubts section would be nice, since many of the doubts arguments overlap and can also applied to the report. --antilived^{T | C | G} 07:21, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

---

Just noting that I've seen this and will provide a response within 24-48 hours. I'm very busy at the moment. --Asdfg12345 15:29, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Here are my responses.

1. Only 14 and 15 appear indirectly related to the case of organ harvesting from Falun Gong practitioners. The rest come directly under the content of the Kilgour/Matas report, in my understanding. Particularly the graph, that's highly relevant for this page. The thing is, organ harvesting and China and organ harvesting from Falun Gong practitioners have an obvious content overlap. But on this page, we should use what sources have said about this topic to illustrate it--the refs 15, 36, 39, 44, and 58 all seem very close to this topic. I think it is great to want to build up the other article, and it doesn't need to come at the price of pulling relevant information for understanding this topic from this article.
2. If I understand correctly, this seems to be a slightly bizarre line of argument. Do you mean that the Yale thesis and Kirk Allison's report should be deleted? On what grounds? Half of wikipedia is filled with random people who have written a book, a journal article, or a newspaper report. There are thousands and thousands of such people, and no one cares who they are. But if they have credentials, and their work has appeared in independent publications, and the content is relevant, they are reliable sources, and fit for wikipedia. This is my understanding of wikipedia policies. I do not understand how they violate UNDUE.
3. It is unclear how the inclusion of the phone call quotation violates fair use. You will have to prove that out. As for the CCP's response, that should be addressed in the appropriate section.
4. whew!
5. these seem more like copyediting issues, improving the language, etc.. It doesn't sound controversial. If you're not deleting content but making things tidier, I'm all for it.
6. This is closely related to the CCP's response to the organ harvesting, and also to corroborative evidence from K/M. Could you point out what is inadequate about the current inclusion?
7. It's unclear here whether you're suggesting a background section added to this article, which links to the main one? Sounds like a good idea. It could just include the basic information about China's organ harvesting practices from reliable sources. I'm not sure where the impact on the current content would be, possibly some things from K/M could go into that section, because as they comment on organ harvesting from Falun Gong practitioners they also provide a history of practices of organ harvesting in China.
8. The anecdote is just one anecdote that they refer to in their report as evidence. It's unclear why it should be deleted. There is another anecdote from someone called "Lanny"--would you prefer that? I think such things are helpful for the reader, and are used in other articles. It's unclear what the problem is.
9. In my view it was an inappropriate comment from you. About the article: why shouldn't the article explain why there is a large population of unidentified Falun Gong practitioners, who are subject to organ harvesting? Especially, it only takes a sentence or so, right? Seems appropriate. People should know why they don't identify themselves, and this population is a necessary element in the organ harvesting chain of evidence, so it's fairly important. Could shorten it or something??
10. perhaps there is some overlap, but one is with respect to Sujiatun and the other about the Kilgour-Matas report. These are distinct aspects of this subject. I wouldn't understand why this distinction not be maintained for purposes of clarity in argumentation and presentation of information.--Asdfg12345 14:28, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

---

1. I'll just expand the other article and come back when it's in a better shape, but that'll take some time as I'm quite busy in these few weeks.
2. The problem with the Yale thesis is that it's original research, although not done by a Wikipedian, it is still not a reliable source. It's not published in any peer-reviewed publication (heck if I put the title in quotes Google only finds the Kilgour website and this Wikipedia article) nor can I find it anywhere else - not the author (unless he/she is a computer scientist PhD), not the thesis, and not mentioned on the advisor's page. I would hardly call this "credentials", so why does it deserve as big a section as the official line from the CCP? The Tom Treasure article is better, being published in a journal, but I still feel that its section is a bit too big/redundant (yes he agrees with the reports, no need to drag on for so long).
3. From fair use, "In 1985, the U.S. Supreme Court held that a news article's quotation of approximately 300 words from former President Gerald Ford's 200,000 word memoir was sufficient to constitute an infringement of the exclusive publication right in the work", so that makes slightly more than 0.1%, in the worst case scenario. In here, with such an extensive quotation from the report it's getting harder and harder to justify the extent of usage from the report. Fair use is a very very fuzzy line, and we should play on the safe side just in case. WP:FAIR#Text says "Brief quotations of copyrighted text may be used to illustrate a point, establish context, or attribute a point of view or idea.", and I would hardly call a whole section of the report "brief".
4. Done
5. Done
6. For example: "The programme also attacked the Kilgour-Matas report." Huh? How did they attack them? Using what logic? Whereas the K&M response copied over everything they said, saying "the video and their tape proves they are the same person" in almost 3 times what the Phoenix TV section takes up. It's rather ironic that "Kilgour and Matas later accused Wu of bad faith for drawing his conclusions without interviewing the witnesses." and now we have interviews done by China, and are only worth a passing mention. As a side note, why should the reader care where the transcript is hosted on? It's never cited, so why mention it at all?
7. I'm suggesting a "Background" section which provide brief history to China's past organ harvesting practice, and do a {{main|Organ harvesting in the People's Republic of China}} in the section so the reader can read more on things that are not specific to FLG in that article instead.
8. Yes, but should we include every single evidence that they use? Or only the most notable, the strongest evidence it presents? What does the anecdote do? How does it improve the reader's understanding? It currently does nothing ("The state does organ transplant in secret. Now here's an anecdote that says the same thing.") and perfection is only when there's nothing to be removed.
9. Well if you really want to we could shorten it, but it seems to me to be a really absurd point and I think many readers will feel the same.
10. OK I don't feel strongly enough about it to do another debate, so I'll just leave it as it is. --antilived^{T | C | G} 01:52, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Third opinion

I must congratulate both of you for so eloquently arguing your positions and remaining civil and constructive. It looks like you're slowly working things out since the plea on Wikipedia:Third opinion was posted. Do you still need one?

After reading the arguments above and reading the article, I personally would not be in favor of a merger; there appears to be enough material specific to Falon Gong to warrant its own article.

That said, the article contains extraneous fluff that doesn't need to be there. The entire "Responses" section doesn't seem specifically relevant to Falun Gong, but organ harvesting in general. This should be removed and the main organ harvesting article should be referenced instead. Finally, this article almost but not quite convinces me that the organs harvested from Falun Gong members disproportionately represent the prison population. Some additional work is needed in that regard. ~Amatulić (talk) 00:30, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your note. I agree that we are slowly working through it. Which response section do you mean, the "corroborative reports" or "mixed response"? I believe that all the sources in both of those sections are responses or reactions to the Kilgour-Matas report, and talk specifically about organ harvesting of Falun Gong practitioners. Also, could you explain what you mean by your second-last sentence? That the organs taken from Falun Gong practitioners are the majority of the total organs taken from prisoners? I think this is part of the implications of the Kilgour-Matas report etc., though I'm not aware of anywhere it is stated specifically. --Asdfg12345 09:55, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

In looking through the responses section again, I retract my statement.

What I meant in my second-to-last statement was, the existence of this article and its content seem to imply one or more of of the following: (a) that the Chinese government targets Falun Gong prisoners above all others for use as organ donors, or (b) that the Chinese government imprisons Falun Gong members for the purpose of organ harvesting, or (c) the high availability and reduced waiting time for transplant organs in China is due to a dramatic increase in the prison population, and that increase consists predominantly of Falun Gong practitioners. I can't tell from reading this article what is being claimed, other than China harvests organs, and many of them happen to be from Falun Gong people. So what? The organ harvesting is the real issue if China isn't discrimminating about picking prisoners from whom to harvest.

There is no question that organs are taken from Falun Gong members. For this to be a notable topic worth having a separate article, there needs to be evidence of discrimmination; i.e. China exhibits a disproportionate preference for harvesting organs from Falun Gong practitioners. If the organs being harvested come from Falun Gong prisoners in proportion to the prison population, then there shouldn't be a controversy. Maybe I missed it when I read through the article, but this point was never clarified for me. ~Amatulić (talk) 18:14, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

To address the link between Falun Gong and the organ harvesting see the Kilgour and Matas section 27) Sources of past transplants and "28) Sources of future transplants", just a small excerpt: "But the increase in transplants did not parallel the increase of all transplant technology. Kidney transplant technology was fully developed in China long before the persecution of Falun Gong began. Yet kidney transplants shot up, more than doubling once the persecution of Falun Gong started. There were 3,596 37 kidney transplants in 1998 and nearly 10,000 in 2005 43.". The report has many evidences pointing directly from the Chinese government, concluding that the Allegation are true. --HappyInGeneral (talk) 21:02, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

A correlation doesn't necessarily imply a cause and effect. Even so, it seems to me that it's important to mention this correlation in the article rather than let it languish in a citation, given my comments above. ~Amatulić (talk) 21:26, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Linking to the article: correlation does not imply causation. --antilived^{T | C | G} 05:54, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, I know the principle, but there is also the principle that causation is implied more strongly when there are multiple highly distinct correlations. And I agree that these should be put in the article. So thank you for pointing it out and I'll try to work on it. :) --HappyInGeneral (talk) 06:42, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

You have given one correlation, not multiple, distinct ones. Please clarify. PerEdman (talk) 10:55, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

it comes down to sources anyway, and obviously K/M find this correlation notable, and of course, one which points to causality. (that is part of the evidence of their report, and the Yale thesis, that the organs could have come from nowhere else.)--Asdfg12345 13:57, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Removed the merger Tag

The notability of the topic is obviously beyond contention. There was a very recent AfD brought up, rather suspiciously by a newly registered IP, in which it was established that the namespace stays. To put up another tag claiming a topic that has captured international attention, has even caused many countries to change their transplant policies does not deserve a namespace in itself is highly vitiated and to abuse the tag repeatedly is a blatant violation of wikipedia policies. I would urge you to note that the article is under admin attention. Further, considering how internationally notable the subject matter is, adding such tags to a such a topic, borders on disruption. The topic, you may ask for a 3rd opinion, is certainly highly notable. Especially because of the nature of the reports - killing innocent humans to harvest organs. If tomorrow CCP starts harvesting organs from Christians would you insist it also be put under another small subtitle in the organ harvesting in China article? You should consider the sheer impact it has had internationally with the acute concerns raised over the reports, by UN rapporteurs, by major HR organizations, by governments, at the recent international organ transplant congress in Sydney, Australian hospitals refusing to train chinese transplant surgeons, 4 independent 3rd party reports corroborating the KM reports, etc.

Since the notability of the topic is obvious and the breadth of content as well as the nature of the topic obviously deserves a namespace of its own I am removing the tag. Dilip rajeev (talk) 16:27, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

If you don't like it, go discuss above, blind removal of tags is considered disruptive. The fact is, they have already started harvesting from Christians, Muslims, Ethnic Minorities, surely they have prisoners of those groups? So should they have their own article? As I said, most of the things in this article are not specific to FLG practitioners, so why all this attention? So you're saying FLG practitioners are more important than those other Christian or Muslim or Ethnic Minority prisoners? Ah the art of twisting words... --antilived^{T | C | G} 22:55, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Also as a matter of fact I have put up a request on WP:3O, but no one had turned up yet. --antilived^{T | C | G} 23:23, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, the notability of this topic has clearly been established. The above argument is very telling. By the end it becomes clear that antilived simply disagrees with the sources. He is arguing against their conclusions, methods, evidence, etc., and on that basis believes they don't support the conclusions they say they support. Wikipedia is merely about sources though, not really about these arguments. I don't think it's worth edit-warring over the tag--the argument seems to have reached its natural end.--Asdfg12345 00:25, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps that's because there's only 2 people, both with rather strong views and when one stops it has "come to its natural end"? How has there been any edit warring other than User:Dilip rajeev? Even the conclusion itself doesn't establish that it is exclusive to FLG practitioners, so why the article make it seem that way? Nearly a whole week since I asked that question, and so far no answer. Is this what you mean by "clearly established"? You guys are seriously good at bending words... --antilived^{T | C | G} 01:00, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

FYI, c/p of the Conclusion of the K-M report:

Based on our further research, we are reinforced in our original conclusion that the allegations are true. We believe that there has been and continues today to be large scale organ seizures from unwilling Falun Gong practitioners.

We have concluded that the government of China and its agencies in numerous parts of the country, in particular hospitals but also detention centres and 'people's courts', since 1999 have put to death a large but unknown number of Falun Gong prisoners of conscience. Their vital organs, including kidneys, livers, corneas and hearts, were seized involuntarily for sale at high prices, sometimes to foreigners, who normally face long waits for voluntary donations of such organs in their home countries.

How many of the victims were first convicted of any offence, serious or otherwise, in legitimate courts, we are unable to estimate because such information appears to be unavailable both to Chinese nationals and foreigners. It appears to us that many human beings belonging to a peaceful voluntary organization made illegal eight years ago by President Jiang because he thought it might threaten the dominance of the Communist Party of China have been in effect executed by medical practitioners for their organs.

Our conclusion comes not from any one single item of evidence, but rather the piecing together of all the evidence we have considered. Each portion of the evidence we have considered is, in itself, verifiable and, in most cases, incontestable. Put together, they paint a damning whole picture. It is their combination that has convinced us.[6]--Asdfg12345 02:15, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, the only relevant paragraph in here is the 2nd, "a large but unknown number of Falun Gong prisoners", which they are "are unable to estimate". Solid number? It didn't claim that these treatments are exclusive to FLG practitioners, only that such and such happened to them, which also applies to other prisoners, as other sources point out (I'll move this discussion back to the section above, so look up there instead). --antilived^{T | C | G} 02:31, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

The notability of the topic, is what makes it deserve a namespace. It has nothing to with any of your personal theories

218.248.68.63 (talk) 05:25, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Well if you have a source for what you want to say then find it. It doesn't discount these other sources.--Asdfg12345 02:35, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

WP:RS, the so called Phenoix TV stuff removed

First of all, the propaganda piece weaved by the CCP, broadcast on pheonix TV, who, it stands to reason, would have had to pack and leave China, if they refused to not air it or say a word beyond what the Chinese propaganda machine would allow it to, is by no means an encyclopaedic source, failing to even remotely meet Wikipedia's criterion of what is considered reliable - which, am sure, even a casual read of WP:RS, would convince you beyond reasonable doubt. For this very reason- that the "source" in itself does not meet the standards laid out by WP:RS - I am the removing recently added pheonix TV stuff from the article. The way it is presented makes it even more misleading -as if the phenoix tv attempted to find flaws etc. - while the fact remains that the video is a CCP propaganda piece circulated by CCP outlets - including their websites and in addition broadcast on the hong kong based pheonix tv. While on this topic, I believe at least a casual read of the RSF report on CCP Propaganda is in order. Again, the particular video, pushed by CCP outlets and then broadcast on Pheonix TV - more likely than not, under the chinese authorities coercion and control - absolutely cannot be used as a 'source' in wiki. Dilip rajeev (talk) 16:49, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Further please note that the vitiated and propagandistic nature of the so called documentary has been emphatically stressed by Kilgour-Matas.[7] Dilip rajeev (talk) 16:58, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Right, the rsf link you provided raves on about Xinhua, not Phoenix TV, so your point is? The K&M link also bears no trace of the word "propaganda", so wtf are you on? Tell me, which particular passage of WP:RS would "convince you beyond reasonable doubt"? Just FYI, I've put up an inquiry on WP:RS/N, if you don't like it you can go rave on there. But in the mean time, we have a 2-1 majority consensus so it stays. --antilived^{T | C | G} 22:50, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

WP:RS/N#Is Phoenix TV reliable source? says yes, so please stop this nonsense and get on with life, shall we? --antilived^{T | C | G} 23:55, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

I think citing this source after it has gained so much notoriety is okay. It is also okay to say it is a Hong-Kong based broadcaster. But it isn't okay to remove the fact that it's sanctioned by the CCP. I will put that back now. I agree it's a freaking lame edit war, let's stop it now then. --Asdfg12345 00:15, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

So you're saying citing it without an official response by K&M is not okay? So any compromising sources must be "sanctioned" by K&M? I smell another strong hint of source selection... --antilived^{T | C | G} 01:06, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

WP:V, WP:RS WP:NPOV.--Asdfg12345 02:17, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes the response from WP:RS/N is that it is reliable source, without any of the caveat you have included (notoriety, etc.). So why these new, made up criteria? --antilived^{T | C | G} 03:38, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

The point is that the background of sources should be identified, this is a basic principle. That's why we identify The Epoch Times as a Falun Gong-associated newspaper, and why Phoenix is identified as a broadcaster with CCP sanctioning. Both of these statements are traceable to reliable sources, and are relevant pieces of information for the reader to judge the source. I should be asking why you seek to exclude this piece of information.--Asdfg12345 04:16, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Eh I was just following the suggestion on WP:RS/N, so perhaps you should be asking why that guy want to exclude this information? (I smell a hint of assuming bad faith...) --antilived^{T | C | G} 04:35, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Actually, about your final comment, I am sorry to hear that. I have very much done my best to exclude all personal commentary, snide remarks, criticisms, and speculations or aspersions about your intentions etc.. I have done my best to simply keep this discussion on track, about the sources, and with reference to wikipedia policy. Specifically, since you disputed having the sentence there several times, I made that final remark as a way of "putting the ball in your court," so to speak, so that rather than my having to justify why the background of the broadcaster should be identified, you should explain why it shouldn't. It is just another way of approaching the argument, and I certainly did not mean it as an assumption of bad faith either on your part, or on the part of Squidfryerchef.--Asdfg12345 05:01, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

I think your question there, itself, was phrased in a misleading manner. There is a widely documented, ongoing propaganda campaign against Falun Gong practitioners in China. The so called "pheonix TV video" being used as a source here is a video distributed by chinese consulates - the only thing is that it seems they had it aired on pheonix TV too. A major concern here is that the source itself is engaged in a big propaganda campaign. US Congress Resolution No. 188, Unanimously Passed, states : "propaganda from state-controlled media in the People's Republic of China has inundated the public in an attempt to breed hatred and discrimination[against Falun Gong]" Another analysis worth considering is the RSF report on CCP Propaganda.

In specific, There are two aspects to consider:

• The video is a piece distributed through CCP controlled outlets and chinese consulates.
• Just because the chinese authorities had the video broadcasted on Pheonix TV dosnot make the "source" "Pheonix TV".

WP:RS states:

Organizations and individuals that express views that are widely acknowledged by reliable sources as extremist should be used only as sources about themselves and in articles about themselves or their activities, or where they are necessary to explain other groups or events; any information used must be directly relevant to the subject. The material taken from such sources should not be contentious, and it should not involve claims made about third parties, unless those claims have also been published by reliable sources. Articles should not be based primarily on such sources.

Dilip rajeev (talk) 06:18, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

If you don't like it, go argue with them. PS: new comments at the bottom please. --antilived^{T | C | G} 06:27, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

WP:N

If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be a suitable article topic. -WP:N

I am removing the merger TAG. This is a topic that has received more than just a "significant" coverage in international media - certainly meriting an article of its own. Several peer reviewed studies, journals, news reports etc have covered it. A partial list of coverage in media is here: [8]. Also to be considered the major impact on and response from the International Human Rights community, international governments, impact on international transplant policies etc.

Considering these, and other factors am removing the tag recently added. Dilip rajeev (talk) 10:39, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

WP:NPOV

Although I promised myself I would not come back into this swamp, I came back only for a citation and reference from the Xinhua source I placed here some time ago. The citation appears to have been completely expunged. In the meantime, this article has, surprise, surprise, been turned once again into a most disgraceful Falun Gong propaganda I have ever seen. In my opinion, this is ten times worse than anything which has come out of China's Information ministry. I'm putting up a {{NPOV}} tag to send a message, knowing full well that rajeev will remove in in pretty short order. Ohconfucius (talk) 04:06, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

I find almost every single line in the article sourced - and the sources used I find highly credible. Could you please make clear which specific part you find a "POV" , as you call it. As far as I can see, the article is as objective and up-to-date as an article on the topic can be. I also wish to point out to you that other editors share similar perspectives too. Editors have characterized the article as "well-researched" during previous discussions. Am removing the tag - for reasons I adumbrate above. I don't know which particular Xinhua piece you refer to - but Xinhua is by no means an objective source on the topic - it being well documented by Amnesty, HRW, David Kilgour and David Matas, The US Congress, etc. that all they[xinhua] are engaged in is hatred-mongering, propaganda and disinformation. I remember you labeled The Amnesty International a "lobby group" - claiming it is hence unfit to be used as a source on the issue of the persecution. I must say that I find it equally strange that you now label an entire well sourced article 'POV' just because a Xinhua "source" was expunged from the article by other editors.

Dilip rajeev (talk) 09:51, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

• Discounting the misrepresentations of Amnesty International sources, your "sources" all trace back to The two "witnesses" of the Epoch Times, and from K&M. I have just removed those misrepresentations. I note that you have also misrepresented the report of Sky news as being corroborative of the K&M allegations. It is 'old hat' and merely corroborates what Harry Wu found about organs from executed prisoners. Also, the article completely fails to present a balanced view– note that detractors' views always get sandwiched in the middle and K&M always have the last word in the article. I suggest you might as well retitle it ""Report into Allegations of Organ Harvesting of Falun Gong Practitioners in China" and make the article all about the report and its reception– that would be a whole lot less objectionable and dishonest attempt at being neutral, because right now, it ain't. Ohconfucius (talk) 07:07, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Hello, please don't get cranky, I'll just cite difs and stuff:

1. [9] -- want to put these in the article somewhere, as context finds appropriate.

   • It's a coatrack and doesn't belong anywhere in the article. the SKY report does not corroborate anything except the harvesting of organs from executed prisoners, which we have known about since 2001 per Harry Wu. It has nothing to do with the allegations made here. Ohconfucius (talk) 20:01, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

2. [10] -- can move to the main organ harvesting page if not done already.

   • It's still a coatrack and doesn't belong anywhere in the article. Its use here is disgraceful attempt to smear in typical FG propagandistic fashion. All of Amnesty's remarkes pertain to the harvesting of organs from executed prisoners (per harry Wu), and again has nothing to do with the allegations made here. Move the article as I suggested, then you can repeat more or less what K&M say, but not here, not now. Ohconfucius (talk) 20:01, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

3. [11] -- the context of the broadcaster is important. every source's affiliation should be declared--the broadcaster is state-sanctioned. I'll put this note back, actually. I wouldn't expect this to be controversial?

   • True that it's not VOA or the BBC (in the China context), but the context is faulty in that all who are allowed to broadcast in China is state-sanctioned. (Continental law that all is prohibited unless expressly allowed). One very rarely sees attempts to label VOA or the BBC as "state-sanctioned broadcasters" in the US and UK contexts respectively. What's more, Phoenix is owned by Rupert Murdoch– you may claim he's a collaborator by self-censorship, but this is just a downright smear as presented. Ohconfucius (talk) 20:01, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

4. [12] -- similar, I suppose. It's not an example of NPOV violation to state where the script is hosted, for goodness sake. If something comes from a website set up by Falun Gong practitioners, that should be clear to readers. It's a responsibility of editors to present the relevant information.

   • Again, it attempts to create guilt by association, which is synthesis, and expressly forbidden. Anybody who knows anything about how the internet works can tell you that just because we share the same hosting company doesn't mean squat. But I reckon that the only important thing here as far as the transcript can be found is that it complies with applicable copyright laws. It is to be expected that the Chinese govt will milk the report for all they can get. What's more, that claim is unattributed, and not reliably sourced, so it should stay deleted. Ohconfucius (talk) 20:01, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

5. [13] -- agree. not only that, it uses language forbidden by wikipedia (i.e., "to be noted").
6. The tag: what to fix?

   • You tell me. I'm still very reluctant to get involved back here for all the stress. Ohconfucius (talk) 20:01, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

okay, just these I make some notes on and stuff. Not bad for a first re-entry. If we want to do the good ol' fashioned haggle, they are numbered for easy reference!--Asdfg12345 12:36, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

My problems with this article's NPOV:

• This article is about investigations into the organ harvesting allegations, not the reception of Kilgour and Matas's report; the US State Dept and Harry Wu's own investigations should be expanded
• Undue weight to Kilgour-Matas should be shortened when necessary, this isn't a investigative article or essay on them, especially considering the nature of their accusations
• The alleged phonecall should be reduced to a link, and should not be in their entirety.
• Amnesty International and Sky News material should be moved to the death row prisoner organ harvesting article
• The Christian Science Monitor quotebox is used to push a pro-allegation POV and is completely unnececessary, and the other quotes on Kilgour/Matas in their entirity should be reduced to simple quotes and links when necessary.--PCPP (talk) 13:04, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

• I agree that this is about the 'reports', and so the content must be broadly delimited by that which has been reported in the reliable popular press. Going so deeply into the evidence, including offering transcriptions in highlighted inset boxes does incur the strong risk of falling foul of WP:UNDUE. Ohconfucius (talk) 20:18, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

hmm, these looks like the same complaints over again. There's nothing wrong with presenting depth of investigation on a topic as published in reliable sources. This is an encyclopedia. It looks like the only thing that would satisfy you guys is a deep slashing of the whole article, until no one who reads it would have an understanding of the topic, but only same vague and surface commentary found in newspapers? Well, Kilgour and Matas are a reliable source, the corroborative studies are reliable sources, and they can and will be used in wikipedia as appropriate. I am concerned that the article be neutral and present the full story as well, but complaints that large parts of this information simply don't belong here is... i don't know, not good. If there are suggestions on how to improve the article without destroying large parts, that would be great. Like for example, Confucius already picked up a couple of misplaced quotes and whatnot.--Asdfg12345 01:32, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

They're not a reliable source if you consistantly use them and disregard all others. These two were hired by the CIPFG, we don't need an essay on their entire report, especially considering that the never set foot in China and never actually proved the allegations beside a few nitpickings.--PCPP (talk) 05:58, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Also, because I find it annoying to answer under each question, I'll address the five points here again. I just think it's easier to keep track of, but you can answer in mine if you want, I don't mind.

1. the skynews quote may be irrelevant, not sure, but the Amnesty one is relevant, isn't it? It seems to address the CCP's response to the organ harvesting allegations, which would be relevant, in my understanding.
2. you may have misunderstood what I meant here. I was suggesting it be moved to the "organ harvesting in mainland China" article. Also, why do you make insulting remarks to me? Have I done the same to you? Please focus on the issue at hand and don't create so much drama. I'm editing in good faith, get off your high horse, you've got it all wrong. -- initially meant in a somewhat more wistful tone, but its reception depends on the reader. Just trying to say something more creative than "please remember to assume good faith"!
3. the TV company in China has to broadcast what the CCP permits. If it's not a big deal that they are state-sanctioned, then there shouldn't be a problem mentioning it. it's a true statement, and is certainly relevant for readers, isn't it?
4. The same goes for the second, about the CCP hosting the transcript and distributing DVDs. that can be sourced to Kilgour and Matas, if we are to get technical--which, for this article, would actually not be a bad idea. (Don't tell me you don't realise that Phoenix and the CCP are in bed together, and that after creating and broadcasting this propaganda they have received all kinds of nice things from the Party. not quite relevant to wiki, but just a reminder. there's a source for this anyway, so it ought to stay, in my understanding.)
5. then if the other one is nothing, let's move 6 to 5. I was going to make some personal remarks here that may or may not have been helpful. I think it may be simpler just to not make them. But anyway, I am sorry that you find discussing these things stressful, and that you seem to have a negative view of Falun Gong practitioners and these general circumstances of persecution.--Asdfg12345 01:46, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

1. Amnesty - They simple stated that they were "concerned" with the current accusations, the rest were simply stuff on executed prisoners.
2. Phoenix TV - To state that they're state sanctioned is perfectly acceptable, but the paragraph doesn't need two sentences at the top and bottom to dismiss it. To state that they're "in bed with the CCP" is absolute nonsense.
3. Distributing DVDs - Needs a reliable source to back it up. Kilgour and Matas now simply serve as propagandists for FLG, their website is full of articles straight from the Epoch Times.--PCPP (talk) 05:58, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

1. Amnesty. okay, what they say that is relevant to this should stay here. What they say is relevant to other things can go there. There is a quote that they basically say the CCP is lying about organ harvesting practices in China. That's relevant. I think it was part of the bit deleted. If there is response is really off-topic, then it's not needed here, but if it was part of their response to the Kilgour-Matas report, it would probably be relevant. Their response to the CCP's lies is certainly relevant.
2. Phoenix. There are two points: notifying readers that Phoenix is state sanctioned, notifying readers that the CCP has been distributing the DVDs and hosts the script on their website. you're really going to have to explain how these pieces of information are not relevant. I don't mind if we have a line in the K/M section that Falun Gong practitioner pay money out of their pockets to print the report and make it available when doing human rights activities, if that would be helpful. The point is just to provide this relevant information, which is verifiable (both to the CCP and to K/M).
3. DVDs. Didn't realise I covered this in the second point. It's verifiable information, it's relevant, it's responsible to provide it to readers. And don't even bother trying to discredit Kilgour and Matas. As clear as day they qualify as reliable sources. One of them is a former Foreign Minister and Crown Prosecutor, the other is a human rights lawyer, consultant to the UN, and has won awards. Their credentials and independence are utterly impeccable. Your POV doesn't matter, and it's just silly to try that one.

I'll assume since the rest are uncontested, that there is no problem.--Asdfg12345 11:06, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

note here for PCPP

See above. The discussion is apparently ongoing. If you refuse to discuss and keep reverting you will be subject to dispute resolution procedures for disruptive editing. Your approach of never discussing but reverting against consensus with not even a note is wrong. If you don't amend it something bad will happen. --Asdfg12345 04:57, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Tell that to your FLG buddy dilip--PCPP (talk) 05:58, 1 November 2008 (UTC)