Talk:Kilgour–Matas report/Archive 7

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Reception of the Kilgour-Matas report

Corroborative reports

On July 24, 2006, Associate Director of the Program in Human Rights and Medicine in the University of Minnesota, Kirk C. Allison reinforced the findings of the Kilgour-Matas report and calling for academia and medical circles stop cooperation with China on organ transplantation. Allison also points out that the "short time frame of an on-demand system [as in China] requires a large pool of donors pre-typed for blood group and HLA matching."

Tom Treasure of Guy's Hospital, London, considered the report plausible from a medical standpoint. He analyzes some of the events leading to the Holocaust in which medical personnel were involved and compares these to the circumstances surrounding the Falun Gong persecution, statistics on transplantation in China, and general practices related to transplantation. He makes specific references to the numerical gap in the number of transplants and short waiting times between China and other countries.

In May 2008 two United Nations Special Rapporteurs reiterated their previous request for the Chinese authorities to adequately respond to the allegations. They also asked the authorities to explain the source of organs for the sudden increase in organ transplants in China since 2000. The request was a follow-up to previous communication on August 11, 2006, made with Sigma Huda, UN Special Rapporteur on Trafficking in Persons. In 2006, Chinese authorities responded with categorical denials, and did not address the critical issues raised by the Special Rapporteurs, according to a syndicated MarketWire report. In November 2008, the United Nations Committee Against Torture made a statement on the matter. The Committee, citing the UN special Rapporteur's note that the increase in organ transplant operations coincides with “the beginning of the persecution of [Falun Gong practitioners]”, stated that it was concerned with report. The Committee called for the state to immediately conduct or commission an independent investigation of the claims of organ harvesting, and take measures to ensure that those responsible for such abuses are prosecuted and punished.

Doubts and criticism

Glen McGregor of the Ottawa Citizen raised issues which he perceived as difficulties with the Sujiatun story. He doubted that the hospital could have been the site of organ harvesting as alleged. McGregor also questioned the conclusion of the Kilgour-Matas report, and called into question the strength of some of the evidence. He referred to Harry Wu's doubts, noting the lack of official paperwork, and lack of people who have emerged to talk about the issue. Wrote McGregor: "Depending on who you believe, the Kilgour-Matas report is either compelling evidence that proves the claims about Falun Gong... or a collection of conjecture and inductive reasoning that fails to support its own conclusions". He said he was one of the few journalists who had not treated the report as fact, and that he had for this reason been compared to holocaust deniers by Matas and Kilgour. McGregor claimed that Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, and the UN's Special Rapporteur on torture had not "confirmed" the reports of organ harvesting.

Amnesty International has stated that it is "continuing to analyze sources of information about the Falun Gong organ harvesting allegations, including the report published by Canadians David Matas and David Kilgour." The organisation points out that there is "a widely documented practice of the buying and selling of organs of death penalty prisoners in China." Their report continues to say that while "it is unknown how many Falun Gong practitioners are being executed by the Chinese authorities ... various sources indicate China may be executing between 10,000-15,000 people a year."

A Congressional Research Service report by Dr. Thomas Lum stated that the Kilgour-Matas report relied largely on logical inference, without bringing forth new or independently-obtained testimony. According to Lum, Kilgour and Matas' conclusions rely heavily upon transcripts of telephone calls with reported PRC respondents, and the credibility of the telephone recordings is questionable, due to the Chinese government's controls over sensitive information.

In response to the Kilgour & Matas report, David Ownby, a noted expert on Falun Gong, said "Organ harvesting is happening in China, but I see no evidence proving it is aimed particularly at Falun Gong practitioners."

Changing transplant policies

On August 14, 2006, a statement from the US National Kidney Foundation (NKF), referring to the Kilgour Matas Reports, stated that the foundation "is deeply concerned about recent allegations regarding the procurement of organs and tissues through coercive or or exploitative practices" and that "any act which calls the ethical practice of donation and transplantation into question should be condemned by the worldwide transplantation community." The statement from NKF also condemned organ transplant tourism in general.

In October 2006, the Chairman of the Taiwan Mainland Affairs Council (MAC), Joseph Wu, stated that Taiwan condemned, "in the strongest possible terms", China's harvesting of human organs from executed Falun Gong practitioners. In August 2007, a statement from Hou Sheng-mao, Director of Taiwan's Department of Health, urged Taiwanese Doctors to not encourage patients to get commercial organ transplants in mainland China.

In December 2006, the Australian Health Ministry announced the abolition of training programs for Chinese doctors in organ transplant procedures in the Prince Charles and the Princess Alexandra Hospitals and the banning of joint research programs with China on organ transplantation. .

In February 2008, Canadian Member of Parliament Borys Wrzesnewskyj introduced a bill that would make it illegal for Canadians to get an organ transplant abroad if the organ was taken from an unwilling victim. Wrzesnewskyj states that the final impetus to introduce the bill was the findings of the Kilgour-Matas report..

In early 2007, Israeli health insurance carriers stopped sending patients to China for transplants. This was in part related to an investigation in which Israeli authorities arrested several men for tax evasion in connection with a company that mediated transplants of Chinese prisoners’ organs for Israelis. One of the men had stated in an undercover interview that the organs came from “people who oppose the regime, those sentenced to death and from prisoners of the Falun Gong.”

In May 2007 Rabbi Yosef Shalom Eliashiv prohibited Jews from deriving any benefit from Chinese organ harvesting, "even in life-threatening situations". Other Rabbis oppose the use of Chinese organs for transplants.

Response of Chinese authorities

The Chinese Embassy in Canada replied to the first version of the Kilgour-Matas report immediately upon its release on July 6, stating that China abided by World Health Organization principles that prohibit the sale of human organs without written consent from donors. The authors were accused of wanting to smear China's image. "[T]he so-called 'independent investigation report' made by a few Canadians based on rumors and false allegations is groundless and biased." The Chinese Embassy in Washington also said the allegations were "totally fake" and said the Chinese government had already investigated the claims and found them meritless.<refname=ccpembassy/>'

Bold changes

I have been bold and introduced some much needed changes to the article: I have removed certain small part of the reception section that were completely off topic (no relevance to FLG demonstrated whatsoever, even Asdfg agreed that there were parts that were off topic), I have refactored the section layout so that it is clear to the reader which material pertains particularly to the Kilgour Matas report and which doesn't. I have also moved the chinese response to the accusation to the top of the reception section - as this seems to be most fair. This doesn't solve the issue of a possible merger due to concerns of undue weight, however. Just improves the articles quality and readability.·Maunus·ƛ· 19:06, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Could we clarify the logic for ordering an article by sources rather than by theme? Doesn't add up for me, since it seems like artificially dividing things by source, rather than meaningfully by theme? Why is theme meaningful and source not? Because theme is directly connected with the topic, while the source is more incidental. (IMHO)--Asdfg12345 17:41, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

The title of the article is "reports of Organ Harvesting from Falun Gong in China" - the topic in other words is the reports and their contents, the circumstances under which they were published and how they were received. Also the fact that the subsections would start by writing "they say that" without the reader being able to be sure that "they" were in fact Kilgour and Matas. ·Maunus·ƛ· 23:31, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

For one it demonstrates the extent to which this information comes from a single source; this mitigates (but is far from resolving) the WP:UNDUE issues with this article. I don't exactly understand the thrust of your second question. However your last statement is actually easy to rebutt. When almost all information comes from a single source and when that source was FLG sponsored it becomes much more than an incidental matter.Simonm223 (talk) 18:12, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

"FLG sponsored" you mean that Kilgour a high official of Canada and Matas where bought off to say anything aimlessly? Do you have any source to uphold your claim? Do you mean that all the points in their report is made up? Do you mean that they faked the internet archives to do that? Did they pay the phone companies to show that the conversation actually took place? That they made the people who produced the Phoenix TV show (which is anti-FLG) to interview one of the people who was called and to recognize (yes he did recognize that he was called). Do you mean that they faked his registered voice from the recordings even before he made that interview? --HappyInGeneral (talk) 18:20, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

David Kilgour is not a "high official". He is a former back-bencher from the house of commons. And the K&M report was FLG sponsored. There is considerable doubt about the veracity of their information. The person interviewed on Phoenix TV said the recording had been doctored in a manner to incriminate him. This was an assertion that the US congress entertained as feasable.Simonm223 (talk) 19:11, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

It does not matter if they were bought off by FLG or not, merely the fact that it has been initiated by FLG groups and that all research were provided by them is sufficient grounds for doubt. Medical research initiated by pharmaceutical companies have been meta-analysed to exhibit significant bias compared to true independent studies, due to the pressure for a positive outcome and also publication bias (cherry-picking). That, in addition to the fact that K&M didn't really do any independent research at all, that the report has been self-published without peer review (how hard is it to get it into a journal if it's a quality report?), can you really say that it's a reliable academic paper? --antilived^{T | C | G} 21:11, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Precisely, thank you Antilived.Simonm223 (talk) 21:16, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Huh, I didn't know that, but now that you say it, it makes sense for articles requested by a party tend to present a bias to the benefit of that party. I'll have to study that bias in closer detail.  / Per Edman 21:32, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

It is worth noting that neither Kilgour nor Matas has a background in Science and, in fact, Matas is a Lawyer, somebody whose career is largely predicated on their ability to argue a point for the client who has retained them regardless of personal opinion. As such these errors could be compounded by their lack of training in research methods.Simonm223 (talk) 21:36, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

(Unindent) Their report is online and what they say and conclude can be verified. The fact that I say that Kilgour is a high official and Simonm223 says it's not just proves that high is a relative term (for some perhaps only the president is high official). The fact that it was requested by CIPFG does not mean that the report or the people doing it was bought off. They have no background in science, because they are both lawyers and Kilgour is a veteran in politics as well, so they know full well how to prove something from a legal point of view. This is a joke, why are you playing them down, why are you so vehemently attacking the report? How is this going to help this page in this encyclopedia? --HappyInGeneral (talk) 22:27, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

"it makes sense for articles requested by a party tend to present a bias to the benefit of that party" - whilst that may make sense, it should also depend on the balance of power (political anc economic) between the party which commissions the study and the people who carry it out. Ohconfucius (talk) 01:59, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

That Simonm223 says one thing and you say the opposite does not mean that the truth is in the middle or that the term is relative. One of you could also be exaggerating. I sort of remember you pointing out that Ownby was a professor of history, but it is now "playing down" and a vehement attack to point out that Kilgour and Matas are politician and lawyer respectively? Who is playing a joke?  / Per Edman 23:18, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Current status of the debate, 30/8/09

I've been out of the loop for a while, I don't know if things have basically died down. Here's a new article on it. Not that it's a shining example of quality journalism, but it shows that the issue has currency. Basically, if we're just going to leave the status-quo for the page name, that's fine. If it's still disputed my proposal would be to make the point of argumentation very clear: Is WP:N the criteria for which a topic is granted a page? If not, what is, and which other policy contraindicts notability, and under what other circumstances would the topic have its own article? If it is, then the only thing left is to establish whether the topic is notable. We can do that through discussion of the sources, and make a subsection for each source and discuss until we have, or discover that there is not, a list of independent, reliable sources, enough for the subject to qualify notability.--Asdfg12345 17:31, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

China now officially admits to harvest organs from death row inmates - more than 65% in fact. Now what is the main problem with that practice? That China is harvesting organs from prisoners or that China is harvesting organs from prisoners, which may include FLG-practitioners? I have given my opinion on the K&M report above and considering that's the ONLY source for the FLG-focus (all others, including your article, is just a rehash of that) I feel it does not warrant the weight of having a separate article. --antilived^{T | C | G} 22:05, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, please reread my note. If the terms identified there are not the terms under which we should discuss the issue, please let's discuss that and identify the terms of discussion. I'm asking whether WP:N is the determining policy, if it is what we do, if it isn't what we do, etc.. If this isn't the right approach, let's find the right approach. The complaint you raise is noted, but it doesn't change the issue of independent reliable sources writing about the issue, whatever sources they use to do so. It would be good if we can move on this swiftly, either dispensing with the discussion or settings its terms and engaging in it ASAP.--Asdfg12345 02:51, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

I think you should do the same for mine. I suggested an approach of importance - what is the main issue here? "That China is harvesting organs from prisoners or that China is harvesting organs from prisoners, which may include FLG-practitioners?" China admits to huge amounts of organ harvesting, yet we're focusing on FLG practitioners based on "evidence" handed to K&M? --antilived^{T | C | G} 02:53, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

We're talking past each other. The question is merely whether this topic should be awarded its own article. On what grounds is this to be decided? Let's just start with that first. It's untrue that we're focusing on evidence handed to K&M as the grounds, it's because of the notability thing, which is kinda like a wikipedia policy. --Asdfg12345 03:01, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

If we're talking past each other, it's because some of us refuse to read the responses they have received when they asked the very same question before. You cannot keep repeating yourself like this, Asdfg12345, sooner or later you are going to have to deal with the answers you have been given, or it will become glaringly obvious that you are not really interested in the answers.  / Per Edman 09:10, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

it's on the other page now

Merge reverted

Asdfg reverted the merging of this article with the general one on Chinese organ harvesting. I think the merge was a good idea. Does anyone except the two avowed FG practicioners Asdfg and HiG oppose the merge? Martin Rundkvist (talk) 20:22, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

The discussion the merger is ongoing on the other page.--Asdfg12345 22:29, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

I believe Dilip rajeev was against as well, but he is a very spurious poster and may not be back for a while. However, it is not about a democratic vote, it is about forming a consensus on the decision; this has already been done. Asdfg12345 is now repeating the same question they have asked before, "What does it take to make a subject into an article?" even though the question has been answered multiple times. This cannot be seen as constructive behavior and it is certainly not a valid reason to assume no consensus has been reached.  / Per Edman 09:12, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Poll

I also believe that WP:Consensus has been achieved despite two strong objections. However, I believe that there will be no harm in dotting the 'i's and crossing the 't's in this instance. In order to avoid recriminations, accusations of foul play, and filibustering, I am preparing a poll for launch in 24 hours' time to conclusively close the matter. Both pro- and anti- merge sides are invited to make their case. I have taken the liberty of copying some previously written text from both sides, with some minor modifications, used as 'fillers' for the moment and which may be changed at will. In order to ensure that the arguments are 'balanced', a word limit of [300 words] is suggested; the statements may be edited - just note that you should refrain from editing the statement from the 'other side'. If there are any factual inaccuracies in the other side's arguments, kindly post these to the talk page so that the 'opposition' can take remedial action. Ohconfucius (talk) 09:30, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Polling is only a little bit evil (IMO), but for cases of complex mergers and intersecting POVs, it is very evil. Try to discuss as much as possible. My only substantive comment is that the title leaves a lot to be desired. If the best we can label something is "Reports of..." then we might want to reconsider whether or not it merits a standalone article. Obviously this can't be solved by removing "reports of" or replacing it with something equally noncommittal like "allegations" (I understand that we have a number of articles titled "Allegations of...", that notwithstanding...). I may come back with more later. Protonk (talk) 21:56, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

RfC: Are wikipedia policies relevant here?

{{rfctag|policy}}

The problem

Reports of organ harvesting from Falun Gong practitioners in China was merged into Organ harvesting in the People's Republic of China despite citing the following policies.

Quote from an undergoing pool: Talk:Organ harvesting in the People's Republic of China/FG poll

Wikipedia:Verifiability is one of Wikipedia's core content policies. It states: The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—that is, 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.

WP:Notability states "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.". ... "These notability guidelines only outline how suitable a topic is for its own article. They do not directly limit the content of articles. For Wikipedia's policies regarding content, see Neutral point of view, Verifiability, No original research, What Wikipedia is not, and Biographies of living persons."

As it can be seen here, and as it was even acknowledged above and here, the subject is Notable.

Organ harvesting from live Falun Gong practitioners is a specific topic. Organ harvesting in China is another broader topic. This article is about organs that come from executed prisoners, etc., whereas the Falun Gong claims are quite specific and not the same thing. I don't think the Reports of Organ Harvesting from Live Falun Gong Practitioners in China should be a redirect. It's a related but quite different topic. The information about it ought to appear as a subsection in a main article about organ harvesting in China, outlining the topic quickly, then it should be expanded fully as a daughter article to the Persecution of Falun Gong page and the Organ harvesting in China page. It is not a sensationalistic description--the report of live organ harvesting is essentially the referred claim in the third party sources.

There are two reasons for it to have its own page: it's too long (even after the mauling it took), and it is notable in itself, as evidenced by the stack of sources.

The question

Based on the policies mentioned above, shouldn't this be a simple case of fixing the error? That is to restore the Reports of organ harvesting from Falun Gong practitioners in China page?

--HappyInGeneral (talk) 23:50, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

I have nothing against this RFC, but I was just wondering if it would be better to keep the discussion together (on the poll)? After all, there is a section for discussion (which is empty as of right now).--Edward130603 (talk) 23:56, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

OK, moved here --HappyInGeneral (talk) 00:03, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

I've never look at this topic here before, though of course i and everyone else in the world except where censorship blocks it is very much aware of it. Sympathetic though I am to displaying these atrocities fully, I nonetheless support the merge. The subject is fundamentally no different from the Chinese use of organs from prisoners in general. That they consider people from this group as especially suitable for disposal in this manner is properly mentioned in the general article--and in articles about the Chinese suppression of the group. I might be influenced to some degree by two defects in the current article here: the excessive use of direct quotations--this should be done by links or in footnotes, not displayed in boxes, and the extensive duplication. If there is an article, it should be restricted to the special selection of people from the group--but I am not sure even that is necessary. From the point of view of an encyclopedia, too much makes it into a sWP:SOAPBOX. The argument from sources is not relevant--many subtopics in articles have enough sources to make them independent if it were for some reason appropriate. Strictly speaking if one goes by the GNG, evert individuals paragraph with two references could be an article. That's nonsense, of course, and nobody advocates it. The reason why it is not appropriate here is the very large amount of common content. DGG ( talk ) 07:16, 9 September 2009 (UTC)