Wikipedia

Talk:Organ transplantation in China/Archive 9

< Talk:Organ transplantation in China
Latest comment: 15 years ago by HappyInGeneral in topic The Situation: A Summary
Archive 5←Archive 7Archive 8Archive 9Archive 10

Talk:Reports of organ harvesting from Falun Gong practitioners in China/Archive5

Merge

Latest comment: 15 years ago23 comments9 people in discussion

Looking at Organ harvesting in the People's Republic of China the problem becomes clear: Organ Harvesting is a real problem corroborated with lots of sources yet its article languishes as little more than a stub - the idea that Falun Gong is especially targeted is speculation based on conjecture of different statistics yet this article is about six times the size and has a lot of material that really speaks about the general issue of Organ Hervesting and has only peripheral relevance to the Falun Gong issue. It should be the other way round: the Organ Harvesting article is the main article for this one not the other way round. That article should hae a section about the Kilgour Matas report and another section about the FLG claims. I think it is clear that to optimize the coverage of the Organ Harvesting issue the two articles need to be merged. If the Main article grows big enough eventually a Spinnout article may be warranted - it is not now.·Maunus·ƛ· 13:54, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Amen. Seb az86556 (talk) 13:58, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
Agreed. Colipon+(Talk) 15:45, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
Agreed, with the option to spinout a subarticle later preserved should content warrant it. John Carter (talk) 16:20, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
Agreed with Maunus, disagree with Carter's subclause. Even if the CONTENT warrants a few books, it would likely be undue attention to break it out again. / PerEdman 16:22, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
Oppose There are credible sources saying that the main target is Falun Gong. Which warrants this article. If you wish to build up the Organ harvesting in the People's Republic of China that is laudable, but that does not mean that this article does not have sufficient notability. --HappyInGeneral (talk) 18:25, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
The argument is not lack of notability, but undue weight. About the sources there are also credible objective sources saying that there is no evidence for FLG being targeted. ·Maunus·ƛ· 18:51, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
Agree with merge.--Edward130603 (talk) 19:08, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
Agree with merge. Organ harvesting is more a general Chinese issue than it is an FG issue. The only reason to keep a separate article about the FG allegations is if you are heavily invested in "spreading knowledge of FG's plight", which is not one of Wikipedia's goals. Martin Rundkvist (talk) 20:59, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

It is time to make a decision. That means, as I've said before somewhere, certain people's arguments have to be ignored. So either we ignore the arguments of 2 (counting Asdfg12345) or we ignore the arguments of everybody else (10?). There's no other way to do this. Seb az86556 (talk) 18:42, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

I think an uninvolved admin should weigh the consensus - possibly we could ask an arbitrator to do it?·Maunus·ƛ· 18:57, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
My point is that we cannot go on like this into eternity. This has morphed into an exercise in paraphrasing and looking for synonyms. We can all tweak what we're saying into different vocabulary and sentence-parsing, but the essence of our arguments will remain the same. As for arbitrators -- so many uninvolved or previously uninvolved people have looked into this (you and I both have come to this only recently), and they basically came to the same conclusions. Alright, call in another arbitrator, and another one, and a 3rd one. I am convinced the pro-merge side has the better point here, and I am certain the arguments for a merge will prevail. No objection here, but it will only procrastinate the progress. Seb az86556 (talk) 19:07, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
we have stated our arguments, I think it would be a good idea for an outsider to weigh them. I think it would damage the process if a party were to close the merge discussion.·Maunus·ƛ· 20:04, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Interesting that 30kb of this article (fully half of it) was blanked recently. I'm looking into that now. Much of that was directly relevant to this topic. The discussion re merge is a discussion of the notability of this topic, and the dozens of sources on it demonstrate that in abundance. The issue of the other article is an issue of the other article. This article has enough sources on it. Even if sources criticise this issue and say it's all a propaganda stunt, that still counts as notability toward the topic. Notability isn't a question of whether it's true or not, it's just a question of where multiple reliable sources independent of the subject have taken it up. Oh, and they have. So it qualifies notability, and can have its own article. If this is disputed, please take up the notability issue, because that's the crux, not what we think about the evidence or lack thereof.--Asdfg12345 19:55, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

I understand that you are arguing the notability issue, the topic clearly passes WP:GNG. However what we are saying is that the article gives undue weight to a suptopic of a larger topic, and one at that is less well established than the main article's topic. If we were to keep the article we would have to remove all the material that does not directly adress the point that FLG is being targeted because merely proving that there is organ Harvesting and that some of those affected are FLG belongs in the article on Organ Harvesting and not here. Removing all that there would be little left othe than the Epoch times. ·Maunus·ƛ· 20:04, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
Undue weight as reason for merger, rather than notability? That is something new for me, can you please point me to the policy? I would like to understand the rational behind it. As for weight I think that is determined by how weightily it was mentioned. As I see it if people have their organs harvested for profi based on their faith not based on their crimes that will naturally generate more reactions then if people condemned for death based on asumingly justyfiable reasons are also harvested. The latter is acordingly as good as dead in the eyes of public who does not oppose wehemently the capital punishment. Do you see my resoning for weight? As for Falun Gong beeing targeted, there are seveal sources, one of the main reason beeing the certified phone conversations, the statistics that match the official begging of the persecution, etc. --HappyInGeneral (talk) 20:49, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
I would like to direct you to read the substantive arguments being presented above.·Maunus·ƛ· 20:55, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
"I would like to direct you to read the substantive arguments being presented above." => Where? --HappyInGeneral (talk) 10:20, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

(Unindent) I read today's diff, but I don't see where is the substantive arguments you are referring to. I'm trying to follow up on my phone, so please be kind and point it out to me toghether with the policy based on which you judge this as a necessary change for a better encyclopedia. Thank you! --HappyInGeneral (talk) 21:26, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

We've heard ALL of this before. Decide. Seb az86556 (talk) 20:51, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Maunus, I agree that a good portion of the info that is about the issue generally doesn't need to be here; that's a background information issue. The relationship between this article and the organ harvesting article is the same as that between Tiananmen Square self-immolation incident and Persecution of Falun Gong. One is a sub-issue of the other. But in each case the sub-issue has attracted significant enough attention to warrant a wikipedia article, per WP:N. That's all I mean. Many of the reliable sources on this topic are not even in this article right now anyway. They were never added, or deleted. BTW, please review your edit, I believe everything removed was directly relevant to the subject.--Asdfg12345 21:09, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Just wondering, is 7 people support and 2 people oppose enough of a consensus to move the page. For some reason, decisions on these pages take forever...--Edward130603 (talk) 12:33, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

It's not a question of numbers. And even if it were, Wikipedia policy goes first. You can't outvote someone unless you have solid arguments inline with policy, first. Well, you can... but you'd be disruptive. / PerEdman 12:56, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Reception section moved to Organ harvesting in People's Republic of China

Latest comment: 15 years ago17 comments7 people in discussion

I have moved the large section of the "reception" to the main article. My reasons for doing this is that the section mentions Falun Gong only twice and the rest is a response to the general practice of Organ Harvesting not particularly about it being aimed at FLG. It is a well written and sourced section but it belongs in the main article, not here. I was bold because the rather solid consensus to move seems to support this approach.·Maunus·ƛ· 21:11, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

it seems that this was an attempt (not by you) to mix up the two issues. These are related issues, this is a sub-issue, but it's also it's own specific issue. The sections deleted are below. I bold teh parts related to this specific topic. You will note that nearly all of it is bold.--Asdfg12345 21:15, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

The bolded passaged below mention Falun Gong, but are not about the issue of the harvesting targetting FLG, but rather about the general practice of harvesting also affecting FLG. ·Maunus·ƛ· 21:42, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

I'll also make it clear the there is no consensus for these vast changes to the pages. They were made by a few individuals with little resistance because I have been very busy and had no time to stop them. All the bold stuff is related to this, just look at it--all that is directly related to Falun Gong, they mention Falun Gong, and Falun Gong is often in the actual reference name. --Asdfg12345 21:18, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Consensus does not need to be unanimous. You cannot stop anything you can present argument's at the end of the day the arguments that are convincing and based in policy decide.·Maunus·ƛ· 21:35, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
Agree with Maunus on this move for the same reasons: the section mentions Falun Gong twice and other than that contains plenty of material highly relevant to the emaciated article on organ harvesting in China. There is no reason to believe that Falun Gong practitioners are specifically targeted, but they are certainly part of the victims since they have been imprisoned since 1999.
There is consensus here. Asdfg12345 is opposing that consensus, but not presenting any compelling evidence for overturning consensus. As such, the consensus holds. / PerEdman 11:14, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
Agree totally. And I guess I have to publicly apologize to Maunus for the rant I ran into with him the other day. Seb az86556 (talk) 21:39, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, that section fits much better in the general article. Asdfg, you should revert your revert. Martin Rundkvist (talk) 21:41, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
Sorry guys, just because you say it doesn't make it so. Please see the below, including looking at the references. There are only a few paragraphs not related to Falun Gong in there. --Asdfg12345 21:48, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

This is another investigation whose material has not yet been incorporated. (by the way, is it acceptable grammatically to use "whose" like that?)--Asdfg12345 21:50, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

We hardly need more material that gives more attention to what must, mathematically, be a subsection of organ harvesting. / PerEdman 11:14, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
oh,and I totally agree about the arguments based on reason and policy; that's where I'm coming from. --Asdfg12345 21:51, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
I'm glad. How do you believe WP:V, WP:N and WP:UNDUE are relevant to your point of view on the separate article for organ harvesting from Falun Gong prisoners? / PerEdman 11:16, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
The sources on the topic are verifiable... they are reliable independent.... there are lots of them and many of them are strong sources, like Tom Treasure, Ethan Gutmann, the K/M report...?--Asdfg12345 15:26, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
And how do you believe WP:V, WP:N and WP:UNDUE are relevant to your point of view on the separate article for organ harvesting from Falun Gong prisoners?  / Per Edman 18:21, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
I can't comment on Tom Treasure because I do not have access to his article but I would hardly consider Ethan Gutmann a strong source. After all, with "Ethan Gutmann ... has been a frequent speaker at forums organized by the Falun Gong-associated publication Epoch Times" he is at best a mouthpiece for FLG. Independent anyone? I think not. As for K&M... If this was in the field of medicine, the K&M report would equate to a pharmaceutical initiated study on their new drug and there would be significant pressure and thus bias for a positive result (I chose this analogy because there has been significant research on biases of this kind). An independent study would be of neutral third party initiated and conducted research (FLG-provided anon-witness? Seriously?), preferably published in a peer-reviewed journal. --antilivedT | C | G 09:00, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
See here. --HappyInGeneral (talk) 18:24, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
Asdfg's bolded text

The Situation: A Summary

Latest comment: 15 years ago40 comments9 people in discussion

I present an overview of the different arguments provided:

  1. The topic of Falun Gong Organ Harvesting is notable
  2. The topic is a subtopic of Organ harvesting in the People's Republic of China
  3. Sources (Matas & Kilgour and derivatives) have shown that it is extremely likely that Falun Gong practicers are overrepresented among the Organ harvest victims
  4. Sources have not proven that FLG is specifically targeted by Organ harvesting - the overrepresentation by FLG in the chinese prison population could well be a statistical consequence of the Persecution of Falun Gong in China.
  5. Much of the material in the article treats the larger topic of Organ Harvesting in China more than the FLG specific material
  6. The material about general organ harvesting is background information for the FLG specific issues - therefore it should be included here
  7. The material about general organ harvesting is background information for the FLG specific issues - therefore it should be included in the general article and not here
  8. Because of 4. the topic of reports of FLG being targeted for organ harvesting should not be given undue weight by being more covered than the overall harvesting issue aout which there is no question and under which the FLG material falls anyway.
  9. Because of 2. 4. 5. 7. and 8. this article should be merged into the main article with possibility of spinning an article out if there is need for a higher degree of detail.
  10. Because of 1. 3. and 6. the article should not be merged.
  11. Editors have expressed concern that per 5. and 7. the article is being bloated with material about the general issue of Organ Harvesting in order to make the subtopic appear to have greater prevalence in sources than it actually has.
  12. It has been questioned
  13. It has been questioned whether WP:UNDUE has any importance in determining weighting across articles or whether WP:N is the only consideration to be taken when determining whether to merge or not.
  14. It has been suggested that by being bloated with material about general organ harvesting this article is in effect becoming a POV-fork expressing a FLG view on the general topic of Organ Harvesting.

...add more arguments if I've missed any ·Maunus·ƛ· 13:54, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for sorting out this list; let me respond.

  1. yep
  2. Sort of. They do not argue that it is only extremely likely, they argue that there is systematic, targeted organ harvesting of Falun Gong practitioners; the sources are about this particular allegation.
  3. It doesn't matter what the sources have proven or not proven, it only matters what they have said; most Falun Gong practitioners are not put into regular prisons, anyway, they are mostly put into the reeducation through labor system. And yeah, they're overrepresented there because of the persecution
  4. Some of it is background; it should be in both places, it's not absolute. The Organ Harvesting in the PRC should probably be a subsection or paragraph on this page, and vice versa. There is no need for just one article; wikipedia spins out articles with a lot of sources on each of them ceaselessly. The Organ Harvesting in the PRC article is really overlooked; we should be researching and fixing that rather than trying to pull this one down, really.
  5. That's actually not an undue weight issue. There really are dozens of hundreds of independent reliable sources on the topic, and we all agree it qualifies notability. The converse is that the 'organ harvesting in the PRC' article has been neglected; there are probably as many if not more sources on that itself, such as death row inmates, 'death vans', how they administer the injections, etc. HRW has done a comprehensive report on this, and Amnesty has looked at it as well. That article could be potentially just as long or longer than this one, given the amount of material out there on it. WP:DUE pertains to individual articles, I would have believed. At the very least, it seems problematic to say just cause the other article has been neglected, this article should be gutted and merged. In truth, that other article should be built up, according to the available reliable sources. Please also allow me to reemphasise: this is not a claim that Falun Gong practitioners, because they are overrepresented in the labor camp or prison population, just naturally turn out as more likely candidates for organ harvesting. That isn't really the case. The allegation is that they are specifically targeted on a systematic basis, including blood tests, urine tests, for organ matching, that their information is stored on computer databases, etc.. Often this population is in labor camps; the death row inmates are not in there with them, they're in prison. This isn't just that they wind up dead along the way, it's that they are specifically targeted on a systematic scale--it's a different claim. There are 41500 or more organ donations unaccounted for, and the rise in organ transplants coincides with the persecution of Falun Gong. Killing death-row prisoners for their organs has been going on in China since the 80s, but this is a specific claim about a defined period of time, and a certain set of practices, all with a large body of independent reliable sources discussing the issue.
  6. Well, if there is the possibility of spinning it out, what would be the point of merging it? Merging it involves deleting a lot of information. Are we just going to add that back in? Relevant, notable information to reliable sources has been repeatedly deleted from thsi article recently (I've yet to see how things turned out after I left yesterday). Why would we bother doing this is that was a likely outcome? It's already that way now, we can just work together on boosting the Organ harvesting in PRC article. This argument is peculiar.
  7. yah. Key question: what other policy matters except WP:NOTABILITY dictate what should or should not have its own article? Can we cite any that contraindict WP:N? It's been argued that notability isn't the crux, but I've not actually seen that backed up with official wiki policy, whereas WP:N is clear. I bold this question because it is important.--Asdfg12345 15:24, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Merging does not mean deleting a lot of information, it means moving it. A spinnout article is only necessary if a suptopic requires a more detailed treatment than the main aticle can support. This is not the case here for now.
  • As an example of a similar merge case last week the Article on Steven Dale Green was merged into Mahmudiyah killings because of similar concerns that although he passed WP:N because of the significant coverage his biography has attracted he was still most notable as a suptopic of the killings in which he participated.
  • I don't agree with your assessment of the sources - from what I have read it seems that other than the K/M report and the EPOch times most other sources - such as the news article you have supplied above treat Falun Gong as examples of the organ harvesting practice, examples that could have been exchanged with other dissidents, probably chosen because they are vocal and easy to find outside of China, and in the majority. I do not agree that most of the sources suggest FLG being specifically targeted, to me they read more as if they are adressing the practice of systematic organ harvesting from dissidents, using FLG as examples because they constitute the majority of dissidents. ·Maunus·ƛ· 15:49, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
7. Asdfg12345's "Key question:" WP:NPOV. One of the other three legs of Wikipedia: Neutral Point of View, Notability and Verifiability. / PerEdman 18:06, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Okay, there is some truth in all these points. Only two more things: the key question remains of the basis for having an article on a topic. The example you give is fine, but it's also not directly related to this; the particularly explosive Sujiatun claims, and the K/M report, produced a large bustle of attention from many quarters. Are we comparing this sub-topic to the notability of the wider issue? Do we have some kind of benchmark for measuring which is more notable? This seems a tenuous point of argumentation. If we are not talking about deleting information, the bottom line, I believe, is that a combined article will simply be too long. Won't it? At this point the only real argument seems to be that the ‘organ harvesting in prc' is not long enough, so this should be merged until it is. I could make that article long enough in 3 hours through research on the internet, using HR sources etc.. Would that end the discussion? Then we will have another article for the encyclopedia, too. --Asdfg12345 17:14, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
  • By the way, I don't take decisions made in other places of wikipedia as exact blueprints, all these issues have their own complexities. It's unclear that that reasoning is relevant here. And about your assessment of the sources, it's more or less the case what you say, but except for Gutmann's article, which claims members of the Eastern Lightning (a christian group) were targets of organ harvesting, and even hints at Tibetans being used, I'm not aware of evidence of other dissident populations being used for organ harvesting. It could be the case, and I'd be surprised if it wasn't, to be honest. It's the same thign: if a report came out examining how the Eastern Lightning had been targeted etc., and that spawned a large amount of reliable sources, maybe that woudl qualify N as well. In this case there are 41500 missing organs and they're all--or most of them--are suspected to have come from Falun Gong detainees. I'm not saying their Falun Gongness makes this inherently any more significant than if they were black, or Capricorns, but it's just that this is our many, many sources (as above) have reported it. And if they had all been Capricorns (like the astrology sign), and there were a whole lot of data on how Capricorns had been particularly targeted in the Chinese prison system, well then that might qualify N too, wouldn't it.--Asdfg12345 17:30, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
41500 found organs have not in any way been shown to originate from Falun Gong detainees. They're not tagged in any way. This is a repetition of Kilgour & Matas circumstantial evidence - which is no evidence at all. You keep saying there are many, many sources. You've given 11. They all refer back to Kilgour & Matas. Four of them WERE Kilgour & Matas.  / Per Edman 20:47, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Point 1 & 2, correct.
  • Regarding point 3, do you agree that as long as there are such sources that are saying that "it is extremely likely that Falun Gong practicers are overrepresented among the Organ harvest victims" it actually boosts the articles weight in report with the Organ harvesting in the People's Republic of China?
  • Regarding point 4, "Sources have not proven that FLG is specifically targeted by Organ harvesting" I would disagree, and I think that the sources do prove that, but this is wikipedia, it does not matter if according to our own WP:OR the sources prove one thing or the other, with any source, due weight of the subject increases.
  • Regarding point 5, 6, 7, that can be improved. This discussion however is about the merge not about the improvement of this article (unfortunately)
  • Regarding 8, 9, 10, show me the policy regarding the presence of a page and Undue Weight, vs Notability. BTW how is weight of a subject judged according to Wikipedia policies? According to what I understand WP:UNDUE is boosted exactly by WP:Notability. Also see here --HappyInGeneral (talk) 15:32, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
From WP:Undue "Keep in mind that, in determining proper weight, we consider a viewpoint's prevalence in reliable sources, not its prevalence among Wikipedia editors." --HappyInGeneral (talk) 15:33, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
Your last quote is irrelevant - this not a case where a majority of editors is trying to force their viewpoint into an article. It is a situation where a majority of editors do not agree with the minority's assessment of the topics prevalence in the sources.·Maunus·ƛ· 15:52, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
I'm sorry Maunus, but please have the courtesy to address every point. I did the same. Regarding: "It is a situation where a majority of editors do not agree with the minority's assessment of the topics prevalence in the sources." => You already did acknowledge it's Notability and I showed that Due Weight directly related to Notability and that is the only criteria that we are aware off as of now. Thus the quote is directly relevant. --HappyInGeneral (talk) 19:06, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
  1. Agree, it's a notable part of organ harvesting perpetrated by the Chinese government.
  2. Agree. It must be, simple mathematics. The Chinese government harvests organ from death row prisoners. There are death row prisoners who are Falun Gong, and there is no evidence that the Chinese Government is harvesting organs from Falun Gong who are not also prisoners. Therefore, Falun Gong members who have had their organs forcibly removed are a subportion of prisoners who have had their organs forcibly removed (or rather, in a situation where they have been unable to oppose the decision to do so).
  3. Impossible to say. We don't even know how many victims there are of organ harvesting as a whole in China. How could we then possibly say whether Falun Gong practitioners are overrepresented?
  4. Agree. There are plenty of casual imprisonment issues in China, for "Disturbing the piece" of "Conspiring", and personally I'm certain that Falun Gong is getting a lot of this. Whether they are overrepresented among prisoners, well, we'd have to find out how many prisoners there are before we can say that for certain. Let's not confuse attention with representation.
  5. Agree, most of the article would fit just as well in the general article.
  6. Agree. Therefore the articles should be merged.
  7. Agree. Therefore the articles should be merged, to avoid duplication.
  8. Absolutely. There can be a greater or smaller representation of Falun Gong victims of organ harvesting, but there cannot possibly be more Falun Gong victims than victims of Organ harvesting in total.
  9. A "Higher degree of detail" would be undue attention. There is no reason to suspect that is necessary. We have an EXTREME level of detail here today. That needs to be stripped down to the essential facts. We have a lot of repetition and inexplicably included witness accounts, for example. Completely unnecessary.
  10. Do not agree. It's simply not enough.
  11. I would state the opposite. The article on Falun Gong organ harvesting has been bloated, PERIOD, and that means undue attention has been given to an issue that by mathematical necessity is smaller than the greater issue.
  12. (Duplicate?)
  13. Both.
  14. Good point
/ PerEdman 16:19, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

The mathematical necessity arguments are meta-arguments, original research, about what sources are saying. Of course what you are saying is true, you're just stating logical truths. That's not really in question, the question is the way sources have reported these issues, and things have been reported in both ways, even though they're very much related, and in particular, logically inseparable. But when you have a report about thsi specific issue and dozens or hundreds of reliable sources on it, WP:DUE kicks in. It refers to reportage in accordance with the available reliable sources. It would be equivalent to deleting 80% of Generalplan_Ost and having it all in the Holocaust article. The only way to reduce the article, then, would be deleting reliably sourced information. What's the precedent for that? This would skewing things and making the issue appear less important than all the sources which have given it large amounts of attention. We're supposed to be here like humble documenters of these happenings, not trying to actively influence that process. Again, wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia, we don't need to strip things down to the essential facts. That's a false argument, because it could apply to any subject, ever. You could march into any subtopic and say "this is too much detail, cut cut merge merge," and I'm sure that would be met with the same arguments I am raising here. My questions to you, really, are: why is it a problem to keep this article, include a subsection on the Organ Harvesting in the PRC article linking in, and then work to boost that article? I think I'll stop being on the defensive now and put the ball in your court. --Asdfg12345 17:25, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, the mathematical fact is logically true. It is not research, original or otherwise, it is immediately obvious and you would have to be a fool to argue against it.
Then you repeat yourself, without answering what arguments have been given before. This must now be the third time you claim that there are "hundreds of reliable sources" for what you claim, but when you tried giving 12 sources (three of which were to the same source, one dead), all but one were directly related to or reporting on the Kilgour & Matas report. If you wish to argue FOR the reliability and relevance of those sources, then continue that discussion rather than simply repeating what you have already claimed. You have given twelve sources, not "hundreds". You do not need "hundreds". A handful, third-party, independent and reliable sources are enough.
It's sad to see you turn to exhaggeration, straw man arguments and Godwin's Law rather than to carry on the reasonable discussion you started by posting links. How long should I wait before I should no longer assume that you mean well but repeatedly fail in execution. / PerEdman 17:44, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
Quoting Asdfg12345 "It would be equivalent to deleting 80% of Generalplan_Ost and having it all in the Holocaust article."
Merging duplicate information shared between those two articles wouldn't necessarily be a bad idea; if there is, in fact, bloat. That being said the two situations are far, far from the same. The holocaust, and the plans for the holocaust are both well documented. The allegations that the FLG is over-represented in organ harvesting or that there is any deliberate intent to harvest organs from FLG followers based on their religious orientation originate from FLG sponsored sources only and have been met with skepticism from both notable academics (Ownby) and governments, including the US government, who have investigated the situation.
Considering this I can only say that the K&M report and the Epoch times articles are notable because of the existence of the claims vis-a-vis the general organ harvesting claims but not independently of that debate. Furthermore, as the substance of the allegations is dubious at best, and entirely unsubstantiated by uninvolved third parties it is not notable; rather the essence of the report is the only notable aspect.
Pursuantly a MERGE is the best option for addressing this material.Simonm223 (talk) 17:49, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
Hadn't noticed Asdfg12345 has now upgraded his claim on the number of sources available. There are now: "dozens of hundreds of independent reliable sources on the topic". 1200 independent, third party, reliable sources. We've only seen a percent of them, so far! I'm really sorry that my posts are now bordering on ridicule, but I don't see how I can take these claims seriously and neither would it be courteous to ignore what you're saying, Asdfg12345.
Please deliver these 1200 sources (or 2400, 3600 or even 4800 sources) you have. Editors should not and cannot take your word for it. / PerEdman 17:53, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
    • lol, sorry, I meant "dozens or hundreds." Dozens of hundreds, as a way of expressing quantity, be just too idiosyncratic, even for me. apologies for the confusion.--Asdfg12345 18:00, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
I'm sorry to say we haven't seen dozens OR hundreds or independent, third party reliable sources giving significant coverage to the issue of organ harvesting from falun gong prisoners. You gave a list of three items of which 3 were triplicate for a total of 11 sources. That's barely one dozen and right around 11% of a single hundred.  / Per Edman 20:52, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
I doubt Asdfg12345 will ever support a merge. I don't believe he is dispassionate on this issue. At this point my question is rather is there anybody else, aside from Asdfg who opposes a merge?Simonm223 (talk) 18:11, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
HappyInGeneral also appears to oppose a merge.  / Per Edman 18:19, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

(undent) I just removed a request for a third opinion, as there are several more than two editors involved here. If you think it would help, I or someone here can open a Request for comment or post to the Neutral point of view noticeboard. - 2/0 (cont.) 22:02, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Actually, there is already a thread at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard#Organ harvesting in China: Weight given to Falun Gong victims. - 2/0 (cont.) 22:06, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
Yea, still waiting for some activity there, only created it earlier tonight. I'll give it a day or two and if nothing crops up, we should get an RfC tag in her as well. Should that be on THIS page or on the target page?  / Per Edman 23:13, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
Merger tags go on both articles, and an RfC should probably take place here below this discussion. The former aims at getting the input from people interested in the topic (I am guessing that most of those interested in either article have noticed this discussion, but it should be formalized), while the latter aims to attract the notice of a more general set of editors. - 2/0 (cont.) 00:27, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
Merge tags already in place. Thanks for the headsup on RfC.  / Per Edman 00:57, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
We've already had an RfC... or was it 2? Seb az86556 (talk) 01:50, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
There's been at least one RFC on a merger in the recent past, but I'm not sure if it was on the specific topic of merging the two articles. Dilip rajeev created one on the main Falun Gong talk page because he had reverted 12 days worth of edits, but I don't believe that commented on the merger (which was only suggested during the last week).  / Per Edman 09:57, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
  • I think the above is a pretty good summary of the discussion so far. I see that FG practitioners are still arguing from the notability angle, and how this therefore justifies this article on the apology of a report alleging atrocities against the Chinese authorities. It is totally unfair of the assorted practitioners, and K&M to say that China has only dismissed their claims, and has done little to stop it. They continue to allege that the harvesting on FG prisoners is still taking place. This problem about the apparent lack of an official response will be addressed only when the articles are merged.

    The real fact of the matter is that it is a WP:NPOV issue because it is presented as another topic when the two are in fact inextricably linked. China's refusal to specifically address the K&M claims is entirely reasonable, bearing in mind China's approach to the issue is a 'macro' one. The government has undertaken many initiatives since the Harry Wu revelations have come to light, including enacting organ donation and transplant laws. The merge needs to be done in order to comply with this pillar of WP. Ohconfucius (talk) 06:08, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

There are a few points I would raise.
  • 1: I tend to believe that the Matas & Kilgour document probably qualifies under WP:BK for a separate article itself.
  • 2: I tend to think, and some might call this just a personal opinion, that this topic is not only a subtopic of organ harvesting in China, but also of the History of Falun Gong in China, which might itself be a subtopic of History of Falun Gong, neither of which articles yet even exist. While it might be relevant to have material on this subject in wikipedia, I tend to be of the opinion that it would make more sense, and be much less likely to be seen by any parties as having NPOV problems, if the material relevant to Organ harvesting in the People's Republic of China and the not-yet-extant History of Falun Gong article were placed in those articles first. Then, once the material most relevant to the Organ harvesting article is placed in that article and removed from this one, and the remaining applicable material placed in the more neutrally-titled History of Falun Gong article, then, if there were sufficient reasonable content in that article for a spinout article to be created, then maybe go back to recreating this article. I would think that sufficient content would be demonstrated if the material were to be at least over three paragraphs long and possibly over five paragraphs long, which are as I remember the preferred lengths of lede sections. So, in effect, if there were so much content on the subject that it qualified as longer than the lede of the average FA, that would be, I think, all but irrefutable reason to indicate that a separate article were called for.
I do want to stress, however, that the Matas & Kilgour document seems to be notable enough for a separate article itself, and that there is a clear precedent for articles on just individual magazine articles with the The Thriving Cult of Greed and Power FA. John Carter (talk) 14:01, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

OC: it's unclear how having an article specifically on this topic would be biased, given that we all agree it passes notability. Notability is related to WP:DUE. There are lots of sources on this; it's unclear how it would be biased? Please elaborate. (And that is not an argument about the content/quality of these sources/arguments, as Simonm223 and PerEdman have repeatedly argued). btw, your apologetics for the CCP are quite surprising, just to give my unsolicited opinion. Just to extent it one step further: If the Australian government was accused of widespread, systematic organ harvesting of a specific prison population, and there were 41500 transplants unaccounted for, etc., it would take 10 minutes to disprove. Serious allegations have been raised and they have been responded to with denials, smearing, propaganda, etc.. Something is fishy about that. If the claims were untrue, it should be easy for any government to show as much.--Asdfg12345 17:53, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Notability is separate from WP:DUE, which is a part of WP:NPOV (as you can see by following the links). They are related by virtue of being two of the three legs on which Wikipedia stand. Extra points for the third. Nevermind, actually, the third is verifiability, i.e. if the content and quality of the sources and arguments mentioned fail notability and verifiability, they should be duly removed from the article. Your accusation that someone else is providing "apologetics" for a party in this propaganda war is laughable at best and reprehensible at worst.
I would call your attention to the fact that what becomes clearest of all through your choice of argument is that you refuse to argue the subject matter and that you much prefer to go the route you are going now. If you had relevant arguments you would know that they are much more convincing than this... misdirection you are engaging in.  / Per Edman 20:22, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
Who, precisely, are you accusing of engaging in apologetics for the CCP? John Carter, me or PerEdman?Simonm223 (talk) 17:57, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
Simonm223 thank you, this is a very good question indeed, you will find your answer when you answer the following question: Who wants this article, deleted, moved, debating Notability, then UNDUE, and now NPOV titles, etc...? Even while this article is Notable, Verifiable and NPOV because it follows all the WP:RS you might want to introduce. As far as I can tell what is the biggest problem with this article is not its content but its title, Reports of organ harvesting from Falun Gong practitioners in China that is a bit too much isn't it, that alone raises too many questions isn't it? But how is this title NPOV since the report actually exists, see http://OrganHarvestInvestigation.net/ and it is done independently, by highly reputable people, and its reasoning is persuasive and its conclusion is horrifying. --HappyInGeneral (talk) 18:12, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
Claiming a website is independent does not make it so. OrganHarvestInvestigation.net is Kilgour and Matas' website devoted to the K&M Report which was sponsored, ultimately, by the FLG. Self reference is not the same as corroboration!Simonm223 (talk) 19:03, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
How is Kilgour and Matas not independent by Falun Gong? You are pretty much saying that they are bought off, but I don't see how that could be possible. --HappyInGeneral (talk) 19:56, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
Their funding for the "research" behind their "report" came from an FLG backed NGO and was in response to allegations published in an FLG backed newspaper.Simonm223 (talk) 20:37, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
Right: "The Coalition will pay for all your expenses upon presentation of receipts. We understand that you will not charge a fee for your work." Which makes their profit bellow or in the very best ideal case zero. So how are they bought off, thus not independent? --HappyInGeneral (talk) 22:17, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Ohconfucius spoke in defence of the CCP's failing to give any substantive response to these allegations, despite repeated UN submissions, K/M, and a lot of media etc.. I expressed my surprise at that.--Asdfg12345 18:05, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Um... When?Simonm223 (talk) 18:16, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Please return to the subject under which the heading was created, rather than speculate about the possible motivations of other editors.  / Per Edman 20:22, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Organ_transplantation_in_China/Archive_9&oldid=1049843735"