Wikipedia

Talk:Organ transplantation in China/Archive 2

< Talk:Organ transplantation in China
Latest comment: 14 years ago by Enric Naval in topic Proposed merge
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5


Proposed merge

Latest comment: 14 years ago44 comments11 people in discussion

Discussion

Obviously China is "asking" death row prisoners and their families if it's "okay" to harvest their organs after death in exchange for some small recompense, a practice unilaterally condemned by the international community because you simply cannot strike a fair and balanced deal with someone you are going to put to death by force. The prisoners are not in any position to bargain or disagree.

We do know that Falun Gong is prohibited from working within China and that anyone who does so risks imprisonment and for that they also risk the death sentence (probably for some variant of "disturbing the peace" or "conspiring against the state" or some other bogus charge.

Some sources allege that Falun Gong is being specifically targeted, but they are not enough. The primary source of these allegations is The Epoch Times, a Falun Gong newspaper. The "secondary" source is a report by David Kilgour and David Matas who were commissioned by Falun Gong-founded organization "Coalition to Investigate the Persecution of Falun Gong". They are secondary at best, primary at worst, and the allegation is based on anecdotal evidence and correlation of unknown causality. There are no other sources. McMillan-Scott (sp?) was apparently a member of the CIPFG too and also anecdotal, non-scientific. What remains? Kilgour and Matas. Not a large body of evidence. The "particular topic" of organ harvesting from Falun Gong practitioners is not particular, it pertains to organ harvesting in China. The extent to which that includes victims who are members of Falun Gong, deserves to be mentioned in the combined article, it does not need to be treated separately with duplicated data and higher editor overhead to oversee. / PerEdman 12:05, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

  • Support there is insufficient evidence that the Chinese state treats the FLG differently from any other group vis a vis organ harvesting to warrant a separate page devoted to this subject.Simonm223 (talk) 14:22, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Support "Organ harvesting is happening in China, but I see no evidence proving it is aimed particularly at Falun Gong practitioners." - David Ownby, source CBC Radio Canada. Ohconfucius (talk) 02:13, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Support -- once again -- per above. Seb az86556 (talk) 05:37, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Support -- and to think I got so worked up by DilipRajeev on this... Good to see the situation is improving. --antilivedT | C | G 08:18, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Strong Support -- per above.--Edward130603 (talk) 12:04, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose -- because per WP:Notability of Reports of organ harvesting from Falun Gong practitioners in China and because nobody said what has changed since this was previously discussed: [1], [2], [3]. --HappyInGeneral (talk) 18:42, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
Comment: Every request is individual. Notability for specific subject has not been shown. / PerEdman 19:23, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
Notability was shown here: Talk:Reports_of_organ_harvesting_from_Falun_Gong_practitioners_in_China/Archive4#List_again_the_sources --HappyInGeneral (talk) 23:35, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
And notability was agreed upon here: Talk:Reports_of_organ_harvesting_from_Falun_Gong_practitioners_in_China#The_Situation:_A_Summary --HappyInGeneral (talk) 23:37, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose -- just because silence may give consent. I believe Reports of organ harvesting from Falun Gong practitioners in China qualifies notability, and anything else is a technical issue. Even if it were merged, it would presumably be a subsection of this page--then, when it got too big, it would be split again. It's like Persecution of Falun Gong and the Tiananmen immolation incident pages; the latter was too big for the former, so it was broken off. The issue of organ harvesting from Falun Gong practitioners is a daughter article of both Organ harvesting in the PRC and the Persecution of Falun Gong articles; it can have a small subsection in both articles, linking to the main one. There are two reasons for it to have its own page: it's too long (even after the mauling it took, which I've yet to address), and it is notable in itself, as evidenced by the stack of sources.--Asdfg12345 20:07, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
Also might be of interest is my annotated version of your stack of sources. --antilivedT | C | G 12:23, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
Asdfg12345, What is the technical issue? SEPARATE notability has not been shown. Organ harvesting in China is notable, targets prisoners and there are prisoners who are Falun Gong. It has not been shown that they are specifically targeted so there is no need to keep a separate, unnecessarily long, "daughter" article on it. Good idea that the content can be divided between Persecution of Falun Gong and "Organ harvesting in the PRC".
Please do not rehash your "stack of sources" when the legitimacy of the contents of that list has not been agreed upon. For now, it's a list of sources of variable and uncertain reliability, notability and independence. It shows nothing, for now. / PerEdman 20:21, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
What do you mean "SEPARATE notability"? What is that? For example if there is a man going to the moon for the first time, everybody will use NASA's report and footage, right? And it is notable because third party sources report about it. The notability is the same here. Unfortunately the Chinese Government denied several times independent investigation on it's soil. But it did leave a few clues and official documents, making Manfred Novak question it, among others, and demanding strongly for answer, and yes, he is the United Nation represantative. --HappyInGeneral (talk) 20:53, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
To define the requirement of separate notability for "organ harvesting on falun gong victims", I recommend Maunus' post on the Falun Gong talk page[4] who I think phrased it better than I have. / PerEdman 21:15, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
(Maunus' comment was archived here). --Enric Naval (talk) 10:50, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
  • question: Why isn't it a good spinout candidate? Why shouldn't we split our coverage of reports of HR abuses, where it conforms to WP:DUE? Section question, IMPORTANT: if the allegations were confirmed, that there really was large scale, systematic, targeted organ harvesting of Falun Gong practitioners, and that tens of thousands of prisoners of conscience were found, in fact, to have been executed so their organs could be sold--would it warrant its own article?--Asdfg12345 18:14, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
(1) It is not a good spinout candidate because of WP:DUE, yes. Do most of the reliable sources discussing organ harvesting in the PRC in the relevant time period devote a significant amount of text to the question of Falun Gong targeting? Encyclopedic treatment of the topic does not equate to summarizing every report of every allegation or incident. (2) If and only if independent reliable sources treat the topic in sufficient detail. If the reports were confirmed I would expect widespread condemnation, easily meeting this threshold. - 2/0 (cont.) 18:37, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
If the allegations were given significant coverage by notable third-party sources... haven't we been over this before? Then you post links to those sources, half a dozen editors comment on those links and then we carry on the discussion together until we reach consensus. I'd like that. Please go ahead with that discussion.
If it could be shown through significant coverage by notable third-party sources that Falun Gong practitioners were specifically targeted, then it might warrant its own article, depending on the amount of notable content available. As it stands today, we don't know how many prisoners have fallen prey to the Chinese government's organ harvesting on death row inmates and we certainly don't know how many of those were practitioners of Falun Gong. The closest we have, I'd say, are the numbers for how many transplants took place in total (possibly) and how many Falun Gong practitioners have gone "missing" and those two numbers do not let us solve the equation (nor does Wikipedia endorse such a synthesis of reported claims).  / Per Edman 21:25, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for answering, this is the useful debate (sorry so long to get back). (1) It's not the case that most of the reliable sources discussing organ harvesting in general in the PRC in that time period devote a significant amount of text to Falun Gong. It's more like most of the reliable sources discussing the issue during that time are just about the Falun Gong allegations. (2) Independent reliable sources do treat the issue is extended detail. This is basically a question of satisfying WP:N, which PerEdman disputes, but which I understand that Ohconfucius, Maunus, myself, and I think Vassyana do not dispute. So we only need like, 10 independent reliable sources?--Asdfg12345 17:20, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Merge Yet another Falun Gong related entry with way too much excessive detail. It should be cut down to size and merged with the the more general organ harvesting entry. If Falun Gong related information dominates that entry that is not a problem whatsoever if this reflects the the balance of reporting in reliable sources. Of course I highly suggested trimming this entry quite significantly concomitant with a merge.PelleSmith (talk) 02:51, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Merge From all the discussion over months, I gather that a) the K&M report was made at the request of FG b) although the authors didn't get paid, all costs were covered by FG c) it's based only in information gathered by FG d) from the former points it can be reasonably concluded that the K&M report is not an source that is independent from FG e) the writers are not notable researchers and don't have published papers f) it wasn't published at any peer-reviewed journal g) there have been no independent confirmations. Additionally, it seems that the report's notability has been exaggerated a bit by FG sources, the merged article had something about a bill proposed in Canada's Parliament, but it was only covered by the Epoch Times, the Catholic New Times shows that it was just a support from some MPs[5], and the bill was never passed, just an example. --Enric Naval (talk) 08:54, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Restart--clarity in discussion, please

Basically I just want to know that this is being done through wikipedia policy. If it is I will accept the decision, no problem. For me the issues are as follows. And if you are going to respond below, make sure you write something that directly responds to these points.

  1. Is there any other wikipedia policy except for WP:N which determines which topics should be awarded their own articles?
  2. If there is, what is it and where is it? (There would be further questions along this line if there were other policy points apart from WP:N which dictate which topics are afforded articles)
  3. If there is not, then the only question is whether the topic passes notability.

Please help to enlighten me.

NOTE: There has previously been some confusion about these very issues, which has obscured the whole locus of dispute; PerEdman disputes the topic is notable, so it doesn't deserve its own article; Maunus and Ohconfucius believes it passed notability, but still didn't deserve its own article, for other reasons. This is an attempt to set the actual grounds for the discussion, to make it clear what the actual reason would be for a merge or keep, explicitly based on policy, rather than what we have above, which is just a hodgepodge of opinions, and where the most number of opinions for merge, which don't cite policy but mostly make arguments about the truth-status of the contents in the article (even the listing on proposed mergers followed this problematic style of reasoning, as one editor wrote: "The foremost academic expert believes there is no evidence that the Falun Gong allegations are specific to the group," as though the views of an academic about the truth-status of the claims was decisive in whether those claims were afforded an article? Articles dedicated to refuting bogus claims exist unto themselves on wikipedia.) Again: it isn't a question of the truth-status of the claims, merely their notability. I am seeking to re-establish the actual grounds for the discussion, and once that is established, then engage in the discussion. All this has been a vague mess from the start, and it needs to be put on a proper footing then dealt with swiftly.

I'm reverting the merger as legitimate discussion is still ongoing, and request that this be respected. Anomie will ensue otherwise. Wikipedia says: "If the merger is particularly controversial, one may take the optional step of requesting closure by an uninvolved administrator at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard." Thanks.--Asdfg12345 19:41, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Meta discussion

There should be a centralised discussion on this. Start a merger proposal and get a wider audience. We'll outline the arguments there. Actually, I already started an RfC which address this issue (the notability of the Falun Gong-related topic)--Asdfg12345 17:00, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

As per WP:MM, the target article (i.e. this one) is the recommended place for discussion, but a link to this discussion has been created on the Falun Gong project talk page as well. WP:MM reads:
  1. Create one discussion section, typically on the destination article's Talk page.[1] This should include a list of the affected articles and a merger rationale.
  2. Tag each article with the appropriate merger tag. All tag Discuss links should be specified to point at the new discussion section.
This is exactly what has been done. The point is that there should be a place for editors who are uninvolved with the Falun Gong project to discuss the inclusion as well. I really don't think there's need for a merger proposal. Further quotes from WP:MM:
Merging is a normal editing action, something any editor can do, and as such does not need to be proposed and processed. If you think merging something improves the encyclopedia, you can be bold and perform the merger, as described below. Because of this, it makes little sense to object to a merger purely on procedural grounds, e.g. "you cannot do that without discussion" is not a good argument.
The reason I put merger tags up is to give information. The discussion is still going on, or I would have boldly made the edit already. If anyone had disagreed, they could have reverted it. / PerEdman 19:46, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
You might want to link your RfC to this merge proposal discussion, so that editors here can find the RfC. Is it on the Falun gong organ harvesting talk page? / PerEdman 19:54, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
I think discussion should be kept in one place, see also here: [6] and the RFC here [7] and the previous "official" discussion here: [8], if I missed any other discussion, please feel free to add link to them. --HappyInGeneral (talk) 21:54, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
  • As Per says, the proper procedure seem to have been followed. In addition, I have now listed it on WP:PM. I am not deluded that a flood of new editors will come as a result of this attempt at wider recruitment. Ohconfucius (talk) 02:08, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
I agree the discussion should be held in one place, so does policy, and policy says this is where it should be held. / PerEdman 10:06, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Do you mean they will? This is exciting! *rubs hands*--Asdfg12345 04:37, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
He means they won't... put your hands back in your pockets :P Seb az86556 (talk) 05:33, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

  • [ec] by the way, in what relation does the discussion to merge these two article relate to the notability of the other one? It wouldn't be appropriate to wheel out my truckload of secondary reliable sources on the other topic here. But I'm just wondering what the sense of this discussion is, when a resolution to the notability discussion will effectively obviate this one. Thoughts? (@Seb: hah) --Asdfg12345 05:35, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

It wasn't apropriate for you to roll out a long unsorted list of primary and secondary more or less reliable, more or less independent sources and then not participate further in the discussion on the other talk page, and it's not apropriate here. But the sources themselves could be used to improve the article. / PerEdman 10:06, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

How was it not appropriate? Isn't such a list necessary for establishing the notability, or non-notability, of the subject?--Asdfg12345 17:10, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

No. Rather than a mixed bag of small unremarkable country newspapers, notable studies and primary partisan sources mentioning Falun gong only in the context of organ harvesting in China, it would have been enough with two or three secondary, independent sources giving significant coverage to the notability of the specific event of persecution of Falun Gong. Instead you more or less forced the other editors of the page to determine which link was useful, which was not, and which of the links were dead. Especially after having asked for 24 hours or consideration, after having had five days of it... you're stalling for time. Why? / PerEdman 19:21, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
I'm not sure I understand what you mean, and I'm sorry if I've angered you. I presented a lot of links to independent reliable sources on the issue; some of them discuss the issue in depth, some are smaller reports but are focused on the issue. There are at least two or three independent sources giving significant coverage to the topic. I didn't post any links that I didn't think were useful; I don't believe any of the links I posted were dead. Most of them were exclusively about the issue. As far as I can tell, that makes it clearly pass notability. We should get a uninvolved editors to give their opinions on notability though, if we cannot agree, despite how obvious it strikes me. Interestingly, you are not convinced that the sources provided establish notability (though I am yet to understand why); whereas OC believes they do, but that it's notability is actually irrelevant as to whether the article be merged. I don't understand that dynamic, either.--Asdfg12345 20:01, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
No, you've presented a mixed bag of links most of which repeated the very same source, some of which were to a repository of other links of similarily varied quality. Leaving "Two or three" independent sources, all of which could be used to support notability but not reliability, out of a list of.. what, 12? The first link was dead. The three last links were to a collection of other links. I have already answered what I thought of your links where you first posted it. Please look there if you actually do want to discuss it. It seems I was one of the very few who actually read through them all, but I still didn't get a response from you. Instead you repeated the list as a RfC, not even bothering to engage in the discussion. / PerEdman 20:25, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
I did not know that is what irked you. I will do my best to respond to all arguments from now on. I appreciate the time it took to go through the links. Basically I felt that you missed the point is attempting to dissect each of them and felt that going through and arguing all over again would waste time, thinking it would be simpler to get an outside assessment. Basically if they are secondary reliable sources and they are about the issue--whether they refer to K/M a lot or not--they contribute to the notability. If you only need two or three secondary independent sources, then just take Ethan Gutmann's "China's gruesome harvest" in the weekly standard, Tom Treasure, the K/M report itself, Kirk Allison, Manfred Nowak, the UNCAT submission, the CRS report (which has a subsection to the issue), and a handful of the Ottawa Citizens pieces, including the one which argues against the claims by Glen McGregor. AI came out with a statement saying it was inconclusive as well, for example. There's a bunch. You may want to shoot down the report--I disagree--but it doesn't matter because there's still the other sources.--Asdfg12345 21:04, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
Of course I took the time to go through them. It would not have been fair to the GOOD references if I had ignored it. I'm frustrated that you expected others to make the source check, others to read through them and then not even take the time to participate in a discussion about the many sources you had given. I "dissected" each of them because I read each of them. What were you going to do when you got that "outside assessment"? Would you complain if they too wanted to argue every source, wanted to read and comment on every link? I'm sorry I don't have access to Tom Treasure's report, but I've read Bloody Harest and the articles you've linked so far. Nowak and UNCAT are retellings of K&M, as several of us have tried to explain to you. They are not separate or independent, they are DEpendent on K&M and can contribute to the notability of K&M, but not its reliability or worth as a third-party source. Why would I want to "shoot down the report"??? What would motivate me to do so, do you suppose? / PerEdman 15:09, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

I rather think you misunderstand the requirements for notability. Much of the evidence in the K/M report is publicly verifiable, circumstantial evidence. It really does not matter one iota when news reports quote the same evidence they used in explaining the issue of organ harvesting. This is the one argument I've heard. It doesn't matter--that only goes toward the notability of the topic. This information should be documented by this encyclopedia. The Tom Treasure thing reiterates the evidence in the K/M report, along with a lot of other sources--they all reiterate it--often there is nothing else for them to go on, as　I say, because that report is a fairly comprehensive appraisal of all available evidence. Ethan Gutmann has some of his own stuff, and I'll add that in due course. The point is not the content of what this abundance of other sources way, or the quality of it, it's merely that it exists, it satisfies WP:RS, and its independent--then it boosts the notability of the topic. You're basically arguing that because K/M's report apparently has holes in it all the other sources which repeat its claims are therefore useless. This doesn't hold water.--Asdfg12345 21:28, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

I think you may have understood the term "circumstantial evidence". It's not a term for strong evidence, it's a term for rather weak evidence which could just be circumstance. It does matter that there is only one source, reported repeatedly. That means the source is notable, but it does not make it reliable. Same principle as "repeating a mistake does not make it any less of a mistake", or if you like "repeating a correction only makes it correct, not correct..er". Repeating a claim that doesn't hold water, doesn't patch the holes in the original sieve. It's still a sieve, just repeated many times. / PerEdman 22:17, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
For the purposes of wikipedia these claims are entirely fictional. It doesn't matter. They could claim that the CCP as producing moonbats and radioactive mothballs in those basements; some lunatics from Siberia produced a report on it, and media around the world went wild repeating these absurd claims (what the heck is a moonbat, right?). That would get an article, because what matters is verifiability, not truth, and we are not into nitpicking what we think about the veracity of the claims in these sources but only that they were made and where they appeared. There are dozens of independent reliable secondary sources on this issue, that much is clear, and the rest should be worked out in the article itself. When You and Mrund publish a peer-reviewed journal article contradicting the Siberian moonbat claim, that will get referenced as well, and everyone will see what madmen they were all along. But it should all be documented, not deleted because we think it doesn't add up. This is all in WP:RS etc..--Asdfg12345 22:37, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
What claims are fictionaly? What doesn't matter? Who are "they"? There aren't dozens of independent verifiable third-party sources. It's not clear. If there were, you would have produced them already, and you haven't. Instead you have provided a list of twelve items where almost every single one refers back to Kilgour & Matas. That's not independent. That's not third party. What Martin Rundberg chooses to do is his own business, what have I got to do with that? He's an archeologist and neither you nor me even know what a moonbat is, right? What part of WP:Reliable Sources do you believe is relevant here? / PerEdman 22:51, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Moving the Falun Gong specific material here?

Latest comment: 14 years ago22 comments7 people in discussion

There should be a subsection and the rest in its own page. Whoever did this is putting the cart before the horse. This strikes me as blatantly agenda-driven. Half this article is now about the Falun Gong stuff--that's just silly. This was clearly an attempt to boost the case to 'merge' the pages, which is obviously code for cutting half the information and subsuming it into this page. Do some people want to play down all these sources and evidence? I don't know. But I wouldn't blame anyone from drawing that conclusion based on this. Let's just respect wikipedia policies, okay? Please refresh: WP:N, WP:NPOV, particularly WP:DUE, and WP:RS. Thanks.--Asdfg12345 21:24, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

What agenda would that be? Enforcing consensus? The movement is not silly and what you claim to be "Falun Gong stuff" is mostly general commentary about organ harvesting. ·Maunus·ƛ· 21:34, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
Yes -- what agenda? Seb az86556 (talk) 21:36, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

What agenda indeed. I'm flummoxed. Please see the organ harvesting talk page regarding the claim that most of the material is general commentary; most of it is clearly Falun Gong related and a response to the Kilgour/Matas report.--Asdfg12345 21:42, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Saw it, read it. Again: what agenda? Seb az86556 (talk) 21:45, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
I don't have any response for that. The meaning of the claim is not even clear to me, upon reflection. I guess I am just referring to a particular wish to see the pages in a certain way, and pushing toward that without considering policy or proper argumentation and discussion. I've struck out the remark and apologise for making it. I request everyone to respect the discussion process and actually respond to the arguments that I am raising rather than trying to run roughshod with greater numbers.--Asdfg12345 21:55, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
I appreciate that gesture of good faith. And I would ask you and HappyInGeneral to also respond to the arguments that we are raising instead of rigidly standing on the arguments that we have already responded to.·Maunus·ƛ· 22:17, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
Can you please tell me which issue I left unanswered? Also please don't forget to answer the following [9]. Thank you! --HappyInGeneral (talk) 23:06, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
I think you are starting to see yourself the way I have seen you: A basically good editor with some very strong, very specific forced biases. I don't know what drives them, but I do know that sometimes you are all policy and logic and then, suddenly, unexpectedly, you act out of ...something else, making strange accusations or deleting perfectly valid reasoning from an article. Only you can figure this out. But take heart, at least you know something of your weaknesses, and that is a strength. / PerEdman 22:14, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

There are several sources for organ harvesting in China. There are a few sources, including K&M, for organ harvesting targeted at Falun Gong. The current problem is that the amount of attention given to the subsection on Falun Gong significantly dwarfs the attention given to the problem as a whole - that the Chinese Government abuses the right of death row prisoners to basically extort them for organ donations - organ harvesting. But don't be fooled by the current ATTENTION given. Consider this: Any Falun Gong prisoner who suffers organ harvesting is in him or herself also a victim of organ harvesting on ANY prisoner in China. They are one and the same, one part of each other. That there are too many sources on Falun Gong alone cannot be right - there cannot possibly be MORE Falun Gong members harvested than prisoners as a whole, this is a mathematical impossibility. So there are TOO MANY sources for Falun Gong harvesting, and TOO FEW for general harvesting of death row prisoners. Let us fix this. Let us not give the extraenous sources more attention than they mathematically deserve. / PerEdman 22:14, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Sure, but this is original research. This is what we can surmise and elucidate with our own logic. It's not relevant to this, because we are just looking at how newspaper articles, experts, journal articles, reports, human rights bodies, etc., (i.e. independent reliable sources) reported the issue--they reported on it with strong reference to the specific claim of systematic, targeted organ harvesting of Falun Gong practitioners, beyond whatever else is going on in the prison system. This is the context in which all these reliable sources exist; they're the claims they repeat. It's not for us to subsume these into the wider issues if the sources themselves don't. And please dont pretend you don't know there are dozens or hundreds of such sources making specific reference to this issue. As I say, even if most of them refuted it (and they don't), it would potentially still pass notability, as long as there were a good number of such sources and it was widely enough reported. I've said this several times now but it hasn't been addressed. I make a colourful example above for your consideration. This may bring things into relief.--Asdfg12345 22:42, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

What original research? What's "this" you keep referencing? Organ harvesting isn't "whatever else going on", the harvesting of organs from death row prisoners is central to the issue of both articles. It IS the issue. I'm afraid I'm not pretending when I say I have no idea what "dozens or hundreds" of source you mean - it seems you don't even know if there are dozens or hundreds, and the dozen you HAVE produced so far, well.. you haven't even bothered discussing those. Instead you're doing.. this, whatever it is you're doing, it's not discussing the subject of those twelve links you gave us all to sort out. As such, you've failed BRD as you aren't DISCUSSING the subject topic, you're branching out and discussing something not entirely specific. / PerEdman 22:57, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
  • this is yet another attempt to muddle the two issues of organ harvesting in China and targeted organ harvesting of Falun Gong practitioners. It's almost as though we would take "of Falun Gong practitioners" out of the title of their report: "An Independent Investigation into Allegations of organ Harvesting of Falun Gong practitioners in China" -- right? That's exactly what this would be like.--Asdfg12345 22:47, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
How is "organ harvesting of prisoners" and "organ harvesting of falun gong prisoners" two (different) issues? Are the Falun Gong practitioners not prisoners? Do they not have their organs harvested? Are they then not a part of prisoners who have had their organs harvested? / PerEdman 22:57, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
    • By the way, I'm not saying they're not related issues, they're obviously closely related, but the points of emphasis are clearly different, and the specific issue has its own large and complex set of specific considerations, arguments, sources, pieces of evidence, etc..--Asdfg12345 22:50, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
The points of emphasis are clearly different, you are correct. One gives undue attention to a small section of the prisoners, one does not. How are their differences "large and complex" in any meaningful way? you keep saying that, you know. You revery 66 bytes worth of edits and you leave only "This is a complex issue" as a comment. But that's not a discussion, and you need to discuss to participate in BRD. / PerEdman 22:57, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
PerEdman, I would actually just like to ask you what I asked Maunus, and it will help me to engage with this further. I've just realised that it's highly likely we are working from different points of assumed knowledge. I have assumed you have been aware of many things about this issue, but it's unclear to me now whether that was a premature assumption. Anyway, if you help me to answer the following it will allow me to better orient my responses to your good faith, rational, and reasonable questions, which I want to answer just as soon as I know a little more of the background:
  • How familiar are you with the material in question? Have you read the K/M report in full? Have you read the [relevant parts of] UNCAT submission, the UN submissions, Ethan Gutmann's articles in the weekly standard, Tom Treasure's piece? This is a direct question. I request you answer specifically about which of those sources you have read and how much of them you have read. You have no obligation to answer, but I assert the right to ask. Of course, I don't mean to be rude or impolite, but I want to be quite clear. Thanks for your understanding.--Asdfg12345 15:32, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
Beware: If this interrogation becomes standard it will only open the floodgates to a torrent of ad hominem attacks. ("Your opinion is rubbish! You didn't read everything I told you to read! Now here's some more stuff for you to read before you even QUALIFY to post on this talk page" :p) --antilivedT | C | G 09:29, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
I have already told you the answers to your questions above. I used the word "of course" multiple times when I did so. Do you remember? Search this page if you not. By asking (again) if I know what I'm writing about, you are implying that I do not. This will convince no-one. Presenting arguments in favor of your own opinion, will. Focusing the discussion on the beliefs or knowledge of other editors is not constructive and will convince no-one of your good intentions.
Therefore, from your posts above, I am most clearly noticing that you are not participating in the discussion of the subject matter and therefore not following the Bold, Revert, Discuss process. Please do so at your earliest convenience.
I would suggest that you start with the discussion of the 11 sources you introduced on the Reports of organ harvesting from Falun Gong practitioners in China talk page. For now, HappyInGeneral is defending your point of view more than you are, and it's clearly not beause you lack the time to do so.  / Per Edman 09:53, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

What? The notability issue is not really in question now, so I don't see what the issue is here. Maunus and OhConfucius agree that it passes notability. Thanks for noticing that I'm a little time poor these days.--Asdfg12345 17:37, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

In my experience, poor people can carry on coherent and topical arguments without engaging in personal criticism, too. It's not until hunger sets in that people tend to get grumpy; rich and poor alike.  / Per Edman 21:29, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

I just spent some time integrating the K&M stuff. Mostly, what I did was shuffle bits around, organising into a more coherent theme. Some material biases were corrected. While most removals were clearly marked, some removals of text were subsumed into 'copyedit' in the edit summary. Ohconfucius (talk) 04:09, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Big News

Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Change in China's official position. State now admits 65% of organ transplants come from death row prisoners. Updating page accordingly.Simonm223 (talk) 18:28, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Merger cont'd

Latest comment: 14 years ago8 comments4 people in discussion

The new revision of this article sufficiently represents the material already presented at the "Organ Harvesting of FLG" page. Therefore that page should become a redirect, ASAP. Colipon+(Talk) 08:36, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Agree.  / Per Edman 09:07, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
From the discussion here it is clear that the vast majority of opinions point to a merger of the articles. I will now boldly implement this change. Colipon+(Talk) 12:32, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
Ok, seems like Ohconfucius went ahead with the change already. Colipon+(Talk) 12:34, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Please see this and respond. The point of order I am bringing up is crucial, it needs to be addressed. I want to dispose of this discussion one way or another ASAP, but I want to make sure the basis for it is in actual policy, and not just some kind of group deciding how to run the show because no one is opposing them. The point I bring up is directly related to wikipedia policy and the basis in policy for the change. Thanks.--Asdfg12345 03:21, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Maybe this is the correct place to put the discussion points that I think need to be addressed. Feel free to ignore them, but if there's no substantial discussion on it I guess there will be other authorities at wikipedia to bring it up to, to see if there has been some miscarriage of policy by mob rule or something. I just assume there are such processes. The discussion wasn't resolved at all, it wasn't official. Usually there is an admin that has to come along to close such a discussion, but this was just done by fiat, ignoring the consensus system. Anyway, here are my points below.--Asdfg12345 04:40, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

  • I'm not sure it's useful to fragment this discussion in this way. The discussion about whether this 'deserves' its own article is above. Ohconfucius (talk) 04:44, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
  • There has already been significant discussion of the merger. If you want to participate, you can choose to participate in the ongoing discussions. Simply ignoring them, or assuming some wrongdoing by others, and repeating the same questions, is not a valid tactic. The discussions were public and official in the capacity that they show consensus.  / Per Edman 09:08, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Seeking the rationale in wikipedia policy for merging/keeping

Latest comment: 14 years ago15 comments7 people in discussion

Basically I just want to know that this is being done through wikipedia policy. If it is I will accept the decision, no problem. For me the issues are as follows. And if you are going to respond below, make sure you write something that directly responds to these points.

  1. Is there any other wikipedia policy except for WP:N which determines which topics should be awarded their own articles?
  2. If there is, what is it and where is it? (There would be further questions along this line if there were other policy points apart from WP:N which dictate which topics are afforded articles)
  3. If there is not, then the only question is whether the topic passes notability.

Please help to enlighten me.--Asdfg12345 04:40, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

  • I'm not sure it's useful to fragment this discussion in this way. The discussion about whether this 'deserves' its own article is above. Ohconfucius (talk) 04:44, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I'll put it there, and I also realised something, this thing wasn't done properly. The discussion is not concluded. I am reverting the merger again (which seems actually to be the simple deletion of that page and a redirect to this page?!), citing the reason why, and asking for the discussion to be conducted properly.--Asdfg12345 19:31, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, Asdfg, but I have reverted your revert. Consensus has already been reached and the issue has been discussed thoroughly enough. There is no need to split them again.--Edward130603 (talk) 23:13, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

That's untrue. Consensus was not reached, and the grounds in policy for either outcome were not even established. Consensus doesn't mean that a bunch of people just ram something through because they have more numbers. It means discussion in terms of policy. Don't worry, I'm not going to revert again, but I believe that people will not be allowed to run this place like they own it.--Asdfg12345 23:24, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't really help if you disappear for a few days, not replying to discussions, and generally appear to no longer have any dissent... --antilivedT | C | G 04:46, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
There is currently a consensus on merging. There are editors against the merger, but those editors seem too preoccupied with repeating the same questions over and over again, and pretending not to see the earlier responses from multiple editors. Their disagreement of the consensus cannot therefore be taken seriously. Enforce the consensus. Merge the articles and keep them merged.  / Per Edman 09:05, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
Please note that consensus is not unanimity and that simply disagreeing with no legitimate reason for doing so, or even ignoring the legitimate reasons of other editors, is not enough to prevent a consenus from being reached. There is a good essay on this that has also been posted before; please look it up.  / Per Edman 09:06, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Poll

I also believe that WP:Consensus has been achieved despite two strong objections. However, I believe that there will be no harm in dotting the 'i's and crossing the 't's in this instance. In order to avoid recriminations, accusations of foul play, and filibustering, I am preparing a poll for launch in 24 hours' time to conclusively close the matter. Both pro- and anti- merge sides are invited to make their case. I have taken the liberty of copying some previously written text from both sides, with some minor modifications, used as 'fillers' for the moment and which may be changed at will. In order to ensure that the arguments are 'balanced', a word limit of [300 words] is suggested; the statements may be edited - just note that you should refrain from editing the statement from the 'other side'. If there are any factual inaccuracies in the other side's arguments, kindly post these to the talk page so that the 'opposition' can take remedial action. Ohconfucius (talk) 09:30, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

  • The poll is now open:

talk:Organ harvesting in the People's Republic of China/FG poll Ohconfucius (talk) 13:56, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Please remember that Polling is not a substitute for discussion. Wikipedia is not a democracy; decisions should be based on Consensus not numbers  Chzz  ►  23:00, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
Polling will not improve, prove or disprove consensus. It can be used to find out what the current opinions is of participating editors, but don't we already know that? It can be used as a starting point for a discussion where each claimant can clarify their position with arguments, but haven't we already tried that? I do not believe this deadlock can be broken by additional polls. It is time to concentrate on the arguments already brought forth, ignore arguments promised but never delivered, and enforce the consensus that has already been reached. It was not unanimous, but it can't always be.  / Per Edman 08:33, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
  • I created the poll as an olive branch, because there were complaints that there hadn't been adequate discussion. In so doing, it became clear that there had been quite a lot of kb written. The discussion had been going round in circles, spread a bit all over the place. I hoped to crystallise and focus the discussion and force a decision. Having done all this work, though, I have to say I agree with you entirely. Ohconfucius (talk) 09:58, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
(I'm actually somewhat miffed that certain people misunderstand the olive-branch and take it as an opportunity to run around accusing you of [insert whatever phrase here]. I'd simply say forget the poll and move it already. When someone takes your olive-branch and stomps it into the ground, it'd be over for me...Seb az86556 (talk) 10:09, 5 September 2009 (UTC))
  • Well, the person I offered the olive branch to doesn't seem to have been on WP since I said I would set up the poll, so I can't know if he's stomped on it. But it's true I'm not impressed by his relay and comrade in arms. On the positive side, I haven't yet been accused as being an agent of the CCP! ;-) Ohconfucius (talk) 12:56, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Organ_transplantation_in_China/Archive_2&oldid=1049843791"