Talk:Kilgour–Matas report/Archive 8

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Article history

The history of this article will need to be merged with Reports of organ harvesting from Falun Gong practitioners in China when/if moved into mainspace. I have removed earlier non-related userspace history. SilkTork *^YES! 12:04, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Nobel Peace Prize nomination

We aren't in a habit of including NPP nominations for a very good reasons: The nomination criteria are notoriously open that any university professor can nominate. In addition, official records are confidential for [50] years and thus claims cannot be verified. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 01:42, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Who are the "we" in your statement? Such nominations are a matter of fact not opinion, and are reported by reliable sources (just recently - [1]. They are mentioned in hundreds of Wikipedia articles. I'd be interested in seeing a guideline or rationale on Wikipedia for not including mention of a nomination for such a notable award. SilkTork *^YES! 08:28, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Persecution of Falun Gong

The revised 'persecution' written by Silk Tork is arguably better and more concise than the previous, long-winded background information. However, it still suffers from WP:NPOV because it only mentioned 'multi-faceted propaganda campaign' as being used by FLG whilst ignoring the very same which has been spun by FLG and their allied media outlets against the CCP. Also, the use of 'Persecution' heading and the {{main}} tag linking to the article all give undue emphasis. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 01:48, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

1. How is the Falungong response to CCP propaganda relevant to the article?
2. Are you saying that Falungong's counter-propaganda campaign, which focuses largely on the human rights abuses they have been subjected to, is equal to the CCP's propaganda campaign, which seeks to vilify Falungong in order to justify a persecution?
3. Why would you delete relevant information like this? I have restored it. —Zujine|talk 06:39, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Gutmann and MacMillan-Scott's claims are already covered in detail in the "Other Reports" section - they are out of place being tied together with Kilgour & Matas' claims.--PCPP (talk) 08:09, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

It's a well known fact that FLG have been engaged in propaganda against the Communist Party of China, and not purely engaged in factual denunciations of China's human rights abuses. The campaign to get CCP members to renounce membership of the party would be one such example. We need to be even-handed when deciding to include or not this information. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 09:25, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

FYI, two opposing pieces of information were removed from the lede to reduce clutter, they were replaced with a comment from the worlds leading scholarly expert in Falun Gong matters, and is highly relevant and notable compared with the two bits of sparring removed only from the lede. I believe that that info remains in the body. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 09:28, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Sorry... this may sound combative again, but I don't really see that my questions were responded to. I don't see how Falungong's counter-propaganda is either a) of the same order of the CCP's (yes, it is also employs a range of rhetorical and propagandistic devices, but its claims are primarily based on facts; i.e., HR abuses) , b) relevant here anyway. So let's leave that aside. As I say, I thought the information was relevant in stating the current status of the claims that David Kilgour and David Matas have put forward. I have read David Ownby's book, by the way, and he seems to state several times that he is an expert on Chinese religion, not an expert on human rights. —Zujine|talk 04:40, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Zujine, I notice that you were not answered. That is because, I am afraid, you clicked on the wrong article. Such commonsense enquiry is not encouraged on Falun Gong pages. Sorry. --Asdfg12345 22:34, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Back to the issue at hand (persecution), I found the article missing some background that would seem fairly critical to anyone attempting to assess the veracity of the harvesting claims. Namely, that Falun Gong comprises a large portion of the RTL population, and that Falun Gong followers have been killed as a result of torture or other forms of ill-treatment. This information is very notable, relevant, and well documented. I don't know why it was absent.Homunculus (duihua) 05:09, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Some Concerns

An edit here chosen to present my concerns

Edit diff: [2]

Edit done by: User:Ohconfucius

Claimed Summary Rationale for the Edit: "(lede was too one-sided)"

Analysis of the edit: The central changes:

1. The entire paragraph:

"Investigations by Ethan Gutmann and European Parliament Vice President Edward McMillan-Scott arrived at similar conclusions. Glen McGregor of the Ottawa Citizen was sceptical about the logistical plausibility of the allegations after visiting the site. He said that, depending on who you believe, "the Kilgour-Matas report is either compelling evidence that proves the claims about Falun Gong... or a collection of conjecture and inductive reasoning that fails to support its own conclusions"."

blanked out and an Ownby statement repeated from later in the article. The user makes an edit where the same sentence is repeated - it may be assumed that he knew he was repeating the sentence.

1. In the same edit, the below paragraph is blanked:

Kilgour, and Ethan Gutmann, adjunct fellow at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies stated that three weeks between when the story broke to when the US representatives' visited was long enough for the Chinese to have covered it up.

Am pointing out this as a a mere sample of such a pattern of blanking - spread across articles relevant to human rights abuses of the CCP. I do not raise as an allegation - but hold it is a demonstrable fact for which I am willing to present plenty evidence. An earlier page on this topic underwent such an blanking-driven erosion, then had an AfD tag put on, and that got passed for majority vote by the very same editors who made such changes and other unsuspecting editors to whom the eroded article came across as substance-less.

Kindly allow me to reiterate that I am willing to present much more evidence to the effect that the two users above, OConfucious with PCPP, has continually engaged in such a pattern on related pages:

To point out an edit[among the many] by User:PCPP here along similar lines, in this very page:

Edit diff:[3]

Edit done by: User:PCPP

Claimed Summary Rationale for the Edit:: "(PHD thesises are not reliable sources)"

Analysis of the edit:

The below para, a PHD thesis from Yale University, blanked out:

In April 2007, a Yale University student submitted a PhD thesis that evaluated the allegations and concluded that Falun Gong prisoners' organs were being harvested.

Dilip rajeev (talk) 19:08, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

• I knew that my 'free ride' would eventually end, and the SPAs would be back. ;-) About my edit referred to above. I only intended to edit the lede, and cannot explain changes outside the lede, which include a previous insertion by me of Ownby's credentials. I suspect it may have been from an older version. I am also guilty of not going back to check it, I can only apologise. As to the alleged 'blanking' referred to by DR, the explanation is above, if only he cared to read it. I see tht the other FLG SPA has decided to put it back... --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 01:25, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

• One of the key manifestation of the conflict surrounding FLG articles is the juxtapositioning of opposing arguments, and the battle for who gets the upper hand or last word like a frantic game of ping-pong. I was hoping to get away from that by placing a comment on the acknowledged world expert on FLG matters instead of this sparring. I see that hasn't gone down well. The lead is so totally lop-sided, and we really need to break this vicious circle. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 01:53, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

The lead is now lopsided because of your edits. Like I said in my edit summary, you have removed the references to third parties who seem to corroborate the report. Ownby is certainly one of the renowned experts on Falun Gong as a cultural phenomenon, but you cannot substantiate this crucial human rights related information with his comment. Moreover, I did not remove Ownby. ✔ Olaf Stephanos ✍ 03:59, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

• I also resent the insinuation, so typical of FLG to all those who apparently oppose the group, that I have been engaged in "a pattern of blanking - spread across articles relevant to human rights abuses of the CCP.". I won't have that hanging over my head like some sort of sword of Damocles, waiting for it to drop at your whim. If you really do have the "demonstrable facts", then let's have them. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 02:02, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

I'll collate that which creates my concern - as an editor on wikipedia - as someone striving to build articles covering the mainstream academic view on this topic - and then make it available for your further clarification on an appropriate forum. But, here, could you kindly substantiate why you removed out the material? You did not touch upon it in your reply - neither did it seemed clearly addressed by your edit summary. These are among the centrally notable, reliable third party sources on the topic - the kind of things readers on this topic would be looking to know - part of the the very information that establishes WP:N of the topic, am inclined to opine.

Also, may I kindly request clarification from User:PCPP on his take that "PHD thesises are not reliable sources" for removing the Yale univ thesis material?My impression was these material being removed, as much as the Ethan Gutmann piece of research blanked in the other edit I mention, constitute some of the best sourced material on the topic. Could you kindly substantiate the removal of these - as you've apparently missed out giving a rationale in either talk or in the edit summary.

Dilip rajeev (talk) 19:29, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

This page is for discussion of the article and how to improve it. The value of collaborative editing is that differences of view/opinion can be examined and solutions sought. It is generally always to be expected that people will have differing views on how to develop an article - indeed, as an individual I change my mind as to the best way to develop an article, and will sometimes remove something that I added the previous day, month or year. That people have differing views/opinions/approaches does not always constitute a need to examine people's editing behaviour. That someone feels that a statement does not work and removes it from an article does not suggest that person has an ulterior motive. If someone disagrees with another person's edit they can alter the edit, or raise the issue on the talkpage - that is fully appropriate, and how Wikipedia works. What is inappropriate and unhelpful is to make assumptions about a person's motive. However, if there is a pattern of editing behaviour that has given cause for concern, then those concerns should be raised in the appropriate venue - which in the first instance might be the user's talkpage. A respectful and polite enquiry into the reasoning for an edit will generally produce a more positive and helpful response than accusations of bad faith. SilkTork *^YES! 12:02, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Thankyou much, Silktork. Am going by your above advice in carrying forward the discussion. It is not that I am drawing assumptions about any editor based on an isolated edit. But claims like "PHD thesises are not reliable sources" seem hardly something you can take for a rationale in blanking out a Yale University Thesis material. Am requesting clarification from the editor.

Dilip rajeev (talk) 19:29, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

There is nothing in any policy whatsoever which requires us to approach any topic from any given angle, human rights or otherwise. However, there is not only a requirement to portray a neutral point of view, it is one of the five pillars of Wikipedia. Not only do the two phrases introduce (in my view, of course) unacceptable bias within the lede, there is nothing in the body which indicates the importance or notability of these two instances of "me-tooism". --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 14:19, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Among the content you removed are these two sentences:

"Investigations by Ethan Gutmann and European Parliament Vice President Edward McMillan-Scott arrived at similar conclusions.[1] "

Kilgour, and Ethan Gutmann, adjunct fellow at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies stated that three weeks between when the story broke to when the US representatives' visited was long enough for the Chinese to have covered it up.

What exactly is it that makes the investigations by Ethan Gutman and Edward McMillan Scott so called "me too-isms"? They are WP:N - certainly. WP:RS -certainly. And further, here you blank out every reference of the Nobel Peace Prize Nomination from the article.

Dilip rajeev (talk) 15:32, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Is a dissertation or PhD thesis a reliable source?

This question has come up a number of times on Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard, and generally they are accepted as they have been peer-reviewed and are overseen by the university authority. See [4], and [5]. Each situation will need to be assessed on its merits, and a failed dissertation will not count, while a published one by a major university will be seen as rather more reliable than a local newspaper. SilkTork *^YES! 08:08, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

If in doubt about if a source is reliable, ask the folks at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. The people who hang about there tend to have some experience and knowledge of the general consensus on these matters - though there can be differences of opinion, so wait for a few replies - the first response may have missed some detail which may come up in later discussion. SilkTork *^YES! 08:14, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

• While you are there, can you also get a view on:

  THE TWO TALES OF FALUNGONG (法轮功两面观) Radicalism in a traditional form Zixian Deng and Shi-min Fang (Rev. May 31, 2000) Originally presented to the Annual Conference of The American Family Foundation (April 28-29, 2000) in Seattle, WA

  IIRC, this thesis has been dismissed by Falung Gong devotees as somewhat lacking in credibility and thus argued against inclusion of any citation thereto, despite the fact that it has been cited in some academic literature. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 14:08, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Interesting you bring that document up. Would you mind telling us all what the credentials of those two individuals are? Oh, and where that document was published? Or.... wasn't it published? Was it just a paper given at the AFF conference? We do know what AFF is, don't we? That you would suggest this says so much. Here I was, reading James Tong and Ownby... by your standards, I only needed to jump onto Clearwisdom! --Asdfg12345 22:31, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

• Ah, you're asking me? It's a PhD thesis, according to what's on the cover, which looks like it could be put on a par with the other one, which is why I brought it up. I think you would know that particular thesis, and could tell me why you (for I believe it was most likely you) who argued very strongly against it being used somewhere in the FLG series of articles? I am thinking it could perhaps be because it is a touch anti-Falun Gong... I am not saying I necessarily agree with anything in the paper, or that any part of it ought to be included anywhere within any one of our FLG articles, but usually what's good for the goose is good for the gander --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 08:37, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

The above would just be attention-diversion from the issue at hand - A Yale University Thesis, referred to by Kilgour and Matas, being blanked under the claim that it fails to qualify as a source, it being a "PhD Thesis". Further, this page does not seem to be the forum discuss the above material. Shall we agree to discuss and clear up this topic at hand?

Dilip rajeev (talk) 15:09, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

It's funny this supposed thesis comes from the Organ Harvest Investigation website, instead of Yale's own website or any academic website, and there's no proof that it's even peer-reviewed per WP:RS. Anyone can get a thesis published, but that doesn't give it a free pass from scrutiny.--PCPP (talk) 15:40, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

In other news, I corrected this, which seemed to indicate that over 10,000 FLG practitioners were being killed each year, which would have been a new claim to my ears. The Sound and the Fury (talk) 23:14, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Reference to Nobel Peace Prize Nomination Removed

While we establish if a Yale University Thesis is credible source or not, here is another instance of what comes across to me as unnsubstanitated blanking, and captured my attention as I took another look at changes to the article:

Edit diff: [6]

Edit done by: User:Ohconfucius

Claimed Summary Rationale for the Edit: "(Nobel nominations don't mean squat, so open is the process)"

Analysis of the edit: References to the Nobel Peace prize nomination are blanked out from the article.

Th material is WP:N and the content sourced as per WP:RS.

Dilip rajeev (talk) 15:48, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

You're wasting your time making a big stink over. There is already a days old discussion in the second section under "Nobel Peace Prize nominations".--PCPP (talk) 16:00, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

• Say what??? It's right there between the sea and the sky. More precisely, its just above the subsection entitled 'Impact on international transplant policies'. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 16:24, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
• The Nobel Peace Prize nomination is mentioned in multiple RS, and belongs in the article. --JN466 00:09, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

I think the complaint is that, mentioned or not, it is insignificant. Such nominations are common: what's the standard on Wikipedia? The Sound and the Fury (talk) 03:07, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Other evidence?

As I recall, Kilgour and Matas claimed they pursued multiple avenues of investigation to arrive at their conclusions about organ harvesting. In addition to relying on phone call recordings, they also examined the disparity between sources of organs and the number of procedures, wait times for organ transplants, and the nature of health exams that numerous former Falun Gong prisoners report being subjected to. An article discussing the Kilgour-Matas report should cover the actual content of the report, no?

Same comment holds for the description of Ethan Gutmann's findings. The article currently cites some of his more extreme conclusions, but nowhere does it explain his methods. Homunculus (duihua) 05:16, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

I agree with the above, but I also think there are some other, perhaps larger problems with this article. Just for example, it says Glen McGregor of the Ottawa Citizen was sceptical about the logistical plausibility of the allegations after visiting the site. -- but this is not related to the K/M report, because the report is not about Sujiatun, so "visiting the site" doesn't really mean much. Similarly with the remark the credibility of much of the key evidence was said to be questionable -- how is this relevant to the K/M report, which relies largely on evidence and logic, rather than witnesses? Not to mention, the CRS report is mentioned twice in the lead. Anyway, not criticizing anyone or anything, but there are these factual issues that should be corrected at some point. @Homunculus: you will find little information about the actual contents of the report because Ohconfucius et al had it all deleted... which leaves us with talking heads, allegations, counter-allegations, but not the meat and potatoes that readers need to understand and evaluate the topic. Note that this is not a personal attack, it is a statement of fact. Ohconfucius, Colipon, and one or two others, saw the details of the report were expurgated from the article. It would be unwise to ponder aloud as to why. --Asdfg12345 15:37, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps what these Falungong pages lack is good will. There seem to be a lot of assumptions about the motives of other editors. If there are problems on the page, as you point out, why not kindly explain and fix them with a smile, rather than harp? Then everyone will be happy, and Wikipedia will be a more positive environment. The Sound and the Fury (talk) 00:53, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Good will assumed. Now, back to the issue at hand, I move that we include a more extensive account of what evidence the Kilgour-Matas report presents. Ditto Ethan Gutmann. Gutmann's piece in the Weekly Standard on this topic is the most thorough explanation I have found of his methodology and findings, but perhaps there is something better out there. The point is also taken that we need to be sure to differentiate between the Sujiatun allegations and the content of the Kilgour-Matas findings. K&M have distanced themselves from Sujiatun, and while it is necessary background to this topic, refutations of the Sujiatun allegations are not equivalent to refutations of the K&M report. Homunculus (duihua) 02:04, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Discussion coped from AfD

I'm not sure why there isn't a page on the topic generally, rather than just one on the Kilgour/Matas situation: It seems that a handful of researchers have turned their hands to trying to get to the bottom of these allegations, and produced a sizable body of research. It would seem to me more sensible to put that all on its own page, rather than have one page just on this report. I do not know if this option has been explored.The Sound and the Fury (talk) 01:00, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

The name of the article has changed several times - you'll see one of the names above under the previous AfD. Part of the previous issue with the material has been the choice of title. This title is very neutral, and does deal with a notable report. The report itself attracted attention - rather more, from my understanding, than the original allegation alone attracted. There is no dispute that the report is notable; however, there might be valid arguments that the allegation alone is not notable. Also, when the allegation is placed against the rather larger allegations of China a) dealing in illegal international trading in organs and b) using the organs of prisoners, both of which are adequately dealt with inside the Organ transplantation in the People's Republic of China article, then an argument for dealing just with the Falun Gong allegation in a stand alone article would be unlikely to succeed and might cause rather more dispute. The Persecution of Falun Gong article is the more appropriate place to deal with a quick overview of this allegation, and does already have a section on the matter. The section currently links to the Organ transplantation in the People's Republic of China article, but if this AfD passes as a Keep, then that link will be removed, and a link to this article used instead. SilkTork *^YES! 10:19, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for continuing this dialog. I just want to make sure I am understanding right. Are you suggesting that information about this report is more widely available than information about the phenomenon (or alleged phenomenon) it purports to document? Or, I mean, are you saying that the report itself, about allegations of organ harvesting from Falungong, is more notable than the allegations of organ harvesting from Falungong? That would be unusual indeed. Prima facie, it would also not seem to be the case. As mentioned, several other researchers, not just Kilgour and Matas, have published on the Falungong/organ harvesting connection. The notability of the allegations is surely not related to their veracity. Can it be proven that the report has garnered more attention than the allegations? If so, the current approach would make sense. If not, there should be a separate page on the allegations, and the contents of this page rolled into it. Please let me know if there is a fault in this logic. The Sound and the Fury (talk) 06:15, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

You raise a good point, though I think this is a discussion better placed on either the talk page of Kilgour-Matas report or Persecution of Falun Gong as part of ongoing development. My view is that the report is notable, and there is material enough for an appropriate stand alone article which deals with the circumstances leading to the report, the report itself, and the responses to the report. I am less certain that the "Sujiatun Concentration Camp" allegations by themselves are as notable or notable enough for a standalone article. Though the allegations have attracted some attention, it was not of the same level as the report itself, which went beyond that particular allegation and involved the general persecution of the Falun Gong as well as the international concerns about the organ transplantation programme in China; added to which the writers of the report are notable in themselves - so when they write a report people pay attention. However, it would be acceptable to build up material in either Kilgour-Matas report or Persecution of Falun Gong (or both) on that specific allegation, and if it was felt the material had grown large enough, to split out into a stand alone article per WP:Summary style. This document is useful - the list of contents shows a section on the allegations with a sub-section devoted just to the report. SilkTork *^YES! 10:07, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

The Sujiatun allegations are more like a footnote to the whole issue: they are not a central part of the claims, but more like one incident that set the whole thing off. I certainly don't think they warrant an article to themselves--I didn't think TheSound was suggesting that? The point here is that the allegations made by K-M in their report are more notable than their report. And other researchers have investigated the allegations independently of K-M. The allegations, as a topic, include the Sujiatun incident, the K-M report and all it entails (including the targeting of Matas and Kilgour for harassment by unidentified individuals--I wonder who), the research of others who have looked into the issue, and the response and counter-responses that were thus generated (including the UN, an EU parliamentary member, and other notables.) So I believe it makes the most sense to structure it in the way the CRS report has--and we see the approach is with some precedent. I believe this is what TheSound is getting at (please correct if I am wrong). In fact, that article did actually used to exist. It was deleted. If anyone wants the inside story there, email me and I can explain it. Have resolved not to engage in acrimonious recountings of bygone injustices on-Wiki. If there were a collective will to fix the pages on this crucial but little understood phenomenon, that would be wonderful. Readers of the encyclopedia await a full accounting. -- Asdfg12345 04:35, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

I think a page on the allegations would be a good idea. It would allow for the presentation of not just the report but the whole issue. I have access to Lexis, and can do a trawl of the database for all news references on the topic. If the question of notability is still in dispute, we can define a few search terms and evaluate their frequency. I think the allegations will surely be more widely referred to than this particular report, though. —Zujine|talk 15:10, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

PhD thesis source dispute

Just to point out I've mentioned the issue for discussion/ 3rd party comment here. Dilip rajeev (talk) 13:49, 14 January 2011 (UTC)