Talk:Organ transplantation in China/View of issues raised, organized in sections

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is not a discussion page. Discussion should be kept on their own threads.

This page is just a convenience view of the discussion. Relevant posts are copy pasted here into to their relevant sections, to make the list of issues and how they are addressed more obvious.

All content so far is taken from: [1]

Is the report notability based on WP:SPS?[edit]

If you really want to get into policies... The K&M report is a self-published report, done by authors previously unknown in this field. All subsequent media reports (aside from the FLG mouth-piece publications, see my annotated list) depend on the K&M report. Not only that, but they're mostly "press-release" style reporting with very little additional journalist input (although not strictly required per WP:PSTS, I feel it detracts a lot of weight from these sources). In addition, most of the secondary sources are of Canadian origin, which also is a FLG-stronghold, so I suspect FLG-influence and pressure were also factors in their prevalence. So overall, you have a weak report and a few of articles reporting on it, based on circumstantial evidence, and yet you think it deserves the undue weight of a content fork focusing on FLG practitioners when there are thousands of prisoners (some of whom may be FLG-practitioners, we don't know) getting their organs harvested? --antilivedT | C | G 01:02, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
How does all this change the fact that the article is WP:N and WP:V? --HappyInGeneral (talk) 01:47, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Presumed" means that substantive coverage in reliable sources establishes a presumption, not a guarantee, that a subject is suitable for inclusion. Editors may reach a consensus that although a topic meets this criterion, it is not appropriate for a standalone article." (WP:N), and "Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published, then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason self-published media, whether books, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, blogs, Internet forum postings, tweets etc., are largely not acceptable." (WP:SPS, which is in fact in WP:V)? Geez read your policies before lawyering them :p --antilivedT | C | G 03:05, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I thought since it was confirmed many times that the subject is notable that it was clear that its not about WP:SPS. That is fine, I'll get some business done here, then I'll get the sources that are not SPS. --HappyInGeneral (talk) 13:21, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The full quote on presumed is this:
  • "Presumed" means that substantive coverage in reliable sources establishes a presumption, not a guarantee, that a subject is suitable for inclusion. Editors may reach a consensus that although a topic meets this criterion, it is not appropriate for a standalone article. For example, such an article may violate what Wikipedia is not. <ref>Moreover, not all coverage in reliable sources constitutes evidence of notability for the purposes of article creation; for example, directories and databases, advertisements, announcements columns, and minor news stories are all examples of coverage that may not actually support notability when examined, despite their existence as reliable sources.</ref>
This report is not in what Wikipedia is not. --HappyInGeneral (talk) 15:46, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding your quote from WP:SPS, see bellow the list of third party sources. UN, CSR, CTV, CBS, etc, do not fall under "Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published, then claim to be an expert in a certain field", so they are not WP:SPS as you claim.

  1. http://www2.ohchr.org/english/bodies/cat/docs/CAT.C.CHN.CO.4.pdf "-- United Nations Committee Against Torture, CONSIDERATION OF REPORTS SUBMITTED BY STATES PARTIES UNDER ARTICLE 19 OF THE CONVENTION: Concluding observations of the Committee against Torture, Forty-first session, Geneva, 3-21 November 2008" => it has a section called "Allegations concerning Falun Gong Practitioners", it asks for “a full explanation of the source of organ transplants” which could clarify the discrepancy.
  2. http://www.usembassy.it/pdf/other/RL33437.pdf Congressional Research Service ~ The Library of Congress => Acknowledges/reports that there are such allegations and that the follow-up action taken by the American officials in Beijing (after 2 weeks)
  3. http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/012/160ymogj.asp Quote: "The reports, which first appeared in print in the March 10 edition of the Falun Gong-associated publication Epoch Times, are still sketchy and confirmation scarce. Yet the allegations are just credible enough to demand attention--too serious to be ignored unless proven false.", Its a good thing that I checked because your initial argument was: Quote: "The reports, which first appeared in print in the March 10 edition of the Falun Gong-associated publication Epoch Times, are still sketchy and confirmation scarce." One source only. Can support notability, but is it significant? and I'm not sure after you read the source, why you omitted the italic section.
  4. http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/012/160ymogj.asp -- "Ethan Gutmann, "Why Wang Wenyi Was Shouting,", Weekly Standard, 05/08/2006, Volume 011, Issue 32" => Wenyi Wang was shouting because she was convinced that there is live organ harvesting directly targeted towards Falun Gong. Just about every media reported on her outburst on the White House.
  5. http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/015/824qbcjr.asp -- China's Gruesome Organ Harvest by Ethan Gutmann, Adjunct Fellow at the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies. Cover Story in The Weekly Standard.
  6. http://www.canada.com/components/print.aspx?id=2c15d2f0-f0ab-4da9-991a-23e4094de949 "Glen McGregor, "Inside China's 'crematorium'", The Ottawa Citizen, November 24, 2007" => Talks about the Kilgour/Matas allegations
  7. http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20060706/organ_report060706/20060706?hub=Canada -- "CTV.ca News Staff (July 6, 2006) "Chinese embassy denies organ harvesting report", CTV.ca, retrieved July 8, 2006" => again the issue attracts attention from third party WP:RS
  8. http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2006/07/06/china-falungong.html -- "China harvesting Falun Gong organs, report alleges", CBC News, retrieved July 6, 2006
  9. http://www.canada.com/topics/news/national/story.html?id=290fed94-d0c2-4265-8686-54ce75d08eca&k=34245 -- "Kirstin Endemann, CanWest News Service; Ottawa Citizen (July 6, 2006)"Ottawa urged to stop Canadians travelling to China for transplants", Canada.com, retrieved July 6, 2006" => This news service came in direct relation with the Falun Gong organ harvest report.
These sources should be enough to show that there are not only 1 or 2 self published sources on this topic. One prominent indicator being that it was noted by the "United Nations Committee Against Torture" which is an institution that is highly involved in political relations.
Name the number (based on wikipedia policy please) and I'll come up with the number of WP:RS sources, just by looking here:
And of course the ones that are archived on the OrganHarvestInvestigation site under Media reports.
--HappyInGeneral (talk) 15:55, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comparing the report with "9/11 is an inside job" (sidetrack)[edit]

Now that is some genuine irrelevance! Some crackpot might publish a conspiracy report on how 9/11 is an inside job, and the media can report on it (which they have), but you still won't find it in the actual 9/11 article and be treated as absolute truth, because it's been published by some crackpot with no scrutiny on publication! The K&M report is self-published by authors unknown in this field and has not been peer reviewed in any way and that's that, it does not matter how much media coverage, it does not matter how much FLG praises it and teach it as absolute truth, it's simply WP:SPS. Is there any clause that exempts it if it's been covered by the media? Or are you just making up things from thin air? EVERY single source you've listed depend on that single report, now if that single report isn't up to Wikipedia's standard, why would a third party journalism on that report be? I quoted the presumption of notability because it's NOT A GUARANTEE, it can be overruled by consensus, which is what this whole merger thing is about. Now can you please stop stalling and either back down or introduce new points, because you and Asdfg has been flaunting that same old list of sources for countless times now. --antilivedT | C | G 05:32, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
First of all, sorry, I did not notice your comment (it was not posted in order) so thank you for pointing it out to me. Actually there is a rather comprehensive documentation on how 9/11 was an inside job, see the group of pages presented in the Template:911ct template. So it does exist on Wikipedia. It is reported in the conspiracy section because the mainstream western media organizations reported on it as being a conspiracy. Please observe how WP:N and WP:V worked there. In case of the "Reports on organ harvest form Falun Gong" the report also has notability so what I'm asking for is to recognize that "this is a topic in its own right". As for is it true or not, that will be discussed when the content is built. I stay away from this subject right now just to save space and to keep focus. --HappyInGeneral (talk) 15:33, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Could YOU please answer to my questions, or are you just gonna ditch a discussion when you've been defeated and start all over again to another editor, and then raise a hissy fit when people simply can't be bothered to repeat the same things over and over? So what if it apparently satisfy WP:N, it is not a guarantee for its own article (note how I said "apparently", if you push me I'll give you an argument that ill invalidate your WP:N too); Is there anything in WP:SPS that exempts it if it's been covered by the media? It's worded quite simply with a single criteria: self-published things written by previously unknown authors are not acceptable. Extending from that any secondary source that reports on the facts found by this source should at least be detracted points if not be rendered invalid. So that's WP:V out of the doors for you, therefore I support the merger based on WP:V and WP:N! (yea policies can be used against you too) --antilivedT | C | G 01:32, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, sorry I did not notice before, my answer is above, you can find it easily with the help of this diff [2] --HappyInGeneral (talk) 15:38, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
PS: I need to go now, I'll come back and look for the other comments to, I hope I did not miss anything else that is considered urgent. Please leave a talk-back notice on my talk page for such issues, thank you! --HappyInGeneral (talk) 13:02, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

NASA Analogy (sidetrack)[edit]

Even if the Kilgour/Matas report was a self-published source, it doesn't mean that all the other sources after it fail WP:V. That's ridiculous. HappyInGeneral gave another example: NASA publishes images of the moonlanding and does a press release, it's repeated everywhere, is that to be invalidated on the same grounds? That form of argumentation obviously makes no sense. Yes, WP:N does appear to be a guarantee that a topic should have an article, if you read it that should become clear. I've not seen any other policy quoted which determines the basis for topics having articles yet. It's all just more trashing the claims but not facing the policy. Why can't we have a poll on whether WP:N determines which topics should have an article on them?--Asdfg12345 03:52, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oh Asdfg, that's a ridiculously bad analogy - NASA is an established expert on that field and has been under the scrutiny of everyone from the beginning. (read WP:SPS maybe?) K&M? Not so much. Have you even read anything I wrote or WP:N itself, the last of the 5 main guidelines, the one that says it is NOT A GUARANTEE? --antilivedT | C | G 04:37, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The report itself might be somewhat WP:SPS (but even that barely, it is an independent report after all, there is no credible source saying that the authors where bought off, and they are also lawyers so their report is in their field of expertise), however the subject has been carried forward by "United Nations Committee Against Torture", "Congressional Research Service" and tons from Mass-Media, that stuff is not WP:SPS, because they are established in their field and they are the third party reporting on this report. In the same analogy if NASA would post an image about something, it would not be significant that is notable to include it into Wikipedia unless NASA would receive at least some reliable third party coverage, and it usually does receive that. Another analogy is that if somebody would invent in some laboratory a perpetum mobile, that would not get onto Wikipedia until it receives coverage as WP:RS --HappyInGeneral (talk) 16:01, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Seeking again consensus on notability (not answered)[edit]

(Unindent) Now let me try to keep things simple. The subject is Notable, and that was acknowledged here and in the #Statement_in_favour_of_merger. Thus I would say that it is safe to assume that the coverage of the report is not WP:SPS, and its notability is not based on "directories and databases, advertisements, announcements columns, and minor news stories". In which case as a first step toward consensus, can we agree that there is true, undisputed notability regarding the Reports of organ harvesting from Falun Gong practitioners in China? --HappyInGeneral (talk) 16:21, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BOMBARD. Do you seem to have any clue what WP:CONCENSUS means? You fail to show up to the discussion when its held, and now you're raising a big stink about it? Keep in mind you seems to be the only person here that's against the move, so consensus is against you.--PCPP (talk) 02:27, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
WP:BOMBARD is not necessarily a negative thing. Could you please answer to the point of WP:N and WP:V. It would be nice to stay focus, sidetracks like this are not productive. --HappyInGeneral (talk) 13:49, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

==> The question: "In which case as a first step toward consensus, can we agree that there is true, undisputed notability regarding the Reports of organ harvesting from Falun Gong practitioners in China?" => goes unanswered.

Seeking again consensus on notability (not answered)[edit]

  • Comment It seems that this discussion is heading into unproductive territory, like the previous ones linked to above. I am tempted to trash this poll because it's a waste of time. However, I realise it's not 'mine' anymore, so it'll have to run its course.

    But back to the subject. As I have said before, the premise of a question along the lines you are pushing is incorrect. I believe the following answers your question as well as the broader one relevant here. The correct premise is exactly whether this is a topic in its own right, or is it part of a wider subject. Notable topics often have notable sub-topics, but these do not always lend themselves to objective treatment as a sub-topic, and that's when it would be preferable to deal with as part of a wider subject. Ohconfucius (talk) 15:02, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'll renamed the RFC to reflect that (if anything else then this section title requires renaming please let me know). Thank You! --HappyInGeneral (talk) 22:14, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The correct premise is exactly whether this is a topic in its own right, or is it part of a wider subject." => Right, and my argument is that according to the number of prominent third party sources, "this is a topic in its own right", based on WP:V and WP:N. Does anybody dissagree that the sources presented do that here, and if so based on what wiki policy/spirit? --HappyInGeneral (talk) 21:56, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]


==> The question: "Does anybody dissagree that the sources presented do that here, and if so based on what wiki policy/spirit?" => goes unanswered.

Question: Have we got anything in policy except for WP:N about what should have its own article in wikipedia? How does NPOV apply here?[edit]

Firstly, I need to apologise for my absence. Some things are out of my control. I will do my best to check wikipedia on a daily basis from now on, barring any unforeseen circumstances. Let me just say that I find this whole thing highly confusing. Notability says what the criteria for an article is. You can't ignore that just cause you have more numbers. Again, I've asked a simple question: have we got anything in policy except for WP:N about what should have its own article in wikipedia? If the answer is no then let's follow WP:N. I know I'm saying the same thing again and again, but until someone actually addresses it, what am I supposed to do? I'm talking about policy! Is this the policy on having articles on a topic or not? If it isn't, what is?? If it is, then let's see if it fits notability or not. This is so incredibly simple. And if I somehow misunderstand something, explain it rather than make more irrelevant attempts to discredit K/M. Ohconfucius argues that the page violates WP:NPOV. I fail to see how. If that's the grounds for overriding Notability, then let's hear it out. Tell me how this page would be in violation of wikipedia policy on the neutral point of view, and that should be the locus of discussion. So I put the question to you: how does the article entitled "Reports on organ harvesting from Falun Gong practitioners" violate the WP:NPOV?--Asdfg12345 03:25, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • You would need to show consensus among editors that policies were being violated here. Maybe it's simply that other editors interpret policy differently than you. --Enric Naval (talk) 11:36, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

==> The question: "Have we got anything in policy except for WP:N about what should have its own article in wikipedia?" so far has got the following responses:

==> The question: "How does the article entitled "Reports on organ harvesting from Falun Gong practitioners" violate the WP:NPOV?"

====> There is no answer unless "Maybe it's simply that other editors interpret policy differently than you." can be considered as an answer.

Merger statement contradiction spotted, NPOV invoked, but not substanciated to this case[edit]

I just read the statement in favor of a merger. It's misleading. It makes a series of false (or, shall we say, disputed) statements about the nature of the evidence then makes a conclusion based on that. It also appears to contradict itself, admitting that the topic passes notability, but in the same breath denying that it should have a topic on that basis. And yet the definition of notability is what should have a topic on it. Will someone step forward to address this apparent contradiction? What about WP:NPOV, which says: The neutral point of view... does it endorse or oppose specific viewpoints... it is not aimed at the absence or elimination of viewpoints. Wikipedia is filled with reliably sourced non-neutral statements, so the elimination of article content cannot be justified under this policy solely on the grounds that it is "POV". Article content should clearly describe, represent, and characterize disputes within topics, but should not endorse any particular point of view. Instead, articles should provide background on who believes what, and why, and on which points of view are more popular. Detailed articles will often contain evaluations of each viewpoint, but these, too, must studiously refrain from taking sides. Thoughts?--Asdfg12345 03:59, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Asdfg, before you start rambling, can you at least read the stuff that happened in your absence? WP:N is not as solid as you'd think (or otherwise would like to believe). --antilivedT | C | G 04:41, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see how the statement in favour of merger is inconsistent or misleading. Your own premise that any subject passing WP:N deserves an article denies that articles cannot exist in a POV vacuum. It has always been the case that an article should form part of another if it lends to a more complete treatment. WP:NPOV is a pillar of Wikipedia, so all those subjects admissible to WP must also comply with WP:NPOV as an absolute necessity. The FG fear is that the merger sidelines their argument and the unconfirmed K&M allegations, whereas in context of other confirmed allegations and admissions/actions by the CCP, it is more appropriately dealt with as a coherent whole. Ohconfucius (talk) 05:38, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Approach it with Common Sense[edit]

  • OK, which policy do you think Asdf understands differently then you and how is it different? --HappyInGeneral (talk) 11:50, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
HappyInGeneral, not every single thing is written in stone, but sometimes using common sense on what's best for the encyclopedia is the ideal option, and one even must sometimes ignore all rules. However, different users have different views of what's best, so that's where conflicts arise. From what I gather, this is a different interpretation of what is common practice and the standing consensus. Just keep in mind to not wikilawyer. Project pages were normally written to avoid instruction creep. 16:51, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
Thank you! I read Common sense and it is a real fresh air here. Please read this article, it talks about how the Chinese government is the lead government employing censorship, it invested more then 800 million$ on hardware and its evolving technique now employs hundreds of thousands of nationalistic part-timers also called Fifty Cent Army paid to post pro-government comments on blogs and to drown out dissenting voices in Web forums. In light of these, please tell what is your common sense telling you when there is a report made by a veteran high Canadian official and a veteran human rights lawyer specialized in holocaust, then their report is mentioned by the "United Nations Committee Against Torture", "Congressional Research Service" and tons from Mass-Media thus providing lots of WP:RS and Notability and Verifiability and yet regarding the right of this topic to stand alone on Wikipedia is talked to death and debated in order to be ushered out. --HappyInGeneral (talk) 20:13, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question 1: Please note, that I'm not pointing the finger to anyone above (I can't I don't have that amount of evidence), I'm only asking, what is your common sense telling you? --HappyInGeneral (talk) 20:13, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question 2: Why would it hurt the encyclopedia to have a stand alone article about the "Allegations of organ Harvesting of Falun Gong practitioners in china" since notability is demonstrated? --HappyInGeneral (talk) 20:13, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(ongoing)

Declaring without any substanciation that the page should be merged[edit]

Editors, it's quite clear through the four or five discussions we've had on this topic (and now the poll) that the reasonable thing to do is to just merge the pages. I hope it is conclusive enough that we have editors from all walks of WP coming here in favour of a merger. Colipon+(Talk) 01:46, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think it was apparent a long time ago, that was why there's an initial merger, before Asdfg threw a tantrum and then disappeared again when given the opportunity (again) to discuss. --antilivedT | C | G 01:51, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Organ_transplantation_in_China/View_of_issues_raised,_organized_in_sections&oldid=1049843718"