Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Falun Gong and live organ harvesting

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus for deletion of this content. AfD is not a forum for proposing or discussing name changes. Please use the article talk page for this. Sandstein 19:39, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Falun Gong and live organ harvesting

talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log

)

• Clarification: my issue here is with the namespace, and not the content. Ohconfucius 04:48, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletions, and in the list of Religion-related deletions. —Ohconfucius 05:58, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• 'Strongly Agree with namespace change proposed by Ohconfucius. His suggestion
  Organ harvesting in China
  I feel, is a good one.

Dilip rajeev 06:26, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kindly see my clarification below I was teh under the impression that a change of title( "namspace"!) was being suggested! I was thinking the title could be better phrased perhaps as "Organ Harvestion from live Falun Gong Practitioners"

Dilip rajeev 02:35, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment That title would be infinitely worse than no change at all, IMHO. Ohconfucius 02:23, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Agree However, the replacement should named
  Allegations of state terrorism by the United States--PCPP 06:37, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Rename to
  Organ harvesting in China and expand. Dbromage [Talk] 07:02, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Merge with FG. If FG is making most of the noise on this topic it should be merged. If any other more neutral sources say it is true then redirect to
  Organ harvesting in China. But this article seems to be bias since most of the sources are FG or FG related. --Cs california 07:32, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Cleanup and Merge with FG per Cs california if content remind exclusive to FG. Else redirect to
  Organ harvesting in China. KTC 08:48, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Else replace at Allegations of organ harvesting in China. KTC 09:45, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification : That's a support of proposal by Ohconfucius below. KTC 09:46, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• FURTHER CLARIFICATION - Please note that I am taking it for granted that the contents will be
  merged with one or other article. To avoid any doubt, I wish to see the deletion of the namespace, without any redirects. Please endorse your remarks accordingly. Ohconfucius 09:31, 14 August 2007 (UTC):[reply
  ]

• Note to closing admin. It may be desirable to preserve the edit history of this article by first deleting
  Organ harvesting in China, moving the existing into that namespace, and then deleting the redirect. Then, we can work on adapting the article to conform to the title, as well as to wiki policies and guidelines. Ohconfucius 06:37, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Delete, add relevant information to either of the articles mentioned above. >Radiant< 13:18, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename, cleanup, and synchronise with the content on persecution of Falun Gong page. Rename to Organ Harvesting in China, with a section about prisoners and the others, and a section about flg. The difference between flg and the others is that they are saying that it is systematic and using live practitioners. The CCP has admitted to using the organs of executed prisoners, but the accusation here is that they are using living falun gong practitioners who have been imprisoned for their beliefs, or are at forced labour camps. they blood test them and use them for organs. the accusation is that flg is the only group they are doing this to in this way. read the report http://www.organharvestinvestigation.net/ for more details --Asdfg12345 05:52, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[1].[reply]

oh yeah and the "allegations" title can disappear since if it is about organ harvesting in China, there is no question there is organ harvesting. there are public statements from the health minister or someone admitting to using executed prisoners. The part about falun gong could somehow incorporate the concept that the party hasn't admitted to the fact etc.--Asdfg12345 05:56, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• KEEP, Thie title is a neutral title. It does not say "Live organ harvesting on Falun Gong practitioner". It is just "Falun Gong and live organ harvesting". What a neutral title!! The claimed "Live organ harvesting" is a very cruel thing that happen in the persecution of Falun Gong practitioners. Note that "LIVE" is not the ordinary organ harvesting for other organ harvesting victims in China. "Falun Gong" could not be removed from the title. This article could be cited from other articles. But it should not deleted from namespace. I don't see any reason that is necessary. The article is also full of third-party citations from legal sources. It just simply reports something without any point of views from editors. I don't see any reason that this article should be deleted. I welcome all suggestions that improves it, though. Fnhddzs 17:59, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. This article describes a very specific question: "live organ harvesting of Falun Gong members". Therefore, no reason for deletion or renaming. In addition, a separate article, such as
  Organ harvesting in China can be created, which has a much wider scope. This should not be "allegations" of organ harvesting in China, because using organs of executed prisoners is officially admitted by Chinese government.Biophys 02:42, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Keep. The article must be kept. There is much information directly related to Extraction of organs from Live Falun Gong Practitioners. Incuding the Kilgour-Matas report based on independent inestigation conducted by the Ex-Canadion MPs. The article must be kept and the issue is directly related to the Persecution of Falun Gong. There is so much information in the article that cannot go under a generic "namespace". I see absilutely no reason why the article should be deleted.

Dilip rajeev 06:26, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment The present article needs a lot of work to conform to wikipedia standards. If that work is properly done, I see every reason the contents will sit comfortable within the 'organ harvesting in China' article. Ohconfucius 02:33, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• A FEW MORE ISSUES: The main argument put forward to suggest change of namespace is: "exclusivity does not exist, and the article should be renamed
  Organ harvesting in China
  " . I beleve there is little or no logic to this argument. Absence of exclusivity doesnot imply the issue is not one of serious concern, recieving increasing amounts of international attention.

See for instance the Kilgour-Matas report the report is exclusively on the Extraction of Organs from live Falun practitioners. There are exclusive reports from the Amnesty Inernational, HRW, etc related to the issue. Futher, the issue deservers greater attention and stands out from the rest because Falun Practitioners undergoing these brutalities are innocent people, who are being persecuted merely because of their belief in Truthfulness-Compassion and Endurance.

Which subject or topic has "exclusivity"? Just to demonstrate the lack of reason in the so called ""exclusivity" does not exist" argument, we can apply the same logic to the

Persecution of early Christians by the Romans

article and say Christians were not the only group persecuted by the Romans so the namespace is a "POV fork" and therefore the article should be merged with some "Persecution in Rome"..Which, to me, sounds rather irrational. I wish to point out that the exact same arguments are being pushed here.

Dilip rajeev 08:59, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment of course you are entitled to change your mind, but why the sudden about turn, Dilip? What I would like to know is if can anyone prove that the PRC is not carrying out live organ harvesting on other non-FG people? Ohconfucius 09:14, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It was no change in mind. What I had in mind when saying "change the title" was a better wording of the title say for instance "Organ Harvestion from live Falun Gong Practitioners". Not a removal of the "namespace"!!! . But this title, I believe is good enough. I am strongly against removal of the "namespace".

Perhaps the CCP is but that is, not by any means, a reason for removal of the namespace. "Exclusivity" is not a requirement for an article to exist. Please see my explanation above. This is an issue that has been recieving a lot of international attention and has come to light recently with independent investigation carried our by KIlgour-Matas , WOIPFG etc. The issue is recieving greater international attention precisely because these are inncoent prisoners of conscience undergoing this persecution. Further, emerging evidence suggests Falun Gong practitioner are being targeted because their organs are in "better health"!! The extent of brutality is almost unbelievable. Please see the Kilgour-Matas report and other material presented on the page.

Dilip rajeev 09:32, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment And what have these have to do with Wikipedia policies? WOIPFG is a Falun gong organization, and Kilgor and Matas's report has not been verified by any independent third-party.--PCPP 14:04, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment You know this is the cool thing about wikipedia, you can include that :). I said that there is evidence and their is disprove, but whats more there is certainly a hype around it, so it deserves an article :) --HappyInGeneral 10:22, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep You might notice that there is a big hype around the Falun Gong and Live Organ Harvesting in China, this is human knowledge, if you alter the title it would be the same as denying that there are proofs, and that there are denials, basically this being an ongoing debate which might drag on a lot more since the Communist Party of China does not allow independent investigation and it's only trying hard to deny. On the other hand there are witnesses, there is at least one serious independent investigation which strongly requires that an investigation should be initiated in mainland China. So giving that this issue is a known one, it merits an article in the collection of important human knowledge, the only problem being that there are some (the accused) who are feeling very much discomfort with the existence of this article, especially when people come and look for articles about mainland china and they see that there is such an issue, while the
  CCP is trying to hold the Olympic Games which in Theory are partly for safeguarding human dignity [2]. Then you tell me, what is the correct thing to do. --HappyInGeneral 09:35, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• CommentWikipedia is not about disseminating the truth: "
  the neutral point of view is a point of view, not the absence or elimination of viewpoints. Ohconfucius 02:26, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Comment Please read

WP:V. And keep in mind this is about renaming the current article, which currently is in total POV mess, and not a place to push what one thinks about Falun Gong or the CCP. Irrelevant of the CCP's actions of censorship, the article should be based on verifiable facts, not suspicions based on China's past records. And also worth noting is that Dilip rajeev (contribs), Fnhddzs (contribs), and HappyInGeneral (contribs) have similar editing patterns and all have edited Falun Gong exclusively.--PCPP 13:56, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

• Comment While you are doing that you could also check out PCPP's (contribs) bias, which is very much cleaning up aka. hiding and diluting all negative statements regarding the Chinese Communist Party --HappyInGeneral 15:56, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment From the person who tried to pass off material from Clearwisdom as fact [3]? I made all my edits based on
  WP:NPOV, so that the articles in question does not become a mirror of a Falun Gong website. Neutrality means giving evidence to both Falun Gong and the CCP, not accepting the former as absolute truth while dismissing the latter as propaganda.--PCPP 03:52, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Comment Regarding
  WP:V "Material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, and all quotations, must be attributed to a reliable, published source.", please check the document and you'll see that the material is attributed. If you don't want to go through the document then see this report: http://OrganHaverstInvestigation.net [4] (this is just for a quick reference it is not the only source provided in the article). --HappyInGeneral 16:16, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Comment Kilgore and Mata's report has not been verified by any third party to be fact, and has been disputed by Chinese Laogai researcher Harry Wu. Their research may be used to present FLG's side of the case, but to base the article entirely on on their "evidence" is a violation of

WP:NPOV.--PCPP 03:52, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

• Keep Why should this be deleted? This is undeniable evidence that this is actually happening TODAY, as we speak. The Chinese Communist Party are terrified of this topic because it fully exposes their wickedness and what they are capable of doing. Omido 07:06, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Have you even read the nomination? It's about moving the title from
  Organ harvesting in China. And are you accusing me of being an agent of the Chinese Communist Party? Like your fellow meatpuppets, you have edited nothing but Falun Gong related articles Omido (contribs)--PCPP 03:52, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Comment Reply to PCPP, I believe that editors who have up to now edited only FG related articles should not be criticised for that fact alone, for it is not forbidden to do so. What is more, everyone has different priorities. However, I would agree that they should indeed go edit other wikipedia articles to gain a sense of application of wikipedia's policies and guidelines outside of the rarified environment of the FG articles. Ohconfucius 02:19, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Thank You for your invitation and actually I did that :) However it's not quite the same, because this is an article that is made to be highly controversial. (IMHO, suppressed & tweak strongly because of the current persecution against Falun Gong, in China by the
  Communist Party, wait and see how the article will look after the persecution is stopped :) ) --HappyInGeneral 10:22, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Rename to
  Organ harvesting in China, since China was supposed to harvest organs from executed prisoners as well. I failed to find such move pro-China/anti-Falun Gong.--AstrixZero 10:44, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Comment wow! this has turned into yet another slanging match between the forces of "good" and "evil", but was never intended to be. It's about having an article title which accurately reflects the policies and guidelines of wikipedia, and not about the morality and proof of the acts of organ harvesting (dead or alive). Although I am not so naïve to believe that a
  POV titles and redirects. Ohconfucius 02:12, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Comment Sounds reasonable, the question is how are you going to achieve this by renaming the page since the topic at hand is Organ Harvesting from Live Falun Gong practitioners? --HappyInGeneral 12:18, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment answer pt1: I'm not going to do it, we are. answer pt2, as it is "organ harvesting" and appears to be taking place in China, it's well covered by the title suggested. Ohconfucius 12:50, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.