Talk:Kilgour–Matas report/Archive 9

Suggestions
I propose the following:
 * Reduce and generalize the lead;
 * Expand the section which deals with what the report actually contains;
 * Provide a schematic rather than verbatim presentation of its reception;
 * Some other stuff I can't think of, but those are probably the most obvious.

Thoughts? The Sound and the Fury (talk) 23:42, 22 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Seems fair. You planning to do this work? If so, great. If not, I'm willing to help some in due time. I would also suggest elaborating on Gutmann's findings. His research is not as well publicized, but seems at least equally vigorous, and he employed different methodology to arrive at very similar conclusions. Homunculus (duihua) 19:08, 11 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Any progress here? It would be good to see someone follow up on this suggestion. I would add that a 'background' section could provide a more complete, yet still brief survey China's history with and legislation surrounding organ transplantation, and perhaps it could also give a primer on other aspects of the Falungong suppression. The Kilgour-Matas report itself situates its findings in this context, and while we want to remain less partisan, it is valuable background for anyone looking to evaluate the veracity of the claims.— Zujine |talk 04:35, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I've had a series of changes in my ordinary job and a very busy and chaotic period over the last few months, since I left that message. Since no one objects to it, then I will, over the following weeks, go about making those changes. Essentially it's a heavy restructuring and rewriting of much of the page. We've got three agrees and no dissents, so let's feel the stones as we cross the river, and let me roll up my sleeps for that beginning soon. The Sound and the Fury (talk) 02:24, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure what it means to roll up your sleeps, but it sure sounds fascinating. 加油! — Zujine |talk 05:09, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Hmm, I may have meant 'sleeves,' but rolling up one's sleeps does add to the mystery. What I'm proposing is a rewrite of the page. Hope that's clear. No objections? Then I will begin. The Sound and the Fury (talk) 17:42, 2 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Given that you are the only one to have shown real interest in tackling this, I cannot object. I'm certainly not working on it right now. I'm sure this goes without saying, but please provide a solid explanation of your edits here.Homunculus (duihua) 01:30, 3 June 2011 (UTC)


 * The edits should stand for themselves, really; and the rough draft above is pretty much my intention. Sorry for the mad delay. I'm working on it now. The Sound and the Fury (talk) 01:43, 17 June 2011 (UTC)


 * I was considering nominating this for a GA, but am pausing now due to the concerns above. What do you feel are the problems with the article?  SilkTork  *Tea time 10:49, 17 June 2011 (UTC)


 * I can't speak for The Sound, but I think there's some agreement that the article suffers from some problems of undue, or insufficient weight. The section dealing with the report itself is the shortest. In my (admittedly subjective) view, it should be quite a lot more substantial. The current page does little to inform the reader of either the content or methodology of Kilgour & Matas' report, nor of any other report (I noted Ethan Gutmann above, in particular. Gutmann employed a different methodology, but arrived at very similar conclusions, and has published quite a bit on these findings. I am not familiar with other investigations). Rather than explaining the content of these investigations, the page in its current form dwells at some length on the Sujiatun allegations. These allegations were the catalyst for Kilgrour and Matas' investigation, but do not feature in their report. The article also gives considerable weight to examining the response to the allegations. This is not problematic per se, but again, seems out of balance when compared to the space allotted to a discussion of the actual report. I suppose my philosophy is that readers should be trusted to come to their own conclusions regarding the veracity of these claims, and while their opinions may be informed by the expert response, no one wants to read an article consisting of little more than talking heads. I would also echo Zujine that the article could benefit from a little more background on organ transplantation in China generally and the suppression of Falun Gong. In any case, it would be nice to see this article nominated for GA status at some point. I hope that The Sound's edits will only add to its quality, and not detract from it. Again, I look forward to a good summary of changes, or proposed changes. Homunculus (duihua) 23:54, 17 June 2011 (UTC)


 * That makes sense. To be considered, though, is that the report's notability is largely based on its reception and impact, and its relation to the allegations that spurred the report, so there would be a fair deal of comment on that, and rather less on the report itself. However, I can see what you're saying. And - yes, the Sujiatun section is undue, as that is not the focus of the report, though it is mentioned in an appendix.  SilkTork  *Tea time 00:08, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Here's a suggested structure. Feedback welcome. In the tradition of editing these dormant pages, I've mostly gone ahead and written this up as it appears below, but will wait for discussion before instituting. For now I'll just replace some parts with what I wrote, where it appears fairly straightforward and so forth. This is just a proposed structure, and I've simply cleaned up the writing, tried to include more relevant information, and simply clean the whole thing up and reshuffle it to a more logical order. See what you guys think of this. Each dot sort of represents one paragraph (not exact), capitals is for a new section and --- is for the subsections. I'll do some preliminary reshuffling along these lines now, but shouldn't be too controversial:

INTRODUCTION
 * Beginning in 2006 allegations surfaced…
 * Similar reports have indicated… [or in the first paragraph]
 * The Chinese government denies it; the UN and governments have responded…
 * Because of their circumstantial nature the allegations remain unproven…

[explanation: This is roughly what we have now but I think it should be made shorter, simpler, and without the quotefarming.]

BACKGROUND
 * Organ transplanting in the PRC; there is a considerable organ trade; increased dramatically since 2000; Chinese authorities have admitted to using organs of executed prisoners to satisfy demand in organ transplant industry; not a highly regularized or large donation/volunteer system, etc…. [this may end up two paragraphs]
 * Falun Gong has been persecuted since 1999; systematic; something on the methods used, Falun Gong’s current position in society, etc…

[explanation: the page currently lacks basic background information like this; it is necessary for understanding the context]

ALLEGATIONS & INVESTIGATIONS ---SUJIATUN ---
 * Individuals came out in 2006 purporting to have knowledge of this concentration camp; allegations challenged; led FLG to ask Kilgour-Matas to investigate the matter…

[explanation: this incident seems largely irrelevant to the larger allegations and their current status, so just introduce it and get on with the main event]

---KILGOUR-MATAS---
 * Introduction
 * Several
 * Paragraphs
 * Explaining
 * Content
 * of
 * the
 * Report

[explanation: this is the key part of the article, so it makes sense here to explain what is actually in the report]

---GUTMANN---
 * Several paragraphs…
 * Outlining nature and scope…
 * Of Gutmann’s findings…

[explanation: the other major investigator of the matter; in the end it may only warrant two paragraphs, we can see when it comes to the writing]

---OTHER REPORTS---
 * There was Kirk Allison’s study…
 * A Yale thesis…
 * General paragraph on the coverage, including Tom Treasure, the Dean Koontz book and the recent book on the organ trade; etc.…

[explanation: basically outlining what others have said about the allegations; focus is on getting broad information across in a short space; at the moment we have so many things with quotes running into other subjects and a general sense of quotefarming. Suggest condensing and presenting the key information and moving on.]

RESPONSE
 * Due to the circumstantial nature of the evidence the allegations the findings of Kilgour-Matas and Gutmann have not been definitively confirmed…
 * Several international bodies and governments have expressed concerns over the allegations; UN has said X, governments have done Y legislation…
 * Media coverage widespread esp. in Canada, Europe…
 * Feasibility of Sujiatun allegations disputed by Harry Wu et al.; questions raised about circumstantial nature of the evidence viz. Kilgour-Matas; ‘case still open’…

[explanation: without running over the content of the last paragraph of previous section, these four or so paragraphs should simply explain what the response from various entities has been. Similar to what we have now, but more condensed.]


 * Your outline doesn't look much different from the current format, aside from an expanded discussion of the nature of the allegations and findings of various reports. I think your proposal on the handling of Sujiatun may be a good compromise between the lengthy introduction that existed until a few days ago and total silence; it is valuable insofar as it catalyzed investigations, but doesn't merit a lot of attention for its own sake. But I'll reserve final judgement until I see what you've written.Homunculus (duihua) 01:04, 21 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Just noticed that you made some changes, though I assume you're not done. Looks pretty good so far. I may at a later time tweak the prose a little bit. There are a lot of parenthetical asides that I might reword. Also, the Nobel Peace Prize nomination might best belong in the 'reception' section. Anyway, I will wait until you're done before diving in. By the way, I'm looking at making some changes to the Falun Gong main page, and would appreciate feedback from all the editors involved here. This is one of the most relaxed collaborative environments I have seen on this topic, and I hope we can keep it up.Homunculus (duihua) 01:18, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I made maybe half or two-thirds of the changes I suggest. The lead at the moment is far too long and quotefarm-like, suffering from the bloat problems that the rest of the article had. The information was/is all there, I think it just needed to be de-scaled, cleaned up, and shuffled around. I would suggest that Gutmann needs a bit more attention, given the unique additional research he has done. And I also plan on revamping the background sections. In my final edits for today I reduced the size of the international response section, which said in paragraphs what belonged in sentences. The Sound and the Fury (talk) 01:46, 21 June 2011 (UTC)


 * While people are keen to work on the article I think it would be appropriate to discuss the focus. The history of this article has been problematic - I updated the article history template the other day to show the concerns that people have had about the subject matter. Part of that concern was the undue weight given to the allegations of live organ transplanting of the Falun Gong, given that there has been little evidence to support the allegations. It is like a Venn diagram - in one big circle we have organ transplanting, and we have an appropriate article on that; in another big circle we have persecution of the Falun Gong, and we have an article on that. Where these two circles overlap has been the focus of this article, but people have argued that as a topic by itself it does not have sufficient notability, and the material could be contained in one or other of the other articles. The material was eventually merged with Organ transplantation in the People's Republic of China. Unfortunately it unbalanced that article. I worked on that article, balanced it out and took it to GA - it has since been delisted because of concerns about focus and "poor prose". I also revived this article as I felt that the Kilgour-Matas report was in itself notable enough for a stand alone article, and was the appropriate place for the material that had been merged into Organ transplantation in the People's Republic of China. This action was connected to a discussion I was moderating - Talk:Falun Gong/Moderated discussion. It can be difficult to get balance and focus right on controversial and complex topics as this. Where I am particularly concerned at the moment is the Other reports section which appears to be moving beyond the Kilgour-Matas report. Some awareness of the organ transplant situation in China at the time of the report is appropriate, and there is a section on that, and a link to the detailed article. Some awareness of the persecution of Falun Gong is also appropriate, and there is a section on that, and a link to the detailed article. Then we need the specific allegations. Previously there was a section on Sujiatun allegations. I removed that section and created the section instead on persecution of Falun Gong. Though I feel that the current approach of mentioning the Sujiatun allegations as the specific catalyst for the report is appropriate. How much attention should then be paid to other reports on the allegations? And how much then does the report become a coat rack for the Sujiatun allegations?  SilkTork  *Tea time 08:32, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I'll have to reread your note later to make sure I understand it all, but just for now: What is the "article history template" that you updated the other day? I don't know what that is. Secondly, I don't grasp this statement: "given that there has been little evidence to support the allegations." I suppose evidence may be in the eye of the beholder, but in terms of what reliable sources say is evidence, there is a lot. There's a long report by two prominent Canadians that has gained enormous international attention, then there are three or four studies that came afterwards, saying the same thing, some of them published in quite prominent journals. Then there are a series of other tepid commentary which express reservation about endorsing the report given the circumstantial nature of the evidence. It is not that there is little evidence to support the allegations; there is a large amount of evidence. It is that it is all circumstantial evidence. Well, let the reader decide. The point for us here in constructing the page is the notability, not quality, of the evidence. Perhaps that's where the confusion has lain this whole time, where some editors find the claims not credible and so extrapolate from that to impugn the worth of the article as a whole. This seems to me a logical mix-up: if we had an article about purely false claims, as long as it were notable enough it would warrant treatment (see all the articles on paranormal matters?); and as for the notability of the claims as they stand now, is there any question? I can do a LexisNexis search of "organ harvesting" and "Falun Gong" to find out, but I suspect there are hundreds of notable media reports on this specific topic. Has anyone ever thought of simply calling the article "Allegations of organ harvesting of Falun Gong" and being done with it? That's the crux of the story here. If/when evidence comes out to debunk the claims, the article will show that—and if the opposite happens, god forbid, it will show that too. It's not an endorsement that the claims are true, and avoids the coatrack issue. Anyway, some thoughts of mine as someone quite ignorant of the evolution of the page. The Sound and the Fury (talk) 10:32, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Click on Article milestones at the top of the talkpage. The Article milestones banner is the Article history template I mentioned. You'll note the previous discussions of this material, and note some of the previous names this material has appeared under. It is important to note the difference between reliable sources on the persecution of the Falun Gong and on organ translation in China from those specifically on allegations of organ harvesting from live practitioners of Falun Gong; and then to note which sources are Falun Gong and which are independent. I can refer you back to our conversation during the last AfD: Articles for deletion/Kilgour-Matas report in which I felt that if there were enough material and reliable sources collected for the specific allegation that the allegation could be split out into a stand alone article.  SilkTork  *Tea time 11:44, 21 June 2011 (UTC)


 * I hope I am understanding correctly, but I think the concern about RS on the persecution of Falun Gong vs. organ harvesting specifically should be assuaged by a look through the referenced used here. It appears to me that majority of them do focus specifically on the organ harvesting allegations (though naturally the authors may feel a need to bring some context by explaining the circumstances of the persecution), which suggests the notability of the topic. As to noting "which sources are Falun Gong and which are independent," I found in the endnotes only two source that could be construed as "Falun Gong" (the Epoch Times), five Chinese government sources, and well over 50 independent sources. One thing confuses me a little in Silk's comment, which is the emphasis on live organ harvesting from Falun Gong. Is the "live" aspect a point of contention?  To be honest, I hadn't really been differentiating in my mind between people whose organs are removed while under anesthetic, and those killed immediately before the operation, but perhaps I am missing some level of nuance. If your point earlier is that there is little evidence of "live" organ harvesting from specifically, then I agree. That the donors may be alive at the time of extraction is a matter of conjecture on the part of the authors, based on the fact that organs from live donors net more money (though I vaguely recall reading years ago that there was evidence the executions of death-row prisoner are sometimes deliberately botched to keep them alive for organ extraction). If indeed this is one of the points of contention, I suggest downplaying it in the article, though I could still be noted as being one aspect of the allegations. The allegations don't hinge on whether the person is alive or not.Homunculus (duihua) 14:13, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

The difficulty is that when looking at the listed sources, most are mainly responding to the report. My point in reviving this article, is that I felt there were enough sources to indicate that the report itself is notable, and in the AfD that argument was accepted. It is important to keep this article's focus on the report, and I welcome the attention now being given to it to ensure it remains focused on the report. There is a question as to how much attention should be given in this article to the allegations, how much should be given to the report, and how much should be given to other reports on the allegations. My feeling is that detailed coverage of other reports would be more appropriate for a stand alone article on the allegations. There is the possibility that there are enough reliable sources to create a stand alone article, though care would need to be taken that the sources are not in fact primarily responding to the report. The Christian Monitor for example, is a piece on the report, not directly on the allegations, and takes all its information from the report.

I didn't mean to emphasis "live" - I simply did a cut and paste of a phrase to save me typing it out.  SilkTork  *Tea time 16:38, 21 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Right, thanks for the clarification. I'll let TheSound respond to the question of whether there are enough other reports of notability to turn the topic into a stand-alone article. As I've said before, I'm pretty familiar with Gutmann's research, but not with some of the others.Homunculus (duihua) 17:13, 21 June 2011 (UTC)


 * I've expanded slightly on the content of the other reports, and in a few days will also work on cleaning up the lede. These other reports have not received as much coverage as Kilgour and Matas' report (though Gutmann has been writing and speaking pretty prolifically, it seems), but that's to be expected, given that the Kilgour-Matas report was the first investigation into this line of enquiry. It's my view that there's enough here to warrant a stand-alone article, but I'll defer somewhat to the opinion of the group. As to the weight given to the content of the Kilgour-Matas report, regardless of whether we end up with an article on "Allegations of organ harvesting from Falun Gong" or retain the current title, it seems fitting that the core pieces of evidence be presented. If the article were titled "Responses to the Kilgour-Matas report," then it would make sense to marginalize this information in order to arrive sooner at the reception, but even then, it is necessary to describe it to enable readers to have a context for understanding the response. PCPP: we reached a consensus that the Sujiatun allegations should not be given inordinate attention. It is relevant here only as the event that catalyzed the more thorough investigations. The article that you drafted treats it as the central event in this story, but it is not. Harry Wu and the State Department's notes on the Sujiatun issue are already included. The Sound and the Fury (talk) 03:20, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

My suggestion is this: rename the article to Organ transplantation controversies in China, Falun Gong organ transplantation controversies or something similar, and add further detail such as Harry Wu's early 1990 investigation in organ trafficking from executed prisoners, as well the US State Dept and Wu's investigation on the Sujiatun. I believe there's currently too much undue weight going into a detailed analysis of the KM Report, and the article should cover the overall event rather than just the report. I had a previous draft article here if anyone wants to take a look.--PCPP (talk) 18:47, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Proposed move

 * The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.  No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The report seems to have been published under the title Bloody Harvest. Personally, I have always thought that for most published works the title of the publication is probably the best title for our relevant article as per WP:NAME. I also note that the proposed new title for the article is not currently in use for any other article. So, at least to me, this seems a fairly obvious move. However, the article seems to have existed for some time under the current title, and I suppose that there might be something I have missed. If there are any such pieces of evidence which would counterindicate this proposed move, I would be very happy to see what they are. Otherwise, I would support the move as proposed. John Carter (talk) 17:43, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Errr, I think that the sources never mention the report by its name. They always seem to talk about "the harvesting report written by former MP Kilgour and human rights lawyer Matas" example.Thus, "Kilgour-Matas report" would be more adequate than the actual title of the report. --Enric Naval (talk) 18:35, 21 August 2011 (UTC)


 * You can always create a redirect with that name. This article originally had a much longer title, Reports of organ harvesting from Falun Gong practitioners in China and numerous other equally-lengthy variations of that (see "what links here" for a long list, as well as the deletion discussions linked in the header of this talk page), before it was called "Kilgour-Matas report". I have no objection to either the current name or the proposed name, though. ~Amatulić (talk) 00:07, 23 August 2011 (UTC)


 * I can see the reasoning behind the suggestion, though as has been pointed out, the current title is the one used by most neutral reliable sources. Bloody Harvest is slightly problematic as it is non-specific, and unlike "Kilgour-Matas report" will not return an accurate search, returning hits such as this, this, this, this, and this on my first page. It also turned up - Harvest Bloody Harvest. I would support either creating a redirect of Bloody Harvest to here, with a hatnote to point people to Harvest Bloody Harvest, or a redirect of Bloody Harvest to Harvest Bloody Harvest, with a hatnote to point people to Kilgour-Matas report.  SilkTork   ✔Tea time  21:31, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
 * How about making Bloody Harvest a disambiguation page, if there are more than a couple notable things that use that name? ~Amatulić (talk) 21:41, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
 * There are only two Wikipedia articles that relate to the term "Bloody Harvest", so a disamb page wouldn't be appropriate. My point is that the term is vague, and is used outside of Wikipedia in a number of contexts unrelated to the Kilgour-Matas report. "Kilgour-Matas report" is specific and unique.  SilkTork   ✔Tea time  08:31, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
 * A disambiguation page is still appropriate if there are more than two notable topics using the term "bloody harvest" regardless of whether the topics have Wikipedia articles; they need only be notable enough to have an article someday. But I agree, it's vague, and probably best to keep things as is, adding hatnotes to both articles and a redirect link to this one. ~Amatulić (talk) 13:19, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I would welcome anyone closing the discussion here. I can myself see that maybe making Bloody Harvest a dab page might be best, but am not sure that I myself would necessarily be the best person to carry out the act. John Carter (talk) 23:46, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

I do not feel too strongly about this. My only concern is that people searching for this page be able to find it with relative ease. I imagine quite a number of people have heard the allegations of organ harvesting, but in searching for more information they likely will not know to look for a book called bloody harvest. The same could be said about the current title, however, which contains neither a reference to organ extraction or to Falun Gong. I am sure this is not the kind of closing discussion you were looking for. Homunculus (duihua) 03:49, 1 November 2011 (UTC)


 * I have created the disamb page - Bloody Harvest, and two more redirects, one for each of the full titles of the report: Bloody Harvest: Revised Report into Allegations of Organ Harvesting of Falun Gong Practitioners in China and Report into Allegations of Organ Harvesting of Falun Gong Practitioners in China. The article now has 13 redirects in addition to the disamb page which should enable people to find it, though if there are any other plausible search terms, they could also be made into redirects.
 * As John Carter has said this move request should be closed, I am taking the move tag off the article page, and closing this discussion. A new request can be opened if anyone is still not satisfied with the current name.  SilkTork   ✔Tea time  11:44, 1 November 2011 (UTC)


 * The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

File:AdultKidneyTransplantWaittimes.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

 * I have left a comment on the file talkpage and on the talkpage of the user who placed the deletion tag. And I have amended the wording on the file template to more clearly indicate that it was created by Dilip rajeev.  SilkTork   ✔Tea time  16:24, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Supression of Falun Gong
I changed the caption under the photo from: "Practitioners of Falun Gong enacting live organ harvest in Hong Kong" to "Practitioners of Falun Gong reenacting live organ harvest..." because the former was the first thing that came up in Google under the cache for the Wikipedia page if you searched for Falun Gong organ harvest and I thought it was misleading/confusing and really didn't make sense whatsoever. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.182.236.144 (talk) 03:43, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

A few questions
Two, really. 1) Why is a backgrounder section on the persecution of Falun Gong original synthesis in this article? Why wasn't the removal of this discussed before it was removed? 2) Why was the paragraph from Scott Karney deleted? The Sound and the Fury (talk) 16:53, 8 June 2012 (UTC)


 * I saw that too. I have a recollection of having gone over this point in earlier discussions and editing.  The suppression of Falun Gong is essential background information; without it, nothing about the allegations makes sense.  The paragraph that was there was flawed, however; it relied on some primary sources, and it wasn't entirely clear what relevance some of the material had.  Perhaps a guide for us to avoiding original synthesis would be to look at the kind of background context that is provided in the Kilgour-Matas report itself (section C 21 - 25, in particular).  I can try to write something when time allows. There were also some citation needed tags added, among other things, that I'll try to address.  Homunculus (duihua) 18:18, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
 * The germane question for now would be whether the article is temporarily better off with no background or with one that has some minor flaws. It would have been good for that to have been discussed briefly before the section was summarily deleted. The Sound and the Fury (talk) 18:34, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
 * The 'Suppression of Falun Gong' subsection in the so-called background section is clearly out of place; it's not even a question of possessing "minor flaws". I can see there's an attempt to synthesise something, but I can't see what it is. There is little to connect the organ transplant program and the organ harvesting allegations. As is quite typical with Falun Gong articles edited by devotees, there's always the irresistible urge to labour the persecution it suffers at the hands of the Big Bad Wolf; so this article is without exception. The background about the organ transplant already introduces the subject and leads to the allegations. If anyone can tell me what connection there is between Kilgour-Matas and the "international media organizations to promote their cause and criticize the Communist Party of China", then I shall be glad to be enlightened. -- Ohconfucius  ¡digame! 12:23, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
 * This is an article about a report describing or alleging how organs are harvested from the Falun Gong labor camp/prison population. Most descriptions I have seen of this include some background, of what Falun Gong is, and the fact that it's persecuted in China. The activities alleged in this article happen in the context of the campaign against the practice by the Party-state. In what way is background information about Falun Gong's status in China irrelevant in this article? It seems perfectly germane to me. Don't you think? The Sound and the Fury (talk) 13:59, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
 * What u said above is clear from the report itself; the other stuff I mentioned is largely irrelevant. You should just let the report speak for itself. -- Ohconfucius  ¡digame! 14:22, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I am looking at the section that was removed and it feels quite a bit off-topic. We don't need to repeat in every article the reasons stated by China to persecute the movement, or state that Falun Gong "set up international media organizations to promote their cause and criticize the Communist Party of China". Mainly because I don't see that the sources link any of this info to this report. And I don't see sources making links between the information and the general topic of organ transplanting in China.


 * (is there any source explaining if and why are Falun Gong prisoners targetted over non-Falun Gong prisoners? Or is it just the group with the most prisoners? Or maybe the Chinese government cares less about what happens to them, and doctors know that there will be less questions if more of them die? This information would be necessary to understand the topic, and I am not sure that it is in the article. Certainly, it would be more informative for the reader that this persecution section)


 * In reference to "The background section provided in the Kilgour-Matas report I think answers your questions about why Falun Gong might be especially vulnerable to this kind of thing." No, it doesn't, because the sources don't state that this is why FG is vulnerable to this kind of thing (being harvested for organ transplanting). These are the conclusions of a wikipedia editor who thinks that these are the reasons. I want to see a reliable source that makes the actual connection. --Enric Naval (talk) 14:28, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

There is no way to understand or contextualize this report or the allegations contained therein without some background on Falun Gong and the persecution of Falun Gong. In any of the longer reports that deals with these allegations, including the Kilgour-Matas report itself, this material is present in some form. Moreover, we cannot omit this information simply because it is found on other pages in this encyclopedia; each article should be able to stand on its own. However, I agree that the "international media organizations to promote their cause" (and perhaps some other material) is of little direct relevance. I think that may have been added as an introduction to the Epoch Times, which played a significant role in the Sujiatun allegations. It would probably be more expedient to simply introduce the Epoch Times' Falun Gong affiliation upon first mention.

Enric, to your last paragraph, these are good points. The background section provided in the Kilgour-Matas report I think answers your questions about why Falun Gong might be especially vulnerable to this kind of thing. It would be valuable to include that information, as long as it is presented conservatively and well sourced. Ethan Gutmann has slightly different views; whereas Kilgour and Matas say they find no evidence of harvesting against other prisoners of conscience, Gutmann posits that this practice began with Uyghurs in the 1990s, that Falun Gong replaced them because it was a much bigger pool of prisoners, but that some other minority religious and ethnic groups may still be targeted on a lesser scale. I'm not sure how or where we could include a discussion on this.

I can try to put something together on the background that follows more closely what major reports do. I haven't looked at this page in a while, and might have other proposals about how it could be tweaked and scrutinized. There are also some updates that might be worth including, like the new book from the Laogai foundation, Gutmann's newer writings, reports from the CECC and State Department, and new promises from the Chinese government concerning the organ donation system. Homunculus (duihua) 14:40, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Just so we're clear: is the conclusion that we're going to have a "Suppression of Falun Gong" backgrounder section which says what Falun Gong is and something about the persecution? A few paragraphs would be sufficient. It's not necessary to mention FLG's media activism in that backgrounder. The current background section is not all that useful for introducing this article. One of the key points to understand the allegations made in the article, pointed out by the writers on this topic, is that there is a vulnerable prison camp population without names and no official accountability for their fates, i.e., the question of the source population. Another item in the background section would mention the abusive practices of organ harvesting carried out against non-political prisoners, where there are death vans and particular types of executions that render organs harvestable. These innovations in extracting organs from the general prison population are also background for understanding the spread of the practices to FLG victims. The Sound and the Fury (talk) 17:50, 9 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Yes, I already said I am working on something. As to the use of organ harvesting against prisoners, that's already addressed, and I'm not sure how much more is needed. I know Gutmann talks about these mobile transplant vans, but are there more definitive sources available?  If so, I'm still not sure this is the place for it. Maybe the general article on organ transplantation in China would be more fitting (if there are good sources). Homunculus (duihua) 19:43, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
 * The background section needs to set out some of the basic issues associated with abuse of organ transplantation in China, of which the FLG allegations here are a subset. The background to this article is precisely the place for that. The Sound and the Fury (talk) 20:03, 9 June 2012 (UTC)


 * I've just added a fairly short and generic background section introducing Falun Gong and the suppression of the group. There is more background information that could be added, both related to Falun Gong and to the organ transplant system in China in general (for example, we need to explain the answers to Enric's question somewhere). However,  I'm not entirely sure how we should present it, and it occurred to me that some of the dispute that we've seen might stem from different editors' views on the scope and framing of this page.  I think some editors have been inclined to view it as an article about a report, or even an article about a book (see renaming discussion above, where SilkTork suggested moving to the name of Kilgour and Matas' revised book).  Others see it as an article about the allegations themselves. (I fall into the latter camp,  with the reason being that Kilgour and Matas are not the only ones who have investigated and written on this topic; Ethan Gutmann, notably, has published on it quite widely in reliable sources, and his research is unrelated to that of Kilgour and Matas.) I think this ambiguity results in different ideas of what information belongs in the background section, for example, and what belongs in the description of the report itself.  If we're treating this as an article about this one report,  then the background section really only needs to set up the context in which the investigation arose.  This is more or less what it does now.  If the page is about the allegations of Falun Gong organ harvesting in general,  then the background could be much more expansive; it could include, for example,  Gutmann's narrative of how organ extraction from political prisoners in the 1990s, among other things.  Otherwise, Gutmann's findings will just have to be confined to his own section.  This is something to ponder.
 * Also, a heads up that I'm going to tweak the prose and make some other changes today. I don't think they'll be too substantial.  If I have ideas for bigger changes I'll leave another note here. Homunculus (duihua) 16:53, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
 * The article title is quite specific, so I don't subscribe to the idea of a wider scope. There was once an article dealing with the allegations of organ harvesting on live Falun Gong practitioners, but that's now gone in favour of a topic that's actually of some note. This should not be a pretext to bring back the old scope and the Sujiatun allegations all over again. -- Ohconfucius  ¡digame! 17:05, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Separately to the minor issue of the current background (how it is now strikes me as sufficient for this page), there is still the wider question of what the page on this topic should be about. Rather than simply calling for personal opinions, we may want to think about what the criteria for notability of this topic would be. I.e. at what point would a page called "Allegations of organ harvesting of Falun Gong" be notable enough to warrant a page? Once we had established a criteria, we could examine the available evidence to see whether it fit to that criteria. It does not help to resolve the matter by throwing out opinions. If there was a neutral framework in which the question could be decided, we would be better off. A community process might help the deadlock, to clarify the matter of, theoretically, what sources would have to be around to warrant having such a page. Thoughts? The Sound and the Fury (talk) 17:25, 10 June 2012 (UTC)


 * I think we might want to consider another renaming discussion at some point. I think we've established that allegations themselves are notable; they have received broad coverage in reliable sources, and have had an apparent impact on the legislation and policies of some countries, and they do not stem from only one source. For example, the State Department's country report this year writes "Overseas and domestic media and advocacy groups continued to report instances of organ harvesting, particularly from Falun Gong practitioners and Uighurs."  The CQ researcher writes "At least [Falun Gong practitioners] 62,000 were victims of organ harvesting operations from 2000-2008, according to Matas and Kilgour and Ethan Gutmann, an investigative journalist."  It would appear to me that Gutmann's findings are accorded about equal weight to Kilgour and Matas, and unlike the latter two, Gutmann continues producing and publishing new research on this. How would you suggest handling this, if not to rename to something more general? Homunculus (duihua) 17:26, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
 * This is the policy on notability for an article:

''If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article or stand-alone list.


 * "Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail, so no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material.
 * "Reliable" means sources need editorial integrity to allow verifiable evaluation of notability, per the reliable source guideline. Sources may encompass published works in all forms and media, and in any language. Availability of secondary sources covering the subject is a good test for notability.
 * "Sources", for notability purposes, should be secondary sources, as those provide the most objective evidence of notability. The number and nature of reliable sources needed varies depending on the depth of coverage and quality of the sources. Multiple sources are generally expected. Sources are not required to be available online, and they are not required to be in English. Multiple publications from the same author or organization are usually regarded as a single source for the purposes of establishing notability.
 * "Independent of the subject" excludes works produced by those affiliated with the subject or its creator. For example, self-publicity, advertising, self-published material by the subject, the subject's website, autobiographies, and press releases are not considered independent.
 * "Presumed" means that significant 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 stand-alone article. For example, such an article may violate what Wikipedia is not, perhaps the most likely violation being Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information.


 * At a quick glance, I would say: it appears to qualify for the reasons you mentioned above and others mentioned. Ohconfucius, in light of the above, what is your primary objection again? The Sound and the Fury (talk) 17:37, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

One option might actually be to have two pages: one about the allegations in general, and another about Kilgour and Matas' book "Bloody Harvest:The killing of Falun Gong for their organs." The latter could simply be about the books, adhering to a standard template for non-fiction books. It's something to think about, but I don't think we need to rush into anything. In the course of this thread, and simply by revisiting this page, it seems there are some things can be improved upon regardless. That includes providing an answer to the points Enric raised, as well as including new findings, reports, and legislative initiatives. Once we've added some of that information, maybe then we can contemplate the desirability of splitting or renaming the page.Homunculus (duihua) 18:45, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Changes
Homunculus added a background section and Ohconfucius deleted a variety of parts from it. I ended up restoring most of those deletions, after looking at each diff. My reasoning is explained below. The changes as a whole seemed to unnecessarily remove useful information, or blurred important distinctions between the Party and the state, or added other inaccuracies or imprecision. Note: there's no issue of a "wider scope" is there? This is just background information needed for the page.
 * 1) There was a crackdown on many groups, sure, but the 610 office was as far as I know only focused on FLG. Further, the source does not have language of "large scale demonstrations demanding recognition" and I have not read this phraseology anywhere. Finally, is there a question that it was the CCP leadership rather than the government structure that initiated the campaign? The Party-state is comprised of two parts. It is known that it was Jiang's letter and his decision, not something initially pushed forward by the State Council. The 610 Office was formed on June 10 - specifically for Falun Gong, according to James Tong. Also, this article is about Falun Gong, not the general background to suppression of qigong.
 * 2) Simply pointing out that information cannot be fully corroborated does not mean it should be deleted. The reader should simply be informed of how far the information extends.
 * 3) This is imprecise. "Falun Gong" was not banned. The Falun Dafa Research Society (which didn't exist) was, through law. An extralegal persecution was conducted. There is a page called Persecution of Falun Gong. There's no need to use inaccurate and imprecise language.
 * 4) This "simplification" unnecessarily deleted relevant information. The article should standalone in providing the reader enough information they need to understand FLG and the persecution in China. Deleting this information does not serve the reader.
 * 5) The subtitle is not necessary; I preserved the link to the history page.The Sound and the Fury (talk) 17:11, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

I was just about to mention much the same. I'm not sure why it would be considered an improvement to remove the description of Falun Gong and the information on the composition of the labor camp population. This was two sentences long. Also, yes, statement that the government banned Falun Gong is not really correct. The decision was made by the Communist Party leadership, and the 6-10 Office is a Communist Party organization. A government ban would have had to be made by the NPC; it alone has the constitutional authority to legally "ban" a group (TSTF, you're actually also mistaken that the MPS or the MCA had the legal authority to ban the research society; they didn't either. Without the agreement of the State Council, ministries can only issue administrative regulations, not laws). The best reliable sources (ie. books on the topic) clearly explain that the campaign was initiated by the party, not the state. You can find an account of the decision-making process in Tong, Palmer, Penny, Ownby, Zong, etc. I think I'll have to write a section about the legal framework and process on the persecution page, so we don't have to keep going over it.Homunculus (duihua) 17:26, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
 * OK, thanks for clarifying. To be honest I have not had to look into Chinese Party/state bureaucratic mechanics for a long time and I have forgotten some of the details of the Falun Gong thing. This article and all others should be both accurate and precise in presenting this information. The Sound and the Fury (talk) 17:40, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
 * about #4 it's not necessary to repeat all the details in every stand-alone summary in other articles. --Enric Naval (talk) 21:47, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I see a failure to address the problem: there still no sources stating a relationship between the Falun Gong circumstances and the topic of this report or of organ transplanting in China. People can click the links for the relevant articles if they want information unrelated to the topic of the article. --Enric Naval (talk) 22:22, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, pretty pisspoor show to push your point of view in this way, when the section isn't even necessary. All this wikilawyering about technicalities to reinstate a paragraph that few except the Falun Gong think is relevant or care about. I agree with Enric. To tie the bits together is to synthesise, and you start to run into problems with undue weight if the background section gets any bigger. -- Ohconfucius  ¡digame! 13:34, 13 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Enric, I'm afraid we may have gotten our wires crossed. I'm not sure I understand what you meant with this comment.  I meant to say that the background section in the Kilgour-Matas report itself (not the Wikipedia article) explains why they believe that Falun Gong is particularly vulnerable to organ harvesting.  Their narrative centers on several points of evidence, most of which I followed very closely in writing the new background section.  One of the key points that I omitted from their report is this idea that large numbers of the Falun Gong prisoner population is anonymous.  I didn't want to put this into the background because it's not such a general statement, and isn't a well documented fact.  I think that might be better placed into the section on their report as a new bullet point. That's just my opinion, though.  I can put something like that in when I have a moment, and we can see how it fits.
 * Ohconfucius, it seems that you're implying that myself, SilkTork, and others who have advocated for a background section dealing with the persecution are all "the Falun Gong." Accusations of bad faith, or attempts to discredit editors based on what you believe to be their religious affiliation, do not contribute to a collegial or collaborative atmosphere. This kind of behavior brings the project into disrepute, and it needs to stop.Homunculus (duihua) 13:52, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
 * "[the background section] explains why they believe that Falun Gong is particularly vulnerable to organ harvesting" Who is "they"? Which source says that someone believes this? "They" appear to be Kilgour and Matas, from their report:
 * "The Falun Gong constitutes a prison population who the Chinese authorities vilify, dehumanize, depersonalize, marginalize even more than executed prisoners sentenced to death for criminal offences. Indeed, if one considers only the official rhetoric directed against the two populations, it would seem that the Falun Gong would be a target for organ harvesting even before prisoners sentenced to death.  "
 * All the Falun Gong background seems to be in.
 * Now, if you are using conclusions made in the report, you should be citing the report. And use only the conclusions in the report. Or the conclusions made by sources that talk about the report. --Enric Naval (talk) 12:51, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, by "they" I meant Kilgour and Matas. In their report, they explain why they think Falun Gong is especially vulnerable to organ harvesting—for example, because it is a severely marginalize and largely anonymous population. I have not yet written this part and put it onto the page, but I will, and it will be written as part of the conclusions/evidence in the Kilgour-Matas report, and cited to them. Other information—such as what Falun Gong is,  that it's persecuted in China, etc.—these are not Kilgour and Matas' conclusions.  This is background information to their report and to the broader allegations. Does that make sense? Homunculus (duihua) 14:11, 14 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Don't you even dare put words into my mouth. I do not believe I have made here any "attempts to discredit editors based on what [I] believe to be their religious affiliation". But I no longer desire to threaten your continued guardianship over this page. My objection was not to 'any' background section about the persecution, but the one I commented on and you insisted on reinserting. I still believe it's an attempt at synthesis-- Ohconfucius  ¡digame! 11:55, 14 June 2012 (UTC)


 * I didn't reinsert the background you commented on. I wrote a new background section informed by the kind of background provided in these various reports (including but not limited to Kilgour and Matas' own report). You're welcome to explain why you believe it's synthesis, but would be well advised to stop the personal remarks, or with the insinuations that other editors are Falun Gong "devotees" or are "the Falun Gong." Unsupported charges of lawyering, POV-pushing, or ownership are also not conducive to collaboration.Homunculus (duihua) 14:11, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Banned in Russia
I would have put this in myself, but I do not wish to be once again faced with accusations of uncivil or other disruptive behaviour, so I will instead share a link with you. You may have been too busy improving this article to have noticed that Kilgour and Matas have since the end of 2011 been classed as purveyors of hate literature by court in the Soviet Union. Whether the judgement in said nation is just or not is neither here nor there. But I think it is notable and warrants at least a couple of sentences. The article already contains rebuttals, so make with it what you will. Good day. -- Ohconfucius  ¡digame! 11:55, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, this is one of the new things that should be included. Thanks for pointing it out.Homunculus (duihua) 14:11, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I also agree this should be included. Bobby fletcher (talk) 18:07, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Lead
It seems that the lead is becoming a bit of a quotefarm. I suggest that it be simplified and relevant material be put into the article in corresponding sections. The lead of the article is for introducing the article, not attempting to furnish the reader with favored conclusions about the topic. Does anyone object to a trimmer and simpler lead and the moving of quotes and other detailed discussion on the report to appropriate sections? TheSoundAndTheFury (talk) 18:42, 18 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks, as long as the facts presented and citations re-added are not obliterated from the page. The reason I have to put links back in is because some Falun Gong disciples came and removed the contrarian facts they didn't like. There was a big fight about this - look at the Falun Gong pages like this one, or my talk page with notes from other editors.


 * Falun Gong newspaper Epoch Times reporter Matt Robertson was even on these pages pushing their POV. Bobby fletcher (talk) 19:03, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Bobby fletcher, this edit here appears to be using a primary source to make it appear to say something it didn't quite say. The next sentence is "We understand that you will not charge a fee for your work," which should also be included, if you are going to include the sentence you did. Secondly, is there evidence that the CIPFG actually paid Kilgour and Matas? We have a primary source letter saying that they would, but we don't know if Kilgour and Matas presented receipts and they did actually pay. But your diff made it appear as though they did receive money. So you 1) changed the meaning of a primary source, 2) included only incomplete information from that primary source.
 * You seem to have a history with this topic. Have you read the policy on WP:COI which discusses issues with editors who may have real-life involvement in topics on Wikipedia? Regarding the edit above, I intend to undo it unless there is a cogent objection for why it should not be undone. TheSoundAndTheFury (talk) 19:36, 18 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Thank you for the lesson. How do you propose to edit so the article shows the balance of facts that while they are not paid, expenses related to the work was paid by the sponsoring organization? I think the POV that's pushed in "we were not paid" require some balance? I have no involemnt with the Kilgour Matas report, if you think I do, can you show me some evidence? Thanks! Bobby fletcher (talk) 19:45, 18 July 2012 (UTC)


 * We don't have something saying that the expenses of the work were paid for by the sponsoring organization, as you call it. We have a primary source letter offering to pay expenses, and noting that Kilgour and Matas are working without a fee. Since it's a primary source and says nothing definite about whether money was exchanged (personally, I'm sure expenses were covered, but that is neither here nor there) I suggest simply leaving this out. If there is a prominent secondary source pointing this out, then its notability would be demonstrated and I'd support accurate inclusion.
 * I did not suggest that you had any involvement with the Kilgour Matas report. But I looked at your user page and I looked you up on Google, and you appear to engage in off-wiki advocacy related to this topic (i.e. running multiple blogs whose apparent aim is to discredit Falun Gong allegations of organ harvesting.) TheSoundAndTheFury (talk) 19:59, 18 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Well, my interest in editing is not about my blogging outside WP, rather bring some balance to the subject, so there's no COI.
 * Give me some time, I've seen secondary citation on how much expense was paid. Bobby fletcher (talk) 20:04, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
 * As long as you use reliable sources in your research, discuss content and not contributors, and are not disruptive, Wikipedia welcomes you, even with a real-life conflict of interest. If you are being paid for your activism then unfortunately you cannot edit in article space at all - but you can still make suggested edits and others will help implement them; I've done this a few times before on other topics, in fact. If you are not receiving money for your activism, then it's probably just a regular COI and you are counseled to exercise caution and be aware of the NPOV policy, discuss edits on the talk page before making them. And it'd probably help to read through this Plain_and_simple_conflict_of_interest_guide TheSoundAndTheFury (talk) 20:11, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
 * No one pays me, unlike the Falun Gong disciples who works for Epoch Times. If you have proof I'm paid please send me the money, I need it 8-) Bobby fletcher (talk) 20:15, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Relilability of Kilgour Matas Report
Please note this report is a very dubious in nature, since it is pretty much entirely based on unreliable allegation made by members of the Falun Gong religious sect. All the parties supporting Kilgour Matas are Falun Gong outfits (Epoch Times, CIPFG, etc.):

The previous paragraph is incorrect. Corroborating Studies for the Matas, Kilgour report can be seen on this page. http://organharvestinvestigation.net/studies.htm Phone calls were made to China and the hospitals admitted they were using Falun Gong organs. I suggest that anyone who is interested watch this video.

Re the above paragraph, I cannot see any additional details in studied linked on that page. Please state where in which study the details you are referring to are. The Kilgour report has details of phone calls to hospitals, but these were transcripts provided by Falun Gong sect members, and highly dubious. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 101.78.178.186 (talk) 04:40, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Organ Harvesting in China http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ia04u0u8J8s — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gav111 (talk • contribs) 00:02, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

1) US State Dept investigated this and found no evidence: http://www.america.gov/st/washfile-english/2006/April/20060416141157uhyggep0.5443231.html#ixzz20zxXq8mk

2) Well known China dissident Harry Wu voice disagreement and revealed the political nature of this allegation: http://www.facts.org.cn/Recommendations/200711/t68651.htm (how to include this article published by NGO Chinese Information Center?)

3) Canadian journalist Glen McGregor Glen McGregor of Ottawa Citizen summarizing the dubious nature of the Falun Gong organ harvesting accusation: http://www.canada.com/ottawacitizen/news/story.html?id=8a3de338-e62d-4446-952a-7a6eedc772a7&p=1 http://www.canada.com/ottawacitizen/news/observer/story.html?id=2c15d2f0-f0ab-4da9-991a-23e4094de949&p=3

4) The Kilgour Matas report has since been declared exteremist writing by Russian courts: http://news.nationalpost.com/2011/12/24/extremist-writings-of-ex-canadian-mp-lawyer-banned-in-russia-because-of-criticisms-of-china/

Bobby fletcher (talk) 19:22, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Questioning reliability of Citation 63
It's a school paper some student wrote that cites the Kilgour Matas report itself. Also the "PhD student" credential is incorrect. According an article from Yale Daily credited to Hao Wang, he was a Junior in 2006 Bobby fletcher (talk) 19:29, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Where did the claim that the paper cited was a PhD thesis come from? It's not clear that it is a PhD thesis from viewing the paper. TheSoundAndTheFury (talk) 19:40, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I do not know. But link from Yale News above substantiate the fact he was not a PhD student as claimed by the original editor. Please look into the POV pushing fight by disciples from the religious sect Falun Gong in this and other Falun Gong related pages. I'm just trying to bring some balance of facts to these pages. Bobby fletcher (talk) 19:48, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I've simply removed this source until the reliability of the credentials can be established. TheSoundAndTheFury (talk) 20:12, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I would like to submit "Yale student" is not a notable source, and should be removed. Bobby fletcher (talk) 23:08, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Removal of Chinese Embassy references
Reference 6. ^ a b CTV.ca News Staff (6 July 2006) "Chinese embassy denies organ harvesting report", CTV.ca. Retrieved 8 July 2006. does not exist and goes to http://www.ctvnews.ca/ so should be removed.

References 15 and 65 ^ "Exposing the Lies of "Falun Gong" Cult". china-embassy.org. Retrieved 14 Jun 2010. is a page containing lies attempting to discredit Falun Gong. For instance the second sentence states "However, the cult remains rampant in the U.S. and a handful of other countries." This page http://www.falundafa.org/eng/falun-dafa-global-contacts.html lists contacts for 70 countries. So this reference should be removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gav111 (talk • contribs) 01:01, 7 January 2013 (UTC)


 * It's important that the Chinese government's response be noted somewhere. Could you find other sources to replace these (for example, other news articles from credible sources)?  The Blue Canoe  02:37, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

There is a new book available called State Organs: Transplant Abuse in China
I added this into the "Further Reading" section. I hope it's helpful. 69.198.202.10 (talk) 01:53, 1 August 2012 (UTC)