Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Reports of organ harvesting from live Falun Gong practitioners in China (2nd nomination)

Reports of organ harvesting from live Falun Gong practitioners in China

This is appears to be a soapbox This entry should be deleted

It is not encyclopaedic - it's news reporting
It is extremely biased. The justification for this entry rests upon reports from the Epoch Times which is connected to Falun Gong
Its material is covered elsewhere in Wikipedia Organ harvesting in China the third party sources which talk about the specific targeting of Falun Gong could be included in a paragraph there.

Previous attempts to list this AFD following the instructions for unregistered editors have been deleted.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Justgivemeanameimsickofmaking10attemptstoregister (talk • contribs) This template must be substituted.

~~Speedy Keep~~Merge with Organ harvesting in the People's Republic of China. Clearly notable. Any bias should be cleaned up but that's not a deletion argument. --Ave Caesar (talk) 20:20, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Change to Keep This is a notable topic and while merge might be the choice that readily pops out to one, it is not the best choice. The notability of this topic merits its own article - there is quite a bit of information and a merger would cause the single article to violate WP:LIMIT. There is simply too much info to be relegated to a simple section of one article. WP:COATRACK fails to be an appropriate standard for deletion or merging - there are enough citations and reliable sources to indicate that the reports and allegations are notable enough to stand alone as a separate article. --Ave Caesar (talk) 09:19, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The notice for deletion was removed again without discussion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.209.99.97 (talk) 10:17, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep - obviously notable. Kelly ^hi! 13:25, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Organ harvesting in the People's Republic of China. As it stands, this article is a WP:COATRACK for bashing China on the topic of Falun Gong. They very well may deserve the bashing, but we should allow our principles to be subverted for that purpose. Jehochman ^Talk 13:41, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Organ harvesting in the People's Republic of China. There is enough verifiable and useful info to merit a "keep", but I concur with Jehochman that as an independent article it appears to be a WP:COATRACK. Either way it needs some NPOV editing and some real serious stylistic help. Doc Tropics 16:35, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep. Reports on Organ Harvesting from innocent Falun Gong practitioners is something that has received major international attention. Many including The Amnesty, Prominent Medical Societies and UN Special Rapporteurs have raised their concerns. The importance of this topic comes from the fact that there has been an explosion in Chinese Organ Sales following the onset of the persecution campaign against Falun Gong. It was indeed a documented and known fact that China harvests organs from death penalty prisoners. But the Human Rights Community perceives these recent reports on organ harvesting from innocent Falun Gong practitioners in a completely different light - because these are not "death penalty prisoner" who "have given consent" but innocent prisoners of conscience and also because of the sheer number of executions that should have been made to account for the recent surge in transplants( following onset of the persecution campaign against Falun Gong in 1999 ). This article is notable, in particular, because of the sheer number of people who would have had to be executed to explain China's Organ Transplant statistics for the past few years. A Yale University Thesis points out that "no group in China’s prison system other than Falun Gong practitioners that has the requisite population size, health and intensity of persecution to explain the rapid growth in the organ industry from 2000 to 2005"[1]. According to available reports, sources of some 45000 transplants remain unaccounted for.

The topic completely satisfies all guidelines mentioned in WP:Notability. The claim of the user who raised the AfD that the credibility of the article lies entirely on Epoch Times reports is completely False. Sources on the topic include ( and are not limited to ) Reports by David Kilgour and David Matas, Amnesty International Reports , Sky News Investigative Reports, A Yale University Thesis. Several Newspapers have reported on the issue. Several news Channels have reported on the issue - including CBC News.

The issue is one that has has had an international impact. Major concerns have been raised following these reports by many international Medical Bodies, including: National Kidney Foundation, United States; Australian Hospitals ban training Chinese surgeons in Transplant surgery. In May 2008, United Nations Special Rapporteurs reiterated their previous request for the Chinese authorities to adequately respond to the allegations of organ harvesting from Falun Gong practitioners[2].

Dilip rajeev (talk) 19:12, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Less heat, more light, please. Jehochman ^Talk 19:17, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- Enough reports and media have been generated from just this subject alone to warrant a separate article. It is related to organ harvesting in China in general, but it's also quite distinct. I don't get the coatrack reference, the article identifies its subject then goes over the sources and discussion on it. Where's the coat (or the rack)?--Asdfg12345 00:55, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

General FYI - in an AfD debate, a "Merge" is essentially the same as a "Keep", since both result in the article being retained, not deleted.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Doc Tropics (talk • contribs)

Keep, please! I think this is an issue of the utmost importance. It is indeed notable and indeed separate and distinct from the more general issue of organ harvesting in China. I would be very upset if this article is deleted. I have spent a lot of time commenting on this issue, this article.

Omvegan (talk) 13:17, 29 June 2008 (UTC) This template must be substituted.[reply]

Comment What does your comments has to do with anything?--PCPP (talk) 17:23, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - Agree with above votes to Merge with Organ harvesting in the People's Republic of China, and clean up the POV stuff pushed by certain editors. Agree this article is a WP:COATRACK for bashing China - (following opinion is justified in talk archives) 1) the allegation remain an allegation to date, and this fact has been marginalized by certain editor; 2) Undercover investigations by US embassy and notable Chinese dissident has disproved key aspects of Falun Gong's vivisection allegation; 3) The Kilgour report, a report sponsored by Falun Gong, is given undue weight in the article in attempt to POV this article, and the reports critics (Congresstional Reserch Services, Ottawa Citizen, Harry Wu) are marginalized in POV attempts (eg, following every criticism with meaningless statement "Kilgour insist" but ignore "critics remain unconvinced").

Bobby fletcher (talk) 05:51, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. It is ridiculous to say that David Kilgour and David Matas are somehow "sponsored". Remember that these are two Highly Respected figures in the Human Rights community. In the beginning of this international news conference itself they point out that they did the investigation voluntarily and was not paid by anyone to do so.[3]. Amnesty, U,N. Special rapporteurs all have raised their concerns on this issue. As pointed out in my comment above, the reports have had such an international impact that many countries have changed their transplant policies in response to the reports. A Yale University thesis based on financial analysis, self-incriminating evidence on Chinese transplant websites, Under-cover investigations by Sky News are among the many sources that corroborate the Kilgour-Matas reports. To be noted that the three sources of "criticism" u talk about are all merely pertinent to a specific case - The sujiatun case - where, evidence suggests, the Chinese authorities had sufficient time to clean up before any investigation could take place.

Dilip rajeev (talk) 07:19, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Stay on the topic please. You still haven't demonstrated why these allegations falls within wikipedia guidelines. Wikipedia:COATRACK#.22But_it.27s_true.21.22: The contents of a coatrack article can be superficially true. However, the mere excessive volume of the bias subject creates an article that, as a whole, is less than truthful. Wikipedia:COATRACK#Fact_picking: Instead of finding a balanced set of information about the subject, a coatrack goes out of its way to find facts that support a particular bias. Even though the facts may be true as such, the proportional volume of the hand-picked facts drowns other information, giving a false impression to the reader. --PCPP (talk) 17:23, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Question -- There's an article called Persecution of Falun Gong--which is one of the human rights abuses in China. Can anyone tell me how merging the organ harvesting of Falun Gong article with the Organ harvesting in China article would be any different from merging the persecution of Falun Gong article with the Human rights abuses in China article? Both are sub-issues of a wider one. These are simple matters of space and sourcing; enough independent sources have been generated by just this Falun Gong side of the organ harvesting to warrant a separate article--not to mention the length the main article would blow out to--in the same way for any particular human rights abuse in China that has its own article apart from the central "human rights in China" article. If someone can explain this I would appreciate it. Still waiting for WP:COATRACK to be substantiated.--Asdfg12345 07:33, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The crackdown/persecution of FLG has been noted and addressed by all parties involved in the issue. This article is currently only based on unproven allegations.--PCPP (talk) 17:23, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hence why the article titled "Reports of..." Your argument doesn't make the reports any less notable. --Ave Caesar (talk) 11:51, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The article title means nothing if the contents does not reflect it. This article is not about the Kilgour Matas Report.--PCPP (talk) 14:36, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Agrees with bobby fletcher. The PRC either harvests from FLG practitioners, or they don't. Until it has been proven beyond reasonable doubt that PRC actually harvest organs from FLG practitioners, these allegations does not deserve a separate article. The current article has numerous POV problems, especially bias and undue weight towards Kilgour Matas report which is only based on circumstantial claims and did not prove the allegation at all, while other critics such as Thomas Lum, Harry Wu, Glen McGregor etc are brushed aside. This article thus gives the reader a false impression that Kilgour-Matas is true and the CCP is somehow hiding facts.--PCPP (talk) 17:23, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. These allegations concern crimes against humanity. The Chinese authorities have totally refused to give a thorough answer to the circumstantial evidence put forth in the Kilgour-Matas report. CCP's denial of the allegations has nothing to do with whether the article ought to be kept in Wikipedia. Nothing can be "proven beyond reasonable doubt" as long as they do not allow third-party researchers into the country and give them unlimited access. ✔ Olaf Stephanos ✍ 11:46, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, please read WP:NPOV. The PRC authorities does not need to comply to a small minority of people, and the burden of proof is on Matas/Kilgour, not the PRC government.--PCPP (talk) 14:36, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. my 2 cents regarding the point raised in the opening of this AfD.

It is not encyclopaedic - it's news reporting
- It's encyclopedic according to wikipedia if the sources on the matter are cited, and they are.
- It's not as much news since the first findings where made in 2006 and the action itself is going back to 2000.
It is extremely biased. The justification for this entry rests upon reports from the Epoch Times which is connected to Falun Gong
- False. There are reports from Amnesty International, Manfred Novak, the UN inspector on torture, McMillan Scott, vice president of the United Nations, David Matas human rights lawyer specialized in the holocaust, David Kilgour and ex sectary of state of Canada, so all these people are not hired and can not be hired by Epoch Times.
Its material is covered elsewhere in Wikipedia Organ harvesting in China the third party sources which talk about the specific targeting of Falun Gong could be included in a paragraph there.
- This material has lot's of details and controversies in it, I doubt that it could fit in the Organ harvesting in China article and still be NPOV.

--HappyInGeneral (talk) 17:39, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note Editor HappyInGeneral seems to have neglected to mention the Kilgour/Matas report is sponsored by CIPFG, the political arm of Falun Gong. In the report appendix contains a letter from Falun Gong leader to Kilgour/Matas that they would be compensated via reimbursement. This fact demonstrates this report FLG is promoting is paid for by FLG. However this fact is not in the article.

Would also like to publically ask Editor Dilip, for the 3rd time, to stop removing the POV flag from this article, as obvious POV disputes continues from multiple editors. Hopefully this will also get some admin attention (please check Talk page/archive for background, Admin.)

Bobby fletcher (talk) 19:01, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is funny now Falun Gong has enough money to buy high level official. LOL :) And somehow it does not matter to you that in their list of evidence they cite the documents available from the Chinese government. --HappyInGeneral (talk) 20:55, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. ..Lol..:D.. What u are now claiming is David Kilgour and David Matas, two of the most-highly respected figures in the International Community, were "bought" and you know it because in their report's "appendix" they say .."in fact we were bought" :D. ( Well.. just in case someone is very new to the topic : The entire text of the report ( including all appendices ) is available online on many websites .And here are streaming videos of the international press conference where Kilgour and Matas submit there reports. In the very beginning itself they state that the investigations were done voluntarily and were not "paid" by anyone. What you are doing is referring to a letter requesting independent investigation and distorting it to push CCP propagana. )

I am also beginning to have rather serious concerns on who this "Bobby Fletcher" is. It is, in fact, well documented how the CCP hires spies and thugs to assault Falun Gong practitioners outside of China, interfere with peaceful protests etc...the assaults have gone up recently with many arrests of CCP hired thugs recently made. Also many are hired by the CCP to post pro-CCP comments on youtube, etc. on videos related to Tibetan Unrest, Persecution of Falun Gong etc. I don't assume the CCP is likely to spare wikipedia either. Some editors were, in the past, banned for vandalizing Falun Gong pages and the same editors were found removing info from the 1989 Tiananmen square incident page and other pages related to human rights violations by the CCP. I notice that this user has all these characteristics . Repeatedly adding POV tags to well written articles, making the weirdest claims ( like the slander against Kilgour and Matas he writes above) in his thinly veiled attempts to support the CCP's persecution and remove/sideline/POV-ize very relevant material. There are many such instances, a few of which I would like to point out here. Here he tries ( please see here ) to characterize brutal and unbelievably inhumane persecution as "cancer". Wang Bin's case from Kilgour-Matas reports he repeatedly attempts to pass of as "autopsy"(please see here) while attempting to cover up his vandalism by citing sources which do not even remotely support the allegations he makes . Even now international Human Rights organizations are working to release many prisoners of conscience, including Xu Na, the wife of popular Chinese singer Yu Zhou who was murdered by the CCP because he practiced Falun Gong ( http://en.epochtimes.com/news/8-5-7/70333.html , http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/asia/china/article3779899.ece ). The persecution, needless to say, is a well-documented fact and even many American citizens, Cambridge university students, etc have been imprisoned and tortured for years -would this "bobbyfletcher" please give his "explanation" for these incidents along with an "explanation" for the fact there is a lot publicly verifiable evidence being pointed to by Kilgour and Matas point in their reports ... to mention one, the Chinese organ transplant websites carried a lot of self-incriminating stuff.. online archived versions of which are still available. He also often resorts to personal attacks on users as he has been doing recently against User:Asdfg. Such behavior , I believe , constitute a serious violation of wikipedia policies.

Dilip rajeev (talk) 12:42, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Obviously a notable topic. Omido (talk) 19:11, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 08:56, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is not a news report as such. It is an article based on a number of articles from a variety of reliable sources, such as the Christian Science Monitor. If the story started with reports from the Falon Gong movement, that is hardly surprising. Stories of murder and persecution usually start with reports from those close to the victims. I do not think merging with the general article about Chinese organ harvesting is appropriate, because this article is longer and better sourced than than one. If the article wanders into too much general criticism of the policies of the Chinese government, that should be handled by editing, not deletion or merger. It satisfies WP:N and WP:V. Edison (talk) 15:32, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Keep - a very well-researched article, which is not 'soapbox' at all. It should not be merged either, as it deserves its own page, especially considering the research inolved. Tris2000 (talk) 16:41, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Plenty of non-Epoch Times media sources to confirm the notability (and seriousness) of the subject. Ecoleetage (talk) 16:52, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Well-documented account of systematic torture including Amnesty International sources. In my humble opinion, only a Chinese government official could view this page as a "soapbox".