Talk:Organ transplantation in China

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Former good article Organ transplantation in China was one of the Natural sciences good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones
Date Process Result
September 24, 2010 Good article nominee Listed
January 2, 2011 Good article reassessment Delisted
December 27, 2013 Good article nominee Not listed
Current status: Delisted good article

Prisoner types[edit]

Don't be confused between "prisoners sentenced to death" and "executed prisoners"
As common sensed, a prisoner is executed (killed) after and only after that prisoner is sentenced to death. That is why in wording and in many reports, it say "executed prisoners" but actually the meanings is that "those prisoners who are sentenced to death and then are executed".
However, in this particular situation in China, the BIG problem is that among those "executed prisoners" there are many who are not sentenced to death at all. As the matter of facts, those Falun Gong practitioners are "prisoners sentenced to nothing" (this is the term in the book "Bloody Harvest", meaning they are in detention centers and labor camps without lawful trials). The organ harvesting process is also understood as an execution process in it true sense.
So, long ago, China agreed that they use "executed prisoners" as source; and now, yes, they also agree about that. The "term" does not change. But the meanings behind changed. Or more correctly, our own understandings about China had been changed. Prior 2006 incidents, we understood that those "executed prisioners" were "prisoners sentenced to death". But after 2006 report, we understand that those number of "prisoners sentenced to deaths" is way too small (about 1,700 per year) compared to the number of transplants (at least 11.000 per year)
So when talking about numbers, we should separate: "prisoners sentence to death" and "executed prisoners but not sentenced to death". Because it is the true issue of China now. Of course, taking organs from "living" and "dead" bodies is also a big problem, too. But technically speaking, it is not easy to tell. For example, how you can say a particular organ is taken from a living prisoner? And how many of them are still alive at that point of organ harvesting? But it is much easier to point out that a large number of them are not sentenced to death.

103.9.196.17 (talk) 04:53, 21 September 2014 (UTC) (sorry for my bad English)

Recommend to Re-arrange this article[edit]

I would like to suggest a review + re-arrange an English article about Organ Harvesting in China,

The ideas is that follow.


The rewrite is to "break" the article into 4 parts:

1. What were happened before 2006
2. The 2006 story of wife of surgeon, and The Allegations, and then the investigations + results
3. What is the responses of important bodies after 2006
4. Some topics that should be viewed separately in the view of legal, virtue, medical,...

Part 1: Before 2006[edit]

The part (1) is basically telling the background story, which is something like that: as for Transplant, China was doing it wrong, and international communities already had a lot of criticisms about that: (i) taking organ from prisoners without a transparent procedure; (ii) having no organ donation program/system to collect organs from the mass; which resulted in that executed prisoners were the only viable source of organ.

Before the 2006 incident, those criticisms were not *very* harsh, because, after all, those people were prisoners sentenced to death. Apparently the situation were not as grave as today.

Part 2: Allegations and investigations[edit]

The part (2) expresses that once after the 2006 testimony, the situation is clearly changed in the essences: those victims were not prisoners sentenced to death, they were prisoners sentenced to nothing. So, the "wrong procedure" (what ever you call it) happened before 1999 2000 now became a "crime". Which should be treated totally differently. The call for China to make the procedure transparent is much more demanding now.

The Allegations is a sort of Allegations from the consciences:

1. What China were doing before 1999 2000 were wrong (getting organs from prisoners without a proper procedure, and having no other source of organs); and now, after the boom of transplant tourism, that wrong way of doing became a "crime". As long as China has no transparent organ harvesting procedure, this Allegation is still valid. Note that China openly admitted in 2005 that they were harvesting organs from prisoners.
2. Falun Gong practitioners and other prisoners of consciences are (the main) victims.

The point (1) has nothing to investigate, because China already admit it in 2005. Now it is to tell China to have proper laws and policies about that (which China still not do it until today)

The point (2) require investigations to prove or disprove it.

Writing that way has some good benefits (which I learn after reading the book Bloody Harvest).

First, it tell the readers "not to be shocked" by seeing what's happening in China. China just continued what they had been doing since 1960s 1970s 1980s 1990s, it was only that now they had a new (and big) batch of prisoners.

Second, it tell the readers not to be confused when thinking that "Organ Harvesting" is "Falun Gong issue". It is CCP's issue, not Falun Gong's. And that issue had been there long before the crack down.

Then there came investigations. Kilgour Matas works was one (and the best) of them. There were other investigations and their results. This article should tell one by one. Doing that way is to give a clear view for readers.

Part 3: What the involved parties say and do? What the other big guys say and do?[edit]

The part (3) should be rewrite and update with new information. Well, there are many of them.

The reaction of China[edit]

1. Official reactions. Yes, it is very good to list what China officially say and do about this. No matter how many they say and do, the real situation is still the same as before: no transparent procedure and no real organ donation system in place. Now, it is 2014, the situation is the same.

2. Unofficial reactions. Yes, it is also very good to list what China unofficial do about this. Especially whenever the organ harvesting issue arise, they bring Falun Gong in, as if it is Falun Gong's issue. There are many more example of how China do disinformation about this. After all, when the criminal is pointed out, the first thing it do is to deny it. After it cannot deny it, it would make thing confused.

The reaction of Falun Gong[edit]

Why not openly tell the reaction of Falun Gong? Falun Gong group has all the full rights to say openly and clearly about what damages they got. So, all the reaction of Falun Gong go here. Not need to tell in all other parts; just write in this one part.

The reaction of UN[edit]

How Mr Novak ask China in 2007 and 2008, and how he was ignored. etc.

UPR 2009, how China was asked to allow 3rd parties investigations and how China rejected it. etc.

...

The reaction of EU[edit]

2013 resolution

The reaction of US[edit]

...

The reaction of Others[edit]

Part 4: Miscellaneous Technical Stuffs[edit]

I find that it should be helpful to briefly tell some (small) topics in a more "scientific" way. There are something that only can be seen clearly when being seen in the light of medical, legal (law), human rights... view.

  1. The requirement of organ matching, why? An organ must be plant within 12h or 24h, why?
  2. So, there are 'technical' reason why the waiting time in other countries is so long. Then, why the waiting time in China is so short?
  3. Buying and selling human organs or parts is the issue of both law and humanity. What the WHO Principle Guidelines say about this? That's why the transparent procedure of organ harvesting is very important. That's why the world has been insisting demanding China to do that since 1980s 1990s, long before the boom of transplant tourism. Until now, when China is a leading player in the field, it still not do it. You know, some readers do not really understand that organs are not something to trade. The whole medical industry has been investing a lot about laws and guidelines to make sure things go right.
  4. The existence of a working organ donation system is important, which all other countries do. The point is that the organ transplant industry cannot based on a pool of prisoners, right? As long as China has no working donation system, all their laws and policies are just empty talks, unless they stop the organ transplant industry.

SenTrang (talk) 08:09, 2 September 2014 (UTC) (sorry for my really bad English)

Good article[edit]

I would certainly not rate this as a good article, not in its current form. —Zujine|talk 21:53, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

  • I'm quite open to that possibility, but it's difficult being objective with something one's had a major hand in writing. It would be great if you would care to elaborate, or roll your sleeves up... Ohconfucius ¡digame! 01:56, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

I think that the article is actually very good, from a quick view. The information is detailed and long enough. I think the beginning needs a major facelift. A good article must be not only full of knowledge, but visually appealing. Otherwise, the article is very nice. Ryderofpelham123 (talk) 20:50, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Would you expand what you mean by "major facelift" and "visually appealing"? I've looked again at the article and I'm not sure what you mean - other than perhaps having an image in the lead. I agree that images are useful, though I haven't found a suitable free use image of organ transplantation in China, other than Falun Gong related ones, and I would rather not use those in the lead as that would be giving undue weight to the Falun Gong issues. SilkTork *YES! 10:34, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
I don't think a serious article like this needs to be overly "visually appealing." In particular, we should be wary of adding too many lurid FLG "torture displays," thus compromising what should be a neutral presentation of quite serious allegations. Zujine, are you sure you read the article carefully? It actually appears to be quite thorough and well-researched. I'm impressed with the work of the editors here. This subject is notoriously controversial, and a neutral, independent presentation is often hard to come by. Bravo. The Sound and the Fury (talk) 18:58, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

GA Review[edit]

This review is transcluded from Talk:Organ transplantation in the People's Republic of China/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Nikkimaria (talk) 03:23, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Hello! I'll be reviewing this article for possible GA status. My review should be posted within the next day or two. Cheers, Nikkimaria (talk) 03:23, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

I've decided to place this article on hold to allow time for the below issues to be addressed. I am watching this review page, so please respond below. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:07, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Writing and formatting[edit]

  • Be consistent in using American or British English
  • "In the 1990s, growing concerns about possible ethical abuses arising from coerced consent and corruption led medical groups and human rights organizations to start condemning the practice in the 1990s" - no need to repeat 1990s
  • "the Chinese Medical Association agreed not to use the organs of prisoners for transplantation, except for members of their immediate family" - please tell me "their" refers to the prisoners and not the CMA!
  • Spell out or link MP on first occurrence
  • Should include a few more internal links. I'm surprised that Organ donation wasn't linked as a matter of course. Other likely links include hepatitis, Amnesty International, etc
  • "In China, organ transplantation began in the 1960s, which grew to a peak of over 13,000 transplants a year by 2004" - grammar. Also, transplants peaked in 2004
  • "development of immuno-supressant drug, cyclosporine A, made transplants a more viable option for patients since the 1970s" - grammar
  • "condemned taking organs from executed prisoners as it was not known if they had given consent to the use of their organs" - reword for clarity
  • What is WHA44.25?
  • Check use of semi-colons
  • "assisted Wang to give" -> "assisted Wang in giving"?
  • "was cite by ET" - grammar
  • "argued that the hospital was incapable of housing 6,000 persons" - okay, but what does that have to do with anything?
  • The mini-paragraph at the start of the Falun Gong section should be reworked and moved to the start of the report subsection
  • Don't abbreviate their names as "K&M"; do so for the report title only if the sources do so
  • "US dollar price lists various vital organs such as kidneys and hearts" - grammar
  • "Chinese authorities to adequately respond... and an explanation" - grammar
  • "holocaust" should be capitalized
  • Minimize the number of one-sentence paragraphs
  • Kilgour-Matas report or Kilgour Matas Report?
  • "which stipulated that medical centres must meet for transplant services" - missing word?
  • "In March, 2006, the Ministry of Health issued the Interim Provisions on Clinical Application and Management of Human Organ Transplantation, which stipulated that medical centres must meet for transplant services; the provinces were made responsible for plans for clinical applications. Establishments performing transplantation are thereby obliged to incorporate ethics, medical and surgical expertise, and intensive care" - I'm not sure I follow the progression here, could you clarify?
  • "to restrict transplantations from donors to their immediate relatives" - all donors, or prisoners?
  • The human rights article is linked in the text and thus shouldn't be in See also
    • I think that Ohconfucius has dealt with these matters. Please let me know if any have been missed. I comment on WHA44.25 below. SilkTork *YES! 11:52, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
      • Just a couple of points: check "ise" vs "ize" (and derivatives - for example, is the WHO an organisation or an organization?). Second, I would suggest reading it over and doing some general copy-editing - there are other issues with grammar and clarity. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:12, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
        • As I have set all spellings to British variant, it would be an 'organisation. OTOH, the official name is spelt with a 'z'. --Ohconfucius ¡digame! 14:44, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
          • British spelling accepts both ise and ize, so other than proper names such as WHO, either can be used used in this article. I'll scan through for other issues with grammar and clarity - though if they are mine I am likely to miss them! I hope to pick up other people's errors, and that Ohconfucius will pick up mine! SilkTork *YES! 15:04, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Accuracy and verifiability[edit]

  • See here for a list of problematic links
  • Use a consistent formatting for references
  • Include retrieval dates for all web sources
  • Include publisher for all sources
  • Include page numbers for multi-page documents, journals, and newspapers (where applicable)
  • Address unreliable-source tag
  • When I try to load canadianchristianity.com, my anti-virus software sends up a warning about it being an "attack page"
    • Would you look at Wikipedia:What the Good article criteria are not, and separate your concerns related to GA criteria, and your general guidance for ongoing development of the article. It may, however, be worth waiting until the Falun Gong section is dealt with, as I feel that some of your concerns may be dealt with at the same time. SilkTork *YES! 11:33, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
      • I have struck three points. Note also that I'm not asking that the problematic links be removed, simply that you check to see if the issues can be addressed. If they cannot, then say so. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:12, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
        • I have gone through the cites and removed or replaced dead or unreliable links. canadianchristianity.com loads OK on FireFox which is generally good at notifying attack sites. SilkTork *YES! 23:57, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Broad[edit]

  • Need more emphasis on what here is termed "Background". Are there any breakdowns of donation/transplant counts by organ? Which hospitals are equipped to perform these procedures? Any particularly well-known for transplantation surgery? Why is organ donation so contrary to Chinese culture (just a sentence needed to explain)? Also, the section should be split or renamed, as most of it deals with the 2000s, not "1960s-1984"
    • Will look into this. SilkTork *YES! 11:33, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
    • Have made some adjustments. I am concerned about going too far though. The main notability of China's transplant programme is the organ harvesting and trade, so that has to be both the bulk and focus of the article; however to ensure balance, context neutrality, and broad coverage I have included some background detail. There is, however, a danger of downplaying the harvesting and trading if one goes too much into the other aspects. There has to be a balance, but that balance mustn't obscure what was in effect a very disturbing practise. And this article isn't about organ transplantation in general. The notability in China's programme is not the everyday transplanting, but the exceptional aspects of it. I'll be advised by you if you feel that coverage of other aspects is, though, still too little. Ensuring neutral balance isn't always easy. The face transplanting might be seen by some people as a smoke screen, so care has to be taken! SilkTork *YES! 12:39, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
      • Understood. I think what is present now is probably sufficient. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:12, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Conversely, the section on Falun Gong should be shortened or spun off. I realize it's an important consideration, but it shouldn't be given more weight than the two International sections combined
    • Ah! I've been working through these points backwards, and I have commented on this below. Yes, I agree that the section on Falun Gong is too long. I will consult with Dilip rajeev, Jayen466 and Ohconfucius on splitting that section out per WP:Summary style into a new article to be called Kilgour-Matas report. SilkTork *YES! 11:24, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
    • I have already reduced the length of that section considerably, whilst preserving the essence. Let me know if it is still overweight. --Ohconfucius ¡digame! 12:31, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
      • It's probably good enough now. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:12, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Does this article include the issue of tissue transplantation? It's mentioned in the lead, but not anywhere else
    • I have removed tissue from the lead. Organ transplantation by implication includes tissue so there is no need to highlight it. I don't think there is one common word which covers both organs and tissue, so "organ transplantation" generally covers everything. I think "organ and tissue" was used in the lead so readers would understand that "organ transplantation" does involve both organs and tissue, but if you feel it sets up an expectation that is not delivered, then it is better removed. And the article and operational practise does focus on the organs rather than tissue anyway. SilkTork *YES! 11:21, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Neutrality[edit]

  • Make sure you distinguish between "acknowledged" and "not denied"
    • There is one instance I can find of "acknowledged", and that accords precisely with the source, and is about trading in organs. The use of "not denied" is in taking organs from prisoners. They are related but different. One is the operation to remove organs from prisoners. The other is trading those organs on the international market. China denied they were involved in illegal trading, though did not deny they took organs from prisoners. They eventually acknowledged they not only took organs from prisoners, but also then sold those organs. I have reworded the lead to, hopefully, make this clearer. Does that help? SilkTork *YES! 11:12, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Since this is a controversial topic, be very careful about WP:W2W, WP:ASF, and WP:UNDUE
    • The reason I am involved is because of the controversy surrounding this and related Falun Gong articles - see Talk:Falun Gong/Moderated discussion. However I am not the only editor, and I don't check every edit. If there are any aspects or phrases that you feel are suspect, please indicate them so we can discuss it more fully. One of the concerns is that the Falun Gong allegation takes up a disproportionate amount of space, and should be split out per WP:Summary style into a separate article on the Kilgour-Matas report. The history of this article, however, is that any attempts to do that have been reverted. An experienced GA reviewer giving an impartial assessment of the article and reaching a decision either way regarding 3 (b) - "it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail" would be helpful. SilkTork *YES! 11:12, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
      • The total wordcount without the lede section is 2689. The Falun Gong section is currently at 1053 words – I lopped 20% off. It's probably in balance now. --Ohconfucius ¡digame! 14:55, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Stability[edit]

No problems noted

Images[edit]

  • A lead image would be great if you can find one - not a big problem, though
    • Moved up the graph that Ohconfucius made as that is fairly neutral. previously there were no suitable neutral images - using a Falun Gong related image would have weighted the article. SilkTork *YES! 10:45, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
    • I have no issue with that. --Ohconfucius ¡digame! 12:28, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
  • The caption for the graph says "liver and heart transplants", while the graph itself specifies liver and kidney
    • Ohconfucius has fixed that. SilkTork *YES! 10:45, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
  • The Falun Gong image has a poster about "genocide camps" - are these the same as the "concentration camps" discussed in article text?
    • I assume so. SilkTork *YES! 10:45, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
    • That's what Falun Gong are drumming on about. --Ohconfucius ¡digame! 12:28, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Caption for Kilgour image contradicts image description page - which is correct?
    • Ohconfucius must have fixed that as I see no inconsistency. SilkTork *YES! 10:45, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
    • I did not touch it, as I saw no inconsistency either. --Ohconfucius ¡digame! 12:28, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
      • Was his title "Secretary of State" or "Secretary for Asia and the Pacific"? Nikkimaria (talk) 14:12, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
        • I've tidied the caption. He was both, but I've put it into the form that seems the one most used. SilkTork *YES! 15:19, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Response[edit]

  • I have dealt with most of the points raised under writing and formatting, and some of the others. Thanks! --Ohconfucius ¡digame! 07:20, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Hi. Sorry, I didn't notice that a review was under way. I'll take a look at the points raised. Thanks for doing the review. SilkTork *YES! 08:54, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

  • WHA44.25 is an international guideline on human organ transplants. I think originally I placed it in brackets, but these were removed in subsequent edits - I have restored the brackets. Let me know if you think that makes it clearer. SilkTork *YES! 10:41, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
    • Yes, that's better. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:12, 24 September 2010 (UTC)


  • I think all the points have been addressed. Let us know if there's anything else. And thanks again for taking on this task. Not the most pleasant or easiest of articles to work through. I fully understand why it was left for so long on the GAN pile. You have done a thorough and admirable job. SilkTork *YES!

Article's title[edit]

From the title of the article, I was expecting to read about the number of organ transplants being done, which centres (hospitals) are involved, differences in treatment regimens with the West, etc.. This article is actually about illegal organ harvesting. The title should be changed accordingly. Axl ¤ [Talk] 09:47, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

There is general information on the numbers of transplants, and history and development of transplants, the local attitude toward transplants; the legal situation regarding transplants, and how this has changed over the years, and how the local attitude toward transplants is changing. There is a fair amount of general information regarding organ transplantation in China. I agree, however, that there is a weighting toward the some of the international concerns regarding organ transplantation - this, though, is appropriate, as that is the most significant aspect of the topic, and needs to be explored in reasonable depth. Where I am less certain, is the amount of material on the Falun Gong allegations - that does seen disproportionate, and should be split out per WP:Summary style; and it has long been my intention to split that out into a stand alone article. There are issues surrounding that, however. A stand alone article previously existed, and has been merged into this article - and that has been disputed, and some of the people involved in that dispute are under ArbCom sanctions. I am interested to see how an uninvolved GA reviewer would deal with 3 (b) (stays focused) of the Wikipedia:Good article criteria. SilkTork *YES! 11:21, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
There is indeed some general information regarding the number of transplants, local attitudes, and the legal situation. This is all relevant background information for an article about "Illegal Organ Transplantation in China". It is entirely inadequate in an article about "Organ Transplantation in China". If I was GA reviewing this article, I would require that the article's title should be changed. If you really expected me to review this article with its current title, I would quick-fail it. It has excessive undue weight on the illegal aspects of transplantation. It has no mention of the numbers of lung transplants, heart transplants, etc.. Which hospitals is this done in? What are the indications for the various transplants? How many lung transplants are performed for cystic fibrosis? How many for emphysema? What are the drug regimens used? How long do patients survive after transplant? How does this compare with the West? Axl ¤ [Talk] 09:50, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
That is a good point. Then why not change it to "Illegal Organ Harvesting in the PRC," and have another article called "Organ Transplantation in the PRC," which discusses the legitimate aspects of the Chinese trade in organs? Those two articles should be sufficient. From what I can see on the page now, FLG's sensational claims don't warrant a new article.

Another approach is to clearly break the article into parts that discuss the legitimate and illegitimate organ transplanting practices. However, the same undue weight problem may emerge, when it's discovered that there is an abundance of information on illicit practices, but little on legal ones.The Sound and the Fury (talk) 19:04, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

TheSoundAndTheFury, I agree with your first suggestion. Axl ¤ [Talk] 08:41, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
Then why don't we simply do that? The Sound and the Fury (talk) 13:47, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
Look, fellers, we just got this to GA. I hope that instead of doing a premature split and end up with two stubs, I think we should build the [legal] transplantation part of this article first. --Ohconfucius ¡digame! 14:45, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
As I noted above, I dispute the validity of this article as a GA under its current title. Axl ¤ [Talk] 08:42, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── As you are not satisfied with the explanations here, the appropriate process is to now go for a Community Reassessment per Wikipedia:Good article reassessment, and give your reasons why you feel the article does not meet Wikipedia:Good article criteria. I think the criteria you'd be saying it fails on would be either 3(a) - "it addresses the main aspects of the topic;* (*This requirement is significantly weaker than the "comprehensiveness" required of featured articles; it allows shorter articles, articles that do not cover every major fact or detail, and overviews of large topics.)" or 3(b) "it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail". Please let those involved, including the Reviewer, know if you chose to go down this route. SilkTork *YES! 09:40, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

GA Reassessment[edit]

This discussion is transcluded from Talk:Organ transplantation in the People's Republic of China/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the reassessment.

I was hoping that the main editors of the article would see my point and agree to rename the article. Instead, here is my "Good Article" review, as recommended by SilkTork:-

1a. The prose is clear. The grammar and spelling are fine.

1b. The lead section is too long for the length of the whole article.

2. The article is accurate and fairly well-referenced, with good in-line citations. (The article would benefit from references to peer-reviewed medical journals such as this letter by Jiefu Huang to the Lancet, and these, but these are not required for GA status.)

3a. The article does not address the main aspects of the topic. The brief "Background" section should actually be the mainstay of the article. Information should include the numbers of different organ types, the largest hospitals where these are performed, common indications for different organ transplants, survival following transplant, complication rates, drug regimes used, and how these factors contrast with the West.

3b. The article is strongly focussed on the practice of illegal/unethical harvesting. It applies undue weight and is inappropriate for the article. This needs to be drastically reduced and/or spun-off into its own article.

4. The article is neutral.

5. Well, we do seem to have a content dispute, although we aren't engaged in an edit war.

6. The illustrations are appropriate for a GA.

Axl ¤ [Talk] 09:42, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

This seems a bit of an awkward way to discuss, the article itself definitely qualifies for good article, but I agree with Axl that it should be either renamed or split. --WS (talk) 10:05, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Quick comment - I'll likely have more to say later, but one point: this article is well over 15,000 characters (not counting the lead or the references), and thus per WP:LEAD should and does have a 2-3 paragraph lead. Nikkimaria (talk) 11:47, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
  • This is an individual assessment. As there has been prior discussion on this matter among those involved, and there was no agreement that the article did not meet GA criteria, this should be a community assessment. Please close this and open a community assessment which will bring in a wider range of people - most importantly, people who have not previously been involved. SilkTork *YES! 13:59, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

When it is brought before a community assessment, I might have some comments too. The Sound and the Fury (talk) 14:33, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Reviews[edit]

Here are a number of journal articles which could be used to improve this articles scope.

  • Huang J (2007). "Ethical and legislative perspectives on liver transplantation in the People's Republic of China". Liver Transpl. 13 (2): 193–6. doi:10.1002/lt.21081. PMID 17256779.  Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)
  • Huang JF (2007). "[Ethical and legislative perspectives on liver transplantation in Mainland China]". Zhonghua Wai Ke Za Zhi (in Chinese). 45 (5): 292–6. PMID 17535701.  Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)
  • Tibell A (2007). "The Transplantation Society's policy on interactions with China". Transplantation. 84 (3): 292–4. doi:10.1097/01.tp.0000275181.33071.07. PMID 17700151.  Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)
  • Huang J, Mao Y, Wang Y, Zhang ZJ, Zhao MG, Liu Y (2008). "Modernization of the organ transplantation program in China". Transplantation. 86 (12): 1649–52. doi:10.1097/TP.0b013e3181926189. PMID 19104399.  Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)
  • Shang X, Zhang M (2010). "Body and organ donation in Wuhan, China". Lancet. 376 (9746): 1033–4. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(10)60937-3. PMID 20870080.  Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)

Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:35, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the list Doc James. Some of the links lead to subscription sites, and from the abstracts seem to cover what is already included in the article. This article can be read in full, and I'm not seeing much new information; indeed, it seems quite coy on certain details, and I would argue that the Wikipedia article contains more information. SilkTork *YES! 09:59, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
I think it would better if someone who knows Chinese reads the original Chinese version of these articles, instead of using the translated version.--Jsjsjs1111 (talk) 09:20, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

New GAN[edit]

I am dismayed to see that SilkTork has nominated this article. While the article has improved a little since the GA review in 2010, persisent problems remain regarding criteria 3a and 3b. Axl ¤ [Talk] 19:21, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

GA Review[edit]

This review is transcluded from Talk:Organ transplantation in China/GA3. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: LT910001 (talk · contribs) 09:30, 21 December 2013 (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. I will spend a day familiarising myself with the article and then provide an assessment. Kind regards, LT910001 (talk) 09:30, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Hi, LT910001. Please read my concerns from the time of the previous GAN, my reassessment, community reassessment and my current comment. Thank you. Axl ¤ [Talk] 10:56, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
Thanks Axl. Having a look at previous nominations, reassessments and the talk page is often my second port of call when conducting a GA review. --LT910001 (talk) 03:20, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

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[edit]

Rate Attribute Review Comment
1. Well written:
1a. the prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct. See below
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.
2b. all in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines.
2c. it contains no original research.
3. Broad in its coverage:
3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic. See below
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. See below
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 images:
6a. images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content.
6b. images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
7. Overall assessment.

Commentary[edit]

Thanks to the editors for working on this article. With the festive season upon us in many countries, I am more than happy to wait several days for a response. As it is, I believe this article needs improvement to meet the GARC. However I feel this improvement would be possible in a limited timespan so will not close the review. Some concerns: --LT910001 (talk) 22:36, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

  • This article is not suitably broad. As an article about "organ transplantation in China", here are some questions which arose during my review. These aren't intended to be comprehensive or prescriptive, but are intended to illustrate that this article is not suitably broad.
    • How many organ transplants have occurred in the last 5 years? How many of these were voluntary / not voluntary? What tissue types are used? How does a person voluntarily donate their organs? How does a person get on a waiting list? Is there a cost involved? Does organ donation differ between the military and civilian systems?
    • Without this information, and a portrayal of the Chinese transplantation system in general, I am concerned that the article focuses almost entirely on concerns regarding involuntary transplantation.
  • I feel, although this is not a requirement of the review, that this article would benefit from a clearer restructure, perhaps in something like "International concerns / US / China / Canada" to separate out the relevant portions. As it is it's quite hard to follow other than as a timeline. This impacts on readability. I feel with the inclusion of some extra information for context this readability issue will not be as apparent.

Please feel free to take your time responding during this season, I wish you and you family well. Kind regards, --LT910001 (talk) 22:36, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

  • Thank you for the prompt review. Your main issue is the coverage, I feel the coverage is broad enough for GA criteria. The main notability of organ transplantation in China has been covered, with appropriate weight given to the depth of coverage in reliable sources of various aspects; the main one, of course, being international concerns; some of that - the main aspects indeed - being covered in Kilgour-Matas report. I understand that it can be tricky to draw the line between the comprehensiveness demanded in a FA review and the broad coverage of a GA review - much comes down to the judgement of the reviewer. Judgement is often assisted by seeing what is covered in scholarly documents, books, news reports, etc - spending a little bit of time doing a Google of the topic to get a feel for the coverage. If you have done that independent background reading of the sources on the topic and feel the article is biased and undue, and that the coverage is not broad enough, then of course you should fail it; that is your judgement as the reviewer. No probs, and no hard feelings. SilkTork ✔Tea time 00:31, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
This article does not meet the 'broadness' criteria required for GA promotion, and so I have failed per your comments above. I would strongly advise making some changes to the article so that this issue, as documented in the past reviews and reassessment, is addressed, before the article is renominated. I wish you well on your wiki-travels, --LT910001 (talk) 01:12, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Copyvio?[edit]

[1]

I don't see the copyvio, but this template messed up the page. Hard to resolve a problem that is not explained. TheBlueCanoe 04:49, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

We both made edits in rapid succession here. In response to this, I now see the offending paragraph which was lifted from the news article, but there's a pretty simple solution to that problem, which is to rewrite or paraphrase it. I've done that. What needs to be oversighted and why? What am I missing? TheBlueCanoe 05:00, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
@TheBlueCanoe: I know how important this article is to Falun Gong propagandists, but you should accept it as an unfortunate consequence of one of your fellow FLG editors choosing to plagiarise an entire chunk of it. That chunk that was copied was entirely gratuitous ad I was actually looking to remove it. As I intimated in the edit summary, the current practice requires admin review plus oversight, so that the offending copyvio isn't visible in any of the diffs. So, please don't lift the tag, otherwise no admin will know to take care of it. Regards, -- Ohc ¡digame! 06:00, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
It's not necessary to respond to polite queries with ad hominems. Anyway, I suggest you read the template more carefully next time. It looks like there are several steps to properly initiate a copyright investigation, which includes posting a notice on the offending editor's talk page and, more importantly, filing the request at Wikipedia:Copyright_problems/2015 March 27. I've taken the liberty of doing that for you. Simply putting the template on the page will not automatically result in a resolution. All it does is make that section inaccessible to readers. Lastly, one need not be a "Falun Gong propagandist" to understand that the killing of religious or political prisoners for their organs is an important issue. TheBlueCanoe 02:07, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Okay, so apologies for the long delay in processing this. I've investigated and found that the problem here was User:Derrickdora, whose every addition to this page was copy-pasted from his sources. Beyond the flagged section, several others remained. I rewrote one, removed most, including a section that had been revised but is also sourced to a linkvio on Wordpress. It's not reliable if you can't review the original. :/ I've reviewed every substantial edit by this guy in the article. They were all cleaned years ago by someone as poorly sourced, but that cleanup was unfortunately reverted. Even so, I don't think that rev deletion will be necessary here, as long as they don't get put back. They're fairly small overall and would have a high cost in reducing transparency, since they've been here for years. Sorry to those who are working on the article for the unexpected complication - I hope you can repair the damage he left without much difficulty! --Moonriddengirl (talk) 00:26, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

objection and update needed...[edit]

this article and the one specifically about falun gong allegations obviously needs to be updated. the deletion of a stupidly written genocide paragraph and the addition of pro-chinese government material doesn't cut the mustard. but i don't have time for that now and it will take a lot more reading until i catch up to speed on this complicated issue. I just want to register my objection, since we work on a silence=consent model on the 'pedia. it will also take some work to ensure that the articles are quite separate in content. it may come out that the history of organ transplantation in china is the history of the use of certain individuals as an organ source - or it may not. until then there should be as much separation as possible. Happy monsoon day 04:20, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

It's terrible that this article has still not been updated a year after your comment. I will make a couple of very small changes, but we need someone to do something much more substantive. StickyWikis | talk — 16:31, 31 August 2017 (UTC)