Talk:Kilgour–Matas report/GA2

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Protonk (talk · contribs) 14:42, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

If I haven't reviewed one of your articles before my style below can be a bit daunting. I don't like the GA rubric as I feel it gets in the way of providing actionable suggestions on the clarity and structure of the article (which is where most of the suggestions at this level of review arise). I've tried to make specific suggestions and interleaved questions about the text with them. If you feel that answering my questions by making the text more clear is easiest then you can do that but you can also just reply here and we'll talk about it. Feel free to reply inline if you like (it's much easier to follow comments that way).

Overall I think the article is fairly close to GA status. I've made some copy-edits to the article and have spot checked some sources (though not all). Sorry for the long wait to have this reviewed!

style/layout

• United Nations Committee Against Torture could be wikilinked (it's a section redirect to the convention against torture's committee bit)

Done. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 23:34, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

• Should Other reports be a level 2 heading? Also the section contains one other report but the header implies multiple.

I'm wondering if that section is needed; this article is about a specific report on the allegation rather than the allegation itself. That section is about the allegation only. It appears to be a residue of the longer and more detailed Corroborative reports section from an earlier version. The last version that contained a range of reports appears to be this one. I found the edit that removed the other reports. I've not examined it yet - it probably removed unneccessary or trivial reports, and merged some information into other sections. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 23:34, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

I have updated, trimmed and refocused that section, merging it into the Other responses sub-section. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 09:09, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

content

• Tense is mixed throughout. I changed some of them in a copy edit but I think the article needs a once over to determine where statements should be written in past or present tense.

Agree. I am working on this. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 00:37, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

background

• We may disagree on this but I feel the Falun Gong section can be shortened a bit or better integrated into the article. I won't hold up the article on this alone (as my opinions on the length and specificity of summary sections may be iconoclastic), but it's something to think about.

I have tidied up and slightly shortened that section. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 09:24, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

the report

• "The report presented 33 strands of circumstantial evidence that, taken together and in the absence of any disproof..." Strands of evidence is an odd phrase.

It's a common phrase, but if you found it unusual, perhaps others will as well. What would you suggest as an alternative? SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 00:37, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

heh, the top hits there seem to be puns for books/articles on hair forensics. :) I'll give some thought as to alternate phrasing. Protonk (talk) 14:21, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

• "...China performs the second-highest number of transplants per year." This may seem obvious but second-highest among what? Countries? Let's state that.

As the context is about China as a country, and we already have a comparison with Canada, I'm wondering if this is needed, and if so, how to add it in, and where? If the clarity is needed, might it be better earlier in the paragraph? SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 00:37, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

It may be me being dumb. I'll take another look at it. Protonk (talk) 01:05, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

• "...transcripts of interviews in which hospitals told prospective transplant recipients..." We note later that these were telephone transcripts. I think even though it's clear on a close reading that they are we should just say "telephone" here so that later when we refer to the "telephone transcripts" it is more clear to the reader what we're talking about.

Done. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 00:37, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

• "The authors qualified their findings by noting the inherent difficulties in verifying the alleged crimes." That seems like a somewhat cagey qualification. Did the report contain specific qualifications apart from those which make it sound as though China has something to hide? I'm not sure if action is required on this, but it made me raise an eyebrow.

I have removed "inherent". The rest I think is neutral and factual. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 00:37, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

• "...had responded to the first version of their report in an unpersuasive way, mostly as attacks on Falun Gong, thus reinforcing the analysis of the report." The claims in the report were specifically about organ harvesting, so attacks on FG following the report would substantiate claims of broader repression/harassment but not the claim at hand.

The report is on "Organ Harvesting of Falun Gong Practitioners in China" - they were commissioned by FG to write the report, so the focus is on FG. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 00:37, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

I think the phrasing "reinforcing the analysis of the report" is where I diverge from that. The analysis of the report is about the organ harvesting (noting availability vs. voluntary donations, lack of records, reports from political prisoners, etc.). Animus toward FG is a known quantity and can't reinforce the analysis of the report. Meaning it couldn't provide support for circumstantial claims about hospital practice or offer a stronger argument than correlation between wait times and FG persecution. Protonk (talk) 01:05, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

I have rephrased this section. See what you think. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 09:27, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

I made a small change which I think may work toward addressing this. I'm not comfortable saying that retaliatory attacks reinforce the "conclusion" (as Kilgour/Matas don't say that either: "Large numbers of Falun Gong adherents in arbitrary indefinite secret detention alone do not prove the allegations. But the opposite, the absence of such a pool of detainees, would undermine the allegations."). Protonk (talk) 14:27, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

The wording in the report is: "33) Government of China responses: The Government of China has responded to the first version of our report in an unpersuasive way. Mostly, the responses have been attacks on the Falun Gong. The fact that the Government of China would make attacks on Falun Gong the focus of their responses to our report reinforces the analysis of the report. It is these sorts of attacks which, in China, make possible the violation of the basic human rights of Falun Gong practitioners." Perhaps it woud be helpful to directly quote that section? SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 23:24, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

• The first paragraph in second report should be reorganized a bit. We start off three sentences in a row with a variation on "they said"

I've played around with it a bit. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 00:37, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

• "...live Falun Gong practitioners were true and the practice was ongoing. They called for a ban..." I think this can be re-written as "...live Falun Gong practitioners were true and the practice was ongoing, calling for a ban..."

response

• "Questions as to the final answer to the allegations remain" This is an oddly phrased sentence.

Agree. I have removed it - the paragraph stands better without it. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 09:30, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

• "Due to the nature of the claims and the availability of only circumstantial, rather than direct, evidence..." I would wikilink Circumstantial evidence here and remove the qualifier about direct evidence.
• "Amnesty International at the time said it was..." At what time? The release of the first report? The second?

It was in 2006, so after the first report; I have removed "at the time", though wonder if putting in 2006 would be helpful. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 09:47, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

• "David Ownby, a professor of history at of the University of Montreal and expert on Falun Gong..." This sentence ends with a stray quotation mark. I'd remove it but I'm not 100% sure if it's an error or if the last part of the sentence should also be quoted in part.

Adjusted. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 10:16, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

• Also is there a reason why the three critical responses are separated by semi-colons?

Edited. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 10:34, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

• " These requests were met with categorical denials by the Chinese authorities." What does this mean, specifically. Were they asking for more information and were met with denials? The next sentence makes it seems as though that is the case. But it's also possible that the denials related to the accusations themselves and not just the request for more info.

Edited. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 10:34, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

• "In June 2011 the US added a question to its DS-160 application for non-immigrant visas." Are we sure this relates to the findings in the report? The source redirects to a landing page, so I couldn't check.

Removed. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 11:47, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

• "A petition of nearly 25,000 signatures calls on the United States to put pressure..." I think this paragraph can be removed. It invokes susan rice even though she's the recipient and there are petitions with 25,000 signatures for just about anything.

Agree. Removed. I think this section needs looking at, as it appears to be mainly a random collection of news items which relate to the allegations rather than the report. I'll tidy it up. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 11:50, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

• "The Global Bio Ethics Initiative wrote in an article..." Why not just note the disposition of the resolution? Did it pass? Was there another source which noted the debate?
• "Doctors Against forced Organ Harvesting..." why is this whole sentence a quote?
• "Kirk C. Allison, Associate Director of the Program in Human Rights and Medicine in..." I think these comments are better placed higher up because it would give the reader a better sense of how to think about the relationship between rapid type matching and forced donation.
• "He said the current level of evidence calls for an independent investigation..." why is this important?
• "European Parliament Vice President Edward McMillan-Scott went to China..." Two things. 1. This is sort of a third hand report, although McMillan-Scott is an important voice. 2. It's not a reaction to the report per se but a report of similar claims in china.
• "McGregor reported his scepticism of Kilgour's report had elicited a response from the author that the former was no different from David Irving" I'll be honest, I have no idea what this sentence means.
• "...could be as high as 120,000, with a low estimate of 9,000, and 65,000 being the median." I think we can just note the high and low estimates given that his estimation is a ballpark figure and not something arising from sampling. He calls it a "best estimate, or a median", so if we want to attribute the 65,000 to him we can say he refers to it as a "best estimate"
• "Estimates have been revised downwards..." Whose estimates? If it's just his (and he notes he revised down from 85,000) then we should say that.
• "He then attempted to establish the number of individuals who had been..." this doesn't really follow from the previous sentence unless we take out "estimates have been revised downwards" and state that we're noting how Gutmann came to his estimate in the first place.
• There's a lot of repetition in the paragraph overall. I think it could be re-written to more clearly state what we want the reader to understand.

I have restructured the section. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 09:41, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, Protonk (talk) 16:07, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for doing this; I'll have a read through your points which apear to be thoughtful and reflective. Please feel free to edit the article directly on points that appear to you to be worth doing, such as wiki-linking an article. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 23:04, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

I think your initial concerns have been addressed. Your comments have been perceptive and have highlighted weaknesses in the article - thank you for that. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 09:41, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Ok, that's better. Some immediate comments and then I think we're done:

• "Rabbi Yosef Shalom Eliashiv prohibited Jews from..." this dude was pretty important, but he's in a paragraph about state level responses to the report. I'm not sure it belongs there.

I take your point, but it seems a best fit. He was regarded as a de facto leader of a people - and a not insignifican people. I think if the Pope had made a comment, it would probaby fit into the same paragraph. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 16:30, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

• We lost the Australian ban on chinese medical training in the edits.

It was only two hospitals - it wasn't a state ban. On reflection, it just seemed like minor pile on. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 16:35, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

@SilkTork: can you do a run down on the lede again after these edits (I think the australian one is still in the lede)? Protonk (talk) 23:39, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Done. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time}

• So I'm reading the various reports the committee against torture produced (fun!) and I'm not sure the Special Rapporteurs bit is framed in the best way. As far as I can tell, the Rapporteurs were there for a broader investigation on torture and among the things they did were ask questions about the practice. In a funny way that makes our text literally true, but I think we can present the condemnation by the committee by itself (especially as what are now cites 7 and 68 both point to the same document). We can also add in the 2013 report which adds a specific plank calling for all nations to ban organ removal from executed criminals. I think we're trying to paint a picture of the obstinance of the chinese government on the issue but it's hard to do so when we have one report document to go from which notes that questions were raised and not answered (And I don't think that's the final report out of the committee.

I think that's it. Protonk (talk) 12:04, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

• This may be a useful op-ed type source at some point in the future. Not required but might be useful and I found it while digging so shouldn't let it go to waste. Protonk (talk) 12:04, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

I have added in information from the source you found. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 10:41, 16 October 2014 (UTC)