Jump to content

Talk:Organ transplantation in China/FG poll

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This poll deals with whether the FGOH article should be merged into OHPRC. The poll runs from 13:50, 3 September 2009 (UTC) and concludes 13:50, 14 September 2009 (UTC).

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

History

[edit]

Articles on Organ harvesting in the People's Republic of China ("OHPRC") and Reports of organ harvesting from Falun Gong practitioners in China ("FGOH") exist, both dealing with organ harvesting in the People's Republic of China. The former is general, and has existed since 16 August 2006; latter is specific to Falun Gong practitioners following the publication of allegations in Falun Gong related media (The Epoch Times), and has existed since 28 July 2006.


Background statement

[edit]

Names of the Falun Gong article

[edit]

XfDs

[edit]

Versions

[edit]

Discussions

[edit]

I propose this poll to finally conclude the merger debate. There has been at least one complaint that there has been insufficient discussion, asking me to reopen discussion on the merger.

The principal recent discussions are as follows:

Poll

[edit]

The poll will commence at 13:50, 3 September 2009 (UTC) and will run for two weeks. Users are encouraged to review the proposal and to vote 'support' or 'oppose' merge. After the poll has closed, the majority result will prevail, and the results of the poll will be implemented. Whilst comments from individual parties are extremely welcome, any threaded discussion will be moved in the discussion section.


What happens if there is a majority in favour of merger? The FGOH article will be merged to the OHPRC article soon after the poll is closed. FGOH will definitively become a redirect to the OHPRC article.

What happens if there is a majority against merger? The FGOH and OHPRC articles will remain separate, and evolve separately.

Statement in favour of merger

[edit]

Two sources allege that Falun Gong is being specifically targeted for their healthy organs. The Epoch Times is one; a report commissioned by a Falun Gong lobby group is another. Kilgour and Matas' allegations are based on anecdotal evidence and correlation of unknown causality. There are no other sources. The "particular topic" of organ harvesting from Falun Gong practitioners is not particular, it pertains to organ harvesting in China which even the world's foremost expert in Falun Gong has acknowledged. The extent to which harvesting includes practitioners of Falun Gong deserves to be mentioned in the merged article, it does not need to be treated separately with the considerable content overlap and risk of turning into a POV fork

There is the question of how this justifies an article on the scandalous K&M report alleging atrocities which cannot be verified, except that the report exists, and that it has received media attention allowing it to pass the bar. Falun Gong and K&M repeatedly say that China has not refuted the allegations, nor has she done anything to stop the practice. China insists that the claims are not worth refuting, thus considerably reducing the chance of treatment in a balanced and objective manner.

It is a WP:NPOV issue because it is presented as a separate topic when the two are in fact inextricably linked. China's refusal to specifically address the K&M claims is entirely reasonable, bearing in mind China's approach to the issue is a 'macro' one. The government has undertaken many initiatives since the Harry Wu revelations have come to light, including enacting organ donation and transplant laws. Whilst we do not deny that the subject is notable, the merge needs to be done in order to comply with this pillar of WP.

Statement against merger

[edit]

Wikipedia:Verifiability is one of Wikipedia's core content policies. It states: The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—that is, whether readers are able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true.

WP:Notability states "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article.".

As it can be seen here, and as it was even acknowledged above and here, the subject is Notable.

Organ harvesting from live Falun Gong practitioners is a specific topic. Organ harvesting in China is another broader topic. This article is about organs that come from executed prisoners, etc., whereas the Falun Gong claims are quite specific and not the same thing. I don't think the Reports of Organ Harvesting from Live Falun Gong Practitioners in China should be a redirect. It's a related but quite different topic. The information about it ought to appear as a subsection in a main article about organ harvesting in China, outlining the topic quickly, then it should be expanded fully as a daughter article to the Persecution of Falun Gong page and the Organ harvesting in China page. It is not a sensationalistic description--the report of live organ harvesting is essentially the referred claim in the third party sources.

There are two reasons for it to have its own page: it's too long (even after the mauling it took), and it is notable in itself, as evidenced by the stack of sources.

Support merger

[edit]
  1. -- Simonm223 (talk) 14:41, 3 September 2009 (UTC) My reasons for supporting the merger have been elucidated previously.[reply]
  2. -- Colipon+(Talk) 14:44, 3 September 2009 (UTC). Per above.[reply]
  3. --Edward130603 (talk) 20:50, 3 September 2009 (UTC) Separate article is unneccessary.Seems like I've voted like 5 times on this same issue already...sigh...[reply]
  4. --Redundant but support. There is a strong discussion-based consensus at Talk:Organ harvesting in the People's Republic of China#Proposed merge, which should be respected. Disruptive editing should be taken to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring or similar, not catered to with a discussion fork. The article history of FGOH remains available, and may be consulted for any relevant material omitted from the merge. - 2/0 (cont.) 22:05, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Evidence of organ harvesting is not strong, so its best that there not be a stand alone article, lest readers take the allegations for granted.--Pink Bull (talk) 22:35, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. --antilivedT | C | G 01:05, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support, as initiator of this poll. WP:Consensus should prevail, not filibustering. Ohconfucius (talk) 01:44, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  8. --Per concensus. Also not WP:Advocacy --PCPP (talk) 07:41, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  9. I already commented here. I also think that the merge discussion already showed enough consensus for merge. --Enric Naval (talk) 11:29, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  10. I have argued extensively in favour of the merger at the FGOH talk page.·Maunus·ƛ· 13:20, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  11. The argument against merger says that the one article is more specific, and the other one is broader. This makes it perfect for one article to be inside of the other one. hmwitht 00:20, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  12. -- DGG ( talk ) (with further explanation in my comments below) 07:16, 9 September 2009 (UTC) DGG ( talk ) 16:21, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  13. No need for a separate article. Reywas92Talk 20:22, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Merge. The issue makes much more sense when seen in a general context. Martin Rundkvist (talk) 07:25, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Merge. I have discussed this already and we have already reached a consensus. User HappyInGeneral is constantly insisting that they have not seen or understood any of the arguments put forth and that is no reason to pretend the consensus does not exist. Nor do I really believe this poll will help in the face of repeated selective blindness.  / Per Edman 08:12, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose merger

[edit]
  1. HappyInGeneral (talk) 19:53, 3 September 2009 (UTC) per #Statement against merger[reply]
  2. Oppose merger The Falun Gong organ harvesting (true or not) needs exposure separately from the general issue of organ harvesting in China. --DThomsen8 (talk) 15:27, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Oppose - The Falun Gong incidents are sufficiently seperate and specific to warrant their own article. Nutiketaiel (talk) 14:23, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

[edit]

RfC: Is the "Reports of organ harvesting from Falun Gong practitioners in China" a topic in its own right, or is it part of a wider subject.

[edit]
The problem
[edit]

Reports of organ harvesting from Falun Gong practitioners in China was merged into Organ harvesting in the People's Republic of China despite citing the following policies.

Quote from an undergoing pool: Talk:Organ harvesting in the People's Republic of China/FG poll

Wikipedia:Verifiability is one of Wikipedia's core content policies. It states: The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—that is, whether readers are able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true.

WP:Notability states "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article.". ... "These notability guidelines only outline how suitable a topic is for its own article. They do not directly limit the content of articles. For Wikipedia's policies regarding content, see Neutral point of view, Verifiability, No original research, What Wikipedia is not, and Biographies of living persons."

As it can be seen here, and as it was even acknowledged above and here, the subject is Notable.

Organ harvesting from live Falun Gong practitioners is a specific topic. Organ harvesting in China is another broader topic. This article is about organs that come from executed prisoners, etc., whereas the Falun Gong claims are quite specific and not the same thing. I don't think the Reports of Organ Harvesting from Live Falun Gong Practitioners in China should be a redirect. It's a related but quite different topic. The information about it ought to appear as a subsection in a main article about organ harvesting in China, outlining the topic quickly, then it should be expanded fully as a daughter article to the Persecution of Falun Gong page and the Organ harvesting in China page. It is not a sensationalistic description--the report of live organ harvesting is essentially the referred claim in the third party sources.

There are two reasons for it to have its own page: it's too long (even after the mauling it took), and it is notable in itself, as evidenced by the stack of sources.

The question
[edit]

Based on the policies mentioned above, shouldn't this be a simple case of fixing the error? That is to restore the Reports of organ harvesting from Falun Gong practitioners in China page?

--HappyInGeneral (talk) 23:50, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you really want to get into policies... The K&M report is a self-published report, done by authors previously unknown in this field. All subsequent media reports (aside from the FLG mouth-piece publications, see my annotated list) depend on the K&M report. Not only that, but they're mostly "press-release" style reporting with very little additional journalist input (although not strictly required per WP:PSTS, I feel it detracts a lot of weight from these sources). In addition, most of the secondary sources are of Canadian origin, which also is a FLG-stronghold, so I suspect FLG-influence and pressure were also factors in their prevalence. So overall, you have a weak report and a few of articles reporting on it, based on circumstantial evidence, and yet you think it deserves the undue weight of a content fork focusing on FLG practitioners when there are thousands of prisoners (some of whom may be FLG-practitioners, we don't know) getting their organs harvested? --antilivedT | C | G 01:02, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
How does all this change the fact that the article is WP:N and WP:V? --HappyInGeneral (talk) 01:47, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Presumed" means that substantive coverage in reliable sources establishes a presumption, not a guarantee, that a subject is suitable for inclusion. Editors may reach a consensus that although a topic meets this criterion, it is not appropriate for a standalone article." (WP:N), and "Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published, then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason self-published media, whether books, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, blogs, Internet forum postings, tweets etc., are largely not acceptable." (WP:SPS, which is in fact in WP:V)? Geez read your policies before lawyering them :p --antilivedT | C | G 03:05, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I thought since it was confirmed many times that the subject is notable that it was clear that its not about WP:SPS. That is fine, I'll get some business done here, then I'll get the sources that are not SPS. --HappyInGeneral (talk) 13:21, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The full quote on presumed is this:
  • "Presumed" means that substantive coverage in reliable sources establishes a presumption, not a guarantee, that a subject is suitable for inclusion. Editors may reach a consensus that although a topic meets this criterion, it is not appropriate for a standalone article. For example, such an article may violate what Wikipedia is not. <ref>Moreover, not all coverage in reliable sources constitutes evidence of notability for the purposes of article creation; for example, directories and databases, advertisements, announcements columns, and minor news stories are all examples of coverage that may not actually support notability when examined, despite their existence as reliable sources.</ref>
This report is not in what Wikipedia is not. --HappyInGeneral (talk) 15:46, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding your quote from WP:SPS, see bellow the list of third party sources. UN, CSR, CTV, CBS, etc, do not fall under "Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published, then claim to be an expert in a certain field", so they are not WP:SPS as you claim.

  1. http://www2.ohchr.org/english/bodies/cat/docs/CAT.C.CHN.CO.4.pdf "-- United Nations Committee Against Torture, CONSIDERATION OF REPORTS SUBMITTED BY STATES PARTIES UNDER ARTICLE 19 OF THE CONVENTION: Concluding observations of the Committee against Torture, Forty-first session, Geneva, 3-21 November 2008" => it has a section called "Allegations concerning Falun Gong Practitioners", it asks for “a full explanation of the source of organ transplants” which could clarify the discrepancy.
  2. http://www.usembassy.it/pdf/other/RL33437.pdf Congressional Research Service ~ The Library of Congress => Acknowledges/reports that there are such allegations and that the follow-up action taken by the American officials in Beijing (after 2 weeks)
  3. http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/012/160ymogj.asp Quote: "The reports, which first appeared in print in the March 10 edition of the Falun Gong-associated publication Epoch Times, are still sketchy and confirmation scarce. Yet the allegations are just credible enough to demand attention--too serious to be ignored unless proven false.", Its a good thing that I checked because your initial argument was: Quote: "The reports, which first appeared in print in the March 10 edition of the Falun Gong-associated publication Epoch Times, are still sketchy and confirmation scarce." One source only. Can support notability, but is it significant? and I'm not sure after you read the source, why you omitted the italic section.
  4. http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/012/160ymogj.asp -- "Ethan Gutmann, "Why Wang Wenyi Was Shouting,", Weekly Standard, 05/08/2006, Volume 011, Issue 32" => Wenyi Wang was shouting because she was convinced that there is live organ harvesting directly targeted towards Falun Gong. Just about every media reported on her outburst on the White House.
  5. http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/015/824qbcjr.asp -- China's Gruesome Organ Harvest by Ethan Gutmann, Adjunct Fellow at the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies. Cover Story in The Weekly Standard.
  6. http://www.canada.com/components/print.aspx?id=2c15d2f0-f0ab-4da9-991a-23e4094de949 "Glen McGregor, "Inside China's 'crematorium'", The Ottawa Citizen, November 24, 2007" => Talks about the Kilgour/Matas allegations
  7. http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20060706/organ_report060706/20060706?hub=Canada -- "CTV.ca News Staff (July 6, 2006) "Chinese embassy denies organ harvesting report", CTV.ca, retrieved July 8, 2006" => again the issue attracts attention from third party WP:RS
  8. http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2006/07/06/china-falungong.html -- "China harvesting Falun Gong organs, report alleges", CBC News, retrieved July 6, 2006
  9. http://www.canada.com/topics/news/national/story.html?id=290fed94-d0c2-4265-8686-54ce75d08eca&k=34245 -- "Kirstin Endemann, CanWest News Service; Ottawa Citizen (July 6, 2006)"Ottawa urged to stop Canadians travelling to China for transplants", Canada.com, retrieved July 6, 2006" => This news service came in direct relation with the Falun Gong organ harvest report.
These sources should be enough to show that there are not only 1 or 2 self published sources on this topic. One prominent indicator being that it was noted by the "United Nations Committee Against Torture" which is an institution that is highly involved in political relations.
Name the number (based on wikipedia policy please) and I'll come up with the number of WP:RS sources, just by looking here:
And of course the ones that are archived on the OrganHarvestInvestigation site under Media reports.
--HappyInGeneral (talk) 15:55, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Now that is some genuine irrelevance! Some crackpot might publish a conspiracy report on how 9/11 is an inside job, and the media can report on it (which they have), but you still won't find it in the actual 9/11 article and be treated as absolute truth, because it's been published by some crackpot with no scrutiny on publication! The K&M report is self-published by authors unknown in this field and has not been peer reviewed in any way and that's that, it does not matter how much media coverage, it does not matter how much FLG praises it and teach it as absolute truth, it's simply WP:SPS. Is there any clause that exempts it if it's been covered by the media? Or are you just making up things from thin air? EVERY single source you've listed depend on that single report, now if that single report isn't up to Wikipedia's standard, why would a third party journalism on that report be? I quoted the presumption of notability because it's NOT A GUARANTEE, it can be overruled by consensus, which is what this whole merger thing is about. Now can you please stop stalling and either back down or introduce new points, because you and Asdfg has been flaunting that same old list of sources for countless times now. --antilivedT | C | G 05:32, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
First of all, sorry, I did not notice your comment (it was not posted in order) so thank you for pointing it out to me. Actually there is a rather comprehensive documentation on how 9/11 was an inside job, see the group of pages presented in the Template:911ct template. So it does exist on Wikipedia. It is reported in the conspiracy section because the mainstream western media organizations reported on it as being a conspiracy. Please observe how WP:N and WP:V worked there. In case of the "Reports on organ harvest form Falun Gong" the report also has notability so what I'm asking for is to recognize that "this is a topic in its own right". As for is it true or not, that will be discussed when the content is built. I stay away from this subject right now just to save space and to keep focus. --HappyInGeneral (talk) 15:33, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
See this page for an example; notice how it collated information from many sources (and by sources I mean different independently researched sources, not rehashes of the single K&M report) instead of each source having its own lengthy article? Sure the conspiracy theorists might differ on the details (thermite? It's SUPERTHERMITE!) but overall the theme is the same, that the WTC is demolished, and so they're put in a single article. Conversely, sure K&M reports might differ from other sources in that it has a FLG bias (I wonder why), but the overall theme, that China harvests organs, is the same, so it should be merged to the OHPRC page. If you're arguing that the report itself has notability, then surely it should be titled "The K&M report" or something? So that it represents opinions (nothing more) expressed by its authors, and nothing more than that? --antilivedT | C | G 00:58, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(Unindent) Now let me try to keep things simple. The subject is Notable, and that was acknowledged here and in the #Statement_in_favour_of_merger. Thus I would say that it is safe to assume that the coverage of the report is not WP:SPS, and its notability is not based on "directories and databases, advertisements, announcements columns, and minor news stories". In which case as a first step toward consensus, can we agree that there is true, undisputed notability regarding the Reports of organ harvesting from Falun Gong practitioners in China? --HappyInGeneral (talk) 16:21, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BOMBARD. Do you seem to have any clue what WP:CONCENSUS means? You fail to show up to the discussion when its held, and now you're raising a big stink about it? Keep in mind you seems to be the only person here that's against the move, so consensus is against you.--PCPP (talk) 02:27, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
WP:BOMBARD is not necessarily a negative thing. Could you please answer to the point of WP:N and WP:V. It would be nice to stay focus, sidetracks like this are not productive. --HappyInGeneral (talk) 13:49, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment It seems that this discussion is heading into unproductive territory, like the previous ones linked to above. I am tempted to trash this poll because it's a waste of time. However, I realise it's not 'mine' anymore, so it'll have to run its course.

    But back to the subject. As I have said before, the premise of a question along the lines you are pushing is incorrect. I believe the following answers your question as well as the broader one relevant here. The correct premise is exactly whether this is a topic in its own right, or is it part of a wider subject. Notable topics often have notable sub-topics, but these do not always lend themselves to objective treatment as a sub-topic, and that's when it would be preferable to deal with as part of a wider subject. Ohconfucius (talk) 15:02, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'll renamed the RFC to reflect that (if anything else then this section title requires renaming please let me know). Thank You! --HappyInGeneral (talk) 22:14, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The correct premise is exactly whether this is a topic in its own right, or is it part of a wider subject." => Right, and my argument is that according to the number of prominent third party sources, "this is a topic in its own right", based on WP:V and WP:N. Does anybody dissagree that the sources presented do that here, and if so based on what wiki policy/spirit? --HappyInGeneral (talk) 21:56, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Could YOU please answer to my questions, or are you just gonna ditch a discussion when you've been defeated and start all over again to another editor, and then raise a hissy fit when people simply can't be bothered to repeat the same things over and over? So what if it apparently satisfy WP:N, it is not a guarantee for its own article (note how I said "apparently", if you push me I'll give you an argument that ill invalidate your WP:N too); Is there anything in WP:SPS that exempts it if it's been covered by the media? It's worded quite simply with a single criteria: self-published things written by previously unknown authors are not acceptable. Extending from that any secondary source that reports on the facts found by this source should at least be detracted points if not be rendered invalid. So that's WP:V out of the doors for you, therefore I support the merger based on WP:V and WP:N! (yea policies can be used against you too) --antilivedT | C | G 01:32, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, sorry I did not notice before, my answer is above, you can find it easily with the help of this diff [1] --HappyInGeneral (talk) 15:38, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
PS: I need to go now, I'll come back and look for the other comments to, I hope I did not miss anything else that is considered urgent. Please leave a talk-back notice on my talk page for such issues, thank you! --HappyInGeneral (talk) 13:02, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Even if the Kilgour/Matas report was a self-published source, it doesn't mean that all the other sources after it fail WP:V. That's ridiculous. HappyInGeneral gave another example: NASA publishes images of the moonlanding and does a press release, it's repeated everywhere, is that to be invalidated on the same grounds? That form of argumentation obviously makes no sense. Yes, WP:N does appear to be a guarantee that a topic should have an article, if you read it that should become clear. I've not seen any other policy quoted which determines the basis for topics having articles yet. It's all just more trashing the claims but not facing the policy. Why can't we have a poll on whether WP:N determines which topics should have an article on them?--Asdfg12345 03:52, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oh Asdfg, that's a ridiculously bad analogy - NASA is an established expert on that field and has been under the scrutiny of everyone from the beginning. (read WP:SPS maybe?) K&M? Not so much. Have you even read anything I wrote or WP:N itself, the last of the 5 main guidelines, the one that says it is NOT A GUARANTEE? --antilivedT | C | G 04:37, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The report itself might be somewhat WP:SPS (but even that barely, it is an independent report after all, there is no credible source saying that the authors where bought off, and they are also lawyers so their report is in their field of expertise), however the subject has been carried forward by "United Nations Committee Against Torture", "Congressional Research Service" and tons from Mass-Media, that stuff is not WP:SPS, because they are established in their field and they are the third party reporting on this report. In the same analogy if NASA would post an image about something, it would not be significant that is notable to include it into Wikipedia unless NASA would receive at least some reliable third party coverage, and it usually does receive that. Another analogy is that if somebody would invent in some laboratory a perpetum mobile, that would not get onto Wikipedia until it receives coverage as WP:RS --HappyInGeneral (talk) 16:01, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Except the fact that all media reports (except for the Gutmann ones, but then that has its own problems) goes something like "China harvest organs from death row prisoners. FLG organisation accuses China harvest organs because of evidence laid out in K&M report. blah blah blah.". Ultimately the information comes from an unreliable report. Whereas the fact that China harvest organs from prisoners can be verified with reliable independent sources, the FLG aspect all traces down to K&M. (Oh and it DOESN'T MATTER that they're bought off or not, just the fact that it's only published in the form of a website by themselves (heck I can ramble on for a few pages and publish something on my website, will I get an article on Wikipedia that's longer than the Origin of Species?) makes it unsuitable; and no, the field is human rights research, not lawyering. Oh and that UN and Congressional report thing, all they said is that they've received reports of this report and more investigation is needed to determine the truth - doesn't sound very convincing to me. --antilivedT | C | G 00:58, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Editors, it's quite clear through the four or five discussions we've had on this topic (and now the poll) that the reasonable thing to do is to just merge the pages. I hope it is conclusive enough that we have editors from all walks of WP coming here in favour of a merger. Colipon+(Talk) 01:46, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think it was apparent a long time ago, that was why there's an initial merger, before Asdfg threw a tantrum and then disappeared again when given the opportunity (again) to discuss. --antilivedT | C | G 01:51, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

response, questions again

[edit]

Firstly, I need to apologise for my absence. Some things are out of my control. I will do my best to check wikipedia on a daily basis from now on, barring any unforeseen circumstances. Let me just say that I find this whole thing highly confusing. Notability says what the criteria for an article is. You can't ignore that just cause you have more numbers. Again, I've asked a simple question: have we got anything in policy except for WP:N about what should have its own article in wikipedia? If the answer is no then let's follow WP:N. I know I'm saying the same thing again and again, but until someone actually addresses it, what am I supposed to do? I'm talking about policy! Is this the policy on having articles on a topic or not? If it isn't, what is?? If it is, then let's see if it fits notability or not. This is so incredibly simple. And if I somehow misunderstand something, explain it rather than make more irrelevant attempts to discredit K/M. Ohconfucius argues that the page violates WP:NPOV. I fail to see how. If that's the grounds for overriding Notability, then let's hear it out. Tell me how this page would be in violation of wikipedia policy on the neutral point of view, and that should be the locus of discussion. So I put the question to you: how does the article entitled "Reports on organ harvesting from Falun Gong practitioners" violate the WP:NPOV?--Asdfg12345 03:25, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just in case there was any question anymore that this was not a notable topic, I searched lexis for "organ harvesting of falun gong" and uploaded the 900 page html file of 323 sources it turned up; for everyone's reading pleasure. Now I guess it's just a question of NPOV. How is "Reports of organ harvesting of Falun Gong practitioners in China" a biased title?--Asdfg12345 03:46, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I just read the statement in favor of a merger. It's misleading. It makes a series of false (or, shall we say, disputed) statements about the nature of the evidence then makes a conclusion based on that. It also appears to contradict itself, admitting that the topic passes notability, but in the same breath denying that it should have a topic on that basis. And yet the definition of notability is what should have a topic on it. Will someone step forward to address this apparent contradiction? What about WP:NPOV, which says: The neutral point of view... does it endorse or oppose specific viewpoints... it is not aimed at the absence or elimination of viewpoints. Wikipedia is filled with reliably sourced non-neutral statements, so the elimination of article content cannot be justified under this policy solely on the grounds that it is "POV". Article content should clearly describe, represent, and characterize disputes within topics, but should not endorse any particular point of view. Instead, articles should provide background on who believes what, and why, and on which points of view are more popular. Detailed articles will often contain evaluations of each viewpoint, but these, too, must studiously refrain from taking sides. Thoughts?--Asdfg12345 03:59, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Asdfg, before you start rambling, can you at least read the stuff that happened in your absence? WP:N is not as solid as you'd think (or otherwise would like to believe). --antilivedT | C | G 04:41, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see how the statement in favour of merger is inconsistent or misleading. Your own premise that any subject passing WP:N deserves an article denies that articles cannot exist in a POV vacuum. It has always been the case that an article should form part of another if it lends to a more complete treatment. WP:NPOV is a pillar of Wikipedia, so all those subjects admissible to WP must also comply with WP:NPOV as an absolute necessity. The FG fear is that the merger sidelines their argument and the unconfirmed K&M allegations, whereas in context of other confirmed allegations and admissions/actions by the CCP, it is more appropriately dealt with as a coherent whole. Ohconfucius (talk) 05:38, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question: How does the truth-status of any claims (in your, or any other editors estimate) relate to whether that topic should have an article on it or not?--Asdfg12345 03:35, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment to 1) Enric, 2) Maunus, 3) hmwith: 1) if the consensus violated wikipedia policy, then what kind of consensus is it? 2) and yet the policy basis for the merger is murkier than ever. 3) since when does wikipedia disallow having subtopics? What about Sexism/Discrimination, Antisemitism/Racism? Why should a broader article automatically swallow a more specific topic? Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia, is it? Though merely a blog at the present time, the information here will be part of a published volume soon enough. Please note that these are a specific set of allegations about a targeted, systematic campaign to harvest the organs of tens of thousands of religious dissidents for profit. These claims have generated dozens or hundreds of sources about them. What am I failing to understand? Should it be a subsection of the main article? When it passes WP:N? Why?--Asdfg12345 03:35, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
HappyInGeneral, not every single thing is written in stone, but sometimes using common sense on what's best for the encyclopedia is the ideal option, and one even must sometimes ignore all rules. However, different users have different views of what's best, so that's where conflicts arise. From what I gather, this is a different interpretation of what is common practice and the standing consensus. Just keep in mind to not wikilawyer. Project pages were normally written to avoid instruction creep. hmwitht 16:51, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! I read Common sense and it is a real fresh air here. Please read this article, it talks about how the Chinese government is the lead government employing censorship, it invested more then 800 million$ on hardware and its evolving technique now employs hundreds of thousands of nationalistic part-timers also called Fifty Cent Army paid to post pro-government comments on blogs and to drown out dissenting voices in Web forums. In light of these, please tell what is your common sense telling you when there is a report made by a veteran high Canadian official and a veteran human rights lawyer specialized in holocaust, then their report is mentioned by the "United Nations Committee Against Torture", "Congressional Research Service" and tons from Mass-Media thus providing lots of WP:RS and Notability and Verifiability and yet regarding the right of this topic to stand alone on Wikipedia is talked to death and debated in order to be ushered out. --HappyInGeneral (talk) 20:13, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, that felt like a huge does of sarcasm, followed by a sermon from the pulpit. They don't mix very well, if you ask me. Ohconfucius (talk) 01:32, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ohconfucius, I already know you, your answer does not surprise me. --HappyInGeneral (talk) 18:46, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
My comment above was in response to your words, which I felt to be both sarcastic and patronising to a fellow editor, now you sling what appears to be a veiled personal attack at me. WTF an I supposed to make of that? I would invite you to strike that rather inflammatory remark. Ohconfucius (talk) 02:30, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
1. Mine? WP:REDFLAG, exceptional claims require exceptional sources. Frankly none of the sources sound very high quality to me (academic study published in a peer-reviewed journal?), and seriously what is with the Canada centricism in the media coverage? Is it because of the "celebrity effect" of K&M that it received coverage in Canada only? The fact that there's a FLG strong-hold there?
2. And yes, I believe so. Conspiracy theories (c'mon, even the OHPRC article has just escaped conspiracy status recently) should be concise, collated, and crafted. <rant> It is now known that China harvest organs from thousands of executed prisoners (potentially tens or even hundreds of thousands); believe it or not, FLG persecution is now 10 years ago, if China really did what FLG said the supplies would've ran dry years ago; isn't it extremely unfair that FLG is abusing its power to push its agenda using lives and organs lost by those prisoners? </rant> --antilivedT | C | G 01:17, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
1. Canada only? Really? Look again. Regarding: "Exceptional claims require exceptional sources" => At one hand you acknowledge that there are "hundreds of thousands" people executed for their organs and harvested, and on the other hand you claim that the statement is a WP:REDFLAG an "exceptional claim"? How does that make sense? And even if it would require an "exceptional sources" don't you agree that since the "United Nations Committee Against Torture" considered it important enough, and it demanded from China full explanations on the source of the organs, it does qualify for an "exceptional source"?
2. I guess this point actually helped to answer point 1. But just to answer you. The fact that you consider this to be a "Conspiracy theory" is only relevant if you have WP:RS to match the other sources. But so far we had discussions many months (since you first tried to rename/usher away the article) and as I recall so far there is no source saying the report is a "Conspiracy theory", most of the sources, including ones that you quoted partially and then claimed that they consider it irrelevant, actually consider that the report is very persuasive and raises valid points "too serious to be ignored unless proven false." And so far there is no source that would prove the report false, even though as Asdf suggested it would take Australia 10 minutes to dispel such accusations. About: "if China really did what FLG said the supplies would've ran dry years ago;" => Before the persecution 70 million practitioners where reported by the state, after the persecution it reported again suddenly 1-2 million (sources claim that this is just downplaying the numbers for obvious propaganda reasons) now, if there where hundreds of thousands killed (and I unfortunately agree to that because the 40 000 was a very cautious number when Kilgour and Matas reported it) even so this could go on for many years. <showing natural human concern for a sec>And with the help of guys like you, this might even go on. Also for you maybe the statistics are just numbers, "enemies" of a very corrupt state, but for me they living good people, like family, and maybe this is where the main difference is and maybe this is why you don't care.</showing natural human concern for a sec> --HappyInGeneral (talk) 18:46, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am offended with your personal attack ("natural human concern"? "why you don't care"? You might as well call me a Nazi or something, going along with FLG trying to compare this to the Holocaust). Perhaps you should look up what wikt:conspiracy theory means - I'll copy it here:
A hypothesis alleging that the members of a coordinated group are, and/or were, secretly working together to commit illegal or wrongful actions including attempting to hide the existence of the group and its activities.
How is my label that it is a conspiracy theory wrong? Or did you assume bad faith and took the pejorative meaning instead? It triggered WP:REDFLAG because K&M is the ONLY piece of research on which the claims are based on - all other sources are just derivative works (yes, I've gone through that random Yale thesis (since when are unpublished theses RS?) and that paper by Allison). Organ harvesting itself has multiple true sources - Harry Wu, the BBC report, and K&M (yes K&M can be used there too, but not vice versa). That UN report acknowledges the existence of K&M report, and asks for an independent investigation to carry out (I read it as UN doesn't consider this report to be independent or reliable enough to justify further action, what about you?). Does that mean that the UN endorses it? Australia? What about Austrlia? The US congress doesn't really believe in the report (page 8, top half of the page), but hey what do they know? I thought you perceived anything coming out of the CPC's mouthpieces as propaganda and yet you're using it to bolster your claim? Oh you intrigue me, HappyInGeneral. Oh and you know how much of a logistical nightmare it is to kill people and harvest organs? It took Nazi Germany 7 years to kill 6 million jews (let's make it a million a year), concentrating most of the country's effort to hunt them down and kill them (sans organ transplant), and you're saying China can manage to do half of what Nazi Germany did per year, for 10 years, in complete secret AND with organ transplantation? --antilivedT | C | G 06:54, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fine my mistake, I stroke out the personal comment, and I apologize, to my defense if any, I was rather hurt at the moment.
  • Regarding the rest of the comments, I'll get back to them in detail, when I have an available hour on my hand, for now just consider that there are exceptional sources to back up the significance of the report. You say that it is not proven. Fine, there are no bodies to count, because there is no such freedom to investigate in China. Still the report is substanciated with many documents from the mainland China, and the PRC + phone recordings. Now since the allegations still exists, and as shown the allegation is notable, then to address your point how about calling the article Allegations of organ Harvesting of Falun Gong practitioners in china?
  • Regarding: "Oh and you know how much of a logistical nightmare it is to kill people and harvest organs?". It is not a logistical nightmare first and foremost but a humanity nightmare. The method employed is different, the social background of the country is different, the size of the country is different, the experience (number of years ruling of the country) is different. There is no point in drawing analogies, because in many respects what Nazi Germany did was naive when comparing it to the PRC. Anyway this is a sidetrack discussion right now, it is best to concentrate on the issue at hand. --HappyInGeneral (talk) 16:40, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is no need to feel 'hurt' over anything. Nobody attacked you - if anything, you have been lashing out rather viciously at others who you may feel are opposing you. I understand your indignation at witnessing some uncomfortable revelations about your chosen spiritual practice. The world is not perfect, and neither is Falun Gong. It does not supply all the answers, and does not equip you well to dealt with criticism. Perhaps you should revisit the teaching itself to see where the problem lies, but I daresay it doesn't lie in WP:NPOV. Ohconfucius (talk) 00:17, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The comment below was posted to Talk:Reports of organ harvesting from Falun Gong practitioners in China

I've never look at this topic here before, though of course i and everyone else in the world except where censorship blocks it is very much aware of it. Sympathetic though I am to displaying these atrocities fully, I nonetheless support the merge. The subject is fundamentally no different from the Chinese use of organs from prisoners in general. That they consider people from this group as especially suitable for disposal in this manner is properly mentioned in the general article--and in articles about the Chinese suppression of the group. I might be influenced to some degree by two defects in the current article here: the excessive use of direct quotations--this should be done by links or in footnotes, not displayed in boxes, and the extensive duplication. If there is an article, it should be restricted to the special selection of people from the group--but I am not sure even that is necessary. From the point of view of an encyclopedia, too much makes it into a sWP:SOAPBOX. The argument from sources is not relevant--many subtopics in articles have enough sources to make them independent if it were for some reason appropriate. Strictly speaking if one goes by the GNG, evert individuals paragraph with two references could be an article. That's nonsense, of course, and nobody advocates it. The reason why it is not appropriate here is the very large amount of common content. DGG ( talk ) 07:16, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

I've been reading, and think I am actually beginning to understand the point of view supporting a merger, particularly as expressed by DGG. When I get a moment I'll respond to this. It's different to that; it's not just that Falun Gong practitioners of course form a part of the prison population so they are useful for this practice. There's evidence of specific, widspread campaign to do this, it's different to just regular stuff. It's also claimed that this accounted for the vast majority of China's organ transplants at least from 2000-2005. --Asdfg12345 22:29, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Focus

[edit]

See what happened here so far Talk:Organ harvesting in the People's Republic of China/View of issues raised, organized in sections

As I see the following core questions went unanswered:

  1. "Can we agree that there is true, undisputed notability regarding the Reports of organ harvesting from Falun Gong practitioners in China?"
  2. Does anybody disagree that the sources presented here establish this article as a topic in its own right and if so based on what wiki policy/spirit/common sense?
  3. "Have we got anything in policy except for WP:N about what should have its own article in wikipedia?", "How does the article entitled "Reports on organ harvesting from Falun Gong practitioners" violate the WP:NPOV"

Could we stay focused and obtain answers for these core questions without sidetracks like: 9/11, NASA, stating that there is a "different interpretation of policies" but not specifying how is it different? Thank you! --HappyInGeneral (talk) 20:49, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

4. As a compromise, how about if the article is called Allegations of organ Harvesting of Falun Gong practitioners in china? Since all of the third party sources mention the allegations. --HappyInGeneral (talk) 16:50, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To be frank, there is really no need for a "compromise" when the overwhelming majority has demonstrated very clearly above why a merger would be appropriate and reasonable. Colipon+(Talk) 17:26, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That was then and this is now. I see the latest move as a face-saving tactic, trying to grab a bit of solace in the face of the imminent. I have no problem in rejecting this either. Ohconfucius (talk) 00:12, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, I'm somewhat new and haven't had the chance to read through all of WP's codes. For those of you with more experience, I'm wondering does Notability of an issue directly infer an separate topic be created under wiki? I mean, for example, Brittany Spears driving with her baby in the front seat without a seatbelt is very notable, with many media sources, but does that make it meaningful to have a separate wiki topic on it apart from say Celebrity child abuse? Bedbug1122 (talk) 23:54, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes WP:N usually means that subjects that are notable be given their due coverage. But the key word here is "due". They cannot be given undue coverage, in that content focused on a particular topic should not talk about it for more than what it's worth. Colipon+(Talk) 00:21, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Stop repeating the same questions over and over again, pretending as if you have never seen a response before. The relevancy of WP:N and WP:V (WP:UNDUE in particular) have been explained to you multiple times already, across four or five discussion pages. There is therefore no reason to believe that you would suddenly acknowledge any such responses now, and I will therefore not repeat them. I ask only that you concede to the consensus.  / Per Edman 06:31, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Eleventh hour

[edit]

The poll will close later today. In terms of numbers, if there are no changes, it looks like 15:3 overall in favour of merger, and 6:2 if we removed those actively involved in editing the FLG articles. The result seems like a more overwhelming support than in the prevous discussion although asdfg and PelleSmith did not participate in this poll. Even assuming asdfg, Dilip rajeev and PelleSmith voted, the result will not be materially affected.

In terms of arguments, there has been a massive amount of additional discussion about the policy issue of the merger, and I think that everybody who voted or commented here have grasped the arguments and have not been misled in any way. From comments, it seems clear that participants believed that the subject is notable in its own right, but felt on the whole that the subject should be dealt with within the wider subject of Organ harvesting in the PRC. Indeed, the fact that WP:GNG has been cited or otherwise referred to in this debate illustrates to me that the participating editors understand and subscribe to the presumption of notability[1] has not been met in this particular case. Ohconfucius (talk) 08:47, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Notes

[edit]
  1. ^ "Presumed" means that substantive coverage in reliable sources establishes a presumption, not a guarantee, that a subject is suitable for inclusion. Editors may reach a consensus that although a topic meets this criterion, it is not appropriate for a standalone article. For example, such an article may violate what Wikipedia is not -per WP:N
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

This poll

[edit]
  • I will open a poll (and a fresh discussion) on the merger where both sides are allowed a 300-word (in read mode) statement.
  • 24 hours will be given for the opposing statements to be written before the poll is officially opened
  • participants are allowed to vote, and append their own brief comments (100 word limit).
  • No exchanges will be allowed in the vote section.
  • A separate 'discussion' section will exist below the poll, where any exchanges can occur.
  • In order that the editor understands the text in question, 3 versions of texts (pre and post suggested merger) will be visible.
  • The poll will be widely publicised on WP:VP and via {{cent}}
  • Polls will be open for two weeks, after which the majority result will be carried out.

(contributed on this talk page by Ohconfucius, 07:54, 2 September 2009, deleted to move the poll from mainspace Cenarium (talk) 17:55, 3 September 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Organ_transplantation_in_China/FG_poll&oldid=1137062334"