Talk:Falun Gong and live organ harvesting

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Religion / Interfaith (Rated Redirect-class)
WikiProject icon This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, a project to improve Wikipedia's articles on Religion-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.
Redirect page Redirect  This redirect does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.
Taskforce icon
This redirect is supported by Interfaith work group.

Rewriting the article[edit]

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.


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[edit]

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[edit]

Actually this page -- 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[edit]

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[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:
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)
  • Please do not attempt to be sarcastic in writing - the message fails to come across more often then not. Or if you were not being sarcastic, suggesting that another editor made to prove a point is also pretty bad form. Ohconfucius (talk) 02:03, 25 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: - "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[edit]

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):
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, 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:
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:
"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:
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: (page 4, list of directors)
FoF's non-profit filings over the years show that millions were given to various Falun Gong media outlets:

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)



A pathetic article[edit]

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)


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[edit]

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 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[edit]

  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[edit]

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, 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, 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[edit]

Asdfg, should we take this to arb? 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 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?[edit]

And who is Bobby Fletcher? If that is someone's real name, I find that more believable, sorry. I have read the K/M report, and find it highly credible. They have done a service to humanity. 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?[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

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)

  • yes, it is considered reliable and used by many journalists as a resource to access articles written by Chinese-language press. The whole thing is rather transparent: the original versions are linked to, and you can do a quick and dirty translation using babelfish. Ohconfucius (talk) 02:52, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

If it just gives links to reliable chinese sources then we can use those sources directly under some circumstances. In itself it's just a blog, we do not cite blogs. Do I misunderstand something?--Asdfg12345 12:53, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

An Intro para[edit]

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)


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)

If they were mere allegations they wouldn't deserve an article.--Asdfg12345 12:06, 11 May 2008 (UTC)