Template:Did you know nominations/Organ harvesting from Falun Gong practitioners in China


 * The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as |this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: rejected by BlueMoonset (talk) 15:13, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Organ harvesting from Falun Gong practitioners in China

 * ... that researchers believe that tens of thousands of prisoners of conscience in China have been executed so their vital organs could be sold for illicit transplants (chart pictured)?


 * Comment: New article on an interesting topic that's getting increasing attention in the public eye (i.e. http://www.peabodyawards.com/award-profile/human-harvest-chinas-illegal-organ-trade).
 * Comment: New article on an interesting topic that's getting increasing attention in the public eye (i.e. http://www.peabodyawards.com/award-profile/human-harvest-chinas-illegal-organ-trade).

Created by Davives (talk). Nominated by Happymonsoonday1 (talk) at 23:28, 29 June 2015 (UTC). Happymonsoonday1 reviewed a DKY hook on Cannon Hall, Hamstead.


 * Symbol confirmed.svg good 2 go, new and long enough, prose checks, image checks, inline citations checked. Interesting article indeed. --BabbaQ (talk) 00:35, 13 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Symbol possible vote.svg I have returned this one from prep 4 as I have some npov and other concerns. Firstly, the intro states 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, a highly alarming claim for which I found little support in the article. I would also have to query the article title, firstly because the article notes other sources or possible sources of organs including Uyghurs, Tibetans and executed prisoner etc. and secondly because it presents an allegation as if it were a fact. Another concern is that an Organ harvesting in China article already exists which covers much of the same territory albeit less comprehensively, so I think there are grounds for a possible merge which might then raise the question of whether this constitues a x5 expansion of the existing content. Gatoclass (talk) 15:02, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Hi guys. With regards to the "merge" idea, there is really too much relevant, highly-sourced material (journal articles, books, longform journalism, government hearings etc.) on this page to merge with another without completely throwing off the balance of the other article. If this were part of the other article, there would be calls to WP:SPLIT the content. And to the 5x expansion issue, this is basically all new content, and in any case it is more than 5x larger than the relevant section on the organ transplant in China page. So that shouldn't be an issue.


 * About the Uyghur and Tibetan issues, after reading the piece it seems to be a pretty minor part of the story. The relevant researchers seem to think that Falun Gong is targeted at a far higher rate than any other group - the Tibetan stuff is suggestive, and it seems the Uyghurs were the beginning source.


 * About the live harvesting, that has come up even by sources inside China (i.e. a former military surgeon, Jiang Yanyong mentioned it in some detail in interviews with Chinese media, though indeed not in the context of Falun). But indeed we can drop that sentence unless/until that particular dimension is fleshed out more in the article. Excuse the pun. Happy   monsoon  day   18:20, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm not suggesting the content of the article isn't valid, my issues are with the name of the article, possible WP:CONTENTFORK issues, and a couple of statements within the article itself. The CONTENTFORK issue is one that requires a careful assessment of both articles and I haven't found time to do that yet. Gatoclass (talk) 18:56, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

I removed the objectionable sentence about "live" organ harvesting in the lede. There were some other objectionable statements I came across when I last read the article, but since that was a couple of weeks ago, I will have to read it again to find them. Having read and compared the "Organ harvesting in China" article, I do not think this article represents a content fork. However, I am still uneasy about the name, I think I would prefer something like "Organ harvesting from political prisoners in China", but again, I will have to read the article a second time before making a decision about that. Gatoclass (talk) 05:45, 4 August 2015 (UTC)


 * I have re-read the article and have no concerns at this point that would prevent the article appearing on DYK, except for the first sentence which I think is misleading and probably needs rewriting. Gatoclass (talk) 10:04, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
 * OK. i have been crushed with work and life. let me look at this. [Update: just did] interesting that that first sentence is not the sentence that was there when i nommed this (or, in fact, I would not have nommed it). Given everything I understand about this, which is simply from reading the materials and associated references on that page, and the couple of actual books on the topic that are out there... the first sentence is a load of bs. I'll write another sentence for the lead. Happy   monsoon  day   01:41, 15 August 2015 (UTC)


 * I'm not happy with that as a lead either. I might add something myself. Gatoclass (talk) 05:55, 15 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Symbol possible vote.svg Just to update this nomination, there is currently a discussion at the article talk page to try and resolve outstanding issues, which hopefully will be effected soon in order to move the nomination forward. Gatoclass (talk) 08:00, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

but these reports have been ignored.小梨花 (talk) 12:14, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Symbol possible vote.svg I don’t really care about this, but I have noticed that the neutrality of Kilgour-Matas report is suspicious for it has been denyed by the reports of the NZ government and the US department of State.
 * Thanks for the links, I will take those into account. Gatoclass (talk) 14:56, 30 August 2015 (UTC)


 * The U.S. State Department findings (or lack of a finding) is mentioned in the article. And for reference, it does not amount to a denial of the Kilgour-Matas report, or any subsequent investigations, but only addresses the initial allegation in 2006 about organ harvesting at a specific hospital in Shenyang. It predates the Kilgour-Matas report by three months. Moreover, the absence of proof in this case does not amount to disproof; as later researchers noted, an approved tour of a hospital can't really be expected to yield evidence that prisoners' organs were taken there without consent. The New Zealand report is not an investigation, but merely a statement that, as of 2011, there was no definitive proof of allegations. The Blue Canoe  20:21, 30 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Symbol delete vote.svg Once again, my apologies for the long delay for this nomination, which has been due to a number of factors beyond my control. I had hoped for a quick promotion of this article after apparently getting agreement on a suitable version, but unfortunately, a closer reading of the article comparing it to sources leads me to the conclusion that at the very least it needs more work. Statements made in the article do not conform with sources, other sources are to broken or incorrect links, while others still are offline and uncheckable. Sources in some instances appear to be used in a SYNTH-ish manner to draw a conclusion. In short, it looks like a long job ironing out the sourcing issues and DYK is not an appropriate venue for this. If someone really wants this article featured at DYK, I think a more appropriate path would be to sort out the sourcing issues first and then try to get it passed at WP:GAN so that it can be resubmitted here. Gatoclass (talk) 13:48, 16 September 2015 (UTC)