Talk:Kilgour–Matas report

This article still has NPOV issues

The most glaring example of this is the use of the graph for organ wait times from the Kilgour Mattas report. The article is using the subject of the article as a reference for the subject of the subject... Sorry if that sounds convoluted but that's basically what's happening here. I'll be honest, I've got WP:DUE issues with having an entire article devoted to what is effectively a fringe document. I would advise against giving it a "good article" standing in its current condition and I think it's a tall hill to climb for this article to ever achieve it. Simonm223 (talk) 00:25, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Kilgour–Matas report/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: LT910001 (talk · contribs) 11:22, 13 April 2014 (UTC) If there are no objections, I'll take this review. I'll note at the outset I've had no role in editing or creating this article. I welcome other editors at any stage to contribute to this review. This is a unique article with provoking subject matter and I would like to discuss it with you during the nomination. I'm sorry that you had to wait so long for this, SilkTork. Kind regards, LT910001 (talk) 11:22, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Outset

Preamble discussion - resolved

All right. Before I begin my review, I have read the article twice and have some comments, I'd be happy to discuss with you. I know that this is a contentious subject and will do my best to review it impartially. I have three thoughts going in to this: The formatting is very non-standard. The lead is long and extensively cited, with information that should be covered in the body. A length bullet-point section describes the report. I think that unimportant points should be removed, or that the points should be grouped in prose Structure is a little confusing and haphazard I suggest move "Sujiatun" to "Background", and have the middle section solely discuss the report. Have subsections for the first and second report. Have subsubsections under the second report grouping the allergations by topic. I suggest add subsections to the "Response" section - "Chinese response / International response / Other responses" There are a few dates provides as a day and a month with no year which is confusing to read. You may wish (OK, I did say three, but I will add a fourth) to expand the subsection "Organ transplantation in the People's Republic of China" with changes that were proposed last year (2013) regarding a voluntary donation system and decreasing use of criminal organs. This is just my preliminary impression and I will do a more thorough review against the WP:GARC when some changes have been made to the article's structure and lead, or after a discussion about this. I hope that you are well. Kind regards, --LT910001 (talk) 11:32, 13 April 2014 (UTC) Hi, thanks for taking this on. I've been away in the Cotswolds for a few days. I have a few things to do now that I'm back, but I'll take a look at your suggestions as soon as I can. SilkTork ✔Tea time 08:39, 15 April 2014 (UTC) No worries, please feel free to take your time in responding. --LT910001 (talk) 10:43, 15 April 2014 (UTC) Am working through now. The article has changed considerably since I last worked on it, and the changes (as you note) have not been good. I am looking now to see what changes have been positive, and keep those, otherwise I might just roll back to my last edit, and work on that version. I am agreeing with your comments so far. I will take a look at the lead later today. SilkTork ✔Tea time 09:12, 17 April 2014 (UTC) I've made some changes to structure by adding some subheadings so that content is more readable and logically divided, I hope that is OK. --LT910001 (talk) 22:49, 17 April 2014 (UTC) OK, have done some work. Would you have a quick look over and see how much work you feel needs to be done, if there isn't much I'll get it done, but if you feel it is substantial, then it might be best to close this as a fail as I have limited time at the moment. SilkTork ✔Tea time 15:49, 17 April 2014 (UTC) That's OK. I feel this article could make it to GA within a reasonable timespan, and you have addressed many of my concerns. What I will do is over the next few days review the article and provide some more detailed comments, and then put it on hold. --LT910001 (talk) 22:49, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

• Parking these cites here temporarily. Removed from lead as not needed: <ref>{{cite news|title=China admits to 'transplant tourism': Plans clampdown: Health Minister vows to stop harvesting organs from prisoners|newspaper=National Post, Canada, Toronto Edition|date=17 November 2006 Friday }}</ref><ref name="CSM2006">{{cite news|title=China faces suspicions about organ harvesting|url=http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/0803/p16s01-lire.html|newspaper=The Christian Science Monitor|date=3 August 2006}}</ref> SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 17:58, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Review

Thanks for waiting. In conducting this review, I will:

• Provide an assessment using WP:GARC
• If this article does not meet the criteria, explain what areas need improvement.
• Provide possible solutions that may (or may not) be used to fix these.

Assessment

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	Well-written
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.	See comments
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).
	2c. it contains no original research.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	Addresses the report and criticism
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	No flags
	7. Overall assessment.

Commentary

This report is well-written and well-cited. I have two major comments:

1. The citations are not in a consistent style and many are bare URLs. The URLs will need to be expanded and I'd value if you could quickly run over the citations to make sure they all have a date, name/author, and name in addition to the url - many citations only have one or two of these
2. The lead is an excellent overview, however I note that it contains over 20 citations, and that some reviewers may consider this to not be summarising the content of the article. However, I think that the article is contentious enough that these citations ought to be inline.

I am happy that the article is neutral, and covers the report in sufficient depth. It's good that the report is linked in 'external links'. --LT910001 (talk) 01:42, 3 May 2014 (UTC) Awaiting your reply, --LT910001 (talk) 01:42, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for doing the review, and I'll take a look at the citation issues you raise. Inconsistency between citation methods is not a GA issue - the reference section may contain a variety of citation methods as laid out in WP:FNNR, which is the criteria GA uses. I agree it is useful to have as much information as possible in a cite, though again this is not a GA issue, as the requirement is only that there are citations, and that they are grouped in an appropriate reference section, again as laid out in WP:FNNR. I have sometimes noticed in other GA reviews, the reviewer asking for similar information - page numbers, etc, and/or for consistency in citation. I think this is from those who may do both FA and GA reviews. It may be worth raising the issue at the GA talk page to see if there is an interest in expanding criteria 2a to include some form of consistency and minimum information (page numbers and dates, etc). SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 07:31, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

I've been through and formatted the cites. Let me know if there are any that you are still not happy with. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 08:45, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Verification

This may come out of left field and I'm sorry to surprise you. I've been through about half the citations in the article. There are still many problems, and I think as you suggest at the start it may be better to fail this review, wait until you and other users have time to edit this article properly, and then re-request a review. This is because I think the efforts will be effort intensive:

1. There are numerous dead links in the article that make verification impossible
2. Because of this I feel it's very important to completely fill out, including with access dates, the semi-filled out citations
3. There are several quotations that are not completely accurate
4. There are many instances where sources appear to be 'slightly' wrong. This feels like the initial edits have been changed by users in the last eight years, but that the sources haven't been verified alongside it. I've noted these where I can.
5. This is a contentious topic and I am reticent to promote it with so many sources being unavailable and so many inconsistencies.

Thus, what I feel is the best course of action is to fail this article, give some time while the sources are re-factored and verified, and then re-nominated. I recognize the large amount of work that you and others have put into this article but I do not think this article meets the standard. I would like your opinion on this. Kind regards, --LT910001 (talk) 10:50, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

If you don't wish to carry on, then that's fine, we are all volunteers, and sometimes we start something and don't want to see it through. No worries. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 11:27, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

This statement "Estimates have been revised downwards from earlier numbers to reflect changing estimates of the overall Laogai System population by the Laogai Research Foundation" has been tagged as "not in citation given". It is in cite 73 next to the statement: I sat down with the Laogai Foundation researchers in DC and they informed me that they had revised their total estimate of the Laogai System (defined as labor camps, prisons, black jails, psychiatric hospitals, long-term detention centers, the lot) down from 4-6 million to 3-5 million.

I refer to here: "He initially estimated ". It appears the numbers given are from his revised estimates. --LT910001 (talk) 23:20, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

This statement "he had seen a body "in the morgue with holes where body parts had been removed" has been tagged as "not in citation given". It is in cite 68 next to the statement: "Cao Dong said that one evening, his best friend was taken from their cell. Next, he saw his friend's cadaver in the morgue with holes where body parts had been removed.".

The Wiki article says it was "his taxi driver" and then provides a quote written in a way that it appears to be from Cao Dong. The source article states that Cao Dong was "a" taxi driver and provides a paraphrased statement that is not a quote from Cao Dong. --LT910001 (talk) 23:20, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

This statement "Israeli health insurance carriers stopped sending patients to China for transplants" has been tagged as "not in citation given". It is in cite 55 next to the statement: "Israeli health providers announced their decision to stop funding Israelis to go to China for organ transplants"

Are healthcare providers insurance carriers or private hospital networks? --LT910001 (talk) 23:20, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

This statement " a petition signed by 140 Canadian Physicians 'urging the Canadian Government'" has been tagged as "not in citation given". It is in cite 52 next to the statement: "He established a petition urging the Canadian government to issue travel advisories warning people that organ transplants in China include the use of organs harvested from non-consenting donors such as Falun Gong practitioners. He got the petition signed by 140 Canadian physicians"

I can't find the quoted text word-for-word, however. If it's not a quote, it will closely paraphrase the text and needs to be reworded. --LT910001 (talk) 23:20, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

I haven't checked the others. I just started at the bottom and worked my way up. Was there a problem with your browser when you checked those sources? It may be that it skipped to the wrong citation or something.

I understand if you prefer not to continue with this review, but would you mind just checking over your queries before you do, as there may have been a mistake. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 15:31, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

SilkTork thanks for your very understanding approach. I hope my comments above have elucidated why this is the case. In my mind there are small inconsistencies, but enough to mean that all sources ought to be checked. However, there's quite a lot of dead sources that are unable to be checked. This effort is also time consuming and I would prefer if it could happen as part of the editing rather than reviewing process. To reiterate this doesn't reflect on any of the editors, but rather demonstrates this article has healthily had a great deal of editing over the last 8 years and that some things may have been slightly moved in the process. I have marked this review as failed and encourage you to renominate when sources have been verified and dead links replaced. --LT910001 (talk) 23:20, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

That's fine, and thanks for what you have done. Having checked your concerns again, I have made adjustments and put in archive links. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 23:46, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Kilgour–Matas report/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Protonk (talk · contribs) 14:42, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

If I haven't reviewed one of your articles before my style below can be a bit daunting. I don't like the GA rubric as I feel it gets in the way of providing actionable suggestions on the clarity and structure of the article (which is where most of the suggestions at this level of review arise). I've tried to make specific suggestions and interleaved questions about the text with them. If you feel that answering my questions by making the text more clear is easiest then you can do that but you can also just reply here and we'll talk about it. Feel free to reply inline if you like (it's much easier to follow comments that way).

Overall I think the article is fairly close to GA status. I've made some copy-edits to the article and have spot checked some sources (though not all). Sorry for the long wait to have this reviewed!

style/layout

• United Nations Committee Against Torture could be wikilinked (it's a section redirect to the convention against torture's committee bit)

Done. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 23:34, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

• Should Other reports be a level 2 heading? Also the section contains one other report but the header implies multiple.

I'm wondering if that section is needed; this article is about a specific report on the allegation rather than the allegation itself. That section is about the allegation only. It appears to be a residue of the longer and more detailed Corroborative reports section from an earlier version. The last version that contained a range of reports appears to be this one. I found the edit that removed the other reports. I've not examined it yet - it probably removed unneccessary or trivial reports, and merged some information into other sections. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 23:34, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

I have updated, trimmed and refocused that section, merging it into the Other responses sub-section. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 09:09, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

content

• Tense is mixed throughout. I changed some of them in a copy edit but I think the article needs a once over to determine where statements should be written in past or present tense.

Agree. I am working on this. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 00:37, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

background

• We may disagree on this but I feel the Falun Gong section can be shortened a bit or better integrated into the article. I won't hold up the article on this alone (as my opinions on the length and specificity of summary sections may be iconoclastic), but it's something to think about.

I have tidied up and slightly shortened that section. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 09:24, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

the report

• "The report presented 33 strands of circumstantial evidence that, taken together and in the absence of any disproof..." Strands of evidence is an odd phrase.

It's a common phrase, but if you found it unusual, perhaps others will as well. What would you suggest as an alternative? SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 00:37, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

heh, the top hits there seem to be puns for books/articles on hair forensics. :) I'll give some thought as to alternate phrasing. Protonk (talk) 14:21, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

• "...China performs the second-highest number of transplants per year." This may seem obvious but second-highest among what? Countries? Let's state that.

As the context is about China as a country, and we already have a comparison with Canada, I'm wondering if this is needed, and if so, how to add it in, and where? If the clarity is needed, might it be better earlier in the paragraph? SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 00:37, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

It may be me being dumb. I'll take another look at it. Protonk (talk) 01:05, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

• "...transcripts of interviews in which hospitals told prospective transplant recipients..." We note later that these were telephone transcripts. I think even though it's clear on a close reading that they are we should just say "telephone" here so that later when we refer to the "telephone transcripts" it is more clear to the reader what we're talking about.

Done. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 00:37, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

• "The authors qualified their findings by noting the inherent difficulties in verifying the alleged crimes." That seems like a somewhat cagey qualification. Did the report contain specific qualifications apart from those which make it sound as though China has something to hide? I'm not sure if action is required on this, but it made me raise an eyebrow.

I have removed "inherent". The rest I think is neutral and factual. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 00:37, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

• "...had responded to the first version of their report in an unpersuasive way, mostly as attacks on Falun Gong, thus reinforcing the analysis of the report." The claims in the report were specifically about organ harvesting, so attacks on FG following the report would substantiate claims of broader repression/harassment but not the claim at hand.

The report is on "Organ Harvesting of Falun Gong Practitioners in China" - they were commissioned by FG to write the report, so the focus is on FG. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 00:37, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

I think the phrasing "reinforcing the analysis of the report" is where I diverge from that. The analysis of the report is about the organ harvesting (noting availability vs. voluntary donations, lack of records, reports from political prisoners, etc.). Animus toward FG is a known quantity and can't reinforce the analysis of the report. Meaning it couldn't provide support for circumstantial claims about hospital practice or offer a stronger argument than correlation between wait times and FG persecution. Protonk (talk) 01:05, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

I have rephrased this section. See what you think. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 09:27, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

I made a small change which I think may work toward addressing this. I'm not comfortable saying that retaliatory attacks reinforce the "conclusion" (as Kilgour/Matas don't say that either: "Large numbers of Falun Gong adherents in arbitrary indefinite secret detention alone do not prove the allegations. But the opposite, the absence of such a pool of detainees, would undermine the allegations."). Protonk (talk) 14:27, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

The wording in the report is: "33) Government of China responses: The Government of China has responded to the first version of our report in an unpersuasive way. Mostly, the responses have been attacks on the Falun Gong. The fact that the Government of China would make attacks on Falun Gong the focus of their responses to our report reinforces the analysis of the report. It is these sorts of attacks which, in China, make possible the violation of the basic human rights of Falun Gong practitioners." Perhaps it woud be helpful to directly quote that section? SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 23:24, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

• The first paragraph in second report should be reorganized a bit. We start off three sentences in a row with a variation on "they said"

I've played around with it a bit. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 00:37, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

• "...live Falun Gong practitioners were true and the practice was ongoing. They called for a ban..." I think this can be re-written as "...live Falun Gong practitioners were true and the practice was ongoing, calling for a ban..."

response

• "Questions as to the final answer to the allegations remain" This is an oddly phrased sentence.

Agree. I have removed it - the paragraph stands better without it. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 09:30, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

• "Due to the nature of the claims and the availability of only circumstantial, rather than direct, evidence..." I would wikilink Circumstantial evidence here and remove the qualifier about direct evidence.
• "Amnesty International at the time said it was..." At what time? The release of the first report? The second?

It was in 2006, so after the first report; I have removed "at the time", though wonder if putting in 2006 would be helpful. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 09:47, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

• "David Ownby, a professor of history at of the University of Montreal and expert on Falun Gong..." This sentence ends with a stray quotation mark. I'd remove it but I'm not 100% sure if it's an error or if the last part of the sentence should also be quoted in part.

Adjusted. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 10:16, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

• Also is there a reason why the three critical responses are separated by semi-colons?

Edited. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 10:34, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

• " These requests were met with categorical denials by the Chinese authorities." What does this mean, specifically. Were they asking for more information and were met with denials? The next sentence makes it seems as though that is the case. But it's also possible that the denials related to the accusations themselves and not just the request for more info.

Edited. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 10:34, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

• "In June 2011 the US added a question to its DS-160 application for non-immigrant visas." Are we sure this relates to the findings in the report? The source redirects to a landing page, so I couldn't check.

Removed. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 11:47, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

• "A petition of nearly 25,000 signatures calls on the United States to put pressure..." I think this paragraph can be removed. It invokes susan rice even though she's the recipient and there are petitions with 25,000 signatures for just about anything.

Agree. Removed. I think this section needs looking at, as it appears to be mainly a random collection of news items which relate to the allegations rather than the report. I'll tidy it up. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 11:50, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

• "The Global Bio Ethics Initiative wrote in an article..." Why not just note the disposition of the resolution? Did it pass? Was there another source which noted the debate?
• "Doctors Against forced Organ Harvesting..." why is this whole sentence a quote?
• "Kirk C. Allison, Associate Director of the Program in Human Rights and Medicine in..." I think these comments are better placed higher up because it would give the reader a better sense of how to think about the relationship between rapid type matching and forced donation.
• "He said the current level of evidence calls for an independent investigation..." why is this important?
• "European Parliament Vice President Edward McMillan-Scott went to China..." Two things. 1. This is sort of a third hand report, although McMillan-Scott is an important voice. 2. It's not a reaction to the report per se but a report of similar claims in china.
• "McGregor reported his scepticism of Kilgour's report had elicited a response from the author that the former was no different from David Irving" I'll be honest, I have no idea what this sentence means.
• "...could be as high as 120,000, with a low estimate of 9,000, and 65,000 being the median." I think we can just note the high and low estimates given that his estimation is a ballpark figure and not something arising from sampling. He calls it a "best estimate, or a median", so if we want to attribute the 65,000 to him we can say he refers to it as a "best estimate"
• "Estimates have been revised downwards..." Whose estimates? If it's just his (and he notes he revised down from 85,000) then we should say that.
• "He then attempted to establish the number of individuals who had been..." this doesn't really follow from the previous sentence unless we take out "estimates have been revised downwards" and state that we're noting how Gutmann came to his estimate in the first place.
• There's a lot of repetition in the paragraph overall. I think it could be re-written to more clearly state what we want the reader to understand.

I have restructured the section. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 09:41, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, Protonk (talk) 16:07, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for doing this; I'll have a read through your points which apear to be thoughtful and reflective. Please feel free to edit the article directly on points that appear to you to be worth doing, such as wiki-linking an article. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 23:04, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

I think your initial concerns have been addressed. Your comments have been perceptive and have highlighted weaknesses in the article - thank you for that. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 09:41, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Ok, that's better. Some immediate comments and then I think we're done:

• "Rabbi Yosef Shalom Eliashiv prohibited Jews from..." this dude was pretty important, but he's in a paragraph about state level responses to the report. I'm not sure it belongs there.

I take your point, but it seems a best fit. He was regarded as a de facto leader of a people - and a not insignifican people. I think if the Pope had made a comment, it would probaby fit into the same paragraph. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 16:30, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

• We lost the Australian ban on chinese medical training in the edits.

It was only two hospitals - it wasn't a state ban. On reflection, it just seemed like minor pile on. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 16:35, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

@SilkTork: can you do a run down on the lede again after these edits (I think the australian one is still in the lede)? Protonk (talk) 23:39, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Done. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time}

• So I'm reading the various reports the committee against torture produced (fun!) and I'm not sure the Special Rapporteurs bit is framed in the best way. As far as I can tell, the Rapporteurs were there for a broader investigation on torture and among the things they did were ask questions about the practice. In a funny way that makes our text literally true, but I think we can present the condemnation by the committee by itself (especially as what are now cites 7 and 68 both point to the same document). We can also add in the 2013 report which adds a specific plank calling for all nations to ban organ removal from executed criminals. I think we're trying to paint a picture of the obstinance of the chinese government on the issue but it's hard to do so when we have one report document to go from which notes that questions were raised and not answered (And I don't think that's the final report out of the committee.

I think that's it. Protonk (talk) 12:04, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

• This may be a useful op-ed type source at some point in the future. Not required but might be useful and I found it while digging so shouldn't let it go to waste. Protonk (talk) 12:04, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

I have added in information from the source you found. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 10:41, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Tens of thousands

I noticed Ohconfucius remove the estimate that tens of thousands of Falun Gong practitioners were imprisoned because it's not cited in Ian Johnson's article. But you were the one who changed the sentence around in the first place.

Here's what it used to read:

The suppression that followed was accompanied by what Amnesty International called a "massive propaganda campaign," and the detention and imprisonment of tens of thousands of Falun Gong adherents; coercive “reeducation” of Falun Gong adherents sometimes resulted in deaths.

The 'tens of thousands' figure is best supported by the U.S. State Department reference that was provided, which states "some foreign observers estimated that Falun Gong adherents constituted at least half of the 250,000 officially recorded inmates in RTL camps." Other reliable sources are more unambiguous -- for instance, Freedom House states simply that hundreds of thousands of Falun Gong have been imprisoned since 1999.

But you then changed it to this, falsely ascribing the figure to Ian Johnson[1]:

Pullitzer-winning journalist Ian Johnson noted in late 2000 that the detention and imprisonment of tens of thousands of Falun Gong adherents; coercive reeducation of Falun Gong adherents sometimes resulted in deaths.

And then minutes later you edited again on the basis that Ian Johnson's article doesn't mention tens of thousands of detentions[2]:

Western journalists noted in late 2000 that Falun Gong practitioners in areas where the Falun Dafa was popular were targeted in systemic repression. Under orders from Beijing, practitioners were detained, imprisoned and "re-educated"; 77 deaths were recorded by Amnesty International.

Maybe you missed the State Department reference. Anyway, I added some more references to eliminate any remaining confusion. Also suggest keeping death estimates more general - Amnesty reported on 77 deaths way back in 2000, but that doesn't tell us anything about more recent trends (e.g. Amnesty also reported on over 100 Falun Gong deaths in 2008 calendar year alone; the NYT reported 2,000 deaths as of 2009).TheBlueCanoe 04:13, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Reference not accessible from website and not reliable information

The ref

Home > Topics > Outlawing Falun Gong Cult "Exposing the Lies of 'Falun Gong' Cult". http://www.china-embassy.org/eng/zt/ppflg/t263446.htm

is not listed under

Home > Topics http://www.china-embassy.org/eng/zt/

In this case it seems that the CCP is not keen to publicize its own information. This statement is incorrect "However, the cult remains rampant in the U.S. and a handful of other countries." as on http://en.falundafa.org/falun-dafa-global-contacts.html there are over 70 countries listed. So the information on this page referenced is unreliable and inaccessible. I suggest this reference is deleted. There are other references accessible from embassy websites, which directly attempt to refute both versions of this report. References to those pages should be included rather than inaccessible and unreliable references. Aaabbb11 (talk) 20:15, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Lead section should be brief

from Wikipedia:Writing better articles#Introductory material

"Good articles start with a brief lead section introducing the topic."

The current version fails to adhere to this policy. Aaabbb11 (talk) 20:15, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

For a topic as controversial as this, the lead section being all-rounded and balanced is much more important than being brief. -CharlieOQ (talk) 07:19, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

Lum info is inaccurate and reference is dead, so not balanced or brief. Aaabbb11 (talk) 12:58, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Direct evidence

Appendix 14. Transcript of Telephone Investigations http://organharvestinvestigation.net/report0701/report20070131.htm#_Toc158023107 has transcripts of 15 conversations where hospitals or other institutions in China admitted using organs from Falun Gong practitioners. The is direct evidence rather than circumstantial evidence. So to state the report is "based on circumstantial evidence" is incorrect. Aaabbb11 (talk) 20:15, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Questions about the Matas-Kilgour report went beyond the allegations about Sujiatun. A paper prepared by the U.S. Congressional Research Service concluded that the report for the most part "does not bring forth new or independently-obtained testimony and relies largely upon the making of logical inferences." It also questioned the transcripts of telephone calls, in which Chinese officials are said to admit using Falun Gong organs. Some argue that such apparent candour would seem unlikely given Chinese government controls over sensitive information, which may raise questions about the credibility of the telephone recordings," the research service paper said.

— Ottawa Citizen, Former MP pushes for Beijing Games boycott, AUGUST 9, 2007

I thought the speculations conjured by Matas-Kilgour report lost air almost immediately when no direct evidence could be proffered? And that Amnesty International, Harry Wu, US Department of State and other came out unconvinced? The evidence you cited came from an organization with a singular agenda: To promote Falungong at the expense of CCP. I might as well quote the State Spokes Person of PRC and yet my sources will have same credibility as yours. Can you provide a third-party sources with NPOV? If not, an isolated report conducted by two politicians based largely on the hearsay of one or two witnesses along with few dubious transcripts can only be deemed circumstantial in this case. Clergyboy (talk) 21:15, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Its common for transplant professionals and others to refer to the Kilgour–Matas report. On the US National Library of Medicine site there are 4 articles that reference or mention it.

On annual Congressional-Executive Commission on China reports, its mentioned or referenced - 2006 report 3 times, 2007 report twice, 2009 report twice, and 2012 report once.

organharvest.net evidence is reliable. Aaabbb11 (talk) 11:18, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

I recall that after the release of the report, a Hong Kong media interviewed the doctors from the alleged hospitals and found that the telephone conversations were falsified. -WadeMacD (talk) 04:42, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

I don't think you will be able to find a source for that. Aaabbb11 (talk) 12:58, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

"Its common for transplant professionals and others to refer to the Kilgour–Matas report. " That's because there is no other source that can be referenced! The Kilgour-Matas turns out to be the ONLY report that makes those speculations, without any independent sources supporting its claims. This in turn proves the shakiness of those claims.

When we talk about direct evidence (smoking gun), we mean something that can be independently verified, something physical and objective whose presence definitively proves the claims one were to make. The telephone transcripts claimed by the report itself counts at most circumstantial evidence, if not just claims, since its veracity cannot be independently corroborated. One thing that baffles me is that, TEN YEARS after the release of the report, still NOT A SINGLE SHRED OF EVIDENCE was found to prove any claims made, which tells you a lot about how credible the report actually was. -CharlieOQ (talk) 07:14, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

So far three books have been published about organ harvesting in China. Maybe you would like to read them. Aaabbb11 (talk) 12:58, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

wu hongda

It's not clear to me why this should be deleted? I agree we shouldn't make a big thing of it (I heard the LGF changed their attitude??) but mentioning the contention here seems to make sense. Unless i'm missing something?Happy monsoon day 23:47, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Kilgour–Matas report. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.chinaembassycanada.org/eng/xw/t261810.htm
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.america.gov/st/washfile-english/2006/April/20060416141157uhyggep0.5443231.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.amnesty.org.nz/web/pages/home.nsf/dd5cab6801f1723585256474005327c8/83fba691f912206bcc2571d3001824ed!OpenDocument
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.dafoh.org/Article_by_Dr.php
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?apage=1&cid=1180867542307&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 22:11, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Kilgour–Matas report. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.canadianchristianity.com/cgi-bin/bc.cgi?bc/bccn/0606/07chinese

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 09:14, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

This is one of the most absurd report I have ever seen

The authors qualified their findings by noting the difficulties in verifying the alleged crimes, such as: independent bodies were not allowed to investigate conditions in China, eyewitness evidence was difficult to obtain, official information about organ transplantation was often withheld, and Kilgour and Matas themselves were denied visas to go to China to investigate.

So... They actually did not go to China at all?Raintwoto (talk) 22:46, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

It appeared that you have not read the report at all. There were many phone calls between investigators and hospitals in 2006 when this terrible incident was just disclosed. At that time many Chinese hospitals and doctors claimed in the phone conversations that they used good quality organs from healthy FG practitioners. On many hospital websites there were all kinds of organ advertisement indicating the crime. Later those web pages were deleted, but the investigators saved copies. Plus, there are many other evidences, including witnesses in China, for example Cao Dong in Beijing. For foreign investigators, even if they could get in China, do you think Jiang Zemin and his 610 office will just allow them to investigate his inhumane crime in China? Marvin 2009 (talk) 02:17, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

I've been following this on and off for a few years. I just heard that a new report [3] and a U.S. House Resolution [4] have recently come out. Seems pretty much an established fact that Falun Gong are being harvested for their organs. TheSoundAndTheFury (talk) 04:30, 4 July 2016 (UTC)