| Revision as of 23:06, 21 November 2010 editZujine (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users4,288 edits →Kilgour-Matas report: Obviously notable← Previous edit | Revision as of 04:27, 22 November 2010 edit undoHomunculus (talk | contribs)Pending changes reviewers5,194 edits →Kilgour-Matas report: KeepNext edit → | ||
| Line 20: | Line 20: | ||
| *'''Keep''' Obviously fits the requirements of notability, sourcing, etc. The travesty and tragedy is just that 1) it took so long for this to happen. 2) the injustice whereby the anti-Falun Gong activists had the page deleted will not be redressed. It took outside editors to come and fix this ridiculous miscarriage of policy. Colipon and Ohconfucius and their pals hijacked the original process, and got the page deleted. The information here is the same as what was on the original, though probably presented differently. The fact that it's now being restored means the two anti-Falun Gong activists were wrong to begin with. They should apologise (and refrain from editing articles where they clearly have such an extremely negative emotional investment that they can't possibly edit rationally and objectively--as has been clearly demonstrated here and all over these pages). --<font style="bold">]</font><font color="black" style="bold">]</font> 21:54, 21 November 2010 (UTC) | *'''Keep''' Obviously fits the requirements of notability, sourcing, etc. The travesty and tragedy is just that 1) it took so long for this to happen. 2) the injustice whereby the anti-Falun Gong activists had the page deleted will not be redressed. It took outside editors to come and fix this ridiculous miscarriage of policy. Colipon and Ohconfucius and their pals hijacked the original process, and got the page deleted. The information here is the same as what was on the original, though probably presented differently. The fact that it's now being restored means the two anti-Falun Gong activists were wrong to begin with. They should apologise (and refrain from editing articles where they clearly have such an extremely negative emotional investment that they can't possibly edit rationally and objectively--as has been clearly demonstrated here and all over these pages). --<font style="bold">]</font><font color="black" style="bold">]</font> 21:54, 21 November 2010 (UTC) | ||
| *'''Keep''' Clearly notable. —'''<font color="darkred">Zujine</font>|]''' 23:06, 21 November 2010 (UTC) | *'''Keep''' Clearly notable. —'''<font color="darkred">Zujine</font>|]''' 23:06, 21 November 2010 (UTC) | ||
| *'''Keep''' It's ridiculous that the value of a page devoted to this topic should be up for dispute (although the precise content, and arguably even the article's title and organization could be improved upon). The interests of pro-Falun Gong sources (namely, the desire to draw attention to human rights abuses) are certainly no more nefarious than those of editors like Ohconfucius, who for whatever reason seem to want to marginalize these claims, however well supported they may be by third-parties. | |||
Revision as of 04:27, 22 November 2010
Kilgour-Matas report
- Kilgour-Matas report (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log) • Afd statistics
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
- Previous AfD - Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Reports of organ harvesting from live Falun Gong practitioners in China (2nd nomination)
Procedural nomination. The material in this article is controversial, and the article's history has been problematic. It was previously nominated for deletion and kept. Then the material was merged into Organ transplantation in the People's Republic of China where it has sat awkwardly as the material is as much (or more) about the Falun Gong movement and its persecution by the Chinese authorities, and the Falun Gong's responses to that persecution, as it is about organ transplantation. The Organ transplantation in the People's Republic of China article was listed as a Good Article, but that listing has been challenged because it contained this material. I have moderated a discussion regarding this material, and as part of the agreement of that discussion I said I would oversee editing of the material to restore it to a standalone article, and then - because of the contentious history of the material - would put it up to the community to discuss. My own view is that the material is notable, it has a number of reliable sources, and the topic involves a number of notable people and organisations. I will be ivoting to keep. SilkTork * 23:47, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
- Keep. Has reliable sources and is about notable people and organisations. Meets WP:N, WP:OR, WP:NPOV, WP:BLP, and WP:V, and is not excluded by WP:NOT. SilkTork * 23:56, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 06:26, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 06:26, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
- Keep. The article's title is notable and the content is well-referenced. However three sections: "Organ transplantation in the People's Republic of China", "Sujiatun allegations" and "Other reports", are excessively long for an article with this title. Axl ¤ 10:26, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
- Delete. Whilst I agree that the article generally satisfies WP:N, WP:OR, WP:BLP, WP:V, and WP:NOT, I find the article a long way from neutrality, and I have grave reservations that it is ever capable of complying with this pillar of Misplaced Pages; Needs to be watched carefully to ensure it does not become an attack page. --Ohconfucius 05:47, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
- Delete. To save myself from stress, I have withdrawn myself from Falun Gong-related pages for months but I am extremely surprised at the resilience of its advocates. I understand that User SilkTork has made a great effort in ensuring the article's neutrality and will now act to protect it, but I alert the users voting here to look at the greater context under which this article was created. One of the major contributers to this article, Dilip Rajeev, is an unabashed Falun Gong practitioner and advocate who has written for Falun Gong newspaper the Epoch Times. Misplaced Pages's administration has been totally blind in not banning this user for good. Colipon+(Talk) 18:59, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
- Question: Ohconfucius and Colipon, could you please clarify as to which policy matter your complaints on this article relate to? Ohconfucius seems to acknowledge compliance with relevant policies, but then suggests it be deleted because it may not be neutral? I thought neutrality was a separate issue. Colipon's remarks do even less to explain his wish to have the article deleted. I may be lacking some background. I seek to understand these two views more fully before supporting or opposing the page. On the surface, the page seems to clearly comply with notability requirements; I understood that the question of whether an article is neutral or not is a separate matter. The Sound and the Fury (talk) 19:23, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
- Misplaced Pages:Neutral point of view is a core policy of Misplaced Pages, and while it is not explicitly mentioned in WP:DEL#REASON as a reason to delete, it is appropriate to raise as a cause for concern. Also, future maintenance has been included in various deletion discussions; people evaluate the value of material against the time and effort required to maintain a page in a form that complies with Misplaced Pages's standards. This page in one form or another has been problematic, as have other Falun Gong related pages. There have been numerous hours spent
debatingfighting over Falun Gong material, and those involved are at this stage frustrated and exhausted. - One question here regards if this page is from this point forward going to be any more problematic than other Falun Gong related articles. Another qestion regards how we deal with disputed point of view issues - there are various processes in place for that, and deletion might be seen as an inappropriate venue as it is purely a seven day unmoderated discussion which doesn't have the means or time for examining all aspects of the dispute. My personal view of this issue is that a number of pro-Falun Gong users don't fully appreciate Misplaced Pages's role and our standards regarding NPOV, and are a little too keen to get over their message about the persecution of the movement. I feel it more appropriate to listen to their views, and instruct them in how to present the material in compliance with our standards (as the material - once Falun Gong sources are filtered out - is usally highly notable), than to remove or deny the knowledge as being too much effort to maintain. While this is my personal view, I am making no commitment to personally maintain this or any other article. The ongoing maintenance of Misplaced Pages is for this and future communities, not any one individual; and no decision should be made on Misplaced Pages based on the promise or commitment of any particular individual.
- Does that help? SilkTork * 09:35, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
- Misplaced Pages:Neutral point of view is a core policy of Misplaced Pages, and while it is not explicitly mentioned in WP:DEL#REASON as a reason to delete, it is appropriate to raise as a cause for concern. Also, future maintenance has been included in various deletion discussions; people evaluate the value of material against the time and effort required to maintain a page in a form that complies with Misplaced Pages's standards. This page in one form or another has been problematic, as have other Falun Gong related pages. There have been numerous hours spent
- Question: Ohconfucius and Colipon, could you please clarify as to which policy matter your complaints on this article relate to? Ohconfucius seems to acknowledge compliance with relevant policies, but then suggests it be deleted because it may not be neutral? I thought neutrality was a separate issue. Colipon's remarks do even less to explain his wish to have the article deleted. I may be lacking some background. I seek to understand these two views more fully before supporting or opposing the page. On the surface, the page seems to clearly comply with notability requirements; I understood that the question of whether an article is neutral or not is a separate matter. The Sound and the Fury (talk) 19:23, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
- Keep Notable. --JN466 23:28, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
- Keep WP:N. Material in conformance with WP:RS. I compiled the initial article sourcing each sentence to reliable sources, and its was reviewed and refined, over a period of months, by two other editors ( Silktork and Jayen). I request editors to analyze the article, reearch further on the topic, and vote here as per the central criterion for inclusion of an article WP:N; and also considering WP:RS, and WP:NPOV of the content . Dilip rajeev (talk) 18:23, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
- Keep Obviously fits the requirements of notability, sourcing, etc. The travesty and tragedy is just that 1) it took so long for this to happen. 2) the injustice whereby the anti-Falun Gong activists had the page deleted will not be redressed. It took outside editors to come and fix this ridiculous miscarriage of policy. Colipon and Ohconfucius and their pals hijacked the original process, and got the page deleted. The information here is the same as what was on the original, though probably presented differently. The fact that it's now being restored means the two anti-Falun Gong activists were wrong to begin with. They should apologise (and refrain from editing articles where they clearly have such an extremely negative emotional investment that they can't possibly edit rationally and objectively--as has been clearly demonstrated here and all over these pages). --Asdfg12345 21:54, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
- Keep Clearly notable. —Zujine|talk 23:06, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
- Keep It's ridiculous that the value of a page devoted to this topic should be up for dispute (although the precise content, and arguably even the article's title and organization could be improved upon). The interests of pro-Falun Gong sources (namely, the desire to draw attention to human rights abuses) are certainly no more nefarious than those of editors like Ohconfucius, who for whatever reason seem to want to marginalize these claims, however well supported they may be by third-parties.