Misplaced Pages

Talk:Organ transplantation in China

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Asdfg12345 (talk | contribs) at 21:55, 22 August 2009 (→Moving the Falun Gong specific material here?). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 21:55, 22 August 2009 by Asdfg12345 (talk | contribs) (→Moving the Falun Gong specific material here?)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
WikiProject iconMedicine Start‑class Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine, which recommends that medicine-related articles follow the Manual of Style for medicine-related articles and that biomedical information in any article use high-quality medical sources. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Medicine.MedicineWikipedia:WikiProject MedicineTemplate:WikiProject Medicinemedicine
StartThis article has been rated as Start-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

This is a valuable section

This is a valuable section that I just stumbled upon while researching Human Rights abuses in China prior to the Beijing Olympics.

It shows corruption of the current regeim and intolerance it has toward groups like Falun Gong.

http://www.religioustolerance.org/falungong2.htm

I hope you keep it, though I think Wikepedia is blocked in China exactly because it posts segments that the Chinese regeim would rather have censored. For that reason, such segments are very valuable.

Merge

Discussion in progress here: Misplaced Pages:Articles_for_deletion/Falun_Gong_and_live_organ_harvesting --HappyInGeneral 11:09, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

The AfD above was closed as an inappropriate forum for discussing a page move; but there were some good arguments raised there for renaming Falun Gong and live organ harvesting 'Organ harvesting in China', so I have been WP:BOLD and carried out the move myself. (Previously, Organ harvesting in China was a redirect to Persecution of Falun Gong.) The main reasons for this alternate name are that it's more neutral, less sensationalistic, and also more appropriate - since the article also covers organ harvesting from individuals other than Falun Gong practitioners. If you disagree with this move, please discuss it here. Terraxos 00:53, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Organ harvesting from live Falun Gong practitioners is a specific topic. Organ harvesting in China is another topic, which may include this issue, but really is much broader. This could be from executed prisoners, etc., whereas the Falun Gong claims are quite specific and not the same thing. I don't think the Organ harvesting in China should be a redirect. It's a related but quite different topic. If there's simply no information on this topic on wikipedia, that would be odd, but it would be for another day to collect and catalogue stuff on that. The Falun Gong evidence I think ought to appear as a subsection in a main article about organ harvesting in China, outlining the topic quickly, but as a daughter article to the Persecution of Falun Gong page and the Organ harvesting in China page. It is not a sensationalistic description--live organ harvesting is essentially the claim. If there is a better way to describe it, let's hear it. Have you seen the report http://organharvestinvestigation.net/? I'll wait till we discuss it and not revert, or you can revert it anytime. --Asdfg12345 01:48, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

just looking at it now, obviously the whole article is falun gong, with a subsection on the general situation in China acting as a kind of introduction/contextualisation to the Falun Gong stuff... I think there should be a "see further: organ harvesting in China" for that subsection.--Asdfg12345 01:51, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

I was in favour of a move, and still am. IMHO, the article was far too narrow. It is certainly part of the wider issue: political corruption, central vs local govt, trafficking in human parts, legal issues, medical ethics, government action/ineffectiveness. I believe it can and should be made into a larger topic, where the FG allegations and the K&M reports can also live happily. The article just needs to be considerably fleshed out with reportage about the issue in general, as I have been trying to do. (I have been trying to find stuff about the Harry Wu discovery, but not found anything substantial so far.) Ohconfucius 04:23, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

in the end though, there will be a sufficiently large body of material specifically on the organ harvesting from living falun gong practitioners that it will warrant being its own article. it doesn't actually bother me where the material is located, in and of itself, but I'd say that for purposes of classification and just bureaucratic/convenience reasons like not having massive articles, it should be afforded its own page. There must be stuff on organ harvesting in China generally, though, like the practice of taking organs from prisoners is well known for a while, and I would have thought this stuff would already be somewhere on the wiki--Asdfg12345 05:09, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Objectivity

I would like a neutral (and I mean truly neutral) party to look this page over and excise the sections which might be perceived as subjective or biased against either the CPC or Falun Dafa. In the same way I wouldn't want this page to cite Xinhua as fact, I am deeply upset that the article cites Clearwisdom without acknowledging Clearwisdom's own bias. Citing CPC claims without acknowledging the impartiality of the source makes Misplaced Pages simply another Party mouthpiece; citing Clearwisdom without acknowledging that it's a strongly pro-Falun dafa source is just as bad.

24.141.60.134 06:19, 13 October 2007 (UTC)


material for this article specifically

For example: http://www.hrw.org/reports/1994/china1/china_948.htm

There would be plenty of stuff like this. Amnesty probably has a report, too. There are probably others with a report on the prisoner situation. Someone just needs to do the research and write the article. This is different from the Falun Gong evidence. I would do this, and might if no one else does, but my priorities are clear.--Asdfg12345 03:24, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

suggest taking out Falun Gong stuff from this article

I think it would be simpler to just remove the mentions of live organ harvesting in this article, or give it two sentences that we can all agree on. That's not what this article is about, really. Sources like the above about would be useful. The fact is there is no organ donor program in China, so all their organ donations are in some way illicit, and as far as I can understand, the majority of the information on organ donations in China either comes from the CCP or human rights groups who say they are killing prisoners or Falun Gong practitioners. Anyway, it's not the focus here so I say take it out except for two sentences. --Asdfg12345 00:28, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Don't know how it got there, but I too agree it is out of place in this article. Ohconfucius (talk) 15:22, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

I think it was our good friend Charles...--Asdfg12345 22:53, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
your accusation is again proven false. This diff proves I'm not the one who added FLG's accusation:
http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Organ_harvesting_in_the_People%27s_Republic_of_China&diff=215151241&oldid=211208392
As to who actually added Epoch Times/FLG accusation, here's the diff that proves it:
http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Organ_harvesting_in_the_People%27s_Republic_of_China&diff=202471146&oldid=202467886
Bobby fletcher (talk) 19:29, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry to wrongfully accuse you.--Asdfg12345 23:47, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Ha ha!--Asdfg12345 09:07, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

the title is not consistent with the content

After I read the whole article, I felt death roll prisoners are killed b/c death roll but not just to harvest their organ. This is not organ harvest in the sense no one died for organ transplant.

suggest to revise the title to "Organ harvest from death roll prisoners in China." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.180.237.159 (talk) 03:53, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Proposed merge

Discussion

Obviously China is "asking" death row prisoners and their families if it's "okay" to harvest their organs after death in exchange for some small recompense, a practice unilaterally condemned by the international community because you simply cannot strike a fair and balanced deal with someone you are going to put to death by force. The prisoners are not in any position to bargain or disagree.

We do know that Falun Gong is prohibited from working within China and that anyone who does so risks imprisonment and for that they also risk the death sentence (probably for some variant of "disturbing the peace" or "conspiring against the state" or some other bogus charge.

Some sources allege that Falun Gong is being specifically targeted, but they are not enough. The primary source of these allegations is The Epoch Times, a Falun Gong newspaper. The "secondary" source is a report by David Kilgour and David Matas who were commissioned by Falun Gong-founded organization "Coalition to Investigate the Persecution of Falun Gong". They are secondary at best, primary at worst, and the allegation is based on anecdotal evidence and correlation of unknown causality. There are no other sources. McMillan-Scott (sp?) was apparently a member of the CIPFG too and also anecdotal, non-scientific. What remains? Kilgour and Matas. Not a large body of evidence. The "particular topic" of organ harvesting from Falun Gong practitioners is not particular, it pertains to organ harvesting in China. The extent to which that includes victims who are members of Falun Gong, deserves to be mentioned in the combined article, it does not need to be treated separately with duplicated data and higher editor overhead to oversee. / PerEdman 12:05, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Comment: Every request is individual. Notability for specific subject has not been shown. / PerEdman 19:23, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose -- just because silence may give consent. I believe Reports of organ harvesting from Falun Gong practitioners in China qualifies notability, and anything else is a technical issue. Even if it were merged, it would presumably be a subsection of this page--then, when it got too big, it would be split again. It's like Persecution of Falun Gong and the Tiananmen immolation incident pages; the latter was too big for the former, so it was broken off. The issue of organ harvesting from Falun Gong practitioners is a daughter article of both Organ harvesting in the PRC and the Persecution of Falun Gong articles; it can have a small subsection in both articles, linking to the main one. There are two reasons for it to have its own page: it's too long (even after the mauling it took, which I've yet to address), and it is notable in itself, as evidenced by the stack of sources.--Asdfg12345 20:07, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
Also might be of interest is my annotated version of your stack of sources. --antilived 12:23, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
Asdfg12345, What is the technical issue? SEPARATE notability has not been shown. Organ harvesting in China is notable, targets prisoners and there are prisoners who are Falun Gong. It has not been shown that they are specifically targeted so there is no need to keep a separate, unnecessarily long, "daughter" article on it. Good idea that the content can be divided between Persecution of Falun Gong and "Organ harvesting in the PRC".
Please do not rehash your "stack of sources" when the legitimacy of the contents of that list has not been agreed upon. For now, it's a list of sources of variable and uncertain reliability, notability and independence. It shows nothing, for now. / PerEdman 20:21, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
What do you mean "SEPARATE notability"? What is that? For example if there is a man going to the moon for the first time, everybody will use NASA's report and footage, right? And it is notable because third party sources report about it. The notability is the same here. Unfortunately the Chinese Government denied several times independent investigation on it's soil. But it did leave a few clues and official documents, making Manfred Novak question it, among others, and demanding strongly for answer, and yes, he is the United Nation represantative. --HappyInGeneral (talk) 20:53, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
To define the requirement of separate notability for "organ harvesting on falun gong victims", I recommend Maunus' post on the Falun Gong talk page who I think phrased it better than I have. / PerEdman 21:15, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Meta discussion

There should be a centralised discussion on this. Start a merger proposal and get a wider audience. We'll outline the arguments there. Actually, I already started an RfC which address this issue (the notability of the Falun Gong-related topic)--Asdfg12345 17:00, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

As per WP:MM, the target article (i.e. this one) is the recommended place for discussion, but a link to this discussion has been created on the Falun Gong project talk page as well. WP:MM reads:
  1. Create one discussion section, typically on the destination article's Talk page. This should include a list of the affected articles and a merger rationale.
  2. Tag each article with the appropriate merger tag. All tag Discuss links should be specified to point at the new discussion section.
This is exactly what has been done. The point is that there should be a place for editors who are uninvolved with the Falun Gong project to discuss the inclusion as well. I really don't think there's need for a merger proposal. Further quotes from WP:MM:
Merging is a normal editing action, something any editor can do, and as such does not need to be proposed and processed. If you think merging something improves the encyclopedia, you can be bold and perform the merger, as described below. Because of this, it makes little sense to object to a merger purely on procedural grounds, e.g. "you cannot do that without discussion" is not a good argument.
The reason I put merger tags up is to give information. The discussion is still going on, or I would have boldly made the edit already. If anyone had disagreed, they could have reverted it. / PerEdman 19:46, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
You might want to link your RfC to this merge proposal discussion, so that editors here can find the RfC. Is it on the Falun gong organ harvesting talk page? / PerEdman 19:54, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
I think discussion should be kept in one place, see also here: and the RFC here and the previous "official" discussion here: , if I missed any other discussion, please feel free to add link to them. --HappyInGeneral (talk) 21:54, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
  • As Per says, the proper procedure seem to have been followed. In addition, I have now listed it on WP:PM. I am not deluded that a flood of new editors will come as a result of this attempt at wider recruitment. Ohconfucius (talk) 02:08, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
I agree the discussion should be held in one place, so does policy, and policy says this is where it should be held. / PerEdman 10:06, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Do you mean they will? This is exciting! *rubs hands*--Asdfg12345 04:37, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
He means they won't... put your hands back in your pockets :P Seb az86556 (talk) 05:33, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

  • by the way, in what relation does the discussion to merge these two article relate to the notability of the other one? It wouldn't be appropriate to wheel out my truckload of secondary reliable sources on the other topic here. But I'm just wondering what the sense of this discussion is, when a resolution to the notability discussion will effectively obviate this one. Thoughts? (@Seb: hah) --Asdfg12345 05:35, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

It wasn't apropriate for you to roll out a long unsorted list of primary and secondary more or less reliable, more or less independent sources and then not participate further in the discussion on the other talk page, and it's not apropriate here. But the sources themselves could be used to improve the article. / PerEdman 10:06, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

How was it not appropriate? Isn't such a list necessary for establishing the notability, or non-notability, of the subject?--Asdfg12345 17:10, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

No. Rather than a mixed bag of small unremarkable country newspapers, notable studies and primary partisan sources mentioning Falun gong only in the context of organ harvesting in China, it would have been enough with two or three secondary, independent sources giving significant coverage to the notability of the specific event of persecution of Falun Gong. Instead you more or less forced the other editors of the page to determine which link was useful, which was not, and which of the links were dead. Especially after having asked for 24 hours or consideration, after having had five days of it... you're stalling for time. Why? / PerEdman 19:21, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
I'm not sure I understand what you mean, and I'm sorry if I've angered you. I presented a lot of links to independent reliable sources on the issue; some of them discuss the issue in depth, some are smaller reports but are focused on the issue. There are at least two or three independent sources giving significant coverage to the topic. I didn't post any links that I didn't think were useful; I don't believe any of the links I posted were dead. Most of them were exclusively about the issue. As far as I can tell, that makes it clearly pass notability. We should get a uninvolved editors to give their opinions on notability though, if we cannot agree, despite how obvious it strikes me. Interestingly, you are not convinced that the sources provided establish notability (though I am yet to understand why); whereas OC believes they do, but that it's notability is actually irrelevant as to whether the article be merged. I don't understand that dynamic, either.--Asdfg12345 20:01, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
No, you've presented a mixed bag of links most of which repeated the very same source, some of which were to a repository of other links of similarily varied quality. Leaving "Two or three" independent sources, all of which could be used to support notability but not reliability, out of a list of.. what, 12? The first link was dead. The three last links were to a collection of other links. I have already answered what I thought of your links where you first posted it. Please look there if you actually do want to discuss it. It seems I was one of the very few who actually read through them all, but I still didn't get a response from you. Instead you repeated the list as a RfC, not even bothering to engage in the discussion. / PerEdman 20:25, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
I did not know that is what irked you. I will do my best to respond to all arguments from now on. I appreciate the time it took to go through the links. Basically I felt that you missed the point is attempting to dissect each of them and felt that going through and arguing all over again would waste time, thinking it would be simpler to get an outside assessment. Basically if they are secondary reliable sources and they are about the issue--whether they refer to K/M a lot or not--they contribute to the notability. If you only need two or three secondary independent sources, then just take Ethan Gutmann's "China's gruesome harvest" in the weekly standard, Tom Treasure, the K/M report itself, Kirk Allison, Manfred Nowak, the UNCAT submission, the CRS report (which has a subsection to the issue), and a handful of the Ottawa Citizens pieces, including the one which argues against the claims by Glen McGregor. AI came out with a statement saying it was inconclusive as well, for example. There's a bunch. You may want to shoot down the report--I disagree--but it doesn't matter because there's still the other sources.--Asdfg12345 21:04, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
Of course I took the time to go through them. It would not have been fair to the GOOD references if I had ignored it. I'm frustrated that you expected others to make the source check, others to read through them and then not even take the time to participate in a discussion about the many sources you had given. I "dissected" each of them because I read each of them. What were you going to do when you got that "outside assessment"? Would you complain if they too wanted to argue every source, wanted to read and comment on every link? I'm sorry I don't have access to Tom Treasure's report, but I've read Bloody Harest and the articles you've linked so far. Nowak and UNCAT are retellings of K&M, as several of us have tried to explain to you. They are not separate or independent, they are DEpendent on K&M and can contribute to the notability of K&M, but not its reliability or worth as a third-party source. Why would I want to "shoot down the report"??? What would motivate me to do so, do you suppose? / PerEdman 15:09, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

I rather think you misunderstand the requirements for notability. Much of the evidence in the K/M report is publicly verifiable, circumstantial evidence. It really does not matter one iota when news reports quote the same evidence they used in explaining the issue of organ harvesting. This is the one argument I've heard. It doesn't matter--that only goes toward the notability of the topic. This information should be documented by this encyclopedia. The Tom Treasure thing reiterates the evidence in the K/M report, along with a lot of other sources--they all reiterate it--often there is nothing else for them to go on, as　I say, because that report is a fairly comprehensive appraisal of all available evidence. Ethan Gutmann has some of his own stuff, and I'll add that in due course. The point is not the content of what this abundance of other sources way, or the quality of it, it's merely that it exists, it satisfies WP:RS, and its independent--then it boosts the notability of the topic. You're basically arguing that because K/M's report apparently has holes in it all the other sources which repeat its claims are therefore useless. This doesn't hold water.--Asdfg12345 21:28, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Moving the Falun Gong specific material here?

There should be a subsection and the rest in its own page. Whoever did this is putting the cart before the horse. This strikes me as blatantly agenda-driven. Half this article is now about the Falun Gong stuff--that's just silly. This was clearly an attempt to boost the case to 'merge' the pages, which is obviously code for cutting half the information and subsuming it into this page. Do some people want to play down all these sources and evidence? I don't know. But I wouldn't blame anyone from drawing that conclusion based on this. Let's just respect wikipedia policies, okay? Please refresh: WP:N, WP:NPOV, particularly WP:DUE, and WP:RS. Thanks.--Asdfg12345 21:24, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

What agenda would that be? Enforcing consensus? The movement is not silly and what you claim to be "Falun Gong stuff" is mostly general commentary about organ harvesting. ·Maunus·ƛ· 21:34, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
Yes -- what agenda? Seb az86556 (talk) 21:36, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

What agenda indeed. I'm flummoxed. Please see the organ harvesting talk page regarding the claim that most of the material is general commentary; most of it is clearly Falun Gong related and a response to the Kilgour/Matas report.--Asdfg12345 21:42, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Saw it, read it. Again: what agenda? Seb az86556 (talk) 21:45, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
I don't have any response for that. The meaning of the claim is not even clear to me, upon reflection. I guess I am just referring to a particular wish to see the pages in a certain way, and pushing toward that without considering policy or proper argumentation and discussion. I've struck out the remark and apologise for making it. I request everyone to respect the discussion process and actually respond to the arguments that I am raising rather than trying to run roughshod with greater numbers.--Asdfg12345 21:55, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
Categories: