Talk:Kilgour–Matas report/Archive 4

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5

Revert Justification

For some reason Wikipedia didn't save my revert notes.

Colipon's version resolved several neutrality issues. It was tighter, cleaner and more encyclopedic. It was a good revision and it should stay. Thanks much. Simonm223 (talk) 21:10, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, the following was deleted:

1) "He writes: "Given the evidence at hand, international transplant patients who obtain organs in China do so at the cost of benefiting from, and tacitly supporting, the continuance of an ongoing lethal violation of human dignity and human rights. Prospective patients should be informed of this fact and actively discouraged from pursuing this avenue of treatment."

2) "... It is consistent with execution timing. Given a 12-24 hour window for kidney tissue, and a 12 hour window for liver, matching for transplant tourists cannot be assured on a random-death basis."

3) "Kilgour and Matas note that Allison had arrived independently at the same conclusion as theirs, shortly before their initial reports were released.[citation needed] (is the issue a reference? I would be able to furnish one with relative ease)

4) "In 2006 the three Special Rapporteurs drew on information submitted by individuals and volunteer groups, including FalunHR, raising questions about the identifiable sources of organs, the short waiting times for finding perfectly-matched organs, and the correlation between the sudden increase in organ transplants in China and the beginning of the persecution of Falun Gong practitioners."

5) "Another investigation was independently undertaken by European Parliament Vice President Edward McMillan-Scott. Mr. McMillan-Scott was able to go to China on a fact finding mission on May 19-21, 2006 where had the opportunity to interview two witnesses Cao Dong and Niu Jinping. About his meeting with Cao Dong, Mr. McMillan-Scott reports that on being enquired "whether he was aware of any organ harvesting camps in China, he said he definitely knew of them and knew people who had been sent to them. He had seen the cadaver of one of his friends, a Falun Gong practitioner, with holes in his body where the organs had been removed." Shortly following his meeting with McMillan Scott, Cao Dong was arrested. The authorities transferred him to Gansu province and issued an arrest warrant. He was prosecuted in December on four alleged charges. The judges ruled that the case could not go to trial because the case fell within the jurisdiction of the 610 Office in Beijing [the office charged with persecution of the Falun Gong].[citation needed]" (I am able to get a reference for this)

I am interested in understanding why yourself and Colipon believe this text should be removed from the article. I agree with the other changes. I assume that from now on we will spend minimal text on providing the reader with information about the qualifications of the people being quoted, judging by the removal of Tom Treasure's credentials. I'm not sure there is a provision for this in WP:RS; let's look into it.--Asdfg12345 21:18, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

So?Simonm223 (talk) 21:20, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
I removed a lot of this because it was a quotefarm, for one, but also because a lot of it served no purpose in the article. It seemed to me like the evidence wasn't strong enough so some editors decided to come in and slide in "expert reports" to make the reports sound more credible than they actually are. This is a form of POV-pushing.

Finally, it would seem that a shorter article would be more condusive to a merger. Colipon+(Talk) 21:21, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

The McMillan-Scott report is an odd thing. Basically, a politician goes abroad, meets two people, listen to these two people tell a story, goes back home and believes he's come closer to the facts? Geographically, I would agree, but in essence it is nothing but a retelling of a personal anecdote, void of any evidence value, verifiability or notability. "Holes in his body"? You normally perform a Y-section, clavicle to clavicle to navel, not put your hands in and pull out whatever's behind. / PerEdman 21:50, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
I'm going to take a stab and guess that the McMillan-Scott section was pretty much just directly copied from an Epoch Times article. Colipon+(Talk) 21:59, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
Asdfg: no need to find this source. I found it here. Friends of Falun Gong. Does not sound very neutral. Colipon+(Talk) 22:01, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
Take a look further down on that same page, where the source for that article is listed: Epoch Times again. / PerEdman 22:20, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
I would be thankful if you would not write "stab" in this context. / PerEdman 22:20, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
I apologize for my oversight on the use of sensitive language. Colipon+(Talk) 22:47, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
  • "recipients and their families are often told the time of the operation immediately before it occurs"

Funny little anecdote. If you replace the word "operation" with the word "meal" you have the standard method of dinner planning I experienced when I worked in China and dined in restaurants with Chinese colleagues.

The moral of the story: something may not be sinister if it could also just be a cultural quirk.Simonm223 (talk) 21:28, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Ugh, no meal-related jokes in the organ harvesting-related article, thank you very much. / PerEdman 21:51, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
Sorry. The important part was this: something may not be sinister if it could also just be a cultural quirk; short notice of operation is not necessarily an indication of malfeasance.Simonm223 (talk) 20:42, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
I don't even think it's a cultural quirk, it's an inherent part of the short time spans involved in transplanting organs. Organs can't be stored for long they need to be moved quickly, on ice, between the donor and the recipient, preferably with the two of them lying next to each other. People waiting for a donation spend their time in hospital beds or waiting at home for a call that means they need to be scrubbed and ready for operation within the scope of a few hours (hearts 4-6 hours, livers 12-24). To mention the short time between information and transplantation in this context is to make suspect something that is universally true. What MAY be construed as suspect is the short waiting time, but we already know China transplants from victims of capital punishment. Also see Wikipage on organ donation. / PerEdman 11:36, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Asdfg, here are my comments on the other four of the quotes, which I have chosen to consider individually rather than taken altogether:

  1. Support deletion. Looks like an opinion quote and rather abrasive at that.
  2. Support deletion. Circumstantial speculation, correlation not implying causation, already known that China harvests executed prisoners.
  3. Support deletion. Looks like a reference without an actual reference. If Allison really did support the conclusions of K&M before K&M, Allison may deserve a ref of their own.
  4. Support deletion. What sort of information, what sort of individuals and .. "FalunHR", is that what it sounds like? As stated above, "sudden increase" (while unsourced) is likely due to harvesting of prisoners put to death than having any specific relevance to Falun Gong. Another reason to merge the two articles.

/ PerEdman 22:05, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Asdfg, getting a source for McMillan-Scott won't be necessary because even if you found a credible source stating that McMillan-Scott really did go to China and really did talk to two people there who really did say they had seen their friend with holes in his body, it's still not a particularily reliable source except as a retelling of third-hand unverifiable claims. / PerEdman 22:18, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
  • I certainly agree that points 1, 2 and 4 should go. If a notable party has said something about the report globally worth repeating here, then let's have it, sourced. We do not need 'Peter' and 'Jane' selectively agreeing with only certain of K&M's assertions, because they would be just soundbytes without any analytic or encyclopaedic value. Ditto point 3; what's more, it's ambiguous as to exactly what conclusion Allison came to at the same time as K&M - makes it sound like they completely concurred with K&M's assertions, which is impossible. Point 5, Scott's visit may be worth mentioning, including any comments he may have made on the report, but the extra detail about the witnesses remains problematic, per PerErdman - more so as it can only be sourced to Faluninfo Ohconfucius (talk) 06:11, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
Well that complicates matters. I was originally of the opinion that 5) could be removed completely. Then I was swayed that it might be worth mentioning, now I believe if we mention McMillan-Scott, we ought to mention his affiliations, and that means the text gets longer and I don't want that either. / PerEdman 11:33, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
I am not convinced that this McMillan-Scott is relevant to the article. One sentence at most. Unless we can find reliable third-party sources... Otherwise I am a bit skeptical about including 'news' directly ripped from the Epoch Times and wording it the same way as they do on that newspaper. Colipon+(Talk) 12:50, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
Originally, I thought it might be pertinent because of the Eurocrat hat he wore, but with the revelation of his CIPFG membership, this turns out to be yet another partisan comment. Shame really, but the article is already chock loaded with these, so we need it like we need a hole in the head. Ohconfucius (talk) 13:30, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
I too thought this was a report by a well-meaning and suddenly-motivated EU politician who had the funds and time to travel to China for an on-site investigation. I'm frankly upset that the person in question was also member of the CIPFG. It feels grossly misleading to use one hat rather than the other, more relevant one. / PerEdman 14:09, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
From the CIPFG source above, it seems McMillan-Scott did not "publicly declare his membership" until August 2006, while he was on his visit to China in May. It's somewhat ambiguous, but it seems possible he was not actually a CIPFG member at the time of his visit. / PerEdman 14:15, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
Technicality. It's not a decision he would have taken lightly. The timing is close enough to make him partisan at the crucial juncture. Ohconfucius (talk) 14:56, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
  • I just realise I got it wrong. It could be argued that he was so convinced by what he saw and heard that he joined up. Ohconfucius (talk) 16:03, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
Wanted to aggregate the discussion here. Colipon+(Talk) 15:00, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
Also note that it says "publicly declare", not "join". He may have joined much earlier. / PerEdman 17:44, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Indeed, these things are usually announced at carefully timed to achieve the maximum media impact. It's unlikely we will ever know exactly when he joined. Ohconfucius (talk) 03:26, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

David Kilgour and David Matas

I found the same sort of PoV information on the Wikipedia pages for these two men. I have edited to make it more NPoV but they are likely targets for FLG reversion.Simonm223 (talk) 15:51, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

If your edits are good-faith NPOV edits, there is absolutely no need to be afraid of reversion. It's what WP is all about. If the reversion becomes disruptive there is always the option to report it. Colipon+(Talk) 15:54, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Tell that to user:HappyInGeneral.Simonm223 (talk) 21:15, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
I too found some duplicate information on both of these pages. That really messes things up. / PerEdman 18:03, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Kilgour "Secretary of State"

I just want to remind editors here that Kilgour's title of "Secretary of State" is very misleading. He is actually an indepenedent Member of Parliament (although previously got elected by both Liberal and Conservative parties). His title "Secretary of State" is actually that of an advisor to the PM on various regional issues - not the equivalent to the United States Secretary of State. Please do not call him the "Canadian Secretary of State" as there is no such title.

These "Secretary of State" positions Kilgour held are basically a Vice-Ministerial level position and they do not even attend all cabinet meetings. Constantly calling Kilgour a "secretary of state" is a tactic employed by Falun Gong to enhance Kilgour's legitimacy to the gullible. Although this is a relatively minor issue, please use this name in context on this encyclopedia. Colipon+(Talk) 16:01, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Case in point, Canada does not have any such position. The closest we have is the Minister of Foreign Affairs. David Kilgour has never served in this capacity. Kilgour was an associate deputy minister of foreign affairs. That is a third-level position within the ministry, below the minister and the deputy minister. What it comes down to is that Kilgour was an unimportant member of parliament whose career became stalled because of his inability to decide whether to remain a member of the Conservatives or the Liberals. He tends towards foreign interventionism and is a supporter of peacekeeping efforts (which is commendable) but he is nowhere near as important or as universally commended as the FLG likes to present him.Simonm223 (talk) 16:10, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Well, I never... Good work. However, unfortunately, if those positions were actually called 'Secretary of State for Latin America & Africa', and 'Secretary of State for Asia-Pacific', there is little we can do, no? Ohconfucius (talk)
I didn't even suspect, but neither had I assumed what "secretary of state" meant in Canada, since I'm not from either country. / PerEdman 17:20, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
Calling him "Former Secretary of State of Asia and Pacific Affairs" is fair, but completely unecessary given the circumstances, plus these "Secretary of State" holders are almost never referred to as such once they no longer hold the position, because the position is not one of relative importance in the Canadian government.

Just call him an independent Member of Parliament. Mainstream Canadian media give him this treatment and would never go out of their way to refer to him as a "Secretary of State" of anything, with or without a suffix. The only media that does this is the Epoch Times. Colipon+(Talk) 17:37, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

FYI, it's how he describes himself on his website. Ohconfucius (talk) 17:50, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
Oh yes. No one is denying that he was once "Secretary of State" of one sort or another. But FLG's characterization is meant to convey that he is a "top Canadian official" when he really is not. His most notable position is arguably as a long-serving MP for Edmonton-Strathcona-Beaumont.

Conspicuously, I could not find mention of Falun Gong on his website... I wonder if there is a story behind this. Colipon+(Talk) 17:58, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

The fact that Kilgour describes himself using titles that haven't existed since 1996 on his webpage is chuckle-worthy.Simonm223 (talk) 21:39, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
Where in the current article is this debate helpful? Could you please point to a specific section or quote? --HappyInGeneral (talk) 18:12, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
It permeates in a lot of Falun Gong articles vying for legitimacy, really. A few edits ago I changed this in the lede of this article. Colipon+(Talk) 18:23, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
I'd suggest comments like this: "Constantly calling Kilgour a "secretary of state" is a tactic employed by Falun Gong to enhance Kilgour's legitimacy to the gullible" aren't warranted here and don't help move our discussion along. If there were a source for this, you would be able to say "according to... blah." Otherwise don't worry--just a suggestion. If that it how he refers to himself, it seems fine here? He only needs to be introduced once in the article, I assume.--Asdfg12345 20:33, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
No. My argument is that it is not acceptable to call him "Secretary of State", and especially not "Canadian Secretary of State". I have outlined my reasoning above. Please address those if you disagree. Colipon+(Talk) 20:50, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
If how Kilgour refers to himself is misleading, it should either not be reproduced on Wikipedia, or it should be marked out with surrounding facts, which would embellish the point a little too far for the scope of this article. Better to use a more general term, or leave the (past) title off. / PerEdman 21:52, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Another thought: I thought that people who already have wikipedia articles wouldn't even actually need to have their credentials listed, because 1) that they have a wikipedia article and are being referenced already implies they are someone, and 2) if people want to find out more than can just click-through. So we don't need anything after the name as an identifier, do we?--Asdfg12345 18:09, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

You cannot use the fact of an article's existence on Wikipedia as a reason to omit information from a Wikipedia article. See WP:CIRCULAR. We could of course check the stats to see if anyone reads the page at all. Sorry, just realized how you mean. Now I agree wholeheartedly. Because he has a wikipage, there's no real need to present him and his titles in this article. / PerEdman 18:24, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
Asdfg has a good point. However, sometimes it is necessary to mention the title dependent on context. For example, Barack Obama is referred to as "President Barack Obama" in some contexts, but referred to as just "Barack Obama" in other contexts. Colipon+(Talk) 03:49, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
Yes, I have been known to remove descriptions juxtaposed to linked names in the past, and I certainly would consider doing same here. Ohconfucius (talk) 01:49, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Unsourced information

I have removed more unsourced, non-encyclopedic commentary and circumstantial evidence from this page. My reasoning is as follows:

  1. Evidence that is circumstantial is notable, but should be presented in context, and also presented in an NPOV tone.
  2. Verification of evidence must be through third-party sources, not Falun Gong media or K-M themselves.
  3. Many sections bordered on verbal diarrhea. A point is beaten to death, resurrected, and then beaten to death again. Please refrain from doing this when doing re-writes.

Colipon+(Talk) 21:28, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Amazing. This is the first time I looked at this article properly since you guys got started on it. Along with half of it being deleted, all the charts and pictures were also deleted. --Asdfg12345 02:38, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. / PerEdman 05:48, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
Asdfg, I don't understand what you were trying to convey with that comment... Colipon+(Talk) 05:56, 18 August 2009 (UTC)


Do editors consider this addition necessary? I mentioned earlier that Falun Gong seeks a "right of reply" to everything... this paragraph exemplifies what I was alluding to. Colipon+(Talk) 03:10, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

  • No. It's a minefield, which I would prefer us not going into. Ohconfucius (talk) 03:14, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

This, I'm afraid, is another dreadfully partisan edit akin to the same type of "if criticized, refute to gain upper-hand" pattern. It serves only this purpose in the article and nothing else. I will revert this only once. Colipon+(Talk) 03:16, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

My conclusion: sorry for the rambling, barely coherent paragraphs, I've been trying to do a dozen things at once. To sum it up, I agree that the to-and-fro approach doesn't work, doesn't sound good, doesn't look good, and isn't all that helpful, but only realised this upon reflecting on your arguments. I think Colipon's characterisation of my motives is untrue and unfair--that isn't the spirit I edit in--and I think if we constantly say that to each other things will be a mess. For this, I think having or not having the response to McGregor is 無所謂, but the statement about the CCP's failure to meaningfully respond to the allegations is significant, notable, relevant, and important for readers to know. It shouldn't appear as some kind of rebuttal, though, it can go more in the body of the article some place. Nowak has commented on it and so have K/M. It would be significant if the CCP had responded meaningfully, so it's significant that they haven't, particularly given that if they were innocent in all this they would be presumably be able to show as much without too much fuss. But this can go some place else. I genuinely appreciate the explanations.--Asdfg12345 04:25, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

I do apologize, asdfg, if my comments had too much edge. But please understand they are meant to be directed at edits and not your person. Sometimes my words are merely the result of much drama that has permeated these articles for ages. I am trying my best to assume good faith in all edits. Colipon+(Talk) 05:29, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
Asdfg12345, if I accuse you of having a purple nose, you have the right not to respond. That you do not respond is hardly noteworthy except in very specific contexts where it is somehow expected of you, or where you are somehow forced under oath to respond. But if anyone were to say that it is significant, noteworthy, relevant and important that you are not responding to my allegation, why I'm just making another accusation, aren't I? The allegation that you are intentionally NOT responding to an allegation that you really don't need to respond to. If your response had been noteworthy and notable, that's another matter. But not responding, that's just as much news as if I hadn't made my allegation at all.
In law, it would be making the mistake of assuming guilt based only on the accusation, and that's not right. That's not how guilt should work. / PerEdman 05:43, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
Actually, PerEdman, that was interesting, because I assumed you were talking about my not needing to respond to Colipon, rather than the topic of this article. As far as this article goes, the subject qualifies notability, and that's all there is to it.--Asdfg12345 02:14, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
"All there is to it"? No. Organ harvesting in China is notable and has caused enormous amounts of fallout against China. The allegation that Chinese organ harvesting policies specifically target Falun Gong, is not. And that, is all there is to it. Furthermore, this discussion should be taking place at Organ harvesting in the People's Republic of China as that is the target of the merger. Please see my discussion entry from 21:29, 13 August 2009 (UTC). / PerEdman 11:59, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
"It would be significant if the CCP had responded meaningfully, so it's significant that they haven't, particularly given that if they were innocent in all this they would be presumably be able to show as much without too much fuss. But this can go some place else." Indeed, this strengthens the argument for a merger to 'Organ harvesting in the PRC', where the subject proper is dealt with, as is the government's directives and legislative response. The issue is not exclusively a FG one (as Ownby has pointed out), as perhaps FG devotees would like to believe, but a PRC and organ harvesting issue. Ohconfucius (talk) 01:58, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Ownby as a reliable source on human rights?

I noted that the lede has been rearranged, and that Ownby has been included. Given WP:RS: ("Reliable sources are credible published materials with a reliable publication process; their authors are generally regarded as trustworthy or authoritative in relation to the subject at hand. How reliable a source is depends on context."), Maunas's commentary, and Ownby's own remarks:

I accept as true much of what Falun Gong publications have to say about the brutality of the Chinese state's campaign against htem, even if recent claims about the harvesting of the organs of Falun Gong practitioners appear to have been exaggerated, at least on the question of the scale of such practices. I would add that the Chinese state's policies and especially practices concerning the exercise of religious freedom in China in general leave a great deal to be desired. These violations have been exposed and condemend by such well-known human rights organizations as Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch, as well as by numerous Falun Gong organizations, whose quite professional publications have been generally accepted as legitimate and trustworthy by these human rights organizations. Other than stating that I stand with Falun Gong practitioners on this issue, i am not sure what my book can add to this topic--at least not in the form of new information. I do not have access to sources other than those provided by Falun Gong, the Chinese state, and human rights organizations, and I have no particular expertese in the history of human rights discourse, in China or elsewhere. For me to write a human rights book would thus have come at the expense of the book I am qualified to write, a book which relates tFalun gong to the history of Chinese popular religion and discusses the importance of this religious revival to the future of China..

do we think it appropriate to cite Ownby here, in the lede, as an authority on the subject?

Secondly, I have arranged the order in the lede chronologically, as one would presume is most logical for a topic like this.--Asdfg12345 18:57, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

I mean, I'm about to -- things move quickly around here.--Asdfg12345 18:58, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

I also note that half of the article, 30kb, has been deleted in the last week. When I get some time I will examine the diffs about this and restore information as I see appropriate. We may end up discuss such deletions section by section. --Asdfg12345 19:04, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, can you link me to this source? Colipon+(Talk) 19:56, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
In addition, this is clearly just a personal view that would be inserted into the lede to tip the POV in favour of Falun Gong - much like how it happened in the main article before mediation began. In this sense it is uncessary and would not serve the context well. You can say Ownby believes X, but not X is fact and then cite Ownby as the source. And even then, it is probably more appropriate to put Ownby in the body of the article, not in the lede. Colipon+(Talk) 19:59, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
I need to know what the context and the source is. I think the quote shows that he is capable of separating his sympathy for a cause from the sources of his data, he is aware of what he knows and does not know, he freely admits what he accepts as true. These are all very reliable traits. What did you want to use this passage to support? / PerEdman 21:32, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
Agreed. It is almost impossible to answer such a question without a clear indication, preferably a word for word proposal, of what exactly the text is to be used to support would be. John Carter (talk) 21:46, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
What has been deleted lately has been for good reason, especially as this page will most likely be merged with the Organ_harvesting_in_the_People's_Republic_of_China article in the very near future.Simonm223 (talk) 22:30, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

The passage was in support of moving Ownby's opinion about the subject from the lede somewhere into the body of the article. Simonm223, deletions of content from the article are always up for discussion. This is wikipedia. Most likely some things actually belong in the article, and other things belong with some tidying up, condensing, and stronger sourcing, and most likely some things should stay deleted. The move to merger the pages is still disputed per wikipedia's notability policy. I expect this will find it's way to a community board.--Asdfg12345 22:14, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

It won't do so automatically. Put it this way: What arguments, presented at a community noticeboard, could change your mind in a way it cannot already be changed in a peer discussion on FG talk pages? I'm not saying your mind needs changing, but if it could not be changed here, we have a problem. / PerEdman 22:43, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
No, not automatically. I'll compile a list of third party sources which have discussed this topic (organ harvesting of Falun Gong practitioners); if it's still argued that the article doesn't qualify notability, then we'll take it to a board. What could change my mind? The inability to find a bunch of third party sources discussing this issue. I'm about to find some now.--Asdfg12345 02:06, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
You would go out and actively look to find such third-party sources? I'm sorry, but that's just an admission that you have already decided what you believe and that you are looking to support your view after the fact. That's hardly a good way to do research and it's certainly not wikipedian. You are also admitting that no argument brought forth from our common group of editors on these talk pages could change your mind. That's .. more than a little discouraging as well. Am I overinterpreting you here, or is this a fair analysis? / PerEdman 05:47, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

I think you are going a bit overboard; I have followed this topic for a long time so of course I'm aware of the sources on it. I wouldn't have made the claim if I didn't have the evidence to back it up. And if I didn't that would be really obvious and I would just admit it and not even bother arguing. I'm a normal person, dude. Let's not say I wouldn't be convinced by any arguments, but you would have to cast some amazing "logical wormholes," as Colipon put it, to convince me that dozens or hundreds of independent, reliable sources on this specific topic don't mean it qualifies notability. Vassyana recognised that we would have these differences of opinion, shall we call them, and advised community boards as a matter of course in resolving them. So to the boards it is, my friend.--Asdfg12345 02:19, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

  • I don't think you need an RfC on the notability aspect, because it is along the wrong premise (and you will probably win). Although it can often be a judgemental issue, I tend to agree with your take that there are probably sufficient sources which would qualify this a notable topic. However, I would maintain that having this titled article does not allow the proper presentation of the subject matter. In the past, you, Dilip, Olav have strongly argued the importance of having a meaningful context in all things FG. However, it appears that all of a sudden, because having a context does not favour the FG case (because it no longer focusses the attention on the victimisation of FG practitioners), you will argue the topic's WP:RS coverage allows it to fork off, without regard to the wider subject. WP:NPOV, being one of the 5 pillars of WP trumps WP:N. Even your favourite expert finds no evidence to support that the allegations apply exclusively to FG, so I find your opposition to this merger peculiarinconsistent. Ohconfucius (talk) 02:46, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
I won't join in the mudslinging. Merging the article is not the same as giving it appropriate context. The context would be entirely lost if you were to cut the article to a 500 word subsection with a conclusion on the other organ harvesting in the PRC page. It would also be a total failure to acknowledge the body of sources on the topic, which this encyclopedia requires. When dozens or hundreds of independent sources have been generated by the issue, and it's actually still an unresolved, topical issue with enormous implications and gravity, of course it should, according to WP:N, have its own page. The content of the encyclopedia is mandated by the community policies, not by anything else. I won't respond to your accusations. of bad faith or give some back in return. Wikipedia policy cuts both ways, that's all I can say.--Asdfg12345 04:46, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
By the way, the point I was suggesting may have been lost in the discussion. Given the above paragraphs, can David Ownby be still said to be an expert on human rights in China? I would suggest that he is an expert on Falun Gong, but according to his own admission, not an expert on the human rights issues. His views are notable, but not determinative. Similarly, I would suggest that a source like Amnesty International is an expert source on human rights, but not an expert in assessing the beliefs, practices, and cultural context of Falun Gong. I almost want to say "oh, and I know Ohconfucius is going to accuse me of using Ownby as it's convenient: as an "expert" on Falun Gong when he says things that suit my 'agenda' and an a non-expert when he says things that don't." -- anyway, I don't want to say that. But in case that is what you are thinking, I have no good answer. I will hold myself to these issues of logic and sourcing when it's inconvenient and when it isn't. In this case I put the issue as something for discussion. I should state my understanding and thoughts of use of sources. If there is some good reason why he should be considered an expert on the human rights of Falun Gong practitioners, I would like to hear it, and I am up for that discussion. At the same time, I believe his views are notable here, but that they are not determinative, since his field of expertise is Chinese religion and the history and cultural context of Falun Gong, rather than the human rights issues. The big names on that topic are Nowak and UNCAT, for example.--Asdfg12345 05:22, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
David Ownby is not an expert in human rights in China. But he is an expert on Falun Gong and that alone makes his statement relevant, reliable and worthy of inclusion. Further more is is noted for usually being in favour of Falun gong and against the PRC persecution which makes his statement in this case even more relevant because it cannot be attributed to any kind of bias, but rather shows a very objective judgment.·Maunus·ƛ· 19:16, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
Manus has owned the correct here. Ownby is generally strongly pro-FLG. HE is also widely regarded as an expert on the FLG. As such comments he makes with regard to one of the three central issues pertaining to the FLG (the relation of the FLG to China) should be treated as expert even when they, for example, point out the lack of evidence of FLG targeted organ harvesting in the K&M report.Simonm223 (talk) 19:36, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

RfC: Is this topic notable

Is this topic notable? Asdfg12345 02:57, 19 August 2009 (UTC) (Note for newcomers: discussion started here here. Seb az86556 (talk) 03:10, 19 August 2009 (UTC))

List again the sources

For simplicity I'm listing again a sampling of the sources about this topic. I believe the rebuttals to these sources largely fail to address the real issues. We need a number of uninvolved people to weigh in on this.--Asdfg12345 03:04, 19 August 2009 (UTC)


  • Yes, I believe it is although some of the above sources are suspect, but this is entirely the wrong premise in the fight against a merger of this article. I refer to my comments in the section above. Ohconfucius (talk) 03:09, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
  • No one is debating whether or not this subject is notable. My position is that it is unquestionably notable, but also not enough to warrant its own article and can be presented in a more effective way if it were part of the "Organ harvesting in PRC" article. Colipon+(Talk) 03:13, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Agree w/ above statements, premise of RfC incorrect. Notability must be presented in context. Seb az86556 (talk) 03:15, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
  • [ec]By "notable" I mean notable, as in, qualifies for its own article. I understood that the locus of dispute is about whether this topic qualifies according to the "nutshell" and elaborations in that policy statement; I believe it does. Again, the nutshell is "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article." Above are a bunch of reliable secondary sources independent of the subject. Since we cannot agree, let's kick the door open for public deliberation.

    Update: SebOhconfucius, I wonder why you felt it necessary to note that the series of media articles cited by Kilgour and Matas were, in fact, cited by Kilgour and Matas? Does that perhaps make them less independent? --Asdfg12345 03:23, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

  • I don't think I said that(wrong attribution?) Show me where or delete your comment. Seb az86556 (talk) 03:33, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
  • I was the one who tidied it up. I think it's important to cite the source as well as the original source. Ohconfucius (talk) 03:40, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
  • changed. OC, could you elaborate?--Asdfg12345 03:41, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
  • After I tidied up, the URLs were no longer visible. I certainly didn't think tidying up in that way would be contentious, after all, it's only proper procedure. Ohconfucius (talk) 03:47, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
  • fine by me. Don't waste any more time on finding the original links, as it's only a side issue of no great relevance as to why this article should be merged (or not). Ohconfucius (talk) 05:54, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
I don't believe this topic is notable enough to get a whole page to itself. Whoops, accidentally saved. Continuing what I was saying, I think it is just, barely, notable enough to warrant a short sub-heading in the organ harvesting in the PRC article.Simonm223 (talk) 13:06, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
  • OC, it's the central issue. Please, I'm trying to follow policy here, and the one about notability makes it very clear about what can have its own article and what can't. Apparently the issue of reports of organ harvesting of Falun Gong practitioners qualifies.--Asdfg12345 16:22, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
BTW Simonm223, continuing to ignore discussions, ignore policy points, and simply assert your views without any wider field of reference does not advance the discussion. I don't want to make a personal comment or a personal attack, but I just have to make this clear.--Asdfg12345 16:23, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
Asdfg12345, how does it "apparently" qualify as notable enough to merit an article of its own before you have gotten a response on your RfC? Have you found a previous decision that concludes this, or are you simply declaring what outcome you are hoping for? Either way, I think you may have used the word "apparently" in an unorthodox manner here. / PerEdman 19:59, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
Asdf12345, I have repeatedly gone over the reason why the subject fails to be notable. Please allow me to summarize one more time since you seem to have forgotten.

1) K&M report does not provide any proof to support it's assertions. This is supported by quotes I provided from a noted FLG expert (Ownby). 2) K&M report is biassed. (Commissioned by a FLG advocacy group.) 3) K&M are not experts on China. They are not experts on organ transplantation. More later, gotta go.Simonm223 (talk) 20:32, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

PLEASE do not just repeat a list of links rather than actually continue the discussion. We already responded to these, several of us, and the discussion should continue. As you did not number the list, any continued, detailed or fair discussion is made very difficult. Simply repeating the list does nothing to show that you are interested in discussion or forming consensus. Please reconsider.
Discussion using huge chunks of links is anything but simple. What do you expect in response - a huge list of links that DO NOT make mention of the allegations of Falun Gong? Please continue the discussion already started above, there is really no need to create another heading with the same list. / PerEdman 12:16, 19 August 2009 (UTC) Did not realize this was a part of an RfC process. Please pardon my frustration. / PerEdman 12:25, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
PerEdman, I took OC's remark as meaning that the issue here is no longer whether this topic "has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject," but that this consideration is actually somewhat irrelevant as to whether it should be a standalone article. (At least this is what I got from his remark about not needing to keep posting sources where this topic has been discussed.) I'm saying that, actually, it's the consideration, since in that case "it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article." Apparently this is the policy.
Simonm223, your three points aren't really related to the issue, as far as I can tell.--Asdfg12345 04:34, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
Asdfg12345, I disagree with your summary dismissal of Simonm223's comment. The points are very much related to the subject matter:
  1. relevant because it shows that Kilgour and Matas cannot be judged on reliability.
  2. relevant because it shows that Kilgour and Matas cannot be assumed to be independent.
  3. relevant because it shows that Kilgour and Matas cannot be considered relevant sources to the topic at hand.
I.e. the one, main, central report to the unicity of this subject fails basic Wikipedia requirements made of sources. / PerEdman 21:09, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Don't know who "OC" is. The issue is whether this SPECIFIC topic has received significant coverage from reliable third-party sources. It is not enough to, for example, use sources where Falun Gong is mentioned as one of the groups from whom organs are harvested, when there are simultaneously many other groups, people who are criminals according to China, who suffer the same treatment. What you have to show is that the organ harvesting being performed on followers of Falun Gong is significant and distinct from the organ harvesting being performed against ALL prisoners. / PerEdman 21:04, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

OC is Ohconfucius, of course. Your final sentence is mistaken, I believe. I don't have to show anything except that a lot of sources have treated the issue in depth and separately, as a separate issue. It's not about how significant or distinct it is, it's just about whether reliable secondary sources have singled it out for reportage, and they have.--Asdfg12345 21:07, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

My final sentence is mistaken only so far as not 100% of prisoners have 100% of their organs taken; not even 100% of all executed prisoners do, but it is true that China harvests the organs of executed prisoners, not specifically Falun Gong prisoners. For information of this, please see the main article about organ harvesting in China, where such evidence belongs. It is indeed about how distinct it is, because it is not distinct. For an earthquake, do you make separate articles for how many women, how many children and how many men were injured in the catastrophe? Of course not. / PerEdman 21:13, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
There are not "a lot of sources" for this. There is the Epoch Times, created and funded by the Falun Dafa Association and there is Kilgour and Matas. Aside from them, there are the people who have READ Kilgour and Matas or the Epoch Times. / PerEdman 21:15, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
That is an argument about the content/quality of the secondary sources, which is beyond the scope of what WP:N requires looking at. I disagree, of course. I just have to ask this: have you fully read the Kilgour Matas report?--Asdfg12345 21:22, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
The reliability of any source, secondary or not, is central to WP:V (Not to WP:N however.) You don't actually have to ask me if I've read all the sources in the article. All you have to do is assume that I know what I'm editing. Thanks. / PerEdman 21:34, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
WP:N has a clause "Independent of the subject". Take a look at my annotated list and count how many are actually independent. --antilivedT | C | G 12:21, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

A little aside: why are most of the sources Canadian? Why is Canada so concerned with organ harvesting in China? Or is it because there's a large FLG base in Canada? --antilivedT | C | G 11:21, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

It's because K&M are Canadians. There is also a large FLG base, especially in Montreal.Simonm223 (talk) 13:17, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
And I just remembered I promised more points, on top of my 3 about the K&M report about the difficulty of proof on FLG targeted organ harvesting:
4) The other main source for "evidence", the Epoch Times, is owned by the FLG.
5) The eyewitness testimony in the Epoch Times is mostly annonymous.
6) On occasions where subjects are named the information in the Epoch Times is unsubstantiated by third party sources.
7) Attempts to corroborate the claims of the K&M report and of the Epoch Times articles have invariably failed.
8)The key piece of "evidence," the phone transcript, has been widely questioned with many individuals outside of the PRC suspitious that the dialogue may have been doctored.
9)As the PRC does participate in oppression of the FLG an FLG sponsored newspaper and an FLG funded report can not be seen as neutral sources.
Pursuant to these points what is notable is not the particulars of the K&M report but rather the existence of it. That is a subject that is not appropriate to a full article. It is appropriate to a sub-section of the main organ harvesting article.Simonm223 (talk) 13:29, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

And by the way, this whole thing is just going to gridlock unless we get uninvolved and neutral editors. At this point I don't know what it would take to convince you guys. Even the Weekly Standard articles don't pass Independence now? Wow. It's a top political magazine in DC and they ran the organ harvest story front page. The National Review has also run stuff on it. I guess they are all controlled by Falun Gong or something? Or because Gutmann condemns the persecution he's not a reliable source? So, I guess Ownby, who also "stands with Falun Gong on the issue" of the persecution, must also not be a reliable source? Let's just clear up that being against the persecution doesn't make a source an unreliable Falun Gong puppet. Or does it, guys?--Asdfg12345 20:04, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Response from previously involved editor: I think there is a fundamental mistake being made above. I agree that the article passes notability requirements. However, for anyone to say that those requirements are the one, absolute, sole criteria for judging whether an article on a subject should exist is I believe inherently fallacious, and I have to assume every editor of even short experience of wikipedia would know that. At least one other applicable guideline could potentially be invoked here, WP:CFORK. I am not myself familiar enough with the subject to at this point have drawn conclusions one way or another for myself, and, right now, probably don't have the time to myself go over it. However, I do believe that, at least based on the comments above, there does seem to be some question regarding some of these sources. I would also like to point out, just as a theoretical matter, that it has certainly been the case in the past that a merger, carried out with the typical redirect, can have that redirect made specifically to a section of the article to which it is redirected.
If it is the case that a large amount of the content of one article is directly relevant to the general topic of another article, and that, on that basis, the one article is in effect a substantive recreation of a more general article, then wikipedia policies and guidelines do indicate that the duplicated content should be contained in one article rather than two. Should that make one of the articles a rather weak, underdeveloped article, then it is perfectly in accord with wikipedia policies and guidelines to merge the two.
Like I said, today I am in the process of trying to tag articles for the new NRM work group of the Religion Project, and probably should do what I can for that first. I do intend to return to this topic later, and give a more thorough review to it, but I did think it was worth pointing out that notability is not the sole criterion by which we determine whether something requires a separate article or not. John Carter (talk) 20:23, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
We do have a few "uninvolved and neutral" editors. I don't know but, on things like this, I don't think anyone is going to "vote" neutral every time a decision is made. Currently, the only editors that are voting against every thing are you and HappyInGeneral. No one is saying that being against the FLG ban makes the source "an unreliable Falun Gong puppet".--Edward130603 (talk) 20:21, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Discussion regarding the lede

Please bring any discussion or clarification here. The course of events and the differences between the USDOS response, the CRS report, and Sujiatun/Kilgour-Matas are important to get right. They were just inadvertently mixed up in a good-faith attempt to improve the lede now. --Asdfg12345 20:58, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

I of course meant to write "you are now required to discuss the changes," not NOT required. Below I'll explain the problems.

  • how it ET 'funded' by Falun Gong? Source? This isn't even a meaningful statement. It's like saying "That newspaper is funded by chess."
  • Do not intentionally misinterpret. The Falun Dafa Association is not the same as doing qigong exercises. / PerEdman 21:32, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
  • K/M's report does not support the Sujiatun allegations. It is a separate report about the wider issue. It does not rule out Sujiatun, but does not argue for it specifically. it's part of the wider issue rather than this particular incident. Please do not mix the two up.
  • The Kilgour & Matas report interviews the same person as was interviewed for the Sujiatun allegations. How does that make it separate? I'm not mixing them up, I'm refusing to handle one person speaking to two persons as if he were two separate people, similar to how I am refusing to treat a subportion of prisoners being maltreated and killed different from ALL prisoners who are being maltreated and killed. / PerEdman 21:32, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
  • From the version you reverted TO: "A few months after the Sujiatun incident, in July 2006, Independent Canadian MP David Kilgour, and Human Rights Lawyer David Matas, published a report of their investigation on the issue." - this itself contradicts your claim above.
  • By putting all the international response stuff in the sujiatun section, you also seriously mixed things up. Nowak is not talking about Sujiatun. He's talking about the Kilgour/Matas report. these are distinct sets of claims.
  • I intended to put all the international response, in a section about international response with subsections for each country, but you broke in with a revert or edit or whatever. / PerEdman 21:31, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
  • It is the same with the CCP response; they respond both to Sujiatun and K/M. By putting their response to K/M in the sujiatun section you have also inadvertently mixed things up.
  • The sections were identical. The quotes were identical. The references were identical. How were they separate? / PerEdman 21:47, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
  • The lede you reverted TO makes the refutation with the memorable quote "This absurd lie is not worth refuting and no one will buy it," directly after the mention of Kilgour and Matas. I did not. / PerEdman 21:57, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Again with the UN response. The UN guys had not much to do with the Sujiatun issue, but have made statements regarding the K/M report. Sujiatun is a minor blip on this whole thing, the report is where the meat is.
  • If it's separate, why is it in this article? / PerEdman 21:32, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
  • possibly more. The above are enough for now.--Asdfg12345 21:18, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
The article is full of duplicate information and the lede is too long. Almost exactly the same claims are being made in the lede as in the body. This is completely unnecessary and absolutely not what a lede should be. The word "funded" (for Epoch Times) was taken from the second source from the top. / PerEdman 21:11, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Okay. The lede should outline and introduce what the article is about, pls see WP:LEDE. It should state what the major movements of the topic are. This is a complex issue. I do wonder if you have taken the time to carefully look through all these sources and gain your own understanding of how it has all played out. It isn't simple; there are different issues at play, and they shouldn't be mixed into each other, which would mislead the reader. Let's identify the redunancies in the body of the article and clean them up. At the moment, the lede explains the issue quite clearly after being through many changes, and we should pay attention to getting it right.--Asdfg12345 21:18, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

I made these edits because of WP:LEDE. "This is a complex issue" for as long as there are people reverting any edit made, to KEEP it complex. You don't have to make it worse. / PerEdman 21:31, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Basically my suggestion for now is to read the major sources and figure out how all the pieces fit together, because that's is kinda necessary if you want to improve the article. The lede is an accurate depiction of events. --Asdfg12345 21:20, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Of course I am looking through every single source as I edit - how else would I be doing it? It's hard work too, keeping several web browser panes open, several PDF files and flicking between them only to discover that you revert my well-weighed changes out of hand, with the argument that you don't think I read the sources? Please assume that I know what I'm doing and voice any concrete criticism as specifically as you can, thank you. / PerEdman 21:31, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

From the above discussion, I recommend the version before Asdfg's revert.--Edward130603 (talk) 21:37, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Here's what's happened, in my eyes:
  1. Bold. Check. Good.
  2. Revert. Also check. Very good.
  3. Discuss. Nope, not yet.
Asdfg12345, If you had any specific criticism I would love to hear it, but as long as you are going to offhand dismiss my edits with comments such as above, I am going to ignore you. No, I am not going to ignore you - I am going to ignore your dismissive comments and continue following Wikipedia policy instead of you. Okay? You want to revert bold edits, you need to be able to motivate why you did it. / PerEdman 21:41, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
Asdfg12345, please specify in what way you believe that I have introduced "unverified claims and "inaccurate statements" as claimed by you in your revert note.
My edits added no information, no claims and changed statements only in such a way that they were shorter than before. The sources remain the same, the meaning remain the same and the only thing that suffered was length. If you do not respond to this question, motivating yourself as a part of discussion, within a very short period of time, your revert and your comments on this talk page may very well be considered disruptive. / PerEdman 21:45, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
An hour has passed since Asdfg12345's blanket dismissal of any changes I made. Since no further discussion has arisen, I resume bold editing in line with WP:LEDE, WP:V and WP:N as well as copyediting and removal of duplicates. / PerEdman 21:59, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

I will have a careful look at the changes. Honestly, please believe me when I say that I assumed you did not know what you were talking about and were wildly mixing things up, as it really did appear to me, where Nowak was responding to Sujiatun, and K/M were publishing a report about Sujiatun and not about organ harvesting of Falun Gong generally, etc.. These struck me as fundamental misunderstandings of the sources. One basic premise of this topic is that the Sujiatun issue is somewhat separate to the wider issue--it's like a sub-issue, a specific event; the "evidence" and commentary regarding Sujiatun is quite different to the evidence and commentary on the wider issue, and vice versa. If you had some other grand plan that I only saw part of, that's fine. As long as it doesn't introduce these kind of major errors, I'm all for improving the article. I'll put my hands in my pockets now and wander around the garden, only daring to smell what there is to be smelt, and not jumping in to rearrange it. (At least not yet.)--Asdfg12345 02:26, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm afraid I did not put those "misunderstandings" in the text. As I have pointed out above, sentences such as "A few months after the Sujiatun incident, in July 2006, Independent Canadian MP David Kilgour, and Human Rights Lawyer David Matas, published a report of their investigation on the issue." made that connection already. I believe the problem is, if you are correct, that the text uses terms such as "the issue" and "this" and "the allegations" without being specific of WHICH allegations, WHICH issue, WHICH event and so forth. And there is still the issue of the lede having been far too specific for a lede. / PerEdman 08:41, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

That's fine, I'm going to look into it now. I hope that you will accord me the same respect and latitude that I have accorded you.--Asdfg12345 19:56, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

A reminder

Please, if you are going to substantially change the article that we have spent a month trying to fix discuss it here first.Simonm223 (talk) 12:32, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Dilip's recent edits are much too disruptive to be considered in good faith, I'm afraid. Colipon+(Talk) 17:11, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
I'm sure he's just a newer editor, still learning the ropes. / PerEdman 18:00, 21 August 2009 (UTC) 
Dilip's around in these articles for ages. Not "learning the ropes" by any means. He knows the ropes too well. Colipon+(Talk) 18:08, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
Dilip is certainly not a new user. In fact when he went quiet for about a month there I assumed that he had finally got himself banned like Olav.Simonm223 (talk) 18:49, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
Oh. So he really should know better. / PerEdman 19:40, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
Yes, he most certainly should.Simonm223 (talk) 20:07, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Yes, Dilip has been hanging around Falun Gong articles (almost exclusively) since 2006. He is rather aggressive (please see my rants). He also has a habit of disappearing for weeks on end, and finding the intervening changes not to his liking on his return, reverts to the last version he feels comfortable with irrespective of the individual merits of each of the changes. Ohconfucius (talk) 08:09, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
So he won't be back for weeks? / PerEdman 12:37, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
To be frank, if you read WP:ARBFLG, it should be clear that Dilip more than qualifies for a ban by now. Colipon+(Talk) 16:36, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
Please feel free to request arbitration enforcement at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement if you believe it merited. John Carter (talk) 16:43, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

ET funding

In their editsummary asdfg1234 asserts that: "to say that ET is "funded" by Falun Gong is lacking sources, is disputed, is controversial, and in reality doesn't even make sense, since "Falun Gong", a PRACTICE, can't possibly FUND anything"[1] This is a non-argument, Falun Gong is not just "a practice" it is a practice with a well developed and well organizaed publishing apparatus the specifics of how Falun Gong members finances the movement's PR strategy are irrelevant ET is still a FLG newspaper founded, funded and directed by the Falun Gong movement. That being said Falun Gong affiliated is an ok wording since it means the same thing. ·Maunus·ƛ· 20:22, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Well said.--Edward130603 (talk) 20:50, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Please change Falun Gong to "chess" in the above. If it still makes sense, then fine. If we wanted to allege "funding," it would have to be "Falun Dafa Association-funded newspaper..." -- because these associations (basically contact individuals who will be spokespeople and organise t hings) are the closest thing there is to an actual organisational structure. You can practice Falun Gong in your bedroom in Guatemala just like you can play chess with your mate, and you have as much to do with ET as the guy next door. This is a technical issue, really, but we should get it right. --Asdfg12345 21:06, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

If the international chess association had funded a newspaper lobbying chess interests then it would make sense.·Maunus·ƛ· 21:45, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
In that case we'd say "a newspaper funded by the international chess association", right?--Asdfg12345 21:49, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
Honestly, this matter is quite trivial. Can we not worry about it and focus on the merge? Plus, Maunus already said that FLG affiliated is ok.--Edward130603 (talk) 21:10, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree. I'm one of those incredibly finicky people that just likes every detail correct. You would have met such people before. Sorry.. *begs patience*--Asdfg12345 21:20, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

New discussion of merger with Organ harvesting in the People's Republic of China

I don't even understand why there is an article like this when there is Organ harvesting in the People's Republic of China. Can't this be merged? (rationale: this article could easily make it look like Falun Gong are the only (alleged) victims of these procedures. I know it was made a spin-off in 2007 (I take this from the history of Organ harvesting in the People's Republic of China, but I think after cutting it down, it's unwarranted to keep it separate.) Seb az86556 (talk) 04:24, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
I forget the history, but tend to agree with your suggestion. Once merged, the FG part can occupy its share of space/argument without dominating the central issue, and the whole story will be a lot more coherent. Ohconfucius (talk) 04:34, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
Exactly. As far as I can tell, the 2007 suggestion was to move everything from Organ harvesting in the People's Republic of China into this one. I'd say the opposite should be done. (But one would first have to see how much remains of this one, once consolidated) Seb az86556 (talk) 04:37, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
(I directed the discussion to this string. Seb az86556 (talk) 04:47, 11 August 2009 (UTC))
I would favour a merge. However, we must make note of this incident as it has garnered FG a lot of publicity, so we must give it due weight in the merged article once it's moved. Colipon+(Talk) 04:53, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
I have no doubt it will, but it will no longer look like a Falun Gong propaganda article. Actually, I think that although FG activists have opposed it before for reasons I no longer recall, the merge will actually give more credibility to their allegations in the context of the whole organ-harvesting issue in the PRC. Ohconfucius (talk) 05:11, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
Yes, the two articles should be merged. Martin Rundkvist (talk) 07:39, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
Merge. This has been discussed before but bears discussing again now that there are more active editors and a real Falun Gong project page. As I see it, this article contains a subportion of Organ harvesting in the People's Republic of China and they should be merged under a common heading. PerEdman (talk) 08:51, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
Merge. A separate article would be unneccesary. I agree with the merge.--Edward130603 (talk) 11:59, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
Comment The current Organ harvesting in the People's Republic of China is a somewhat weak thin article, clearly less meaty than the Falun Gong-flavored variant. For this reason I believe they could both benefit from a merge. And to anyone who believes this will delete a bunch of data, I think all data we can get our hands on will be needed to create a Good article from the merged material. Don't fear the reaper. PerEdman (talk) 12:02, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
Merge First off they are essentially the same topic. The difference is that, as PerEdman pointed out, the FLG article is significantly longer. This is problematic as evidence of organ harvesting, in general, is much stronger than evidence of organ harvesting which targets FLG worshippers.Simonm223 (talk) 12:59, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

In preparation for this merger I have began deleting the unecessary speculative and circumstantial evidence used here as a POV tool to push "evidence" onto the article where it doesn't belong. Colipon+(Talk) 14:55, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

In the merged article can we please ensure that those reports that corroborate the K&M specific claim that FLG are targeted for organ harvesting are labled as such while those that simply corroborate that China harvests organs from death-penalty convicts or that China generically harvests organs are also more clearly labled? Much of the information used to corroborate either fails to corroborate FLG involvement or, in fact, is merely response to allegations and not corroborating evidence at all.Simonm223 (talk) 15:31, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
Yes. I believe the merge will be condusive to aggregating the information. But honestly, a lot of this information need to go. Some of it is just POV-pushing that does not deserve to be mentioned anywhere on this encyclopedia. Colipon+(Talk) 15:41, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
Don't worry about the lede too much. When it really comes to a merger, a completely new lede for the merged article will be written. Just cut stuff from the body. Seb az86556 (talk) 15:54, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
Keep and FYI this was discussed before see top of page or directly here [2]. Do you think that now there can be a consensus for the merge? --HappyInGeneral (talk) 18:07, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
I'm well aware it was discussed before, this is why the heading is "New discussion". I don't think there WILL be a consensus on the merge, but I think there ought to be. / PerEdman 18:17, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
Obviously there is organ harvesting in China; there is also a large body of sources, primary and secondary, which make specific allegations of Falun Gong practitioners being targeted for organ harvesting in China. This particular topic satisfies WP:NOTABILITY ("If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article."), and it therefore qualifies as having its own article. So far I have not heard any reference to policy, only argumentation which, in my view, shows a lack of understanding of the extant reliable sources on the topic. For your reference. The only reason for merging this would be a dispute of the notability claim. Is that what is disputed? --Asdfg12345 18:34, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
Obviously China is "asking" death row prisoners and their families if it's "okay" to harvest their organs after death in exchange for some small recompense, a practice unilaterally condemned by the international community because you simply cannot strike a fair and balanced deal with someone you are going to put to death by force. The prisoners are not in any position to bargain or disagree. We probably both know this.
We also know that Falun Gong is prohibited from working within China, and that anyone who does so risks imprisonment and for that, they also risk the death sentence (probably for some variant of "disturbing the peace" or "conspiring against the state" or some other bogus charge. We could go looking for sources on this, but as I think we both agree, let's not.
But when you say that there is a large body of primary and secondary sources which allege that Falun Gong is being targeted, that's where you run into trouble. The primary source is The Epoch Times. The "secondary" source is Kilgour and Matas who were commissioned by CIPFG to expound on their report. They are secondary at best, primary at worst, and their material is apparently mostly based on anecdotal evidence and correlation of unknown causality. There are no other sources. McMillan-Scott (sp?) was apparently CIPFG too, and also anecdotal, non-scientific. What remains? Kilgour and Matas, again. Not a large body of evidence. This "particular topic" is not particular, it pertains to organ harvesting in China. The extent to which that includes victims who are members of Falun Gong, deserves to be mentioned in a combined article, it does not need to be treated separately with duplicated data and higher editor overhead to oversee. There's no "policy" for this specific a question, but you could ask a noticeboard. / PerEdman 21:29, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
PerEdman put that perfectly.Simonm223 (talk) 22:33, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
Yes. Second PerEdman. Honestly, no one is doubting that the Chinese gov't is not a saint when it comes to human rights issues, and engages in brutal methods to get what they want. However, narrowing this down to Falun Gong-specific organ harvesting is most certainly WP:UNDUE no matter how you look at the picture. Colipon+(Talk) 02:14, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
Again, agree with merger. As a side (and I think it's been pointed out before), Asdfg1234, a merge would actually make Falun Gong's case look much more credible, so it works in their favor. Here's how an uninvolved person (I see myself as such) would look at it:
Right now, it sounds like there's some obscure wacky group whose teachings the uninvolved don't really understand, and they claim that they are being butchered and used as raw meat. The casual reader will go "...excuse me?"
After the merger, it will be in the context of confirmed organ harvesting taking place, and Falun Gong practitioners are among them. The casual reader will think "yeah, I s'pose that could be right".
Seb az86556 (talk) 03:14, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
  • My stance on the government of the PRC has been made clear on more than one occasion. Nevertheless, I agree that there is not a large body of evidence (not allegations) which supports the specific allegations against FG practitioners. Even the person you frequently cite as being the leading Falun Gong academic says it, so we are not left with much. What is more, I feel that the allegations, within the context of the wider subject in merged article, will be more powerful than treated in isolation. Ohconfucius (talk) 03:15, 14 August 2009 (UTC)


So far all but one editor who has voted has either voted Merge or Yes. HappyInGeneral has voted Keep for now, but doesn't seem to have made any argument other than the merger has been discussed (twice) before, which I see no relevance too. HappyInGeneral, would you like to expound on your current view? Furthermore, Asdfg holds the opinion that this article has specific notability in its own right and that "a large body of sources, primary and secondary" supports this. This is a specific argument without specific sources. I believe that as per WP:V and WP:UNDUE, Asdfg must present such sources before we all can act on them and remember that they must be "reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject" and that means Epoch Times, CIPFG, McMillan-Scott and "Friends of Falun Gong" all fail WP:Notability.

I therefore urge the articles be merged as soon as possible, unless HappyInGeneral, Asdfg or any other editor would like to carry the arguments forward. (Also, do we just add the articles to the list at WP:PM?) / PerEdman 09:50, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't think a listing is needed. Seb az86556 (talk) 10:03, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
Should merge the pages soon is my opinion. Colipon+(Talk) 15:37, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
Actually Asdf raised a valid point in my view, that is this page satisfies WP:NOTABILITY, and as such it may stay stand alone. But I guess we can take this issue to something similar to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion although I'm not sure at this point which part is the most relevant. --HappyInGeneral (talk) 21:51, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
There's no need to take the discussion to yet another page to rehash the same arguments in a different setting, in my opinion. You are free to do so if you like, but it's not sure to change anything. If we can reach Consensus here, we can move on our own. If you have reasons to believe that this page satisfies notability, you should still support that claim, it is not enough to just say that it does. / PerEdman 22:36, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
A list of secondary sources, to back up my claim that is passes notability? Give me 24 hours.--Asdfg12345 21:51, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
I did ask you to come here, but you've had since 13 August 2009 to support the claims you made then. If you don't actually have that material to back up a claim you already made, I'm worried you would be asking someone else to support the claim, or engaging in original research to form a synthesis you've already decided. Is there any particular reason why you don't have support for your claim already? Is there any reason you did not manage to produce it since the 13th of August? / PerEdman 22:36, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

How many do you want, by the way?--Asdfg12345 21:54, 17 August 2009 (UTC)--Asdfg12345 21:54, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

You should know it's not a question of "How many" sources. You only need to show that it's a significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject. I'll say again: Sigificant coverage. Reliable. Secondary. Independent of subject. / PerEdman 22:36, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
For sources, look at this. Even assuming that there was a lot of mainstream media coverage, it does not necessarily qualify for WP:N when all the media was using the same secondary evidence listed in the article, not to mention the contents of the reports almost certainly fail WP:V - just as in the "corroborative reports" section right now - just a bunch of people coming along and saying "the report happened, and we want to express concern". No other independent primary or secondary accounts that describe anything specific in the reports, which were based on circumstantial evidence anyway. Honestly, this will be a hard case for you to build, asdfg. Colipon+(Talk) 22:17, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
Good point in part, but even if a reliable secondary source was rehashing a Chinese or Falun Gong press release, if that source was to give the press release significant coverage, be repeated by other secondary sources, creating public debate et cetera, it can still fulfill the requirements of notability. Maybe. / PerEdman 22:36, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

You are arguing that it would not qualify notability if they were all using the same secondary evidence? I.e., that they all referred to the Kilgour/Matas report, or something? Can you please cite a policy for that? You seem to be wanting to argue against the notability of the topic based on what you perceive as the quality of the argumentation/evidence in the material that third party reports refer to; can you cite a policy, because this concept seems kind of arbitrary, and that it could be applied to anything. Something is notable if it receives significant coverage in “reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject.” The simple google news search you present already seems to make the subject quality for notability. Verifiability is about "whether readers are able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true." If what the sources we reference say aren't verifiable that's obviously a very separate issue. If the google news search isn't convincing, please advise, and we'll take it to a community board.--Asdfg12345 23:24, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Who is? I'm saying that first-hand reports repeated by a second-hand source may not qualify as truly secondary, but that it can reach notability if it is given significant coverage and notice. "We" or "I" definately should seem to not only take notability into account: Verifiability needs to be considered too. For example, a press release from a Falun Gong source noted once or twice in the New York Times is certainly verifiable, but it is a primary source, not secondary. It may go unnoticed, even though the New York Times is an excellent and reliable source, and it would not be independent of the subject, since it would still be a press release from a Falun Gong news source. It's not about whether it's "true". / PerEdman 05:56, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
A google news SEARCH in support of an opinion you already hold, is not convincing. Taking the same discussion to a community notice board when you cannot suggest what the potential good would be, does not strike me as convincing either. How about you just tell me what made you believe what you believe today, and let me make that same decision for myself? If it was enough to convince you, it should be enough to convince anyone, right? / PerEdman 17:32, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Substantiating the notability of this article

I'll just give links and titles here. Note that many of them are from this page. Please explain :if and how you think this doesn't qualify notability. I mean, please point out exactly how it does not; I believe it's self-evident from the following. -- CRS Report for Congress, "China and Falun Gong" (subsection on the issue) -- United Nations Committee Against Torture, CONSIDERATION OF REPORTS SUBMITTED BY STATES PARTIES UNDER ARTICLE 19 OF THE CONVENTION: Concluding observations of the Committee against Torture, Forty-first session, Geneva, 3-21 November 2008 -- Glen McGregor, "Inside China's 'crematorium'", The Ottawa Citizen, November 24, 2007 -- Ethan Gutmann, "Why Wang Wenyi Was Shouting,", Weekly Standard, 05/08/2006, Volume 011, Issue 32 -- News Staff (July 6, 2006) "Chinese embassy denies organ harvesting report",, retrieved July 8, 2006 -- "China harvesting Falun Gong organs, report alleges", CBC News, retrieved July 6, 2006 -- Kirstin Endemann, CanWest News Service; Ottawa Citizen (July 6, 2006)"Ottawa urged to stop Canadians travelling to China for transplants",, retrieved July 6, 2006

Tom Treasure, "The Falun Gong, organ transplantation, the holocaust and ourselves," JOURNAL OF THE ROYAL SOCIETY OF MEDICINE Volume 100 March 2007 J R Soc Med 2007;100:119–121 -- China Post: Taiwan condemns China's organ harvesting -- China's Gruesome Organ Harvest by Ethan Gutmann, Adjunct Fellow at the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies. Cover Story in The Weekly Standard. -- The report itself -- Mounting Evidence of Falun Gong Practitioners used as Organ Sources in China and Related Ethical Responsibilities, Kirk C. Allison, PhD, MS, Associate Director, Program in Human Rights and Medicine, University of Minnesota -- China’s Organ Transplant Industry and Falun Gong Organ Harvesting: An Economic Analysis, Thesis from YALE University -- # Transplantation and Human Rights in China, Kirk C. Allison, PhD, MS, University of Hawaii at Manoa -- a pile of media articles from 2006, -- similarly in the following two years.

NOTE: I believe the reliability of some of the above may be disputed, but overall I think it's clear. There are hundreds of newspaper reports, or at the very least a number of dozen, dedicated to this specific topic. If this is disputed we can just take it up on one of the content community boards.--Asdfg12345 02:28, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Firstly, all of these sources cite the report itself as its source. Secondly, most of these sources directly link to the report's website. Thirdly, showing all of these sources do not provide for any justification to keep this article as a standalone article. It's been raised numerous times that the content would be moved to the "Organ Harvesting in the PRC" article and be dealt with there. Colipon+(Talk) 02:49, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
  1. How is that important? Doesn't that, in fact, just show the point of the notability of the report?
  2. Do you mean that has compiled these sources? What do you mean? Tom Treasure's article is hosted there, too. This isn't significant. They were published elsewhere first, it's just that they've been conveniently archived by Kilgour/Matas.
  3. This doesn't appear to address the point, which is from WP:NOTABILITY (hope I don't have to say this again): "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article."--Asdfg12345 04:31, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
I think there is a misunderstanding here of what a "secondary source" entails. When ten news sources quote the same report which say the same thing, what that amounts to is not "significant coverage in reliable secondary sources". K-M themselves are secondary sources on organ harvesting, primary sources on their own reporting. This makes media reporting on K-M's report tertiary sources. Moreover, just because something has received due coverage in the media does not warrant WP:N. Here it is probably best to exercise some common sense. Look at stories on Obama swatting a fly for example and you will see there are many things that undoubtedly qualify for "significant coverage in reliable secondary sources independent of the subject" which do not have a standalone article. Colipon+(Talk) 06:11, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
  • I would tend to look at it as a document which has been taken at face value by some sources, and reported as a sensational news item by others. It is just so sensational that there are few detailed analyses of it - the article is only ever capable of being one-sided in its current guise. David Ownby recognised that there is no evidence that the harvesting is focussed on FG prisoners, implying that its allegations ought to be subsumed within the overall organ-harvesting debate. Yes, the media can write articles about as narrow or as wide a topic as it deems appropriate, but that does not necessarily make it worthy of an encyclopaedic article. Ohconfucius (talk) 07:49, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
For the same reasons stated by Colipon and Ohconfucius I am not convinced that this grab-bag of links represents enough notability to constitute a separate article from the already extant one on Chinese organ harvesting.

My personal opinion of the K-M report is that it is inexpert propaghanda penned by men who don't have the first clue about their topic. Regardless I would not protest if the existence of the report aleging FLG targeted organ harvesting was referred to in the PRC organ harvesting article.

As things stand though we have nearly as much space devoted to this single inexpert report as to all the perfectly valid information on PRC organ harvesting.Simonm223 (talk) 13:25, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, Asdfg12345, I didn't see this until now. Remember, the requirement was "topic has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject". Here's my response to each:

  1. Not available. From the Italian US Embassy? Notability? Coverage?
  2. is relevant, third-party, notability uncertain and mentions the specific allegations only in passing. Its focus is much more on torture, ill-treatment and disappearances.
  3. Supports the notability of the Kilgour/Matas allegations, but is the article itself notable? Quote: "Depending on who you believe, the Kilgour-Matas report is either compelling evidence that proves the claims about Falun Gong, with or without support of Sujiatun, or a collection of conjecture and inductive reasoning that fails to support its own conclusions."
  4. Quote: "The reports, which first appeared in print in the March 10 edition of the Falun Gong-associated publication Epoch Times, are still sketchy and confirmation scarce." One source only. Can support notability, but is it significant?
  6. Interviews with Matas and Kilgour. Can support notability of K&M, but not significance of coverage. It's a tertiary source of Kilgour & Matas and as such redundant.
  7. Another tertiary source for Kilgour & Matas. May show notability, perhaps significance. CBC is larger than CTV, right?
  8. Another retelling of Kilgour & Matas. I am beginning to think that Kilgour & Matas have caused enough of a stir to deserve mention, but that still leaves the question of whether they need an article of their own or whether it fits in with the general article on transplants in China.
  9. Tom Treasure, "The Falun Gong, organ transplantation, the holocaust and ourselves," Didn't read.
  10. Fails third-party. Fails independence.
  11. Fails independence. WP:NOT

In all, I now believe Kilgour & Matas have caused enough attention to warrant mention, but not enough to deserve an article on their own. I believe they would make a valuable addition to the article on Organ harvesting in China, but your links have made it clear that Kilgour & Matas are the only source of support for the allegation of organ harvesting being targeted at Falun Gong practitioners and I believe we cannot create a separate article for that reason, it's too much like persons notable for only one event. Therefore they should be included in the more general article on the subject, which would benefit from the addition. / PerEdman 17:56, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

What, I don't get any response? There's a huge list of links which only a few editors take the time to respond to, and then there's no continued discussion? Please do not sidetrack or meta the discussion. / PerEdman 12:13, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
Kilgour doesn't even mention Falun Gong on his own website... Colipon+(Talk) 18:00, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
Strange. It's a bit like talking about your life without mentioning your wife. ;-) Ohconfucius (talk) 01:43, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't know about you guys, but when I visit this site -- the first thing I see is a big link to UPDATED REPORT INTO ALLEGATIONS OF ORGAN HARVESTING OF FALUN GONG PRACTITIONERS IN CHINA. (in caps no less). As for whether this subject passes notability, I'll open an RfC now. I can see the debate here is getting us nowhere.--Asdfg12345 02:22, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

  • I have a comment about the Yale thesis above. Having read only the introduction, I see it clearly takes the K&M report at face value, and then seeks transplant data and other economic figures to support the allegations in the K&M report. The fact that it does not refute K&M does not make the evidence any less circumstantial than the K&M, in whose report this is but one facet. Ohconfucius (talk) 03:35, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
  • In my view that shows that they agree with the evidence put forth by the report, which is in accordance with the requirement of WP:GNG. --HappyInGeneral (talk) 20:12, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
  • It was just an observation about the inherent qualities of the thesis, I was not seeking to make any point as to the relevance or notability issues being discussed above. Ohconfucius (talk) 02:19, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Um... fitting the "evidence" to the hypothesis is a big scientific no-no. It severely harms the credibility of the thesis.Simonm223 (talk) 20:22, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
HappyInGeneral, your view has certain dissimilarities to the scientific, academic view. If Yale had performed their own parallell investigation and noticed coincident information between them, then it would be a matter of supporting evidence. This seems to be something else. Again, that China has "too many donors" likely comes from the fact that that 1. execute prisoners and 2. take organs from these prisoners. Nothing has been presented thus far that shows that this Chinese breach of human rights in any way targets Falun Gong more than any other group that China labels criminal. And why would they? If the Chinese Government really wanted to kill Falun Gong members extra dead, why harvest their organs too? Why NOT harvest the organs of all other prisoners to the same extent? If you can sell a kidney for $60 000, you can usually sell three of them for $180 000. Is there some additional harm being done in harvesting ones organs after false imprisonment and being put to death by your own government, that the government would do that only to specific prisoners as an extra punishment? Is there any prohibition in Falun Gong against donating organs, something I don't know about here? / PerEdman 20:32, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

I believe notability stands as a poor expression of the actual disagreement here. I believe the disconnect comes from differences of opinion over whether or not this articles constitutes a legitimate article fork or is a problematic fork unduly focusing on one aspect/view of a broader phenomena. --Vassyana (talk) 20:07, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Vassyana - the problem isn't notability - the problem is undue weight. The article should be merged because it gives undue weight to a specific part of a larger problem - and because that specific part has not received sufficient coverage in reliable third party sources to warrant such a focus. ·Maunus·ƛ· 13:04, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
That's exactly what we've been saying. No-one doubts that this is notable, no-one alleges that this is unimportant, but it's not notable enough to have its own article-entry. Seb az86556 (talk) 13:11, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
I saw the argument getting derailed a bit with assertions of passing the notability guidelines. However this is more a case of balancing a point of view. It is a welldocumented fact that the chinese government harvests organs, but it is a minority pov that Falun Gong is specifically targeted - having an article specifically about that viewpont is in conflict with the undue weight policy. Its basically as if we had an article on "left handed 9/11 victims" based on reports from the lefthanders own news paper and a scientific report stating that statistically a third of the total victims must have been lefthanded.·Maunus·ƛ· 13:38, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
Nice analogy. Excellent even. Tell that to Asdfg12345 who even started an RfC on "Is this topic notable?" (see below) and lists a load of sources. Of course it is notable. Completely side-tracking question... Seb az86556 (talk) 13:51, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
I agree completely. / PerEdman 13:56, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
I agree as well with Maunus. Martin Rundkvist (talk) 14:16, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
To Maunus, consider this, if the US Congressional report would mention left handed '9/11' victims, if the United Nations Special Rapporteur on Torture would ask the US to give full explanations on why the number of left handed victims, is way larger then the average, or/and if a Secretary of State, would make an independent report on it and conclude that the vast majority of the victims must be left handed victims, then I'm sure there would be an article about left handed victims of 9/11 on wikipedia, due to Notability, even if the lefthanders own news paper also reports about it (which it naturally would). Here we have the same thing where, there is at least assumed, by high profile figures, that the vast majority of the live organ extraction is not taken from criminals but from people who hold on to their belief. --HappyInGeneral (talk) 21:47, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
You are of course right that the legal implications of persecuting a religious minority are different from persecuting a group defined by arbirary criteria such as lefthandedness and arguably more important. The point is that the way I read the sources organ harvesting is not proveably targeted specifically against FLG, but FLG are numerically more affected by the practice for purely statistical reasons. The other point is that there is no evidence that the two equally heinous policies of persecuting religious minorities and other dissidents and extracting organs from inmates are coordinated - that is the evidence simply doesn't support stating that PRC are specifically targeting dissidents for organ harvesting (like Ownby agrees). These two points in turn make it logical that organ harvesting should be treated at the article on organ harvesting - whether it is conducted against FLG or other dissidents, the facts need to be decribed there. The persecution of Falun Gong should be treated in the article on that topic. They are simply two related but different topics.·Maunus·ƛ· 22:14, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
There were widely circulated reports that 4,000 Jews skipped work on 9/11 to evade the attack after having been warned by the Israeli government. Is there an article Reports of 4,000 Jews skipping work on 9/11? No. Does it have a subsection in 9/11 conspiracy theories? yes. Seb az86556 (talk) 22:16, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
Are we not already noting that the Chinese government are persecuting and imprisoning Falun Gong practitioners? That's one statistical bias. Are we also not aware that the Chinese government practice pseudo-voluntary organ donations from executed prisoners? That's another statistical bias. To additionally claim that imprisoned Falun Gong practitioners suffer organ harvesting to an even greater extent than other prisoners would mean a third statistical bias, when not even the first one has been evidenced. The second one, however, is fairly well-known. But in order to show the whole chain, one would have to show that there are more Falun Gong prisoners than other prisoners, and then also show that despite their overrepresentation, these Falun Gong prisoners suffer organ harvesting to an even greater extent than other prisoners do. And as there are not even any reliable numbers for how many executed prisoners are harvested for organs, how could we possibly know if those harvested also contain an higher-than-expected number of Falun Gong practitioners? / PerEdman 22:58, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
You are right PerEdman, in the fact that nobody got to number the people who are cut open for their organs, although in a sane society it should be something public not hidden. Still that is not relevant. What is relevant is that high officials from Canada, United Nations and USA (Dana Rohrabacher, etc.) raised the issue that the Organ Harvesting is directly targeted against Falun Gong and as a proof they use the statistics which match a sharp increase in Organ Transplant and the persecution of Falun Gong. To this it adds the reporting from highly reputable doctors, media, human rights organizations, etc... Which makes the separate issue of the organ harvesting from Falun Gong very notable, even if people like Ownby (a Professor in History) see it otherwise (which in fact also is just increasing notability). --HappyInGeneral (talk) 13:17, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
How can they use that as proof when it does not follow? As Maunus pointed out, transplants have increased worldwide and China is known for harvesting death row executees. How does an increase in transplants worldwide (including China) translate into evidence that Falun Gong is being specifically targeted??
Interesting to see you point out that Ownby is a professor in History. David Kilgour is a former Canadian politician and David Matas is senior legal counsel of B'nai Brith Canada. What did you mean, specifically, by pointing out Ownby's field of specialty? Answer truthfully now.  / Per Edman 18:18, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
The discussion just a bit above got us somewhere, but then I think it fell away a bit. Let me ask a few more pointed questions: if we all agree that this topic passes WP:NOTABILITY, then what other policy is there that determines what topic should have its own article? My second observation is that much of the argumentation has relied on aspersions, inferences, logical deductions, etc. (aka original research), where WP:DUE comes in is about how things are to be reported. This isn't a qualitative judgement of the truth status of the claims. It doesn't matter if the whole thing is entirely fictional or even absurd, the point is just the extent to which it's been covered in reliable sources. It may not yet be the mainstream consensus the the systematic, targeted organ harvesting of Falun Gong practitioners happened and is happening, but as a topic it is legitimate to explore on its own. If all the claims were debunked in flying colours, that itself is content in such an article. The question is not about the truth-status of the contents of the article, it's merely of whether such information has proliferated among secondary reliable sources--and this topic has received an enourmous amount of focused attention in many, many sources. It's a big freaking explosive claim that religious dissidents have been systematically targeted for organ harvesting, because they don't give their names, they're vilified, etc. etc., it's a specific claim. It's got mass coverage. I am still failing to see how it is not a legitimate article, just like any sub-topic article. If instead of hearing meta-arguments about the truth value of the accusations and evidences I heard hard policy statements, I would be persuaded. At the moment I'm the only one who has referred to actual policy in advancing the argument, and it's only been met with non-policy based discussion about the truth-status of the claims. As I say, if this was just one of the theories floating around about where these 41500 organs came from (and there is no other explanation that I'm aware of or that has even been proposed--anyone actually notice this?), given that it attracted sufficient attention, it would still gain its own article, just like Flat Earth, no? I really will be swayed if people can give me some policy meat to chew on rather than just dissecting this debate. --Asdfg12345 18:26, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
RETURN TO THE SUBJECT. I have already answered this exact question: they are the three core principles of Wikipedia: Notability, Verifiability and Neutral Point of View (including due attention). WP:UNDUE does affect what gets to be reported, for example whether to report separately on a subsection of widespread exploitation of prisoners. No-one has claimed that "truth status" plays any part at all.
Will you now get back to arguing rationally for relevancy of the 13 links you provided or do we have to endure many more of these pointed questions about Wikipedia 101 and our own personal motivations from you? Don't you see that it only becomes fantastically clear that you will do anything to procrastinate and avoid discussing the subject matter? "I'm the only one who has referred to actual policy in advancing the argument" is a falsifiable claim. Go ahead, search this very page for the term WP: and take note of how many editors, thus far, have referred to policy aside from yourself. How can you be taken seriously when you make claims that are clearly and obviously false to anyone with the capacity to participate? Then search again for the word "truth" and take note of how many editors have used that word. Again I believe the results will surprise you. (And please, don't count this message from me.)  / Per Edman 21:01, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
How suave, I just noticed that you had not at all responded to the question of what you meant by pointing out Ownby's field of specialty (but not those of Kilgour & Matas).  / Per Edman 21:47, 24 August 2009 (UTC)