Jump to content

Talk:Organ transplantation in China/Archive 5

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1←Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7→Archive 10

Talk:Reports of organ harvesting from Falun Gong practitioners in China/Archive 1

Rewriting the article

I made some significant changes just now. Just about structure: after some more evidence in the report is fleshed out, propose strong scrutiny of the "response and debate" section, and a logical ordering of the issues and arguments. I don't think the space should be given over to useless commentary, but that each commentary shoudl go toward narrating the argument about alternative explanations, disputes, and other considerations. In the end the reader should know clearly what the arguments and 'evidence' floating around is, and be able to decide for themselves. There's been a lot of contension about this report, so it will be important to distill the arguments and re-present them meaningfully here. Have cut down the sujiatun thing a lot. I'm actually again feeling very cautious about renaming the article. I kind of just don't think it's necessary, and that this one seems to sum up what the issue is fairly well: organ harvesting from living Falun Gong practitioners. the K/M report has become the main vehicle for this theme, but it's still just a vehicle for the theme, catchaí?--Asdfg12345 15:28, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Also just archived all the discussion etc.

Transcripts

I was initially a bit ambivalent about leaving or deleting the transcript. After PCPP deleted it, I thought it ought to stay deleted because:

  1. I agree with PCPP that the transcripts are not encyclopaedic-qualitatively, it's pisspoor as a piece of evidence, and beggars belief. Whether you're 'for' or 'against', the conversations are in the realms of fantasy.
  2. It's arguable whether this is a centrepiece of evidence as you stated in the edit summary. K&M themselves state their case doesn;t rest on one single piece of evidence, but its the sum of all the parts which for them clinches it. Giving the transcripts such prominence [over all the other evidenceby quoting it in full] is probably in breach of WP:UNDUE
  3. it is sourced from WOIPFG, the most blatantly propagandistic arm of FG and itself completely fails WP:RS and its use by K&M damages their credibility. Even as a source cited in the report is stretching interpretations of the policy on neutrality.
  4. Further detrimental to its credibility is why K&M had to rely on this flimsy and unverifiable text as evidence, rather than getting their own. Oh yes, I forget, after March 9, the whistle was already blown ;-)
  5. citing of such a large chunk is possible copyright violation.

I'm actually not all that bothered if it stays or goes. I know that whether any particular aspect damages K&M's credibility is not relevant to this debate, but I just thought I should mention my misgivings about it from the viewpoint of the article - I just reckon overall it makes for a better article without. I would guess that over 80% of people who get so far will conclude the transcripts are of faked conversations; and the other 20% will think it's so surreal that it must be true. Ohconfucius (talk) 14:27, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

uh, what are you talking about? Do you think those phone conversations are made up? I am assuming that is your point. I find that to be a pretty funny, even absurd suggestion. Kilgour and Matas have staked their credibility on bringing these forth--do you think they would do that so blindly? They have the telephone bills that show the time, length, and number dialed--these are correlated against the recordings. I'm not sure if these are available electronically or not. Probably if a journalist wanted to follow it up in depth those phone bills could be made available. For our purposes, it's enough that Kilgour has publicly stated (on Lateline) that the phone calls are genuine, and that he has seen the phone bills, and attests to their authenticity. They're also in the report. I'm smiling a bit here, nearly laughing, if you think these would actually be completely fabricated by Falun Gong! Like they got some practitioner in China or something to pretend they were a doctor?! I'm laughing as I type this, that's a totally absurd suggestion. Falun Gong obviously has an agenda, and they push it strongly, and they even overdo it and misuse sources at times. This is all very damaging. These things happen when there is no central organisation, when basically anyone can say they are Falun Gong, make a flyer, send a fax, email, whatever, contact the media. It isn't a coherent group, or any kind of organisation, so there is no method of regulating what people do. Anyway, getting off topic. The transcripts aren't overtaking the article anyway, they are just a side bar there. I think it looks rather nice. PCPP wants to delete them so badly because they are so incredibly incriminating. You feel the same way, since you don't seem to believe they're genuine. They have the actual voice recordings, for goodness sake, and they have the telephone records--there is no doubt they are real! For many people, the problem is that they do not realise how truly bad the Chinese Communist Party is, so they can't believe it either. Anyway, the evidence is there.--Asdfg12345 02:11, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

  • You can call me a major sceptic when it comes to "evidence" coming from the WOIPFG. The transcripts in the article are sourced from them. K&M trust WOIPFG so much, and I happen to think it is a mistake. From that standpoint, yes, I feel the same way as PCPP, but that's where it ends. I have no hidden agenda, amigo! Ohconfucius (talk) 04:49, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
  • The State Dept CRS report also stated the phone calls were unreliable. Also the evidence is not publically verifiable. When I contacted Kilgour and Matas about verifying the phone calls and phone bills, they never responded.
Bobby fletcher (talk) 18:59, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Just to explain this deletion of Liu's post that was below. I put the internal links there; please check them. The other thing is that there is no substance to that kind of comment. It appeared to be a standard c&p, unrelated to improving this article (the conclusion being about Falun Gong's torture claims?!) and just another way of Liu pushing his opinion on this issue. I would invite discussion that seeks to improve the articles, sharing different viewpoints, and bringing up new ideas and sources. That is very different from what Liu is doing. I just found out I could delete those posts. It would be better if some productive discussion could happen, that's for sure.--Asdfg12345 21:56, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Update: I see he just reverted. Here are the links:Wikipedia:Talk_page_guidelines#Editing_comments -- "Deleting material not relevant to improving the article (per the above subsection #How to use article talk pages)" -- and Wikipedia:Talk_page_guidelines#How_to_use_article_talk_pages. So I am going to remove it again, and if Liu reverts, I will initiate some dispute resolution measure. It's not okay to behave like this on wikipedia, the community is against this type of thing, and there are ways to respond to it.

Disputing Asdfg's removal of other's edit in Talk

Asdfg, I undid you remove becuase it is prcisely not the way to respond to the disput I am raising. I believe what I wrote is relevant to improving the article. If you object please provide some facts to back it up, instead of removing other's edit unilatterally.

Bobby fletcher (talk) 22:08, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

It's because most of what you posted is totally irrelevant, and it's rude to clog up talk pages with that stuff. It's also allowed to be deleted by other editors. But actually, I think I have been rude as well, and not proactive in being helpful for you. I will make a "resources" section now, and grab some of those links you have posted, so we can use them for the article later. I think this will be a useful way of doing it. If you get more resources, just put here, one line each, one link, and a very quick summary. --Asdfg12345 22:16, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Asdfg, you have no right to make these completely subjective claims to justify your delete/hide/archive of other's edit. I believe what I wrote are substantive and relevant to the article, specifically credibility of the Kilgour reprot. Mastter of fact most of the disput I raised against you now sit in archive, hidden and unanswered. It too self-serving of you to do this. It is wrong of you to do so and I strongly object.

Bobby fletcher (talk) 22:26, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

I have actually been trying to help. I am sorry if I have upset or annoyed you. I agree that I have not written nicely, and I apologise. I just looked through the other page now as well and grabbed another link from it. The only things we consider here are reliable sources, and how the information they provide can be incorporated into the article. That's all there is to it. I would suggest if you have any more reliable sources (not blogs etc.), just add them to the resource section, and then they will be put into the article. Is this okay with you? --Asdfg12345 22:33, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Resources to add to page

Actually this page http://www.ustransplant.org/annual_reports/current/105_dh.htm -- shows the average time for a kidney transplant is more then 1000 days, although for some other transplants where the demand is smaller the average time can drop to 300 days, the best time calculated to the best 10% cases is 8 day for liver transplant, although it does not mention if it's a full liver transplant which would mean that the donor must have been dead after that. --HappyInGeneral (talk) 14:05, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Disputing Asdfg's FALSE "we know" undo excuse

Asdfg, you have time and again used FALSE excuse to undo many of my edit. Not everybody knows Epoch Times is associated with Falun Gong. By the fact many still insists Epoch Times is independent shows it.

If you do not put my cited edit back in one week I will lodge a complaint against you.

"We know" - so what? What is this "we"? Even if you can manage to provide citations to prove your "we know", it doesn't mean this entire article should be void of this fact.

Bobby fletcher (talk) 20:16, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Goodness me, Liu, I'm not doing it to preserve the image of Epoch Times or something. It just seems to break the flow of the sentence to jam that in every chance you get. What do other people think? Don't take it so personally. Since Epoch Times is hyperlinked anyone can click and see the FLG connection. --Asdfg12345 23:53, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

I disagree with your "break the flow" claim. Can you back it up with some citation?
Even if my edit break the flow, there are other ways to improve it without removing the fact.
It seems you are trying to keep this out of the article. The entire article is voided of this very important fact Falun Gong is the one who initiated this allegation.
"every chance"? This is another one of your accusation you can't possibly back up. This article had only one reference to Epoch Times being affiliated with Falun Gong, and you removed it.
Very dishonest of you. And this is not the first time; you archived the discussion/disupte on reliability of Epoch Times, just so the discussion can be marginalized.
Bobby fletcher (talk) 00:37, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Leave it there, then, it's not a big deal and I don't even really care. I just think it looks poor from an editorial point of view--it's out of place. I won't bother taking you up on this kind of thing any more, unless for egregious cases. You are taking this far too personally, it's weird.--Asdfg12345 00:55, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

I archived it because you had filled it with spam. I asked you not to do that. Just post useful links according to WP:RS and leave a few words saying what it is--your blog notes, emails etc. are all irrelevant, there's no need to post them here. Give us the useful links and we can work the rest out. You spam everywhere with this kind of thing, I'm just asking you not to do it on wikipedia. It's not thought highly of. But in the end, do what you like. I'm reluctant to take you up on this kind of thing any more, like I say, unless it's particularly egregious. You don't seem to understand where I'm coming from, and in the end I don't care about this too much.--Asdfg12345 00:58, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Asdfg, you have again purgered yourself. The discussion on reliability of Epoch Times contains no blog or email, only notable sources, and it is on-topic since Epoch Times is the originator of the Sujiatun live organ harvesting allegation.
This hardly qualifies as spam. Cite your evidence that proves questioning Epoch's reliability is spam.
Bobby fletcher (talk) 01:05, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

I was obviously talking about the other stuff, the blogs and emails you had posted about, not the reliable sources you had posted about. Stop looking for a fight all the time, why don't you? --Asdfg12345 01:20, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm not the one looking for a fight - you are. What part of "we know" is wiki? Every edit I made to the articles are sourced, and all the talk page stuff is on-topic, non-commercia, and is aimed to promot honest discussion related to subject at hand.
Why remove the legit stuff when it's only the blogs and emails you object to? Now you have again blanked me with no good reason you have further demonstrated you are trying to keep the context of this article, and the Talk page, tilted as much as possible towards Falun Gong.
Bobby fletcher (talk) 01:25, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

You're right. I'm sorry. Let's work well together in future. I'll try to do better.--Asdfg12345 15:50, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Disputng Asdfg's "hopefully improved this" edit

Asdfg, why are you still looking for a fight? You are obviousely not sorry for all the bad faith 'blanking', move, archive. I disagree with your edit made, and you are obveiousely trying very hard to marginalize and hide/remove from this article Epoch Times' affiliation with Falun Gong. This fact is documented by notable source (Lum, Thomas CRS report "China and Falun Gong", page CRS-8, paragraph 3). Bobby fletcher (talk) 18:29, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

I just thought it was more appropriate not to lead with that in the first line of the article, it seems out of place, and puts the emphasis in an odd way. Personally, I don't think that is how serious, sophisticated, or encyclopedic writing should read. It's good to note that Epoch Times is sympathetic to Falun Gong, we just have different ideas about the best way to do that. I'm not going to make a fuss over this. I would say that the intro needs to be rewritten anyway.--Asdfg12345 19:04, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

I strongly disagree. You didin't like it in the middle, you didn't like it mentioned in Epoch Times so you got rid of that too. Now you don't like it in the front. There are other ways to improve besides removal. Looks like what you really want is keep this fact out of this article. That's bad faith editing if it is you intention.
Epoch Times affiliation and financial connection with Falun Gong is documented fact. But since you archived the disussion on reliability of Epoch Times, where evidence can be presented and scrutinzed, you have effectively cut short meaningful debate. It is also very dishonest, not what Wikipedia is about. Bobby fletcher (talk) 22:34, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
Take a look to the lead of the Epoch Times article and you will find that Falun Gong is mentioned several times. --HappyInGeneral (talk) 11:18, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
Take a look at the edit Asdfg made in the first sentence, where he has yet again "improved" the article by removing the fact Epoch Times is affiliated with Falun Gong:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Epoch_Times&diff=185531707&oldid=185488663
This ain't the first time either. I suspect bad faith editing; he's trying to remove/burry this fact. How do you explain the fact no discussion/comment were made in talk befor blanking repeatedly? There are other ways to improve without removing facts, but Asdfg's MO has thus far been removal/blanking. I would like to assume good faith, but the evidence isn't staking up that way. I will try harder to communicate, but when you blank without comment/discussion it makes communication very difficult.
Bobby fletcher (talk) 08:29, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
:) I'm sure that he is not trying to hide this fact, however I'm sure he can answer that for himself. But while you are at this, could you perhaps go and add Communist where ever you see China? I can assure you that not everybody knows they are communist either ;) --HappyInGeneral (talk) 11:39, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
"Or if you were not being sarcastic, suggesting that another editor made to prove a point is also pretty bad form." Well you are right, it's a bad form to prove a point, but I feel it's pretty much the same thing he is doing. And sometimes it's a lot easier to see the mistakes in someone else. So even if it's a bad way to prove a point, I hope that it was helpful. Regards, --HappyInGeneral (talk) 12:11, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
:) At least China don't deny the fact they are communist, unlike Epoch Times who deny this fact they are affiliated with Falun Gong - while the non-profit tax forms show money flowing from Falun Dafa Associations to it. Want links to the form 990 again? Had Asdfg not hid the tax form links in archive, perhaps you would've noticed them ;)
BTW, here's an article were Epoch Times chariman Stephen Gregory denied Epoch is a Falun Gong newspapaer:
http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1003541682 - "It's not a Falun Gong newspaper," said Stephen Gregory
It seems not even the chairman of Epoch Times is aware of this fact ;)
Bobby fletcher (talk) 18:15, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
It depends how you understand things. Epoch Times is not a Falun Gong newspaper, for that we have Minghui. Epoch Times does not report only about Falun Gong nor does it employ only Falun Gong practitioners, but I do agree that many Falun Gong practitioners are working at the paper, so if you feel the need to say that the paper is affiliated to Falun Gong, that is fine by me. Ofcourse if you want you can always prove that 1+1 = 3, and you can make everybody a liar, because truth depends on context as well. --HappyInGeneral (talk) 12:11, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
Also correct me if I'm wrong, but in Wikipedia, there is no Truth, there are only balanced sources. --HappyInGeneral (talk) 12:17, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
Except the sources in this article are not balanced. Beerman5000 (talk) 22:12, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

(unarchived for continued discussion)

Reliability of live organ harvesting allegation's originator, Epoch Times, disputed

Thanks Oh. This brings up an interesting issue - what is the reliability of Epoch Times? Epoch Times affiliation with Falun Gong is a documented fact:
1) Per Thomas Lum's CRS report "China and Falun Gong"
(section CRS-8):
"FLG followers are affiliated withseveral mass media outlets, including Internet sites; the Epoch Times"
2) Funding from various Falun Gong Associations to Epoch Times can be found in non-profit disclosures:
(example Southern USA Falun Dafa Association, 02-06 Form 990, part III):
http://www.guidestar.org/FinDocuments/2002/760/692/2002-760692185-1-9.pdf
http://www.guidestar.org/FinDocuments/2003/760/692/2003-760692185-1-9.pdf
http://www.guidestar.org/FinDocuments/2004/760/692/2004-760692185-1-9.pdf
http://www.guidestar.org/FinDocuments/2005/760/692/2005-760692185-024eee8e-9.pdf
http://www.guidestar.org/FinDocuments/2006/760/692/2006-760692185-031af764-9.pdf
Bobby fletcher (talk) 22:08, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
For the record, I have very serious doubts about the overall reliability of Epoch Times, and there appears to be a consensus, established at an AfD, that it is not a reliable source. I generally refrain from citing it (or would remove it in favour of another source) where there are other sources for a given piece of information. However, believe however its use as a primary source is warranted on certain matters, in the same way as Xinhua, although the overall reliability of the latter is somewhat higher - except when it is something the government doesn't want the world or the Chinese people to know about ;-). Ohconfucius (talk) 01:29, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
There are further evidence of Epoch Times financial connection with various Falun Gong Associations on www.guidestar.org, a clearinghouse of non-profit information. Just sign up a free account and do advanced search with keywords like "Falun", "Dafa".
Addition to the fact Epoch Times' financial connection makes it beholden to Falun Gong, there are also evidence of editorial inaccuracy and dishonesty:
1) My personal encounters with Epoch Times reporters who resort to personal attack and character assissination in attempt to silence its critics. Specifically I have documented these encounters between myself, as well as other bloggers, and Epoch Times reporters.
2) Many of the supposed evidence of atrocities presented by Epoch Times failed physician review. Specifically Dr. Ramana cited previousely reviewed the photos had found many of them to be medical in nature and are not evidence of torture.
For example the photo used to make the sexual torture claim here is in reality photo of a woman suffering from advanced breast cancer:
http://en.epochtimes.com/news/5-10-21/33602.html
Epoch Times has been made aware of this, but refuses to correct or retract this story.
Bobby fletcher (talk) 21:09, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
Here's a news report from New America Media, where a Duke University media project director had questioned Epoch Times' reliablility:
http://news.newamericamedia.org/news/view_article.html?article_id=6ce9872ebb88b3aaa3ff48b6c1ffc19a
"It[Epoch Times] is not viewed as an independent objective news media,"
"The Epoch Times' credibility is damaged as media professionals,"
Bobby fletcher (talk) 22:05, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm not going to comment on the specific evidence. It seems we are in agreement, but Epoch Times may still be used as a primary source, quoting what FG has to say. Ohconfucius (talk) 00:55, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

When other sources are available they should be used instead. If there are any specific criticisms of the objectivity Epoch Times articles (as in, link to an article, quick note about what is wrong with it), I can relay them through the appropriate channels. The only types of criticism I've seen of the Epoch Times are either very non-specific or from CCP sympathisers. It's also possible that the english and Chinese versions have very different editorial practices.--Asdfg12345 09:03, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

UPDATE 1 - Asdfg, what is Epoch Times' response to above correction/retraction request? The photo used in Epoch Times "sexual torture" article has been reviewed by physicians and it is a photo of a woman suffering from advanced breast cancer.
Here it is again in case you missed it: http://en.epochtimes.com/news/5-10-21/33602.html
So why isn't this in the main article? It gets edited out, like so many other things that would make this article remotely honest. The entire article is a farce.Beerman5000 (talk) 22:11, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
UPDATE 2 - In addition to receiving financial support from various Falun Dafa Associations, Falun Gong media have also received funding from faction of US Congress that's considered Blue Team China hawks.
Most notably The Friends of Falun Gong, a quasi-government organization started by Congressman Tom Lanto's wife, Annette Lantos, and operated by Ambassador Mark Palmer, one of the co-founders of NED:
http://www.guidestar.org/FinDocuments/2001/134/145/2001-134145670-1-9.pdf (page 4, list of directors)
FoF's non-profit filings over the years show that millions were given to various Falun Gong media outlets:
http://www.guidestar.org/FinDocuments/2005/134/145/2005-134145670-028e40ed-9.pdf
http://www.guidestar.org/FinDocuments/2004/134/145/2004-134145670-01d39938-9.pdf
http://www.guidestar.org/FinDocuments/2003/134/145/2003-134145670-1-9.pdf
http://www.guidestar.org/FinDocuments/2002/134/145/2002-134145670-1-9.pdf

Bobby fletcher (talk) 01:09, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

  • What, pray, is the relevance of all the above diatribe? The links, financing, and general reliability of Epoch Times as a source here on wikipedia are all well established, and no-one is disagreeing with you AFAIK. We also appear to be agreed on limiting referring to it to essential commentary, so I hope you are not still attempting to suppress every little thing which emanates from it? Ohconfucius (talk) 09:26, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
Oh, I have not, and will not, suppress any reference to Epoch Times; check my edit history, I have not removed any Epoch Times article.
On the contrary I'm trying to keep the discussion open that others are trying very hard to discourage. I unarchived the relevant discussion Asdfg hidden in archive because of above disgreement brought up by Happy. Please not Happy has characterized Epoch Times' affiliation with Falun Gong as "1+1=3".
Also, these relevant factual citations need to be worked into the main article somehow - 1) The organ harvesting allegation todate remains an allegation; 2) it's originator, Epoch Times, is funded by Falun Gong and anti-China political force in US
Bobby fletcher (talk) 21:58, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
You are again starting to interpret things your own way. Actually by "1+1=3" I depicted just this: everybody can have it's own way to see things. And if you really want it, you can interpret anything in any way you like. Remember in Wikipedia, there is no Truth, exactly because people interpret Truth differently (depending on context, interests, etc ...), so here we have only balanced sources. If you have a good source, then mention it. If you don't have it, then there is no point in continuing the discussion, on who is right and who is wrong. Don't you agree? --HappyInGeneral (talk) 16:39, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
So why don't you drop the sarcasm and stick to the RfC in question - Asdfg's WP:DE in repeatedly blanking out the fact Epoch Times is affiliated with Falun Gong? I have provided ample facts to back it up (Lum CRS report, non-profit declaration showing money trail, media commentary). Asdfg has time and again "blanked" this sourced fact, despite of repeated request for him to stop WP:DE.
Why don't we talk about that instead of asking other editors to prove a point???
Bobby fletcher (talk) 04:35, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

ASDFG HAS YET AGAIN 'BLANKED' EPOCH TIMES' AFFILIATION WITH FALUN GONG FROM THIS ARTICLE

I'VE LOST COUNT HOW MANY TIMES ASDFG HAS 'BLANKED' THIS FACT FROM THE ARTICLE - THE ORIGINATOR OF THE ALLEGATION, EPOCH TIMES, IS A MEDIA OUTLET AFFALIATED WITH FALUN GONG! (sorry about the yelling)Bobby fletcher (talk) 19:02, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

A pathetic article

Who do people think that Kilgour and Matas are to give entire sections to them while quietly removing critical sources?--PCPP (talk) 14:10, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi. I'm quite disappointed by all this. I won't start commenting on what you have done to the page. It is definitely possible for you to make a valuable contribution. I don't claim to be the know-all here. I'm trying to edit the articles well and seriously. If you have some good inputs, please share them. I would love to discuss this and work together. I thought the only stuff I cut down was about Sujiatun, which is mostly irrelevant. Kilgour and Matas are high profile figures and are driving this whole thing now. It's totally relevant that they get a whole section. Confucius wanted to rename the page "Bloody Harvest" and make it just about their report, so please don't jump right into the recriminations. I won't touch all those edits, because I don't want to do a blanket revert, but I don't have about half an hour right now to go through them all, and probably won't for at least another 48 hours. At that time, I will initiate a review of your editing behaviour. There is some kind of request thing available for dispute resolution. It's called disruptive editing when you continually delete stuff against consensus, etc.. I wrote a comment on your talk page about this before, then asked confucius to say one too. I told you that after that I can initiate that review function. It's fine for you to be unhappy with my editing, but the point is that we discuss it and figure out the best way to do things, and I've always tried to make that clear. --Asdfg12345 15:06, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

This article really needs to be examined for subjective language and insubstantial claims. Most of their articles come from highly suspect sources. For instance, "The Epoch Times" is well known inside the asian community to be a Falun Gong mouth piece and all of the eye-witness claims of death camps and organ removals come directly from Falun Gong members. The Hospital in Shenyang where the supposed organ removals took place is a PUBLIC hospital. Shenyang is also very densely populated: over 7 MILLION residents. It would be like trying to hide a concentration camp in Seattle. The Nazi's couldn't even hide their prisons from their citizens, they only hid what went on inside them. What Falun Gong claims happened in Shenyang is that a secret prison was there that nobody ever saw who wasn't a Falun Gong member. The public hospital in Shenyang where the atrocities were supposed to have happened has enver been closed to the public and it's in an extremely visible portion of it's district. Chinese are extremely necro-phobic in general due to widespread religious and superstitious beliefs regarding the dead. If so many corpses were going in and out of the hospital, the news of it would have spread around the district like a wild fire.
Why didn't the non-falun-gong citizens find out about any of this stuff? The story and related article are ridiculous. Beerman5000 (talk) 22:13, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

ASDFG DO NOT REMOVE POV DISPUTE TAG

At least two editors are still disputing your massive rewrite. It is DE for you to remove it without resolving the dispute your edit created. Bobby fletcher (talk) 05:09, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

By the way, there was nothing controversial in that introduction that really needed to be reffed. I don't mind playing the tag game; I was going to go put a bunch of tags on all that stuff anyway, but I thought it was less of a priority than cleaning up the article. The introduction was no more than a summary of all the things that followed in the article, and they were all referenced. The other thing is the phone transcript--what's the rationale for deleting this? --Asdfg12345 15:10, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

ASDFG, please read our objections more carefully. It's not just the lead - your whole re-write is a giant FLG POV-fest. I plan to dispute more, after you have properly responded by disput #1(blanking fact cited from previousely accepted source on additional element of FLG's organ harvesting allegation). Bobby fletcher (talk) 21:48, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

ASDFG's POV pushing is evident in the edit history

CCPP, I'll give you couple examples:
1) ASDFG has time and again tried to burry/blank the fact Epoch Times is affiliated with Falun Gong. I have personally undone/asked him to stop this DE for at least a dozen times.
2) All his edits, from a self-admitted FLG disciple, is slanted towards FLG. I added a legit cite from an already accepted source, Zonaeuropa, about the fact Falun Gong also accused the Chinese embassies around the world of transporting live bodies for live organ harvesting inside the embassies - he blanked it
3) Look at the edits he's done, everying critical of this unproven allegation MUST end with a FLG/pro-FLG rebuttal. For example the US State Dept's announcement of its investigation is followed up with Epoch Times invalid criticism that the investigation started 3 weeks after the news broke, by citing the date of the official visit - however the facts from Lum's CRS report stated there was an undercover investigation preceeding the official visit.
I haven't looked, but I suspect my correction of this has been removed, as well as my latest attempt to re-add the fact the originator of this allegation, Epoch times, is associated with Falun Gong Bobby fletcher (talk) 19:41, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

1) it's in the second mention of the paper. I think putting it in the introduction just looks desperate and clumsy.

I strongly disagree.Bobby fletcher (talk) 04:58, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

2) that stuff about live bodies being transported is irrelevant, isn't it?

I strongly disagree. This is an additional element to Falun Gong's live organ harvesting allegation, and this fact is backed up by a previousely accepted source; there are other cites from Zonaeuropa.com that you have kept.Bobby fletcher (talk) 04:58, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

I question the reliability of zonaeuropa here (as far as I remember this was some kind of personal blog/report that explained this difference in english/chinese publishing). it just doesn't seem related to much, what was published when and by who on the Chinese/English Epoch Times sites?

3) that an undercover investigation at that time was also conducted should be mentioned. So should whatever controversies surround the invited one. There's no rule that a rebuttal needs to go at the end, but this is usually following the form of these communications. I'm not aware of the US State then rebutting the Epoch Times comment on the three week late visit, or on Thomas Lum then rebutting Kilgour/Matas' rebuttal of his comments?

I don't care that The Epoch Times was founded by Falun Gong practitioners.

The fact Epoch Times is affiliated with Falun Gong is a neutural fact. Nobody says it's a bad thing.Bobby fletcher (talk) 04:58, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

I think that's a good thing. Why would I want to cover this up? It just looks clumsy in the lead.

I strongly disagree. We've been thru this before, and you agreed to leave it there. Why change your mind again? Why are you looking for a fight?
Your continued DE is unacceptable. The tag clearly stated do not remove until disput is resolved. Nither PCCP nor I have agreed with your massive rewrite.
matter of fact I think your rewrite/POV push should be reverted. I now request for discussion

Bobby fletcher (talk) 04:58, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

It's first of all a media outlet. Whenever New York Times is mentioned, you do not say "the Jewish founded media outlet", nor when Christian Science monitor is mentioned etc.. It's relevant here because this subject is about Falun Gong, and it is mentioned, in the body, but the intro is for a broad outline, not for details. --Asdfg12345 01:15, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Not for details? Your metion of Christian Science Monitor but not Ottawa Citizen clearly shows "detail" is not the issue here - it's you pushing POV.
Bobby fletcher (talk) 05:01, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

A request, Charles: can you please spend a couple of minutes removing all your text from between what I wrote, and posting it as one block below this? Then we can get on with the conversation. If you want to respond to particular points, numbering them might be good. Please also justify the tag with reference to the perceived bias, and suggest how this might be corrected. Thanks--Asdfg12345 05:06, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

For me it's simple - STOP REMOVING MY EDIT!!! Bobby fletcher (talk) 05:12, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

To do list

  1. Put references through the introduction
  1. give slightly more detail in K/m report in intro, (like 33 pieces of evidence, etc.) , general background on this report and its particular importance in this unfolding series of events--also that they are travelling around etc.
  1. include more on/mention mcmillan scott's research/visit, as well as Kirk Allison's research.
  1. Provide more in depth discussion of the US Congressional response to the K/M report.
  1. make the key evidentiary elements in the k/m report, as well as the outstanding issues (like the CCP not releasing any hospital records which would quickly prove it wrong), more transparent
This is yet another example of your POV pushing. Hospital record involves patient privacy - no US hospital or government would release such information.Bobby fletcher (talk) 05:05, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
  1. Scrutinise the content to make sure the argument is properly presented from all angles, and scrouge around for some more refutations of k/m as well as their specific points of refutation and responses by k/m

--Asdfg12345 14:02, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Neuturality Dispute

I can only speak for myself. The other editor disputing this rewrite needs to chime in for himself:

1) ASDFG has time and again 'blanked' fact that are backed up by notable sources. This is DE and these blanking pretty much all tilt towda one direction. I suspect POV pushing, there for I request discussion.

As a remedy I propose we revert this massive rewrite, which two editors have obejected to so far. Bobby fletcher (talk) 05:20, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Can you please cite the actual difficulties you are having? You are suggesting reverting hours of work without really explaining why. I'm not even sure what I deleted that is so problematic? I want all the reliable sources in here disputing this case. The more it is thrashed out, the better, as far as I am concerned. Sometimes I dispute your sources, and sometimes I also dispute how you wield them, that's all. Most of what I did in the rewrite was fix up the problems with the article; I think it's a lot clearer now. There's a lot more work to do on it, though. I think it would be good to get better coverage over the controversy the K/M report raised. I'm aware of an interview that Nowak did with a German newspaper, for example. I am sure you have more reliable sources which would be relevant to the article. --Asdfg12345 05:42, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Dispute 1) ASDFG has, on more than one occasion, unilatterally removed a sourced fact about Falun Gong alleging Chinese embassies are involved in traficing of live person for live organ harvesting. I disput ASDFG's rationale for 'blanking' this fact cited from a previousely accepted source, Zonaeuropa.com. Bobby fletcher (talk) 06:03, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

how is it relevant to the article?--Asdfg12345 06:11, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

It is additional element of Falun Gong's organ harvesting allegation, therfor relevant to the article. It is also fact cited from a previousely accepted source, Zonaeuropa.com. Bobby fletcher (talk) 06:18, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

nothing came of it, there is no evidence to support it. I assume you want to report it because it makes whatever media reported it look a bit silly, for reporting such a severe but unsubstantiated claim? I'm assuming this is the case, you can let me know otherwise, but it holds no sway on the article at all. Even the sujiatun allegations have been trimmed down because they are not that big a part of the overall scheme of this. The key thing in this case is the kilgour/matas report. if it weren't for that, this whole issue would only be a footnote to the wider debate, the claims would have been dropped, and no one would have known about what was happening--and apparently continues. --Asdfg12345 06:43, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

I strongly disagree. a) it is added in the Sujiatun section, and is relevant. b) facts are neutural, you are again demonstrating your POV pushing by adding color to this fact. c) even if the claim is unsubstantiated, it still does not refute the fact Falun Gong did make this allegation. e) This fact relates to the subject at hand and name of the article "Sujiatun and Organ Harvesting", weither it relates to K&M is irrelevant. Bobby fletcher (talk) 07:37, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
Note: ASDFG, please look how you have clearly pushed you POV here - the live organ harvesting allegation made by Falun Gong to date remains an allegation. Is K&M report credible enough to substantiate your "what was happening--and apparently continues" POV? I don't believe so, based on the authors' admitted circumstantial nature and the fact US government, long time anti-CCP activist, and mainstream reporters all have criticized it.
Bobby fletcher (talk) 07:39, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure about your second remark, but the reason I think it should be dropped is because it's a non-sequitor. It's like if you got a source saying "On April the Epoch Times published a report written by reporter X in the World section. The report was later moved to the China section," or any other irrelevant factoid you could think of. Since it has no relation to anything else, I don't see why it should go in the article, that's all I'm saying. It's such a minor issue though...--Asdfg12345 07:47, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

I disagree with your claim it is a non-sequitor. You example is not fitting at all. The report is not an unrelated article, but an element of Falun Gong's organ harvesting allegation. It is realted to this article and was placed in the relevant section. I see strong rational for citing this fact, that's all I'm saying.
What I can not understand is why you have continued with your blanking and DE, only to make personal judgement that is not backed by any facts. This is yet another example of your POV pushing, and why there are two editors disagreeing with you. Bobby fletcher (talk) 07:54, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

We're just having a conversation about something, no need to throw in accusations. My example was supposed to refer to a report about organ harvesting. The alleged report may have been an element of something or other, but it came to nothing and it has not much connection with past or present. It's just useless detail. Can you tell me why you want it in above other random pieces of information from that period? --Asdfg12345 21:45, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

I disagree, it is not random information. It is an additional element of Falun Gong's organ harvesting allegation. I strongly diagree with your "useless" characterizatio; the fact the allegation was made has nothing to do with any subsquent out come.
Bobby fletcher (talk) 01:26, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

STRONGLY disputing Asdfg's "blanking" of fact from previously accepted source

Asdfg, should we take this to arb? Zonaeuropa.com is an accepted source by YOU - see ref 12 which you have included in your giant rewrite. I even cited you an article from Epoch Times, and you blanked that too. What, Epoch Times is not a notable source? Bobby fletcher (talk) 02:59, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

A different source should be found for that (the Wu thing). You know that personal websites are not permissible. I didn't research that source myself, and didn't really notice it. I just rearranged things and tidied some things up, mostly, as well as fill-out the details of the K/M report. Someone else can come in here to decide whether it's appropriate in this case. I'm not going to battle you continually over this kind of thing. I think it's: trivial, irrelevant, unwarranted, a non-sequitor, and ill-sourced. Someone else can decide whether it goes or stays. I question why a personal website would be allowed here anyway. If the Wu stuff can't be sourced elsewhere it should simply be deleted. What's good for the goose is good for the gander. Falun Gong personal sites are not reffed here, nor should they be. I'm interested in keeping the caliber to a high-standard, and this is my main concern. --Asdfg12345 03:24, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
My main objection is your DE. The fact is you accepted Zonaeuropa.com in one instance but not in another. I strongly disagree with what you "think" which can not be backed up by facts.
That's while the cite is legit 1) from an already accepted source, 2) related to the Sujiatun allegation as an additional element of Falun Gong's organ harvesting allegation.
Why don't we go to Arb?
Bobby fletcher (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 03:45, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
Take it to ARB while it's still current and obvious. PerEdman (talk) 21:46, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
This needs serious sorting out. The article requires arbitration and then locking, just like the main Falun Gong article. Its ludicrous fighting POV back and forth for months on end. Lexxus2010 (talk) 21:28, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Who is asdfg?

It is up to the Chinese Government to open their entire country, hospitals, and prisons, and let outside observers refute the K/M report. I don't imagine this will happen.

asdfg, why do you hide behind letters on the keyboard? Omvegan (talk) 02:26, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Right, if I made up a claim that you stole something from me and requested to search your home, would it be OK with you?

If something of yours turned up missing, and all of a sudden I had one where I had not had one before, then yes, you could go to a disputing agency, e.g., the police, and file a complaint. They would investigate, and if your claim had merit, they would, on your behalf, get a search warrant, and search my home. In other words, if there is evidence, then someone should investigate.

Here's what I want to know: Falun Gong, the whole movement, is a puppet activity of the CIA designed to destablize the CCP? Is that the claim being made by Mr. Fletcher? Or something thereabouts? Omvegan (talk) 02:20, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Change of Title?

I was wondering if the title should be changed to something more descriptive - perhaps "Reports of Organ Harvesting from Live Falun Gong Practitioners" Dilip rajeev (talk) 06:36, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Planning to move

Kindly let me know what your opinion is on Changing the Title - I'll be waiting for two more days - if there is no disagreement I'll be moving the page to "Reports of Organ Harvesting from Live Falun Gong Practitioners in China" - which seems a much more accurate description of the topic than the vague "Falun Gong and Organ Harvesting". Dilip rajeev (talk) 06:57, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Moving the article to Reports of Organ Harvesting from Live Falun Gong Practitioners in China Dilip rajeev (talk) 17:15, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

More sources that could be used


Dilip rajeev (talk) 07:12, 1 May 2008 (UTC)


I have added some info to the article. Mainly information from Amnesty International and also from the Yale University thesis mentioned above. Dilip rajeev (talk) 18:11, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

I have deleted the para quoting zonaeuropa as a source. Is the so called translation verifiable? Is this a reliable source? Further, is this really relevant to the article? ( WP:UNDUE). Dilip rajeev (talk) 19:51, 1 May 2008 (UTC)


An Intro para

I was thinking about moving the last para from the intro. The content seems redundant there. Further, the content of the short para doesn't seem to do justice to the facts surrounding international response to Kilgour-Matas reports - which are discussed in detail in the relevant sub-section of the article. Dilip rajeev (talk) 18:11, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Reports on Organ Harvesting from from UN's Special Rapporteur on Torture

http://www.canadafreepress.com/2007/falun-gong061107.htm

On August 11, 2006, three UN Special Rapporteurs had sent an urgent appeal on organ harvesting from Falun Gong practitioners. This was a joint action by the Special Rapporteur on Torture, Mr. Manfred Nowak, the Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Religion or Belief, Ms. Asma Jahangir and the Special Rapporteur on Trafficking in Persons, Ms. Sigma Huda.

Mr. Nowak further states in his report, "Vital organs including hearts, kidneys, livers and corneas were systematically harvested from Falun Gong practitioners at Sujiatan Hospital, Shenyang, Liaoning Province, beginning in 2001. The practitioners were given injections to induce heart failure, and therefore were killed in the course of the organ harvesting operations or immediately thereafter."

The report adds, "It is reported that employees of several transplant centres have indicated that they have used organs from live Falun Gong practitioners for transplants. After the organs were removed, the bodies were cremated, and no corpse is left to examine for identification as the source of an organ transplant. Once the organs were removed they were shipped to transplant centres to be used for transplants for both domestic and foreign patients."

Although the Chinese government denied the allegations, the Report states that China's passage of a law on July 1, 2006, prohibiting the sale of organs and requiring the donor to give written permission, indicates that China allowed organ harvesting before that time.

"Moreover, evidence exists, for example, that at least up until April 2006, price lists for organ transplants in China were published on the Internet," states the report.

The Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Religion or Belief, Ms. Asma Jahangir, also addressed the harvesting of organs from Falun Gong practitioners in her annual report on 250 countries. Regarding freedom of religion or belief, her report states, "The Special Rapporteur continues to be very concerned by the continued violations of freedom of religion or belief suffered by members of the Falun Gong. In her previous reports to the Commission on Human Rights, she explicitly mentioned members of the Falun Gong as targets of various human rights violations because of their beliefs and she strongly condemns the continued lack of freedom of belief of members of Falun Gong."

Dilip rajeev (talk) 17:40, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Mr. Dilip rajeev, you have done excellent work and a service to humanity with the quality of your posts and your recommendations. Thank you. Omvegan (talk) 04:21, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, friend. Dilip rajeev (talk) 13:43, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Consensus

Where, pray, was the consensus to move this article? I want to move it to Allegations of organ harvesting on living Falun Gong practitioners. I'm just putting it back where it was for now. Ohconfucius (talk) 07:37, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Now why would you want to make it allegations? When the report cites things even sources from the Chinese government? Is it just because in China it's not possible to take this issue to court and then be acknoledged as such? Isn't this happening because that is a totalitarian society? Since it's a totalitarian society why would you expect that to ever happen? Saying that there are reports of organ harvesting is factual and correct. Because there are reports of this kind. --HappyInGeneral (talk) 12:02, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
Happy, you have again demonstrated your POV pushing. The live organ harvesting is in fact an allegation. Wikipedia is about facts, not what you consider to be truth. Bobby fletcher (talk) 23:52, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Resources to add to page

The following resources can be added to this page.

German Language?

--HappyInGeneral (talk) 12:16, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Reports from Mr Nowak, The U.N. Special Rapporteur on Torture

Official UN Reports: http://www.ohchr.org/english/issues/torture/rapporteur/

From an Interview: "The two Canadians are drawing clear conclusions. The chain of evidence they are documenting shows a coherent picture that causes concern."- Mr Nowak English translation of an interview in German

And then he goes on saying that he will not make a judgment because he is still examining the situation, because Sujiatun case met with various problems but "In any case now it´s the Chinese government´s turn to invalidate the chain of evidence point by point with the according facts (e.g. the exact number of executed persons, the exact origin of the transplanted organs). To reject the massive accusations raised by various sides categorically is surely not sufficient." --HappyInGeneral (talk) 16:32, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Identity of posters

Hello, I am an American citizen, I do not practice Falun Dafa or Falun Gong. I am not Chinese. I first found the Kilgour Matas report at a place called the Innate Healing Arts Center in Detroit Michigan.

I think everyone who posts here should self-identify so that any motives will be more obvious. I am not anti-China nor anti-socialist but when someone submits a paper to Yale University, and it is accepted, that's good evidence that someone reviewed it for factual accuracy. Not everyone has been so forthcoming. If you live in China, or are Chinese, say so. Whether you support Chinese nationalist aims or not in general, say so. I don't think "allegations" is necessary at this time. I think what has been happening is documented fact. The burden of disproof is now on the Chinese government. Omvegan (talk) 14:55, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Gao Zhisheng

Also I would expect all persons claiming the refute this issue please explain the status of Gao Zhisheng, who has been imprisoned by the CCP, whose whereabouts are unknown. Omvegan (talk) 15:09, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

[1]

Charles Liu, how to explain the surge in transplants done in China?

So, Charles Liu is the "real name" of Bobby Fletcher. And Charles seeks to discredit this information. So, Charles, how do you explain the surge in transplants done in China? Omvegan (talk) 15:59, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

PCPP please discuss changes

Please discuss the changes you would like to make. They seem to be quite vast. A good way might be to number them, like this:

  1. first edit is this and that, here's why
  2. second edit is this and that, here's why,

and so on and we can work through them. You seem to have deleted a lot of things without any explanation. Please discuss here before changing again. Thanks--Asdfg12345 05:39, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Disputes

First I strongly oppose your friend Dilip's additions without consensus. And the disputes:

  • Your removal of the POV tag
  • Your removal of:

"In March 2006, The Epoch Times, a Falun Gong-linked newspaper, published a number of articles alleging that the Chinese government and its agencies, including the People's Liberation Army, were conducting widespread and systematic organ harvesting of living Falun Gong practitioners."

"The first series of allegations were based on alleged eye-witness testimony of two individuals, and directed specifically at the Sujiatun Thrombosis Hospital in Shenyang, Liaoning province, co-owned by Country Heights Health Sanctuary of Malaysia. The story received some deal of media attention. Within one month, some third party investigators concluded that there was insufficient evidence to support this specific allegation."

  • Your removal of this paragraph and over emphasis on Kilgour and Matas as compared to the US Congressional report and Harry Wu:

"The Chinese government denies any mistreatment of Falun Gong practitioners, and rejects their report in its entirety, citing lack of evidence and incapability of the hospital to perform the claimed acts. Three weeks later, upon invitation, the United States Department of State investigated the site, finding no evidence to support the allegations.[1]"

  • Dilip's addition which does not match the source:

Their findings have received mixed responses. Sources such as investigative reports from Sky News [2] seemed to corroborate the findings of the Kilgour-Matas reports. The Chinese government categorically denied any mistreatment of Falun Gong practitioners, and rejected their report in its entirety. A Congressional Research Service said that the report’s key allegations appeared to be inconsistent with the findings of other investigations, [3] while the Christian Science Monitor says the report’s evidence is circumstantial but persuasive.[4] The authors maintain that their conclusion has not been refuted.

  • Your removal of this:

"The Epoch Times also alleged in addition to Sujiatun, live persons were exported overseas, then Chinese embassies abroad harvested organs and incinerated the bodies[5]. However, this allegation was not translated into English.[6][unreliable source?]"

  • More unsourced nonsense added:

"However some news reports, including by The Epoch Times, focused on the publicly announced investigation by the State Department, which took place three weeks after the initial allegations came to light. They alleged that by then the Chinese government had cleaned up."

  • The entire phonecall transcript. Non-encyclopedic, and adds nothing to the discussion. This article is about the organ harvesting allegations, not Matas and Kilgour's "investigations". A link would suffice.
  • I attempt to incorporate the Kilgour Matas quotes into a paragraph:

"The authors claimed that the allegations are true, and there exists a large scale organ havesting operation from unwilling Falun Gong practitioners. The also claimed that the government of China and its agencies has put to death a large number of Falun Gong prisoners since 1999. Their vital organs, including kidneys, livers, corneas and hearts, were seized involuntarily for sale at high prices, sometimes to foreigners, who normally face long waits for voluntary donations of such organs in their home countries. "

  • Unsourced opinion material removed:

"The pair say that corruption is rife in China, which provides an incentive to break the law and make profit from selling organs, and that there is no self-governing body for transplant ethics."

  • Trying to balance pov in the KM Repot section:

From: "China has no organized donation system, as in western countries. There is also a cultural aversion to organ donation, such that even if there were a system in place, donations would be scarce. The authors say these factors severely limit the availability of voluntarily donated organs for transplant. " To: "The authors claim that China has no organized donation system, as in western countries, and there is also a cultural aversion to organ donation. The authors say these factors severely limit the availability of voluntarily donated organs for transplant. "

Adding: "The pair alleged that of the 60,000 organ transplants officially recorded between 2000 and 2005, 18,500 came from identifiable sources; the source of 41,500 transplant organs could not thus be explained.[7] In a later article published in 2007, Kilgour and Matas say that traditional sources of transplants such as executed prisoners, donors, and the brain dead "come nowhere near to explaining the total number of transplants across China." They said that "the only other identified source which can explain the skyrocketing transplant numbers is Falun Gong practitioners."[8] "

  • Removing this quotes, these unverified sourcesn add nothing but undue weight:

"He was admitted to the No 1 Peoples' Hospital‑a civilian facility‑and during the ensuing two weeks four kidneys were brought for testing against his blood and other factors. None proved compatible because of his anti‑bodies; all were taken away.” He returned to the hospital two months later. “Another four kidneys were similarly tested; when the eighth proved compatible, the transplant operation was successfully completed... His surgeon... Dr. Tan Jianming of the Nanjing military region... carried sheets of paper containing lists of prospective 'donors', based on various tissue and blood characteristics, from which he would select names.The doctor was observed at various times to leave the hospital in uniform and return 2‑3 hours later with containers bearing kidneys. Dr. Tan told the recipient that the eighth kidney came from an executed prisoner.

The military have access to prisons and prisoners. Their operations are even more secretive than those of the civilian government. They are impervious to the rule of law"

  • More unsourced material from KM Report:

"Kilgour and Matas regard the information found on Chinese hospital websites “incriminating.” They refer to one site which claims that internal organs can be found 'immediately!'; the FAQ section on denies that organs come from “brain death (sic)” patients. Another shows various graphs with soaring organ transplantation figures—these start going up after 1999, when the persecution of Falun Gong began."

  • The paragraph "Falun Gong considerations":

Removing: "Their report gives background to human rights violations in China, in particular the persecution of Falun Gong, including the campaign to incite public hatred toward the group, and the widespread torture of practitioners in custody." Poorly phrased, treating allegations and opinions as fact. Summarising: "The authors also reported that Falun Gong practitioners are systematically blood and urine tested, and have their organs examined while in custody, while other patients, who are not practitioners, are not tested. They also alleges that blood testing is a pre-requisite for organ transplants, and that donors need to be matched with recipients so that the antibodies of the recipients do not reject the organs of the donors.

The authors alleged that practitioners regularly die in custody due to torture or ill-treatment, and that in a few cases, family members of Falun Gong practitioners were able to see the mutilated corpses of their loved ones with organs removed.[8] " As the quotes add nothing but lengthen the article.

  • Your removal of Harry Wu's statements:

"In 9 August, 2006, Harry Wu questioned the feasibility of the claims. He said a total of 4,500 victims "would mean 1,500 persons per year, or at least 120 persons per month whose organs were removed".[9] "This would be impossible to accomplish in an environment such as Sujiatun," he said. "China takes organs from many executed prisoners every year, but to kill 4,000 or 5,000 people, I don't think so. Professional doctors would not do this." He also cast doubt on claims that a doctor removed corneas from 2,000 followers in less than two years. Matas asserted that the process of removing the eyes takes only 20 minutes, and added that one surgeon could remove the corneas from 2,000 bodies in just 83 days.[10] "

  • The adding of this by Dilip to the Chinese response section, which concerns documented organ harvesting of executed prisoners, and not FLG. The positionin of this comment seems to be trying to discredit the Chinese response:

"Amnesty International has noted the response of the Chinese authorities to the Canadian report, which states among other things that China has 'consistently abided by the relevant guiding principles of the World Health Organization endorsed in 1991, prohibiting the sale of human organs and stipulating that donors' written consent must be obtained beforehand'. Amnesty International considers this statement to be at odds with the facts in view of the widely documented practice of the buying and selling of organs of death penalty prisoners in China.[11] "

--PCPP (talk) 06:57, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

  • Agree - After lenghty encounters with editor Asdfg12345, I can no longer Assume Good Faith. I suspect he is attempting to "red wash" these Falun Gong related articles on Wikipedia to smear China, something consistent with his organization's goal. Bobby fletcher (talk) 22:07, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
Happy, don't lie like this, it's neither Truthfull nor Benevolent. I don't want your De, eventhou every time you attack me and my edit, your De leaves your body.
Please show where I am in violation of AGF? AGF say if there's reason to not assume good faith, state it so. That's exactely what I'm doing. Because you people's action I can no longer assume good faith. Your false accusation here is yet another proof.

Bobby fletcher (talk) 18:46, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

I'll go in number.

  1. POV tag unexplained
  2. Epoch Times link already established in first section; seems desperate to have it in lede, a bit flow-breaking, no?
  3. Is there a reliable source for the co-ownership? If there is then no problem
  4. I'm not sure about the next point, the addition that doesn't match the source. I'll check that out. Maybe "seemed to corroborate is original research? is that what you mean? i'm not sure.
  5. What's the sense in what Epoch Times did or didn't report; it seems unrelated to the wider narrative. The source is also dodgy for the second point.
  6. Transcript adds a lot to the discussion, and it is just a portion of the total, a small portion.
  7. The corruption part is from their report; that section is all about their report, it can simply have a tag stuck on.
  8. They seem to be reporting CCP data about organ numbers; are they merely alleging, or reporting other sources on those figures?
  9. The anecdote is from their report, and they have brought it up frequently in forum discussions etc., they obviously think it's highly relevant. That kind of first hand revelation is a big deal.
  10. Unsourced material can easily just get tagged.
  11. Harry Wu, well a lot of stuff got deleted from the Sujiatun section, including much that supported it. I don't mind if you want to; it's just that the responses will also bloat the more insigificant part of this page.
  12. I moved Dilip's addition and made it smaller. I also strengthened Mcgregor's statement.
I'm happy to discuss any of these matters further.--Asdfg12345 08:25, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Unsourced rebuttal inserted by ASDFG makes this article POV

IMHO, after so much DE and POV pushing I've personally experienced, I can no longer assume good faith. Here's another example of his POV pushing. Eventhou he round up things in the doubts section because he can't delete the facts against the allegation, he follows with a pro-FLG rebuttal, IMHO meaningless, often unsourced rebuttal.

Why not say "Kilgour maintain their finding has not been refuted, and his critics stand by their criticism"? POV pushing like this is meaningless and demonstrates Epoch Times' agenda Bobby fletcher (talk) 05:49, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

I think a key issue here is that no one has refuted the Kilgour/Matas report. If they had, we could say that. People have raised doubts about it. Harry Wu doesn't seem to believe it. But others say it doesn't hold enough evidence at the moment, but they are not dismissing it. It's significant that K/M are travelling around the world talking about this, and that their response to the reactions to their report is still that they believe the practice is ongoing, and that no one has refuted them. It's fairly simple all up I guess. --Asdfg12345 08:25, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
First of all, what you "think" is not fact. What you have "reasoned" here is supposition and POV pushing. The fact is most of Kilgour's critic has not retracted their criticism. Lum has updated his report and has not changed his position, and Wu has stated that he "remain unconvinced" - that's Wu's quote in the McGregor report.
Will you add that to your "Kilgour maintain unrefuted" line? Let's see how truthfull you are. Bobby fletcher (talk) 18:32, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Why would someone make this up?

Why would someone make this up? Omvegan (talk) 00:56, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Suggest renaming article

I think it ought to be called simply "Organ harvesting of Falun Gong". The name is far too long at the moment, and "Falun Gong and organ harvesting" or variations thereof aren't using language in a normal or descriptive way. Thoughts?--Asdfg12345 14:20, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

I just thought it would be simpler to do it this way. If you don't believe it, you don't have to believe it, but it's simply what the article is about. Might be good to get other opinions. I thought it would be nicer to have a simple title, rather than a long, slightly clumsy one.--Asdfg12345 08:25, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

I wonder why you didn't suggest to put the word "allegation" in the title, since it is todate, an allegation that is unproven? Your POV pushing is so obvious, so untruthfull, so unbenevolent. I will continue to document your DE and provice proof to why I can no longer assume good faith. Bobby fletcher (talk) 18:23, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Disputing Editor ASDFG12345's wholesale Blanking/DE

Please stop blanking EVERYTHING I write. State your dispute here, we'll resove it, THEN edit. Blanking/DE is unacceptable.

Also you have not settled editor PCPP's disput with you. Bobby fletcher (talk) 22:44, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

I will not revert this edit:
However Falun Gong media's original reporting of Wang Bin in Nov. 2000 mentioned autopsy and no organ removal. The Y-incision exhibited in the photo suggests it is an autopsy photo. [2] [3]]]
because I have made a commitment not to revert more than once per article per day. But it clearly violates the wikipedia policy on original research; please read the section on using multiple sources to advance a point of view. That's not allowed.
I don't think the "Falun Gong affiliated media" in the lede is too big an issue. I just thought it was more appropriate in the main section on those claims. I thought putting it in the lede made it seem a bit desperate, but overall it's not a big deal. I'd be interested to hear why you found it appropriate to delete Nowak's statement that "The chain of evidence they are documenting shows a coherent picture that causes concern." Please also explain, in a non-general way, the reason for adding the POV tag again.--Asdfg12345 08:25, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
Yet this is the Nth time you have blanked/marginalized this fact. What are you ashamed of? Here's the proof of your DE:
User talk:Bobby fletcher#Editor Asdfg12345's blanking of facts from notable source
This is why I can no longer assume good faith. Whatever happened to Truthfullness? Bobby fletcher (talk) 18:26, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
Look at the Nowak quote carefuly, it is sourced from a blog Bobby fletcher (talk) 05:57, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Please provide context

Bobby you inserted the following: "According to a US congressional report, these witness has refused to speak with government investigators. [4]" Can you please provide where in this document you found that the witnesses refused to speak with government investigators? Thank you --HappyInGeneral (talk) 09:02, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

FYI, see this source: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/georgianne-nienaber/beijing-olympics-is-us-su_b_95934.html
"In a letter submitted to Juan E. Méndez, the United Nations Special Adviser on Prevention of Genocide, the Falun Gong working group charged that "while the Chinese regime is cleaning up its operation, world governments and media have been slow to take this issue seriously. The U.S. State Department officials, for example, when they interviewed two witnesses, spent most of the time questioning if the witnesses had made up the story rather than asking for more details of their accounts." "
so the witnesses met with the U.S. State Department officials. --HappyInGeneral (talk) 10:29, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
That's not what Lum said. You didn't read it did you? Lum mentioned neither he nor Wu was able to speak to the witness. Perhaps you can made the edit better by changing it to "Congressional investigator" or something else.
But you decided to improve it by blanking this fact out. This clearly shows you are untruthfull, unbenevolent - oh it's also DE, unwiki.
It's behavior like this that has caused me to believe I can no longer asume good faith. Bobby fletcher (talk) 18:21, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
Bobby, I told you that I looked into the document, but I did not find your claim. I asked you to copy paste a part of it, as in the sample above, which shows that you are right, since I assume good faith and say that I might have missed it. But until then it will stay out because it fails verification. --HappyInGeneral (talk) 09:16, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Please give reason for the POV tag

I'm planning to remove the POV tag, please give reason for it's existence. Thank You --HappyInGeneral (talk) 09:05, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Disagree I have made my objection very clear:
1) every doubt section contains unsourced and meaningless rebuttal
2) weight given to K/M report is heavily weighted in its favor while the fact is the report has no proof of the allegation at all.
3) this allegation made by Falun Gong, to date, remains an allegation, but this important fact has been marginalized by the effort of FLG editor's POV pushing.
4) behaviors from FLG editors such as yourself has led me to believe I can no longer assume good faith. For example you removed zonaeuropa, but allowed a FLG disciple's blog to remain is perfect illustration of biased editing and POV pushing.
4) FLG editor's removal of the POV flag has garnered objection from other editors as well.
I'll give other editors who has voiced objection two week to add their specific objection here.
Bobby fletcher (talk) 18:15, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Bobby, it is harassment to attempt to establish my real-life identity. I suggest you yourself remove the instances of attempting to "out" me, and don't try to do it again. If you continue to do so there will be some kind of consequence, I'm sure.

Just remeber what you did to me when you posted the Western Standards article. I didn't do anything you didn't do. Let's go to Arb. Bobby fletcher (talk) 05:34, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Just for your points...

  1. Can you please cite some examples of unsourced rebuttal?
  2. K/M report is the most significant document in this story, and is basically the whole thing. Confucius actually wanted to call the page "Bloody Harvest"
  3. not sure what you mean here... suggest reading WP:V
  4. see my note about harassment, above. Where is the blog? That's not a good source, I agree.
  5. the point is, I think, that you put the flag there without discussing it, and now are working to justify it. Let's talk about how to improve the page instead.--Asdfg12345 00:25, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
a) there has beenplenty of discusion from various editor objecting to this article being POV. Removal of it without resolution is wrong.
b) the quote "The authors maintain that their conclusion has not been refuted." is unsourced. It is also POV and meaningless, since Kilgour's critics have also maintained their criticism (Wu, Lum.)
Bobby fletcher (talk) 05:28, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Bobby, that still doesn't address how the article could be improved. There was a source for the quote. Matas said it. The point here is quite distinct. The lede is supposed to demonstrate the scope of the subject. In this context, the scope is that the main proponents of this argument continue to travel the world advocating for it, publicising their report, and so on. This is fairly significant for people of the Davids' stature. If you want to phrase it differently, that's fine, though the point is that while some have doubted the conclusions, or thought there to not be enough evidence, the Davids' maintain that it is the case and are active in informing others of that. It's also the case that no one has refuted their report, and that's what they say. I am not aware of any refutations of their report except from the CCP, who have cooked up some nasty propaganda videos. Amnesty and Nowak, as far as I understand, have not refuted the findings of the report, they have just stated that they are continuing to investigate and won't draw a conclusion yet. To put it simply, the final point is that this issue is still a hot topic, and it is still outstanding. It has not been resolved. That's all I mean.--Asdfg12345 11:56, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

If that's the case, then you should have no problem with inclusion of Wu's contintued criticism. Wu stated so in the McGregor report that he remain unconvinced. Add that so it's NPOV. Bobby fletcher (talk) 17:36, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm unwilling to cooperate with you until you remove the offending instances of attempting to "out" who you think I am. Please see WP:HARASS for context. --Asdfg12345 22:41, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Before you accuse me, take look in the mirrow. In this page alone you have "out" who you think I am 6 times since Jan. 2008. You started your harrsement months ago you wheen "out" who you think I am by posting the Western Standard article.
I haven't done anything you didn't do, first. Bobby fletcher (talk) 06:57, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Objecting to HappyInGeneral's Wholesale Blanking

Happy, please discuss all your blankings. We'll reach an agreement, then edit:

1)Your objection about OR is taken, except the fact the incisions on Wang Bin's body is in fact a 'Y' shape. What the letter Y looks like is a common knowledge. Also it is a fact organ removal is consistent with autopsy: http://www.forensicmed.co.uk/autopsy.htm

2) Your blanking of FLG's 2000 reporting on Wang is unacceptable. You say they didn't know but do you have proof it is the case? Wiki is all about facts, and presenting the two facts will allow readers to make up their own mind. Your blanking of this fact show your bad faith editing and POV pushing.

3) The title of the photo insert is wrong. There's no details about "transplanting" in Kilgour report, only organ removal. If there's detail about transplant who received Wang's organ?

Bobby fletcher (talk) 19:01, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Bobby, first thank you for engaging into a discussion.
1) I think we are in agreement that OR is against wikipedia policy.
2) "Your blanking of FLG's 2000 reporting on Wang is unacceptable." Well I did give you my reason, I am talking about it here, so I would not call it DE Blanking as you so much like to put it, but content dispute, you have your reason, I have my reasons. Ok now down to the reason. I ask you how is this relevant: "However Falun Gong media's initial reporting of Wang Bin in Nov. 2000 mentioned autopsy and no organ removal. [5]" I'm not saying that it is true, but how is it relevant? If you insist to put it in than in order to make it fair you need to say that the report came out in 6 July 2006, and before that there where some proves, but not enough to draw a conclusion. Now we can put all this in the image caption, but then it becomes lengthy.
3) "Details of alleged organ removal" vs. "Details of organ transplanting" if we are to judge only about the image than "Details of organ transplanting" would not be correct and we would need to find a different title, but we judge about the content (text) of that section, which very much goes in the donation & transplant system it becomes correct. Anyway I recommend, "Details on the source of organ transplants", because this way the title is more specific about the content of the section. --HappyInGeneral (talk) 09:06, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
Falun Gong media's prior reporting is relevant because it 1) a fact; 2) it offers an alternative explination that this photo is an autopsy photo. Bobby fletcher (talk) 17:39, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
Well it does not provide an 'alternative' explication to that photo. It provides an initial explication for that photo. Perhaps the same person, who wrote the article in 2001, now will say: OK, based on the current information I have I think this is the result of an organ removal procedure and not merely autopsy. Anyway if you still think it's relevant, please use it with complete context. --HappyInGeneral (talk) 23:06, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Unbalanced media summary in lead

In the lead where a POV statement "The Christian Science Monitor says the report’s evidence is circumstantial but persuasive" needs to be balanced by mentioning media doubt from Ottawa Citizen. Bobby fletcher (talk) 17:50, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion

NO. This article is about the singling out of Falun Gong Practitioners for Live organ harvesting done in secret by the Chinese Government. It is based on indisputable evidence. Omvegan (talk) 13:41, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

This article relies on Falun Gong's own source the Epoch Times. The independent information refers to Organ harvesting in China in general. A small section on the Falun Gong claims could be added here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.213.39.243 (talk) 20:19, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Dude, why don't you sign up an account? Bobby fletcher (talk) 22:25, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
Please note that this is not the proper forum to discuss deletion.--Ave Caesar (talk) 11:45, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Disputing Dilip rajeev's removal of POV flag while discussion still under way

Not cool. You have not commented in any of the discussion relating the the POV flag discussion. Bobby fletcher (talk) 22:33, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Second notice to editor Dilip

You have removed the POV flag again, without participating in the discusion. A list of discussions in this page has been provided to you:

User talk:Dilip rajeev#POV dispute discussions in FG organ article

Bobby fletcher (talk) 19:23, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

(third notice ) POV dispute discussions in FG organ article

Dilip, your claim there's no such discussion is mistaken, but the following list of disputes where provided to you. You seem to have once again removed the POV flag without any participation in the page. I disagree with your assessment:

Talk:Reports of organ harvesting from live Falun Gong practitioners in China#Unbalanced media summary in lead

Talk:Reports of organ harvesting from live Falun Gong practitioners in China#Please give reason for the POV tag

Talk:Reports of organ harvesting from live Falun Gong practitioners in China#Unsourced rebuttal inserted by ASDFG makes this article POV

Talk:Reports of organ harvesting from live Falun Gong practitioners in China#Disputes

Talk:Reports of organ harvesting from live Falun Gong practitioners in China#ASDFG DO NOT REMOVE POV DISPUTE TAG

Talk:Reports of organ harvesting from live Falun Gong practitioners in China#ASDFG's POV pushing is evident in the edit history

- Also, an explicit note to you about this was made:

Talk:Reports of organ harvesting from live Falun Gong practitioners in China#Disputing Dilip rajeev's removal of POV flag while discussion still under way

Bobby fletcher (talk) 19:29, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

What is going on with this page?

Can someone explain to me about the blanking? Who is blanking what, and whom? Who are the major players? Who is on what side? You can email me at veganperson@sbcglobal.net. I don't care if people figure out who I am. I do care, obviously, if the Chinese government sends operatives to my house to beat me, take me prisoner, and harvest my organs without my consent. Not an absurd notion at all, I'm afraid. Omvegan (talk) 13:37, 29 June 2008 (UTC)


I wish to point out that the last edit by bobbyfletcher is again mis-representing the sources. A particular journalist expressed some doubts and that obviously cannot be presented as "ottawa citizen"'s stance - which even had published statements from Kilgour MAtas themselves - including their response to the journalist's article.. Also to be noted that the dissident group stuff is only pertinent to the particular sujiatun case( not the Kilgour Matas reports in its entirety) and must be presented with appropriate context as is done later down in the article. Dilip rajeev (talk) 22:40, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

It should still be allowed representation in the lead (that's the definition of a lead, for something later down the line.) For you to find excuse to "cleanse" for a particular POV is precisely why the this article needs a POV flag. You've been notified of this 3 times now. And speaking of misrepresentation - you are here misrepresenting the the fact Ottawa citizen article also reported doubts about the Kilgour report.
Bobby fletcher (talk) 16:40, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
There are many corroborative reports, including by The EU Vice President, Yale University studies etc which we are unable to present in the lead.. so that the lead may be kept short and readable. This particular ottawa citizen article carries little weight when compared to the reports i just mentioned.
Dilip rajeev (talk) 18:47, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
As means of settling this, I've removed Sky News, CSM and Ottawa Citizen from that paragraph, leaving it with first and second party sources eg Chinese government, Amnesty, Department of State, Kilgour/Matas, UN etc.

Okay, about this, it may be worthwhile to somehow categorise the responses. So we can use sentences to summarise the different views. I can't look into this now, but there are different kinds of responses, right? Some reject it, some corroborate it, some remain agnostic, some say it looks troubling and call for the CCP to address the issue. And the CCP has not addressed the issue. Perhaps the major ones we could list, and others generalise. ATM I don't feel the bottom paragraph in the lede gives a wide enough spectrum of reception; though considerations need to be made as to the quality of the source. Nowak trumps Macgregor, for example, and his comments carry much weight. I think the first sentence of the paragraph needs to make clear the reception to the report and the evidence has been mixed. Then, it can give a short sentence, or summarise, either the key issues that have been identified as contentious, or (as I suspect, the disputing argumentation has been far vaguer than that) the key sources and broadly what they have said. This would be a matter of stating

  • those who disagree with the conclusions of the report
  • the fact that K/M stand by their conclusion
  • that other studies corroborate (or purport to corroborate) the K/M report
  • that the CCP dismisses the report entirely, without responding to the substance of its evidence
  • that certain groups have not reached a conclusion (think Amnesty, Nowak), but are troubled by CCP organ harvesting practices and want more information about all this.

I'm just kind of trying to identify the key elements. We can't go too far over 150 words for this paragraph, I don't reckon, 200 max. Let's see some proposals. By the way, I'm totally against putting those POV tags just because some editors don't like the content. The problems need to be identifiable, and we have to be working to resolve them. It's just such an unproductive editing environment, otherwise. Alright, I think we should see some proposals for the final paragraph here. Make a subsection with your username and suggestion--this is just an idea. I think these discussions are going to need to have a clear structure for them to work properly, and this may be one way of doing it.--Asdfg12345 04:51, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Asdfg's suggestion for lede

Investigative reports from Sky News and BBC add evidence to the findings of the Kilgour-Matas report.[12] The Christian Science Monitor says the report’s evidence is circumstantial but persuasive.[13] The Chinese Embassy in Canada replied to the first version of the Kilgour-Matas report immediately upon its release on July 6, stating that China abided by World Health Organization principles that prohibit the sale of human organs without written consent from donors. Amnesty International stated that it considers this statement "to be at odds with the facts in view of the widely documented practice of the buying and selling of organs of death penalty prisoners in China."[14] On August 2006, a CRS report said that some of the report’s key allegations appeared to be inconsistent with the findings of other investigations, and well-known dissident Harry Wu, and some journalists, have also disputed the reports' findings.[15] The authors stand by their conclusion, and U.N. special rapporteur Manfred Nowak, in Decemver 2007 said "The chain of evidence they [Kilgour and Matas] are documenting shows a coherent picture that causes concern."[16]

__________________________________________

This isn't it entirely, I'll refactor it later. But I'm giving Nowak the final word for two reasons: his and the other lady's call for further information from the CCP is the last say on this so far--i.e., Nowak expressing concern and calling for the CCP to give him information reflects the most updated, current state of affairs. The scope of the subject has to be addressed per WP:LEDE, and I think this placements reflects that requirement. And I think more could be done with the objectors' views, though to be honest, I don't know what the actual arguments for dismissing the K/M report are except "I don't believe it". If there is more to it than this, like something concrete, it may be relevant here. --Asdfg12345 05:33, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Other user's suggestion for lede

I really think that the editorial from CSM and Sky News doesn't belong on the heading, considering that they're not even involved, and the Sky News video leads to a dead link. Also since this article does not solely focus on the KM Report, initial investigation reports from USDOS and Harry Wu should be given weight to counterbalance Kilgour-Matas.--PCPP (talk) 14:30, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

BTW, this article gives too much undue weight on the KM Reports, which actually did not produce any conclusive evidence. --PCPP (talk) 14:43, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, I believe Wu and USDOS are actually pertinent to the Sujiatun material specifically--this is the case right? There is still the wider issue of organ harvesting as outlined in the K/M report. Confucius wanted to call the whole page "Bloody Harvest", and have it about the report mainly. That report is basically the biggest piece of material related to this whole subject. Put another way, there wouldn't be an article on this if it weren't for the report. If Wu and USDOS have said relevant things related to the K/M report, or the wider issue of organ harvesting, that is not already in the article, I think we ought to have a look at that.

About the Sky News video, it's easy to find a proper link to that. I think this material plays the role of indicating that other sources have made investigations about organ harvesting; it helps to sketch a picture of the scope of the subject, something which I believe is called for in WP:LEDE. CSM is a good source, they present an intelligent and neutral analysis of the situation. Can you marshal all the sources which specifically dispute, or raise doubts about the K/M report? I'm thinking: Lum, the journalist Macgregor--who else? --Asdfg12345 15:34, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

I doubt that. Plenty of sources and investigations existed before the KM Report, and the previous versions of this article had a balance of such opinions [6]. The USDOS and Wu's investigators actually visited the supposed camps, and shild be given equal weight. Kilgour and Matas did not even visit the sites, and their claims on other supposed "organ harvesting hospitals" has neither been confirmed or denied, and their existance are still being debated, as such what a third party newspaper think is irrelevant. An article's intro is to present facts, not opinions that push a particular view.

Why the POV Tag??

I personally can see no reason why the POV tag should go in to this article and am of the opinion it should be removed immediately. Dilip rajeev (talk) 08:10, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

If any editor feels the POV tag should go in to the article, kindly discuss their reasons here. Dilip rajeev (talk) 17:38, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Disputes by numerous editors has been pointed out to you 3 times previousely. This is a forth time now. Please respond:

Dilip, your claim there's no such discussion is mistaken, but the following list of disputes where provided to you. You seem to have once again removed the POV flag without any participation in the page. I disagree with your assessment:

Talk:Reports of organ harvesting from live Falun Gong practitioners in China#Unbalanced media summary in lead

Talk:Reports of organ harvesting from live Falun Gong practitioners in China#Please give reason for the POV tag

Talk:Reports of organ harvesting from live Falun Gong practitioners in China#Unsourced rebuttal inserted by ASDFG makes this article POV

Talk:Reports of organ harvesting from live Falun Gong practitioners in China#Disputes

Talk:Reports of organ harvesting from live Falun Gong practitioners in China#ASDFG DO NOT REMOVE POV DISPUTE TAG

Talk:Reports of organ harvesting from live Falun Gong practitioners in China#ASDFG's POV pushing is evident in the edit history

Bobby fletcher (talk) 22:59, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

"Sowing Confusion". I cant call what u point to "discussions" - neither is there any consensus for a POV tag. I see the things you talk about there are all clarified by other editors. The question in consideration here is where is there any POV in this article.
Dilip rajeev (talk) 07:43, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
I also dispute the blalant anti-PRC POV per [7], [8] which still remains.--PCPP (talk) 08:25, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
  • I don't see anything substantial to justify the "POV" tag here - just some thinly veiled attempts to sow confusion. Please donot re-insert it for there was never any consensus to insert it in the first place - almost every sentence in the article is very well-sourced, the content well structured and objective.
Dilip rajeev (talk) 17:50, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
I beg to differ. My issues I've cited previously are still not addressed, and your material is libellous and constitutes a personal attack.--PCPP (talk) 05:33, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
I too vote against removing it. Please show proof you are the decider of "substantial". Citing Falun Gong propaganda won't get you anywhere on Wikipedia. Epoch Times reporter Jana Shearer is a documented propagandist.Bobby fletcher (talk) 16:38, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Let me copy here again the note about that tag: "The above label is meant to indicate that a discussion is ongoing, and hence that the article contents are disputed and volatile. If you add the above code to an article which seems to be biased to you, but there is no prior discussion of the bias, you need to at least leave a note on the article's talk page describing what you consider unacceptable about the article. The note should address the problem with enough specificity to allow constructive discussion towards a resolution, such as identifying specific passages, elements, or phrasings that are problematic." -- so let's please talk about the specific ways this article can be improved, so it, in your eyes, would conform to the neutral point of view in duly representing the relevant, reliable sources. Mainly, can we identify what is missing from this article in terms of information critiqueing for example, the K/M report? Or what precisely is the NPOV dispute, and how do you see its resolution? I also assume that this doesn't include removing swathes of information about the K/M report; if that's the idea of neutrality here then we have an issue. --Asdfg12345 02:14, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

In situations such as this, the KM Report should indeed by trimmed down and summarised, and separate paragraphs should be given to the Wu and USDOS investigations.--PCPP (talk) 07:59, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

USDOS and Wu are Sujiatun, not even really related with the wider issue as far as I can tell. K/M are the biggest reason this subject even exists, while Sujiatun was one incident at the beginning of the subject coming to air. So I'm not sure how to grasp your idea. Are you able to explain your reasoning? I haven't read through this for a few months, so I could be wrong for now, but last I checked the article it basically went over all the published stuff on this subject and identified and presented the arguments and evidences one after another.--Asdfg12345 12:23, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

a note on methods

PCPP, I'm confused with your latest edit. I hope you do not revert again, or we will have difficulty. This is a pattern of doing mass deletions of sourced material without any discussion. I keep threatening an RfC but I've been too lazy to go through your edits and compile and present the evidence, but that's what will happen if you keep doing this.--Asdfg12345 08:58, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

shorter title

Reports of organ harvesting from live Falun Gong practitioners in China is too long. Illegal organ harvesting in China maybe , or Kilgour-Matas report. -Zahd (talk) 17:54, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Hello. I don't think it's too long. Also the title has to contain an unambiguous description of the content. And this article is about the organ harvesting report from live Falun Gong practitioners which is reported only in China. --HappyInGeneral (talk) 10:21, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
I agree it's too long. I think it should just be Organ harvesting of Falun Gong--why not? I think the other titles (suggested by the Z man) are too general and two specific respectively, hehe.--Asdfg12345 13:52, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

The organ harvesting has not been proven and remains an allegation. Thus it should remain at "Falun Gong organ harvesting allegations"

You could basically say anything is an allegation. Anything published in any source is an "allegation" from that source. Making the title "Organ harvesting of Falun Gong" does not automatically mean that wikipedia is declaring that it's true. It's a simple description of the subject in question. It could be that there were just some awesome sources ripping up the K/M report and revealing all these fatal flaws in the story. That would be part of this wider subject. These sources have all written about organ harvesting of Falun Gong, whatever they have said.--Asdfg12345 12:20, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, "live" can be removed, cant it? Since they are generally have to be dead when organs are harvested. And even if theyre still breathing its still not all that important. -Zahd (talk) 00:54, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
I assume you mean "...not all that important for the name of the article." -- at least I hope that's what you mean.--Asdfg12345 12:39, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

resource to add

gutmann article in weekly standard: http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/012/160ymogj.asp

e.g.: "The U.S. State Department states that its "officers were allowed to tour the entire facility and grounds and found no evidence that the site is being used for any function other than as a normal public hospital." And for those who point out that you couldn't clean up Auschwitz in three weeks--the time that elapsed between the publication of the story and the consular visit--the matter ends there.

But, given the political sensitivities involved, particularly during a summit, I still have questions. Anyone who has lived in China knows that three weeks is a long time by Chinese construction standards. Is the State Department certain its officers toured an unaltered facility? Did they take an architect with them? Collect forensic samples? Sift through ashes? Interview any hospital personnel privately, off-site? And on their tour, did they reject the company of the inevitable CCP handler or hospital operative? If the answer to these questions is no, then the Americans' findings are interesting but hardly dispositive. The visitors could easily have missed a walled-off underground facility." --Asdfg12345 12:17, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Where has Omvegan gone?

Is anyone worried about the fact that Omvegan hasn't written anything since he posted his e-mail address on here?

Hello, this is omvegan. I'm fine. Thanks for asking. Now I need to figure out who wrote this. Yes my IP address changed. No, they haven't come to put the beat down on me yet. PS I'm glad this page was kept.Omvegan (talk) 02:37, 16 August 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.14.251.239 (talk) 02:35, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm just some guy in England. I noticed on Friday that one of the day's most viewed videos on You Tube was about this topic and I wondered whether it was a hoax or not. It looks as though it isn't though, which I find astonishing. I want to ask some Wikipedia moderators quite high up the chain to look after this entry because I imagine it is something that some people would like to erase. I am surprised that you are able to see it in China actually. I would have thought it would be blocked by your ISP. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.3.145.0 (talk) 12:01, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Phoenix Television

Pheonix Television made a documentary on the two Davids' report. Why don't we write it into the article? You can find the summary here: http://www.facts.org.cn/Reports/200710/t67906.htm I know it is from a Chinese site. Nonetheless, the translation of the dialogues from Mandarin to English is still genuine.

195.33.129.54 (talk) 15:32, 11 August 2008 (UTC)


Please see where the comment from the anonymous IP is soured from - directly from a CCP run website - with a completely misleading title! Note that the RSF calls CCP the worlds biggest propaganda agency. Further, I don't think its a coincidence that such things show up on this page - US Congress, HR organizations all have reported on how the CCP has extended its propaganda campaign outside of china, even to the point of physical assault of practitioners and supporters - even in new york. Above the propagandistic edit, we have a user raising concerns where a neutral editor "omvegan" disappeared after posting his email on this talk page. These are matters of very serious and genuine concern. Dilip rajeev (talk) 05:15, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Also, kindly see these pages - they are very much worth reading:

  • "Sowing Confusion." The article is also about the above user, who has been pushing CCP propaganda, and calls himself "bobby fletcher". The last paragraph of the article is particularly interesting.


How could we allow such, CCP paid and sponsored disinformation campaign pushers to run rampant on these pages? Invariably that is completely against wikipedia policies. That is the main concern I have against such propagandistic edits.

Dilip rajeev (talk) 05:49, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

It's a TRANSCRIPT, done by the independent (well as independent as it could be) Phoenix TV. The IP's other contribution had been well-intentioned and spreads out in multiple filed, unlike you who is basically a WP:SPA.
  • "Please see where the comment from the anonymous IP is soured from - directly from a CCP run website" Please see where most sources on this article and many article are sourced from - directly from FLG run website. Does it mean that they should be all deleted? Why aren't you doing that and improve the articles?
  • "..extended his propaganda campaign outside of china, even to the point of physical assault of practitioners and supporters" Oh yea? I was physically assaulted by FLG fanatics trying to stop me and shove me with pamphlets, and I'm just a passerby! Word twisting can have great power.
  • "Above the propagandistic edit, we have a user raising concerns where a neutral editor "omvegan" disappeared after posting his email on this talk page. These are matters of serious and genuine concern." Actually that came in after the IP's edit, but because you removed it and another IP added new comments I cannot undo your edit and instead I have put this comment at the bottom. Want Proof?
  • "Also, kindly see these pages - they are very much worth reading:" Have you even SEEN the date? These are from April 2007. What's today's date? These news story are more than 1 year old, and you deleting the IP's suggestion without a good reason had violated WP:AGF and WP:TALK#Behavior that is unacceptable. --antilivedT | C | G 06:22, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
Just in case you want to see the TV programme, here is a place to download it. Don't worry, it really is a Phoenix TV programme, but you might want to learn Chinese to verify the transcript. --antilivedT | C | G 06:36, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it's worth getting into a friz cause an anonymous ip posts a ccp video here. It's not going to go in the article, so who cares?--Asdfg12345 08:20, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

As a matter of fact I have written a new section on the material from the source. Why is it that people automatically assume that it's propaganda because it's in Mandarin? Phoenix TV is an independent, privately owned media outlet in Hong Kong (incidentally Epoch Times claim one of the management guys is a FLG practitioner). I see no obvious bias in the programme. Sure if any of the things mentioned in the report happened none of the people would admit it but still, this is as investigative as it goes. Some physical doubts, such as how do you fit 6000 people in the basement of a 300 bed hospital and how to feed, transport and dispose of those people without raising any alarm are points to consider and definitely points to include. --antilivedT | C | G 08:39, 15 August 2008 (UTC)


Some thoughts. 1: it's a CCP propaganda website, that disqualifies anything from it already. 2: it's about Sujiatun, which isn't the central focus of this subject, and which is already covered in the article to a sufficient degree already (WP:UNDUE).--Asdfg12345 08:45, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
Actually no, it's done in response to the Kilgour-Matas report, and I don't think it's particularly out of place in the response section. The fact that the transcription came from a Chinese propaganda website does not invalidate it, because it did not originate there. FWIW I could be mean and remove the whole transcription but it would be much harder to verify the article to the Phoenix TV programme. I don't see much undue weight being put on the source, reason being that this is possibly the only "independent" investigation on this matter conducted by Chinese media, and certainly is not fringe theory as Phoenix TV is well respected in its edgy investigative journalism. --antilivedT | C | G 09:03, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
Just to be clear: "edgy" on any subject that isn't on the CCP's media blacklist.--Asdfg12345 09:10, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

btw they said they were keeping them in a basement. Other sources claim that the CCP just concreted over the basement in the three weeks they had before USDOS came. Macgregor and other sources who deny the organ harvesting focus on this sujiatun incident and portray it in an inaccurate way. I don't believe the claim was that they were using the main furnace which is all glassed in, they were talking about a basement facility. The whole thing came up, I believe, because that first witness who broke the story, the nurse, who was the ex wife of a surgeon doing cornea harvesting, noticed a massive amount of extra syringes, food, drugs, etc., far more than the hospital needed, and wondered where it was going. I also believe this angle of apparent physical impossibilities--which, I'm saying, the original claims didn't relate to anyway--is in the article. It's actually the response from the likes of Ethan Gutmann, above, which is missing.--Asdfg12345 08:49, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

You see, that programme was not made to have a debate with you. You can point it the flaws that you perceive in the programme, but it mainly focuses on the Kilgour-Matas report which claim there's concentration camp in the basement of the Sujiatun hospital, and also claims made by Epoch Times about the Sujiatan hospital. Are they not related to organ harvesting? I think you should clarify your stance so I can understand it better. --antilivedT | C | G 09:03, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Sure, sorry I wasn't clear. I guess there are a few considerations. One is that Phoenix TV is not independent. They're clearly sanctioned by the regime. They are subject to the same restrictions on what they can report as the state media inside China. They're actually the opposite of independent. I only found this out from just clicking on their wiki link. The transcript is also on the CCP propaganda site. I guess the other point is that this is somewhat irrelevant anyway, because those same arguments about Sujiatun appear in reliable sources, such as the journalist Macgregor. The other point is that Sujiatun is just one part of the whole thing, which made it all public, and it seems to make sense to make it take a proportionate amount of space in the article. The Sujiatun thing, in the end, isn't what this is all about. I don't know if you've read the Kilgour Matas report. They're in some ways independent of each other. There are a series of unanswered questions there, and this is where the whole notability of the subject comes from. If it were just Sujiatun we wouldn't be talking about this right now, I don't think, because it would have been no more than a media blip. The Davids, and these other reports, and now Nowak, have kept the whole thing going. --Asdfg12345 09:08, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

I hadn't actually seen you add that giant section. I've removed it. I don't believe Phoenix TV is a reliable source on Falun Gong or the CCP's human rights abuses to begin with, given their obvious affiliations with the regime. As a media sanctioned by the regime, they are unable to publish anything that does not fit in with the CCP's media schema. This makes them undifferentiated from CCP media in terms of what they can report on this subject. Secondly, the only context the transcript you provided is useful in is the Sujiatun one. That is, that's all about Sujiatun. There is a section on Sujiatun, and the core arguments raised about Sujiatun are already covered in it. If there are some crucial elements missing from the Sujiatun section then it may be appropriate to expand on them. But the Sujiatun section was made to summarise that debate quickly, as it is really not the main point of this subject. I wonder if you know what I mean..?--Asdfg12345 09:20, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

--I looked more closely at the transcript and just wanted to leave a quick note: I believe there is relevant material in the Phoenix TV transcript, despite its affiliations and its being hosted on the CCP propaganda site. I think, if contextualised and not given undue weight, it should be admissible in the article. I intend to distil the key points and add them to the Sujiatun section within the next 6 hours.--Asdfg12345 10:27, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Media outlet that's not sanctioned by the government? That is an unfairly high burden isn't it? With that burden there is no way to go to the source of the problem any closer than speculation and alleged witnesses. Which part of "able to broadcast information about events not covered by the government media" did you not understand? Is it really out of the question to include an interview to the people that the report referenced to? The programme doesn't only focus on Sujiatun but also the Dr Lu in Guangxi, and provides evidence to the contrary as they blatantly do not have the facility for organ transplantation. And removing without even reading my addition? I find this blind editing very appalling. The programme's purpose is to explore "grey areas and controversial issues" ("碰灰色地带和具有争议的问题"). Won't publish things that go against CCP? How about this or this or this? They are all things that the CCP would rather not see, but look at them now? Have you even seen an actual investigative report done by state media on FLG? Go watch it. Until then don't go blindly label it as propaganda. --antilivedT | C | G 11:19, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
Also, please enlighten me on any repetition of the points made by the programme, such as the physical incapability of the building holding 6,000 people or that the incinerator is actually a boiler room, in the article. Macgregor? Nope. Please stop using arguments that are simply false ("same arguments about Sujiatun appear in reliable sources") without even looking at what I was talking about. --antilivedT | C | G 11:47, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Since it's all about Sujiatun, I believe it belongs in the Sujiatun section. I don't know why it should be accorded its own section. Should we have a section for every response? Things are organised logically, according to theme. If Phoenix TV is allowed in mainland China it means that they are sanctioned by the CCP. This is not an independent source offering an objective investigation of the issue. Their relationship with the CCP can be mentioned in the article, along with the fact that the transcript is on the CCP propaganda site. The key points about Sujiatun ought to be distilled and put into the Sujiatun section. As I mention, I hope to be able to do this tonight.--Asdfg12345 12:33, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Oh, and I read the transcript but not all of it, and not too carefully. The stuff not about Sujiatun, in response to Kilgour and Matas, which isn't already raised (such as, I think you are indicating, an interview with a surgeon) I think should go in the "Mixed response" section for the K/M report. I hope you understand the reasoning behind this. Kilgour and Matas are the only source who have a section named after them since they are basically the progenitors of this article topic (or it would be the "Sujiatun media blip", I think), and from them, 90% of all other secondary sources were derived in one way or another. I may not fully understand your point of view, but I don't know why a source which is on side with the CCP, and whose reportage is hosted on a CCP hate site against Falun Gong, should have its own section, when even the UN Special Rapporteur on Torture, and other independent sources don't. Just seems logical to organise things according to their theme, to the quality of the source, and given the overall context. I hope this explains my thinking a little more fully, to kind of enable, as much as possible, I hope, a free exchange of ideas on the best way to approach this complex topic.--Asdfg12345 12:41, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Finally, I made comments to the best of my knowledge, and after reading what you had said and looking at the material you presented. I apologise if you did not feel that I was careful, responsible, or respectful enough in responding. I think some of the refutations of Sujiatun that I believed were in the article are now no longer in the article, though I was not aware of this when I said that just now. For example, though, it says, from the CCP: "A Chinese Foreign Ministry Spokesman rejected the claims as a “lie... not worth refuting.” The Chinese government maintains that the hospital is incapable of housing more than 6,000 persons, there is no basement for incarcerating practitioners as alleged, and that there was simply no way to cremate corpses in secret, continuously, and in large volumes." -- so this point of view is taken care of. There are other Sujiatun specific refutations in the source you provided, I think the key ones of which should be summarised alongside this refutation. And the other in the K/M response section. Got to eat now, my stomach is rumbling.--Asdfg12345 12:44, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

I have no problem of refactoring the section as I have basically dumped all the information mentioned in the programme after watching it; but I am absolutely opposed to blind removals on the basis that it originated from a Chinese propaganda site. I still think you are prejudiced against this source, or any pro-CCP source in general, by your statement "why a source which is on side with the CCP, and whose reportage is hosted on a CCP". I think there's still a lot of source-selection going on in these articles: both you and Dilip had repeatedly tried to remove all traces of this on the basis that it's posted on a Chinese propaganda site. I hope this situation improves, because without sources from both sides we will never see a NPOV article. --antilivedT | C | G 13:10, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Okay, done. Just condensed and put into the appropriate section. I just took your section as a kind of fact-sheet, hope that was okay. (Good thing we can't bust each other for plagiarism here.) Two points I left out were the apparently contradictory testimony of "Annie" (didn't get how it was contradictory? just noticed a point that they deny she worked there, will add now.) And the other was the comment by Mr Mao. This could go in the CCP response section, I guess, but his remarks don't make sense anyway, so I thought it was better to simply leave them out. --Asdfg12345 06:56, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

The contradiction in Annie's statement is that Neurosurgeon and Corneal transplant are two completely different fields. A neurosurgeon by training is incapable in doing useful organ removal for organ transplant. As for Mr. Mao's remark I guess he's accusing the report of negative proof fallacy, because none of the evidence that the report provides can be disproved conclusively by the Chinese government. --antilivedT | C | G 11:30, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

So called Pheonix TV stuff completely fails WP:V, WP:RS, WP:N

The stuff you are trying to add is in completel violation of: [9].

There is absolutely no way such stuff can be kept in the article It obviously, being mere CCP propaganda - stuff that has no acceptance in the academic community.

Such propaganda has been strongly criticize by all independent, academic sources on the subject and also by HR organizations - including Amnesty and HRW. K-M reports mention such propaganda pushing by the CCP. The Western standard has reported on it.

The RSF has Published a detailed report on CCP propaganda and the extent to which it manufactures things to push its propaganda.[10]

To the user adding such amterial to the article: you edit counts as mere vandalism. I see another editor had reverted the propaganda you wrote into the article, but you insisted on pushing such stuff in. Please refrain from adding such propaganda into the article. Dilip rajeev (talk) 04:48, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

First: have you even read the transcript?
Second: have you even read the discussion between me and Asdfg above?
Third: how is it propaganda? According to propaganda, "Propaganda is a concerted set of messages aimed at influencing the opinions or behaviors of large numbers of people." This is a piece of investigative journalism done by Phoenix TV, one of the most independent media outlet that China allows, just happened that the transcript is hosted on a Chinese propaganda site (but that's debatable is well, under your broad umbrella term of propaganda most of the article is propaganda is well). The programme is to investigate the claims, and interviewed main characters that were mentioned in the report. Please, explain to me HOW is it a propaganda, instead of throwing weasel statements such as "strongly criticize by all independent, academic sources on the subject and also by HR organizations". --antilivedT | C | G 05:05, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
From which website are you sourcing it? Where does it say anything about who directed it? What reuptation has the director of the video got int he academic community? Has any academic sources commented positively on it? Are any of the internationally renowned figures on the subject subject as Kilgour and Matas or even journalists who have investigated the issue of the persecution like Ian Johnson, Schechter, Pan or academics such as David Ownby interviewed in it? Its a completely biased propaganda piece - its a joke to say that it interviewed a CCP doctor - who if he openly admits anything would spend the rest of his days in jail. There is no Verifiability or Neutrality to this stuff. A read of WP:RS should make very clear to you why the stuff can't be used.
You may want to read the RSF report I mentioned above.
Dilip rajeev (talk) 05:16, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
Sourcing what? What directed what? What director? What academic community? Sorry to be blunt but none of those are required for source, as this is not an academic issue (this is not science, you cannot research about it just by sitting in your chair). Give me evidence WHERE these made-up criteria are required. By your standards only sources that are approved by the FLG-circle appointed "scholars" are acceptable? Yep, that's NPOV right there. --antilivedT | C | G 05:24, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
I have requested a third opinion on this issue. --antilivedT | C | G 05:35, 16 August 2008 (UTC)


Asdfg, I want you to remember that this about conforming to the standards wikipedia lays out for sources. It is obvious that the source doesnot conform to wikipedia standards - why should such cheaply sourced stuff be included on the article? Dilip rajeev (talk) 07:32, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Okay, let me look at RS more closely. I concede that this source is only capable of presenting the Party-line on this issue. Just reading now. I think you may have a point:

"Wikipedia articles should use reliable, third-party, published sources. Reliable sources are credible published materials with a reliable publication process; their authors are generally regarded as trustworthy or authoritative in relation to the subject at hand. How reliable a source is depends on context. As a rule of thumb, the more people engaged in checking facts, analyzing legal issues, and scrutinizing the writing, the more reliable the publication."

"Organizations and individuals that promote what are widely agreed to be fringe theories (that is, views held by a small minority, in direct contrast with the mainstream view in their field), such as revisionist history or pseudoscience, should only be used as sources about themselves or, if correctly attributed as being such, to detail the views of the proponents of that subject."

I see. I guess Dilip is right, in light of this. This news organisation is clearly not a reliable source on this subject. The other material we have on this page has been all from reliable, independent sources. This source clearly isn't in the same category. Let's see what the third opinion says, I guess. I didn't properly check the RS policy. I'm actually not sure how this source would be allowed under RS. Antilived, I'd recommend looking for independent news orgs. to back up these claims. I'm going to remove the summarised text. I thought that it was allowable to have this stuff but identify the nature of the source, but clearly RS says it's simply not up to wikipedia standards.--Asdfg12345 07:55, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

btw, to be clear, this isn't about the value of phoenix tv as a source in general. They may produce fine journalism on a range of subjects. But the bottom line is that they broadcast in mainland China and would have their license revoked and sent packing if they reported anything outside the Party-line on this subject. This is just the basic fact. On this subject, they cannot be considered an independent, reliable source. --Asdfg12345 08:03, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

So basically there is NO way of including anything that's published in China? A blanket Chinese media ban on these? What is your definition of independent anyway? I think your definition so far is "cannot have vouched purpose and cannot have an agenda", then I don't think any source in the world can suffice, no clearwisdom, no faluninfo, no Epoch Times, no Human Rights groups, nothing. By analogy if I write an article on the conspiracy of secret WP:CABAL no source published can be used against it as it's published under the cabal and thus "not independent". Is this neutral? Is this fair? --antilivedT | C | G 11:17, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
Also I don't think that the note of the transcript being hosted on CCP ran website is necessary in your summarisation. What difference does it make whether it's hosted on facts.org.cn or directly from Phoenix TV or on Amnesty International website (absurd as it is)? It is a derivative work of the programme, you are welcome to verify that it is in fact a proper, neutral transcription and translation (I raise no concerns), so what's the matter? --antilivedT | C | G 11:33, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

I think it's quite simple. The Chinese Communist Party controls all the media in China and they decide what is reported and what isn't. No media can report what it wants, it must report within the framework set by the Party. No media which broadcasts in China can report anything other than what the Party says on Falun Gong. It's just that simple. That means it's not a reliable, independent source. Epoch Times is a primary source for the purpose of this article, and it is the publication which brought the claims to light; there is no extensive coverage of Epoch Times here, no more than to establish that this is how it was brought to the public's attention. Another point is that you've got these high quality reliable sources saying that the human rights organisations' set up by practitioners are professional and legitimate, and the same sources saying that the CCP's are propaganda (like the snippet of Ownby I posted on Dilip's talk). That's a bit unrelated to this point, but just to respond to your comparison here. It's just a basic issue of reliable sources and wikipedia policy, as far as I can tell.--Asdfg12345 12:51, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

By the way, the "cabal" you are referring to is simply the mainstream, and it is what wikipedia reinforces and supports. I agree that it's fundamentally flawed, but it's that kind of system.--Asdfg12345 12:55, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm sick your your propaganda pushing. Phoenix TV is owned by the News Corporation and is largely operated in Hong Kong and free from PRC interference. So what if they're allowed in China? This means nothing and it's not up to you to decide what is and isn't reliable.--PCPP (talk) 15:27, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

That doesn't address the issue. I'm not saying that they are a CCP media, but they're relationship with the CCP, and the fact that they would be kicked out of mainland China if they wavered from the Party-line on Falun Gong, in my understanding disqualifies them as a reliable source on the subject. Are you able to provide any contestation to this point? (btw, I reverted your edit as vandalism, as you simply deleted a large amount of content while you were at it.)--Asdfg12345 15:41, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
This is truely a sad affair. Again anything they don't like is hacked to death.
It is so obvious Falun Gong disciples are abusing Wikipedia. PCPP take Oconfucious' advise. Let them edit themselves to consumation. I know I'm so much happier since I stopped editing FLG BS. Let them talk to themselves. Bobby fletcher (talk) 07:31, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

just find something from a reliable source and I'll put it in the article myself, there won't be an argument.--Asdfg12345 14:38, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Hmm as reluctant as I am (life IS so much better without all this nonsense) I still want to know more about how this really works. So you say Phoenix isn't reliable because it's related to the CCP, that if it does anything against CCP's will it'd be kicked out? Well what about all the FLG-sponsored media outlet? What are they doing here? Don't give me the junk about them being praised by human rights group, so what? The rule is yours, so why doesn't it apply? I think I should complete my analogy: Let's say I start an article on some claim that the world is ruled by some crazy cabal, and when people try to include sources that indicate it's a ridiculous theory I say "well they're living under the cabal, so of course they can't write anything bad about the cabal, or even admit its existence, can they? Therefore there can be no proof that it's false, therefore it must be true!". But hey, it's a religion, and religion doesn't require evidence, merely faith, and faith is a very powerful tool. --antilivedT | C | G 06:15, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it's a problem for us to discuss it, and I do not want to create undue angst. I think WP:RS is what it's all about; I'm not sure about a cabal or the powerful tool of faith. As far as I can see, Phoenix TV isn't a reliable source on this matter for the reasons stated above. And you are right, also according to my understanding, I believe that in this article the Epoch Times aren't the best quality, reliable sources--the Epoch Times is a primary source, because it's run by Falun Gong practitioners. Does the article overly rely on them, though, or just refer to the fact that they broke this story? I'd say the two are quite different. The evidence and commentary about the organ harvesting mainly comes from other sources. And primary sources are allowed in articles about themselves anyway, under certain conditions, (and, also, Falun Gong has got props from third party sources saying their HR work is legitimate, though that isn't strictly relevant here). I wonder if you see the logic of this reasoning, or see a problem with it? By the way, here's some fresh news which refers to the Phoenix TV thing.

And I want to make a final note: from what I understand of the reliable source policy, the logic gone through above makes sense. But since wikipedia has to represent the major points of view, as I understand it, even the CCP stuff should be duly mentioned. In my understanding, if other editors were able to explain why even though phoenix isn't a reliable source (or show that it is? unlikely...), that it should still be represented in the article--like, I'm thinking here, because they seem to be speaking for the communist party on this case, given that their DVD was being distributed by Chinese Embassies--then I wouldn't have a problem. I haven't meant to be or tried to be confrontational, and when I write things I want to put them more in a way like 'this is my view on such and such a matter based on this reasoning and this policy', rather than some absolute statement. I think it is an exchange of ideas based on sources, policy, logic, rather than a fierce struggle. Overall, perhaps this point that the CCP were themselves distributing the phoenix TV doco is at once proof that it's definitely not a reliable source, but also shows, on the other hand, that it may actually be used in the article to represent the CCP's point of view? I'm not sure.--Asdfg12345 07:18, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

OK so you said that Phoenix TV is not RS because it's sanctioned by the CCP and will have dire consequence if they broadcast things that goes against it. Well from what I can see, FLG-sponsored media are even worse offenders, being not only sanctioned but also sponsored by FLG (and they also sanctioned the report itself...), and because of the sponsorship they cannot go against FLG is well, so does that mean COMPLETE removal of all sources coming from these media outlets, from every single article? And do you understand the meaning of an analogy? My "cabal" doesn't refer to anything other than a hypothetical being, it's just merely applying the same logic to an unrelated situation to enable you to see the absurdity I'm seeing.
Another point that you raised is that CCP distributes that DVD. Well how about applying the same thing to the other side of the equation? FLG-media had been all over the Kilgour-Matas report, almost endorsing and distributing them, so should this whole article be rendered moot?
I've listened to that recording and it has a mains hum at 60hz whereas China uses 50hz power supply. You can check this with any audio editing programme (like Audacity) and simply look at the frequency domain graph. Unless it's a long distance from US or other 60hz country, I have serious doubts on its veracity. But even if it's a long distance the delay is way too fast to be real (even from NZ long distance calls to China have like a half-second delay due to the speed of light). Also the hum changes pitch (from 60hz to around 70hz) over time quite abruptly, sounds like it has been doctored or at least altered. --antilivedT | C | G 08:11, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't know what there is to argue about the veracity of the audio recording. The doctor is on record admitting that he was called and spoke on the phone. He denied that he said those things, but they have an audio recording with him. They're the same voice. What other likely scenario could you imagine to explain it? If you believe there are technical issues that should be explained, probably best to send an email to the address provided. Your other comments don't appear to be about the Phoenix TV thing as much--are they? Are you asking about my understanding of how these wikipedia articles should treat Falun Gong sources? I think that's a wider issue. I don't believe there's an exact parallel, because of other factors, such as the issue of primary sources, and third party comments on the issue.--Asdfg12345 08:24, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

I am asking this because of the apparent double standard on sources. On one hand you claim that Phoenix TV isn't RS due to the criteria you've laid down yet the FLG-sponsored sources that break those criteria are littered throughout the FLG circle of articles. If they can stay, why not Phoenix TV? FLG-media being primary source? Well Phoenix TV had actually gone and interview those people, how primary can you get? --antilivedT | C | G 08:39, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

When the article is about the subject, i don't know how you could avoid using sources published by that subject. This is the basic difference. Citing Zhuan Falun, citing cases of practititioners who have been persecuted and so forth, this isn't unreasonable, in my understanding. Or in the CCP article you'd have no sources from the CCP, in the US Govt article no sources from the US Govt. The key thing is that such sources don't overwhelm the article, that they are in proportion. particularly, I quoted you that thing of an academic saying Falun Gong HR orgs are reliable and legitimate, so that's another thing to consider. In this article, I don't believe Falun Gong sources are really used except for noting that's where the claims came from originally. and when I was on top of the other Falun Gong articles on wikpedia, falun gong sources were not unduly represented. I understand that such things can be used, but must be done so responsibly and judiciously. The vast majority of sources should be from other, independent sources, but when it is about the subject, I don't see how you could completely exclude sources from that subject. BTW, I think the note from phoenix about the interview with Lu be appropriate in this article now, given that it has been mentioned independently with the new evidence from Kilgour/Matas. A final thing is, I'm just speaking from my understanding. if we had got some good feedback from a wider audience this thing might have been easier to resolve with less grievance.--Asdfg12345 10:25, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Except this is not a 1 sided issue; I think your argument is better used against you (to the irony): the article is about FLG allegations of organ harvesting from FLG practitioners in China, and yet China gets no say? All your "exception" arguments just go to show how ridiculous your criteria are, for if those are strictly enforced 90% of all sources cited on Wikipedia will need to be removed. Indeed there should be a bigger group of people participate in this currently small circle, after a few other editors have been driven away by this tediousness, and I myself personally refraining from this mess. It simply is too much drain on a person, when one outside voice is faced with multiple lengthy responses from the FLG-circle. --antilivedT | C | G 11:44, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

All I can say is that I'm editing and discussing with you in good faith, according to my understanding of wikipedia policy, and I'm sorry if you find it frustrating or unrewarding. One of the last things I said was that I believe that the phoenix tv documentary should be mentioned in the article, because (1) it's clear that it is a stand-in for the CCP view, and the ccp view should be represented, and (2) it's been mentioned in an independent source and has to be included anyway in that context. I hope in the next 24 hours I can include a passage about Dr Lu's interview featured in the phoenix doco, then what kilgour and matas say that shows. Not a big deal, and I think we should try to lighten up these discussions somehow, heh.--Asdfg12345 14:13, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Or just look at the K/M press release, check out the deleted paragraph of the phoenix, and summarise/include it yourself?--Asdfg12345 14:15, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Since you ain't doing it any time soon I've re-added the paragraph that YOU have written. --antilivedT | C | G 22:08, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Please Flag this Article for Neutrality

The article has presented a substantial amount of information in favour of the Falun Gong side. However, to my understanding and also in the article itself, no governments or respectable agencies (ie Amnesty International) have concluded the story as real. In short, most respectable parties point to the lack of solid evidence to prove the case. The article has not sufficiently addressed how or why the case has been doubted.

Also, this article quoted heavily from Epoch Times and the Kilgour report. Neither of them are respectable sources of information. Can we get something more neutral and reliable like New York Times, Reuters, Der Spiegel or The Sun on this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.92.120.5 (talk) 07:07, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

I think your key point is why "The article has not sufficiently addressed how or why the case has been doubted" -- and I think that's simple: the sources don't say so themselves. Media haven't debated this. They've ignored it. But there's still a large amount of reliable literature on the subject which can be put here. See for instance, this article by John Kusumi speculating on why this may be the case. The fact that mainstream media haven't analysed this properly doesn't mean the article is biased. It has presented the major sources which have commented on it, and it's presented all the argumentation from reliable sources which aims to raise doubts about the Kilgour/Matas report, at least last time I read through it several months ago. If you feel that the arguments which support the conclusion that this is real are stronger (and no, they aren't "the Falun Gong side"), that may be because they are. You should not be worried to revise prejudices when presented with positive evidence.--Asdfg12345 07:38, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

  1. ^ U.S. Finds No Evidence of Alleged Concentration Camp in China, U.S. State Department, April 16, 2006
  2. ^ Sky News, Suspicions Raised Over Organ Donors, accessed 1/12/07
  3. ^ CRS Report for Congress (August 11, 2006)"China and Falun Gong", Congressional Research Service, retrieved November 12, 2007
  4. ^ The Monitor's View (August 3, 2006)"Organ harvesting and China's openness", The Christian Science Monitor, retrieved August 6, 2006
  5. ^ http://epochtimes.com/gb/6/4/30/n1303902.htm
  6. ^ 3. Why such a Big Discrepancy between Publicly Announced Figures and Reality?, Zonaeuropa, May 9, 2006
  7. ^ "China harvesting Falun Gong organs, report alleges", CBC News, retrieved July 6, 2006
  8. ^ a b Cite error: The named reference kmcitizen was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  9. ^ Paul Mooney, Activist Harry Wu challenges organ harvesting claims, August 9, 2006
  10. ^ Cite error: The named reference defendsclaims was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  11. ^ Amnesty International, Falun Gong Persecution Factsheet,
  12. ^ Sky News, Suspicions Raised Over Organ Donors, accessed 1/12/07
  13. ^ The Monitor's View (August 3, 2006)"Organ harvesting and China's openness", The Christian Science Monitor, retrieved August 6, 2006
  14. ^ Amnesty International, Falun Gong Persecution Factsheet,
  15. ^ CRS Report for Congress (August 11, 2006)"China and Falun Gong", Congressional Research Service, retrieved November 12, 2007
  16. ^ An Interview with U.N. Special Rapporteur on Organ Harvesting in China
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Organ_transplantation_in_China/Archive_5&oldid=1049843766"