Talk:Organ harvesting from Falun Gong practitioners in China/Archive 1

Live Organ Harvesting
This sentence that was removed "Because organs from live donors are more valuable and have a lower chance of rejection, the organs are likely harvested while victims are still alive." should be put back in without the word "likely".

These references should be used http://www.abc.net.au/worldtoday/content/2008/s2332875.htm and http://nypost.com/2014/08/09/chinas-long-history-of-harvesting-organs-from-living-political-prisoners Aaabbb11 (talk) 08:29, 16 August 2015 (UTC)


 * , the New York Post is not a reliable source. The other source contains a claim made by Matas, which is not sufficient to support a bald statement such as that which appeared in the article above. Gatoclass (talk) 09:50, 16 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Organharvesting.net is a reliable source which you can read about here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_185#Organharvesting.net or here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Falun_Gong#organharvesting.net_is_a_reliable_source


 * on organharvesting.net the word live followed by a space occurs 36 times. 3 of the most interesting are


 * "14 hospitals admitted they use live organs from prisoners." You can combine that info with "Execution of prisoners sentenced to death can not explain the increase of organ transplants in China since the persecution of Falun Gong began." to figure out that Falun Gong practitioners were having live organ transplants.


 * "Annie: At the end of 2001, he started to operate, but he didn’t know these live bodies were Falun Gong practitioners. He got to know that in 2002.


 * Kilgour: What kind of organs did he take out?


 * Annie: Corneas.


 * Kilgour: Just corneas?


 * Annie: Yes.


 * Kilgour: Were these people alive or dead?


 * Annie: Usually these Falun Gong practitioners were injected with a shot to cause heart failure. During the process these people would be pushed into operation rooms to have their organs removed. On the surface the heart stopped beating, but the brain was still functioning, because of that shot." Aaabbb11 (talk) 11:18, 16 August 2015 (UTC)


 * The chief proponent of the view that organharvesting.net is a reliable source in the two discussions you linked appears to be yourself!


 * I am not opposed to the idea of this information being included somewhere in the article. What I have objected to is its inclusion in the lead, where it looks sensationalist and misleading. Gatoclass (talk) 07:57, 17 August 2015 (UTC)


 * @Gatoclass What is misleading? You have been provided with a number of references.

I have rewritten the lead sentence in the article as I had some NPOV concerns about the previous version, mainly the statement that the organ harvesting is "causing the death of the forced donor in the process", as we don't actually know whether the victims die in the process of organ removal or whether they are executed first or whether it is a combination of the two. Also, I felt it was important to say something about the financial incentives involved in the trade, as this is likely to be a very important driver of the trade regardless of its political dimension. Gatoclass (talk) 08:35, 17 August 2015 (UTC)


 * This is a very serious topic, which you seem to know little about. This edit appears to be original research https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Organ_harvesting_from_Falun_Gong_practitioners_in_China&type=revision&diff=676481158&oldid=676155321


 * I think all your edits on this article should be reverted. Perhaps this needs to go to arbitration. Aaabbb11 (talk) 12:57, 17 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Original research? Where? Gatoclass (talk) 14:34, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
 * i thought gatoclass's edits were fine - it puts the matter in a broader context as well as introducing what the subject actually is. I think the new lead should stand, and that aaabbb11's contentions are not cogent, at least to me. Happy   monsoon  day   19:46, 17 August 2015 (UTC)


 * @Gatoclass
 * You should be able to tell us where you got your information from. There is no reference there. You seem to be unaccustomed to editing articles that come under intense scrutiny. Aaabbb11 (talk) 17:25, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

"campaign to eliminate the Falun Gong spiritual practice"
I think this section of the first paragraph should be retained. A Genocide is happening. See Talk:Persecution_of_Falun_Gong Aaabbb11 (talk) 18:23, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

State Organs: Transplant Abuse in China
is an important book that should be mentioned because of the number of medical professionals who contributed essays.

David Matas states, "in 2012, State Organs: Transplant Abuse in China, edited by Matas and Dr. Torsten Trey, was published with essays from Dr. Gabriel Danovitch, Professor of Medicine, Arthur Caplan, Professor of Bioethics, Dr. Jacob Lavee, cardiothoracic surgeon, Dr. Ghazali Ahmad, Professor Maria Fiatarone Singh, Dr. Torsten Trey, Ethan Gutmann and Matas.     "

I think it should be stated that 3 books about organ harvesting have been published. Aaabbb11 (talk) 18:24, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Sourcing issues
TheBlueCanoe asked me above to detail the issues I have found with current sources. I might as well start now before I forget some of the issues I identified a few days ago. I will probably be adding more to this section over time.

1/ In the section "Discrepancy in known sources of organs", the statement "Chinese health officials reported that over 13,000 organ transplants were performed in China in 2004" is sourced to this link, but this is just a list of articles in The Lancet, there is no way to verify the statement from the list.

2/ "by 2006, the state-run China Daily newspaper reported that 20,000 organ transplants were performed annually". Sourced to this news story, but the story doesn't exactly confirm the article statement. The story says "at least 2 million patients in China need organ transplants each year, but only 20,000 transplants can be carried out because of the shortage of donated organs". It doesn't say 20,000 transplants were carried out in 2006, only that there is capacity to carry out as many as 20k transplants. Struck previous comment as I misread the source. The source still doesn't exactly state that 20k transplants were carried out in 2006 however, and arguably it is not the best kind of source for this type of information.

While we are on this source, I might also add that it notes that a great many hospitals in China have got into the transplant business for the money, and it suggests a substantial number of the transplanted organs come from people who are prepared to sell their organs. That raises the obvious question, could many of the undocumented transplants be coming from such people? That possibility doesn't seem to be canvassed in the article, and perhaps it should be.

3/ In the "Vulnerability of Falung Gong practitioners" section, it says "Thousands of Falun Gong practitioners have died or been killed in custody, often under disputed circumstances", which is sourced to two links, this one and this one. The second link appears to be a broken link. So far as I can determine, the first link mentions only "234 practitioners [who] died suspicious deaths in custody or immediately following release" which is a long way from "thousands". The link may state somewhere that "thousands" have been killed in custody, but again, with a multitude of sublinks, I have no idea where that information might be.

4/ I also left a "not in source" tag behind some information that needs verification in the article.

5/ There are additionally quite a number of cites to unlinked sources that it might be possible to link. This should be done wherever possible.

- So these are some of the issues I encountered looking through the sources the other day. There are probably more, and I will be endeavouring to check through all the article links in coming days and weeks to identify other possible issues. It is important, I think, when claims are being made of essentially, crimes against humanity, that the sources are impeccable and the article presents the facts as neutrally as possible. Gatoclass (talk) 08:17, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

BTW, in any response to this and subsequent posts above, please post your responses below rather than breaking up a post to respond to individual points, as the latter approach makes discussions very messy. Gatoclass (talk) 08:24, 18 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Got it, will look to find the original Lancet article, or find alternate source if necessary.
 * I'll take a look at this as well. The confounding thing here is that Chinese authorities actually deny keeping a tally of annual organ transplants, and where senior health officials do give numbers, they're not consistent. Nonetheless the consensus seems to be at least 10,000/year. As for the China Daily, it's not a reliable source in the sense of adhering to normal standards of fact-checking and accuracy, but it does represent the official position of the Chinese government, and is reliable as a source on those positions. On other organ sources, I'm sure there are desperate people in China who sell their kidneys for money, and this probably accounts for some of the kidney transplants (but not liver, heart, lung, or pancreas transplants). I haven't read anything that talks about this issue in the context of the overall sourcing discrepancy or organ harvesting from political prisoners, but it's worth another look to see if anything turns up.
 * On number of reported FLG deaths, there were two citations for that statement, one of them from Human Rights Watch in 2002 and one from Amnesty International in late 2013. The 2013 source supports the estimate of thousands of deaths, whereas the 2002 one naturally does not, since most of those deaths had not yet occurred. The HRW source could simply be removed to avoid confusion.
 * Other points noted as well - thanks.  The Blue Canoe  20:18, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Should this Article be Merged?
I am wondering if this article should be merged with the Kilgour-Matas report or vice versa? It seems like there is a lot of overlap in these articles. Elmmapleoakpine (talk) 23:20, 6 May 2016 (UTC)


 * In my opinion the Kilgour Matas report is in a poor state (some people find it hard to believe of course so its not always easy to put the truth on a wiki article). But its not super important now due to the existence of the Organ harvesting from Falun Gong practitioners in China article, which should cover the whole topic rather the first of 3 books about the topic. But I don't think the Kilgour Matas Report should be deleted because there is a genocide happening in china as discussed at Talk:Persecution of Falun Gong.


 * I think an article about the 2nd organ harvesting book, State Organs: Transplant Abuse in China, is justified because a number of medical professionals wrote articles for it, so its a very significant book when a genocide is occurring. Aaabbb11 (talk) 08:22, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Organ harvesting from Falun Gong practitioners in China. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080214222005/http://www.america.gov/st/washfile-english/2006/April/20060416141157uhyggep0.5443231.html to http://www.america.gov/st/washfile-english/2006/April/20060416141157uhyggep0.5443231.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 06:03, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

objection - and updated organ harvesting figures
this article and the one on transplants in china obviously needs to be updated. the deletion of a stupidly written genocide paragraph and the addition of pro-chinese government material doesn't cut the mustard. but i don't have time for that now and it will take a lot more reading until i catch up to speed on this complicated issue. I just want to register my objection, since we work on a silence=consent model on the 'pedia. Happy  monsoon  day  04:18, 27 August 2016 (UTC)


 * When I search on "60000 organ transplants" many articles about the updated organ harvesting figures come up including this one from the New York Times, this  from CNN and this  from the New Zealand Herald.


 * There are also videos on youtube with Ethan Gutmann stating the much increased estimates and probably radio interviews including this one for starters from Radio New Zealand as well. So there are many sources for the revised figures. I suggest 60,000 transplants per year is the figure we use for wiki articles, as its a conservative figure. Aaabbb11 (talk) 04:44, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

Reference list
(For links in various sections above).


 * There are multiple statements in the article that are not directly cited immediately after, such as the first two paragraphs and under "Evidence." Additionally, it not every reference as a useable hyperlink for the following references: 5, 9, 16, 24, 28, 31, 58, 68, 71, 72, 77.--Heinnic1 (talk) 17:24, 28 January 2017 (UTC)Nicole 1/28/2017

Organ harvesting from political prisoners in China, particularly from members of Falun Gong
From page 322 of The Slaughter by Ethan Gutmann. Best estimate (of Falun Gong harvested 2000 to 2008) 65,000.

"An estimate of how many Uyghurs, Tibetans or House Christians were harvested during the same period (clearly it would be a fraction of the Falun Gong numbers, collectively, say 5 percent, or in the range of two to four thousand) would be nothing more than a guess at this time."

So it would seem that this edit https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Organ_harvesting_from_Falun_Gong_practitioners_in_China&type=revision&diff=676491835&oldid=676481158 removing the "particularly from members of Falun Gong" statement is incorrect and should be removed. Aaabbb11 (talk) 14:51, 17 August 2015 (UTC)


 * I edited that statement out in order to place more emphasis on the Falun Gong as the probable leading source of organ transplants, not less. It also conforms better with the article title. Your criticisms thus far appear to have little substance Aaabbb. Perhaps I should emphasize that my only interest in this article is in getting it to a point where it can be featured on Wikipedia's main page in the DYK slot. I think it's an important subject that should be featured, but it's also important with politically controversial topics to ensure that they adhere to policy. 99% of this article already appears to do so, so it should not be difficult to resolve the remaining issues with a little goodwill. Gatoclass (talk) 17:36, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
 * honestly i am not sure the objection has all that much merit. other political prisoners/prisoners of conscience appear to be targeted. the lead is for a generalised introduction to the subject. if the reader looks through the piece it will become clear that most of the evidence so far relates primarily to falun gong. the particular verbiage here is not a huge deal and i suggest we move forward with the nom, having noted AAAbbb11's objections. Happy   monsoon  day   19:44, 17 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Adding the last 2 edits from Gatoclass together I can see it was a mistake to start this topic, so I apologize for that. But I support the changes made by Happy monsoon day which have been edited by Gatoclass so will revert to that version. Aaabbb11 (talk) 20:06, 17 August 2015 (UTC)


 * I reverted your edit as you clearly don't have consensus for it Aaabbb11, as Happymoonday already expressed the view that my lead "should stand". On reflection however, I have modified the lead to include the statement that the victims are "mainly Falun Gong practitioners", because I think your last point is not unreasonable. Do we have agreement on the lead now? Gatoclass (talk) 08:31, 18 August 2015 (UTC)


 * @Gatoclass In my opinion the edits made by you and Happymoonday have resulted in a significant deterioration in the quality of the lede section of this article since the 27 July version. I think this needs to go to arbitration before further edits are made or we could ask TheBlueCanoe and Zujine who are experienced editors and knowledgeable about Falun Gong articles (and have edited this article) for their opinion on the changes made to the lede since 27 July.
 * 1. The first paragraph was very clear and accurate.
 * 2. Despite being provided with a number of references you still think this sentence "Because organs from live donors are more valuable and have a lower chance of rejection, the organs are likely harvested while victims are still alive." being in the lede is sensationalist and misleading. I think that sentence is very conservative and should be in the lede. This article has probably been though a very rigorous process before it was loaded. If other people had thought sections of the lede were sensationalist and misleading I think they would already would have been removed. Aaabbb11 (talk) 12:35, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

yes, let's ask one of those other people for their input. will you be happy if they agree that the changes are helpful? please leave a comment on their talk pages asking them to come and give their opinion. I feel that further argument would not be helpful, but i welcome an amicable end to this silly dispute. go ask those other editors what they think Happy   monsoon  day   17:22, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

It appears this dispute is now primarily about my removal from the lead of the sentence "Because organs from live donors are more valuable and have a lower chance of rejection, the organs are likely harvested while victims are still alive", which Aaabbb11 thinks should be retained.

The article lead is supposed to summarize the main points to be found in the article content. In this example however, the claim about organs being harvested "while victims are still alive" is not only not one of the main points of the article, it does not, so far as I can tell, appear in the article body at all. The only part of the article that appears to reference "living donors" is this part:


 * Researchers and medical professionals have expressed concern about the implications of the short organ transplant wait times offered by Chinese hospitals. Specifically, they say these wait times are indicative of a pool of living donors whose organs can be removed on demand.[22] This is because organs must be transplanted immediately after death, or must be taken from a living donor (kidneys must be transplanted within 24–48 hours; livers within 12 hours, and hearts within 8 hours).[56]

However, a pool of living donors is not the same thing as organs harvested while victims are still alive. So it seems clear to me that there is no justification for the retention of this claim in the lead. Gatoclass (talk) 10:42, 19 August 2015 (UTC)


 * I think both ledes are clear, and have no objections to the current version or the earlier one. As to the live harvesting bit, this could be substantiated in considerably more depth in the article body, which would justify a sentence in the lede. I might be able to take that on in the next couple days. But in the interim period, Gatoclass does have a point. I suggest putting this to rest for now so this can proceed to be featured as a DYK. The Blue Canoe  17:01, 20 August 2015 (UTC)


 * , I'm happy to see the article featured at DYK in its current form. If you want to add potentially contentious content to the article though, I will either need to see it before approving the article, or you will have to wait until after the article is featured on DYK to add it. Which would you prefer? Gatoclass (talk) 17:35, 20 August 2015 (UTC)


 * @Gatoclass
 * On 17 August I asked you this question on your talk page, which you have yet to answer.
 * "Have you read anything about organ harvesting other than the wikipedia article?"
 * You seem unfamiliar with the topic of organ harvesting, so your edits do not seem to be well informed. If the major alterations that have been done to the lede of this article are required for it to be on DYK then I think you should forget about having this article on DYK and we can remove the changes that have been done since since 27 July. Aaabbb11 (talk) 18:30, 20 August 2015 (UTC)


 * , my sole concern as a DYK administrator is to ensure that articles which appear on DYK conform to policy. I don't particularly care what happens to this article after it has been on DYK, that's for the regular editors to sort out, but while an article appears on DYK it must conform to core policy.
 * As for my level of familiarity with the topic - I didn't respond to your question previously because quite frankly, it's irrelevant. I don't need expertise on this or any other topic in order to assess policy questions such as whether a source is reliable or accurately or duly represented. In any case, in my experience debating generalities is pointless, we have specific issues to discuss here, so please let's stick to them in order to resolve this as quickly as possible. Gatoclass (talk) 20:22, 20 August 2015 (UTC)


 * @Gatoclass If the DYK process typically involves people distorting complicated articles like Organ Harvesting that they know nothing about I suggest DYK should be abandoned ASAP. People who are busy might think being involved with wiki is a waste of their time. I've lost respect for what happens on wikipedia after seeing what's happened here. Aaabbb11 (talk) 23:32, 20 August 2015 (UTC)


 * This section may be made more personal if interviews from people who practice Falun Gong were included. Here is a link of a short interview of the leader of Falun Gong from CNN Although this is a difficult topic to remain neutral on, it should be stressed more not to sugar coat what is happening in China- a genocide. There is enough evidence presented throughout the article to claim this within the strong "Evidence" section. In efforts not to be completely bias, more should be added to "Chinese Government Response."

Heinnic1 (talk) 17:36, 28 January 2017 (UTC)Nicole 1/28/2017

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Organ harvesting from Falun Gong practitioners in China. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121212041846/http://www.cecc.gov/pages/annualRpt/annualRpt08/CECCannRpt2008.pdf to http://www.cecc.gov/pages/annualRpt/annualRpt08/CECCannRpt2008.pdf
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://web.archive.org/web/20030711022606/http%3A//web.amnesty.org/library/Index/engASA170112000
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20151017095219/http://www.canada.com/topics/news/national/story.html?id=290fed94-d0c2-4265-8686-54ce75d08eca&k=34245 to http://www.canada.com/topics/news/national/story.html?id=290fed94-d0c2-4265-8686-54ce75d08eca&k=34245
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150402124932/http://www.jewishtribune.ca/arts-and-culture/2012/09/19/new-matas-book-reveals-transplant-abuse to http://www.jewishtribune.ca/arts-and-culture/2012/09/19/new-matas-book-reveals-transplant-abuse
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150224121713/http://seraphimeditions.com/state-organs.html to http://www.seraphimeditions.com/state-organs.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 12:26, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 9 external links on Organ harvesting from Falun Gong practitioners in China. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added tag to http://press.thelancet.com/chinaorgan.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101204232011/http://www.wma.net/en/30publications/10policies/30council/cr_5/index.html to http://www.wma.net/en/30publications/10policies/30council/cr_5/index.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140715071515/http://www.amnesty.org/es/library/asset/ASA17/042/2013/en/f7e7aec3-e4ed-4d8d-b99b-f6ff6ec860d6/asa170422013en.pdf to https://www.amnesty.org/es/library/asset/ASA17/042/2013/en/f7e7aec3-e4ed-4d8d-b99b-f6ff6ec860d6/asa170422013en.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110930024526/http://en.epochtimes.com/news/6-3-17/39405.html to http://en.epochtimes.com/news/6-3-17/39405.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130527201924/http://www.seraphimeditions.com/pdfs/Introduction-State-Organs to http://www.seraphimeditions.com/pdfs/Introduction-State-Organs
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110903084007/http://www.organdonation.nhs.uk/ukt/statistics/centre-specific_reports/pdf/waiting_time_to_transplant.pdf to http://www.organdonation.nhs.uk/ukt/statistics/centre-specific_reports/pdf/waiting_time_to_transplant.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20170625200723/https://www.state.gov/j/drl/rls/irf/2008/108404.htm to https://www.state.gov/j/drl/rls/irf/2008/108404.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141017114408/http://voicesinbioethics.org/2013/10/15/prisoner-organ-harvest/ to http://voicesinbioethics.org/2013/10/15/prisoner-organ-harvest/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101204232011/http://www.wma.net/en/30publications/10policies/30council/cr_5/index.html to http://www.wma.net/en/30publications/10policies/30council/cr_5/index.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150623233353/http://boryswrzesnewskyj.liberal.ca/mp-borys-wrzesnewskyj-re-introduces-bill-to-combat-underground-trade-in-human-organs-and-body-parts/ to http://boryswrzesnewskyj.liberal.ca/mp-borys-wrzesnewskyj-re-introduces-bill-to-combat-underground-trade-in-human-organs-and-body-parts/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 21:34, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

New Source
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/jun/17/china-is-harvesting-organs-from-detainees-uk-tribunal-concludes Tym Whittier (talk) 05:41, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

Perhaps more skepticism?
There might be some valid skepticism that should be noted on this article, or if there is any skepticism, it could be noted depending on repercussion, the response to it, etc. I feel perhaps this article is lacking in that. From (a very quick) googling, I found this link www.facts.org.cn/Feature/rhol/Highlights/201409/25/t20140925_1951260.htm which is likely very biased but might have some noteworthy info? I am writing this quickly, don't have time to look into it more in depth right now. Lucasdealmeidasm (talk) 11:37, 22 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Regarding facts.org.cn, i saw there is a discussion saying - "It is not reliable for any of its claims, due to lack of editorial process. Its opinnion lacks any weight, as it is not comprised of weight-worthy commentators. Do not use facts.org.cn " Thanks. Marvin 2009 (talk) 14:00, 22 December 2015 (UTC)


 * I'll say, but good luck finding an English language source that's skeptical of the Falun Gong. It's up to the reader to apply their judgement. 75.166.182.90 (talk) 23:18, 2 July 2016 (UTC)


 * How is it less reliable than the Epoch Times, which is widely known to spread falsehoods and fabrications? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.15.31.188 (talk) 04:15, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

The Epoch Times publishes articles on chemtrails (https://www.theepochtimes.com/nervous-system-damage-from-the-sky_1480936.html). The fact that they are cited repeatedly throughout this article tells you all you need to know. 173.73.99.2 (talk) 22:23, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

Why is the Epoch Times cited?
There is 7 Epoch Times citations on this article, 8 when you count the same article being used multiple times. Of these 7, 4 are the only citation on the statement. It is also a Deprecated source. Helloimahumanbeing (talk) 16:10, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

2015: China has changed its law to forbid organ transplant from death penalty prisoners
... officially at least! Maybe update the article accordingly?

"On December 4, 2014, professor Jie-Fu Huang, the director of National Organ Donation and Transplantation Committee (NODTC) of China made a public announcement that China will fully cease the use of the death penalty prisoners’ organ for transplantation, with effective from January 1, 2015. The community-based organ donation has become the only legitimate source of transplantable organ in China since then." https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4989417/


 * China has outlawed prostitution as well! Now, lets talk about what's really happening back in the real world?65.29.77.61 (talk) 07:32, 18 October 2017 (UTC)


 * I had a Chinese flat mate at university in 1994 or so. This was in Germany.  He did an excursion to Düsseldorf where the brothel is visible from the train station.  When he came back from in the evening he was shaken.  He spoke several times about this in the following days, saying that he was sure that certainly prostitution also existed somewhere in China, but that he had never seen it anywhere.  The guy was around 30 years old, he had a wife and kid he left behind in China.  I have never been to China, but I honestly do not have the slightest doubt that prostitution was banned at that time and that most people would never see it.  77.129.252.122 (talk) 23:57, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Added Article With References from WHO
This reference was added, feel free to improve it: https://www.thestar.com.my/news/nation/2016/08/20/transplant-claims-debunked-organ-harvesting-rumours-impossible-due-to-donor-programme

“Jose Ramon Nunez Pena, medical officer of the World Health Organisation, and Michael Millis, vice-chairman for global surgery and director at the University of Chicago’s School of Medicine Transplant Centre, dismissed the allegations – which were raised by Western critics of China as early as 2006 – as implausible. Pena, a transplant surgeon who has visited China often, said the claimed number is equal to the transplant activity of the entire world and is practically impossible.” Bobby fletcher (talk) 02:12, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

Proposed new section
@User:Gatoclass: here's a proposal for a new section on the live harvesting issue. If you're satisfied with this, we can add it into the article along with a sentence in the lead section. Hopefully that would mollify everyone involved.


 * Evidence of live organ harvesting


 * The Kilgour-Matas report notes the allegation that Falun Gong practitioners are likely still alive at the time that their organs are harvested, as organs taken from living donors have a lower rate of rejection. The researchers present self-incriminating evidence a Chinese hospital in Shenyang city whose website advertised the use of live donors. In a Q & A section of the website, the transplant hospital noted that its kidney transplants are “more safe than in other countries, where the organ is not from a living donor.” The site also mentioned that its high volume of transplants owes to cooperation from the Chinese government, police, and judiciary. Kilgour and Matas also noted testimony of a female whistle-blower who claims her husband removed corneas from living Falun Gong practitioners in the same Northeastern Chinese city of Shenyang.


 * Although unconfirmed, these allegations are consistent with earlier reports of live organ harvesting following deliberately botched executions. An official Chinese legal textbook from 1988 acknowledged that this practice occurred, noting that “a very few localities, in order to be able to use particular organs from the criminals' bodies, even go so far as to deliberately avoid killing them completely when carrying out the death sentence, so as to preserve live tissue.” The textbook noted that this practice should be discontinued, yet witnesses report that it persisted.


 * In his research on organ harvesting in Xinjiang province, Ethan Gutmann interviewed a former police officer and a former surgeon who attended executions in the 1990s, both of whom said that some of the prisoners were still alive while organs were harvested. In 2001, another surgeon, Wang Guoqi, testified before U.S. Congress that he harvested skin and corneas from over 100 prisoners in the early 1990s. He stopped participating in the process in 1995 when he witnessed his colleagues harvesting the kidneys of a man who was still alive and breathing.


 * Okay, first of all your first source is missing, so you need to rectify that. Gatoclass (talk) 08:17, 24 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Fixed.  The Blue Canoe  17:39, 24 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Apologies for not getting back to this sooner. I decided to do some more reading on the topic before responding to your proposal, but haven't found the time yet. Hopefully I will have a response in the next few days. Gatoclass (talk) 14:54, 30 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Unfortunately, I have been unable to find the time to read up on this topic as I hoped to, and the DYK nomination is getting rather old., would it be okay with you if we ran this article on DYK as it is, without your proposed addition? Otherwise, I can see this debate dragging on for quite some time. Gatoclass (talk) 17:12, 9 September 2015 (UTC)


 * @User:Gatoclass - fine with me.  The Blue Canoe  17:51, 13 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Regretfully, I have decided to decline this article as a DYK nomination after taking a closer look at the article sources. I just found too many discrepancies and other issues (such as broken or incorrect links and so on). If someone still wants this featured at DYK, the sourcing issues would have to be ironed out first and the article would have to pass a GAN review before it could be resubmitted at DYK. DYK is simply not designed to deal with articles that have multiple unresolved issues as this one appears to have. Gatoclass (talk) 13:56, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Yep, I saw your comment on the DYK page. Your proposed course of action makes sense, and a rigorous review can never hurt. If you have time, it would be helpful if you could point out a couple of the broken links and other issues that you identified so they can be addressed.  The Blue Canoe  00:02, 18 September 2015 (UTC)


 * I am happy to do that, but unfortunately I can't spend much time on the internet for the time being and my priority has now moved to another old DYK nomination I flagged for improvement some weeks ago, so I probably won't be able to get back to this one right away. However, I will start to list the issues I have come across in this article as soon as I can find the time - hopefully no longer than a week or so. Gatoclass (talk) 07:39, 18 September 2015 (UTC)


 * In an effort to make a gruesome topic less bias, perhaps include general information on how death and autopsies are viewed in Chinese culture. Once the reader understands the unique culture around this sensitive topic in China, it will provide significantly greater insight into understanding the situation. It is mentioned in the article the Chinese government is the primary reason for targeting Falun Gong members due to fear of anarchy, but what are the citizens views on this? Are they fully informed of the severity of what is occurring or are they merely left blissfully ignorant? This online book provides some insight-

Heinnic1 (talk) 17:44, 28 January 2017 (UTC)Nicole 1/28/2017

This reference from Harry Wu of Laogai Foundation in DC seems to cast doubt on the two witnessed referenced. Should be included for NPOV. http://web.archive.org/web/20110928081519/http://www.cicus.org/info_eng/artshow.asp?ID=6491 "(4) After a careful study of the reports on Da Ji Yuan, I found the two witnesses are not reliable and most probably they had fabricated the story. I tried in vain to contact Zhang Erping, the spokesman of Falun Gong." Bobby fletcher (talk) 02:39, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

Propose to add article from Max Blumenthal of The Intercept
This is the article in question: https://thegrayzone.com/2019/09/30/reports-china-organ-harvesting-cult-falun-gong/

"Western corporate media outlets have gone wild with claims that the Chinese state is “harvesting” the organs of ethnic minorities and political opposition figures. But an investigation by The Grayzone has found that these allegations originate from front groups run by the far-right opposition cult Falun Gong." Bobby fletcher (talk) 01:08, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, they are journalists enough for us to use them here. Binksternet (talk) 03:16, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
 * The Grayzone is a deprecated source: "There is consensus that The Grayzone publishes false or fabricated information." CowHouse (talk) 03:46, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Aha! I should have looked there. Instead, I took a quick look for online opinions about them. Binksternet (talk) 03:52, 25 September 2020 (UTC)