Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Reports of organ harvesting from live Falun Gong practitioners in China (2nd nomination)

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 which defaults to keep. — _Maggot^Syn 00:24, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Reports of organ harvesting from live Falun Gong practitioners in China

AfDs for this article:

• Articles for deletion/Reports of organ harvesting from live Falun Gong practitioners in China (2nd nomination)

Reports of organ harvesting from live Falun Gong practitioners in China (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

This is appears to be a soapbox This entry should be deleted

• It is not encyclopaedic - it's news reporting
• It is extremely biased. The justification for this entry rests upon reports from the Epoch Times which is connected to Falun Gong
• Its material is covered elsewhere in Wikipedia Organ harvesting in China the third party sources which talk about the specific targeting of Falun Gong could be included in a paragraph there.

Previous attempts to list this AFD following the instructions for unregistered editors have been deleted.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Justgivemeanameimsickofmaking10attemptstoregister (talk • contribs) — Justgivemeanameimsickofmaking10attemptstoregister (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

• Speedy KeepMerge with Organ harvesting in the People's Republic of China. Clearly notable. Any bias should be cleaned up but that's not a deletion argument. --Ave Caesar (talk) 20:20, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
• Change to Keep This is a notable topic and while merge might be the choice that readily pops out to one, it is not the best choice. The notability of this topic merits its own article - there is quite a bit of information and a merger would cause the single article to violate WP:LIMIT. There is simply too much info to be relegated to a simple section of one article. WP:COATRACK fails to be an appropriate standard for deletion or merging - there are enough citations and reliable sources to indicate that the reports and allegations are notable enough to stand alone as a separate article. --Ave Caesar (talk) 09:19, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
• Comment The notice for deletion was removed again without discussion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.209.99.97 (talk) 10:17, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
• Speedy keep - obviously notable. Kelly ^hi! 13:25, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
• Merge with Organ harvesting in the People's Republic of China. As it stands, this article is a WP:COATRACK for bashing China on the topic of Falun Gong. They very well may deserve the bashing, but we should allow our principles to be subverted for that purpose. Jehochman ^Talk 13:41, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
• Merge into Organ harvesting in the People's Republic of China. There is enough verifiable and useful info to merit a "keep", but I concur with Jehochman that as an independent article it appears to be a WP:COATRACK. Either way it needs some NPOV editing and some real serious stylistic help. Doc Tropics 16:35, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
• Speedy Keep. Reports on Organ Harvesting from innocent Falun Gong practitioners is something that has received major international attention. Many including The Amnesty, Prominent Medical Societies and UN Special Rapporteurs have raised their concerns. The importance of this topic comes from the fact that there has been an explosion in Chinese Organ Sales following the onset of the persecution campaign against Falun Gong. It was indeed a documented and known fact that China harvests organs from death penalty prisoners. But the Human Rights Community perceives these recent reports on organ harvesting from innocent Falun Gong practitioners in a completely different light - because these are not "death penalty prisoner" who "have given consent" but innocent prisoners of conscience and also because of the sheer number of executions that should have been made to account for the recent surge in transplants( following onset of the persecution campaign against Falun Gong in 1999 ). This article is notable, in particular, because of the sheer number of people who would have had to be executed to explain China's Organ Transplant statistics for the past few years. A Yale University Thesis points out that "no group in China’s prison system other than Falun Gong practitioners that has the requisite population size, health and intensity of persecution to explain the rapid growth in the organ industry from 2000 to 2005"[1]. According to available reports, sources of some 45000 transplants remain unaccounted for.

The topic completely satisfies all guidelines mentioned in WP:Notability. The claim of the user who raised the AfD that the credibility of the article lies entirely on Epoch Times reports is completely False. Sources on the topic include ( and are not limited to ) Reports by David Kilgour and David Matas, Amnesty International Reports , Sky News Investigative Reports, A Yale University Thesis. Several Newspapers have reported on the issue. Several news Channels have reported on the issue - including CBC News.

The issue is one that has has had an international impact. Major concerns have been raised following these reports by many international Medical Bodies, including: National Kidney Foundation, United States; Australian Hospitals ban training Chinese surgeons in Transplant surgery. In May 2008, United Nations Special Rapporteurs reiterated their previous request for the Chinese authorities to adequately respond to the allegations of organ harvesting from Falun Gong practitioners[2].

Dilip rajeev (talk) 19:12, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Less heat, more light, please. Jehochman ^Talk 19:17, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

• Keep -- Enough reports and media have been generated from just this subject alone to warrant a separate article. It is related to organ harvesting in China in general, but it's also quite distinct. I don't get the coatrack reference, the article identifies its subject then goes over the sources and discussion on it. Where's the coat (or the rack)?--Asdfg12345 00:55, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

• General FYI - in an AfD debate, a "Merge" is essentially the same as a "Keep", since both result in the article being retained, not deleted.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Doc Tropics (talk • contribs)

• Keep, please! I think this is an issue of the utmost importance. It is indeed notable and indeed separate and distinct from the more general issue of organ harvesting in China. I would be very upset if this article is deleted. I have spent a lot of time commenting on this issue, this article.

Omvegan (talk) 13:17, 29 June 2008 (UTC)— Omvegan (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Comment What does your comments has to do with anything?--PCPP (talk) 17:23, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

• Merge - Agree with above votes to Merge with Organ harvesting in the People's Republic of China, and clean up the POV stuff pushed by certain editors. Agree this article is a WP:COATRACK for bashing China - (following opinion is justified in talk archives) 1) the allegation remain an allegation to date, and this fact has been marginalized by certain editor; 2) Undercover investigations by US embassy and notable Chinese dissident has disproved key aspects of Falun Gong's vivisection allegation; 3) The Kilgour report, a report sponsored by Falun Gong, is given undue weight in the article in attempt to POV this article, and the reports critics (Congresstional Reserch Services, Ottawa Citizen, Harry Wu) are marginalized in POV attempts (eg, following every criticism with meaningless statement "Kilgour insist" but ignore "critics remain unconvinced").

Bobby fletcher (talk) 05:51, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Comment. It is ridiculous to say that David Kilgour and David Matas are somehow "sponsored". Remember that these are two Highly Respected figures in the Human Rights community. In the beginning of this international news conference itself they point out that they did the investigation voluntarily and was not paid by anyone to do so.[3]. Amnesty, U,N. Special rapporteurs all have raised their concerns on this issue. As pointed out in my comment above, the reports have had such an international impact that many countries have changed their transplant policies in response to the reports. A Yale University thesis based on financial analysis, self-incriminating evidence on Chinese transplant websites, Under-cover investigations by Sky News are among the many sources that corroborate the Kilgour-Matas reports. To be noted that the three sources of "criticism" u talk about are all merely pertinent to a specific case - The sujiatun case - where, evidence suggests, the Chinese authorities had sufficient time to clean up before any investigation could take place.

Dilip rajeev (talk) 07:19, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Comment Stay on the topic please. You still haven't demonstrated why these allegations falls within wikipedia guidelines. Wikipedia:COATRACK#.22But_it.27s_true.21.22: The contents of a coatrack article can be superficially true. However, the mere excessive volume of the bias subject creates an article that, as a whole, is less than truthful. Wikipedia:COATRACK#Fact_picking: Instead of finding a balanced set of information about the subject, a coatrack goes out of its way to find facts that support a particular bias. Even though the facts may be true as such, the proportional volume of the hand-picked facts drowns other information, giving a false impression to the reader. --PCPP (talk) 17:23, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Question -- There's an article called Persecution of Falun Gong--which is one of the human rights abuses in China. Can anyone tell me how merging the organ harvesting of Falun Gong article with the Organ harvesting in China article would be any different from merging the persecution of Falun Gong article with the Human rights abuses in China article? Both are sub-issues of a wider one. These are simple matters of space and sourcing; enough independent sources have been generated by just this Falun Gong side of the organ harvesting to warrant a separate article--not to mention the length the main article would blow out to--in the same way for any particular human rights abuse in China that has its own article apart from the central "human rights in China" article. If someone can explain this I would appreciate it. Still waiting for WP:COATRACK to be substantiated.--Asdfg12345 07:33, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Comment The crackdown/persecution of FLG has been noted and addressed by all parties involved in the issue. This article is currently only based on unproven allegations.--PCPP (talk) 17:23, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Hence why the article titled "Reports of..." Your argument doesn't make the reports any less notable. --Ave Caesar (talk) 11:51, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

The article title means nothing if the contents does not reflect it. This article is not about the Kilgour Matas Report.--PCPP (talk) 14:36, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

• Merge Agrees with bobby fletcher. The PRC either harvests from FLG practitioners, or they don't. Until it has been proven beyond reasonable doubt that PRC actually harvest organs from FLG practitioners, these allegations does not deserve a separate article. The current article has numerous POV problems, especially bias and undue weight towards Kilgour Matas report which is only based on circumstantial claims and did not prove the allegation at all, while other critics such as Thomas Lum, Harry Wu, Glen McGregor etc are brushed aside. This article thus gives the reader a false impression that Kilgour-Matas is true and the CCP is somehow hiding facts.--PCPP (talk) 17:23, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

• Keep. These allegations concern crimes against humanity. The Chinese authorities have totally refused to give a thorough answer to the circumstantial evidence put forth in the Kilgour-Matas report. CCP's denial of the allegations has nothing to do with whether the article ought to be kept in Wikipedia. Nothing can be "proven beyond reasonable doubt" as long as they do not allow third-party researchers into the country and give them unlimited access. ✔ Olaf Stephanos ✍ 11:46, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, please read WP:NPOV. The PRC authorities does not need to comply to a small minority of people, and the burden of proof is on Matas/Kilgour, not the PRC government.--PCPP (talk) 14:36, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

• Keep. my 2 cents regarding the point raised in the opening of this AfD.

• It is not encyclopaedic - it's news reporting
  • It's encyclopedic according to wikipedia if the sources on the matter are cited, and they are.
  • It's not as much news since the first findings where made in 2006 and the action itself is going back to 2000.
• It is extremely biased. The justification for this entry rests upon reports from the Epoch Times which is connected to Falun Gong
  • False. There are reports from Amnesty International, Manfred Novak, the UN inspector on torture, McMillan Scott, vice president of the United Nations, David Matas human rights lawyer specialized in the holocaust, David Kilgour and ex sectary of state of Canada, so all these people are not hired and can not be hired by Epoch Times.
• Its material is covered elsewhere in Wikipedia Organ harvesting in China the third party sources which talk about the specific targeting of Falun Gong could be included in a paragraph there.
  • This material has lot's of details and controversies in it, I doubt that it could fit in the Organ harvesting in China article and still be NPOV.

--HappyInGeneral (talk) 17:39, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Note Editor HappyInGeneral seems to have neglected to mention the Kilgour/Matas report is sponsored by CIPFG, the political arm of Falun Gong. In the report appendix contains a letter from Falun Gong leader to Kilgour/Matas that they would be compensated via reimbursement. This fact demonstrates this report FLG is promoting is paid for by FLG. However this fact is not in the article.

Would also like to publically ask Editor Dilip, for the 3rd time, to stop removing the POV flag from this article, as obvious POV disputes continues from multiple editors. Hopefully this will also get some admin attention (please check Talk page/archive for background, Admin.)

Bobby fletcher (talk) 19:01, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

This is funny now Falun Gong has enough money to buy high level official. LOL :) And somehow it does not matter to you that in their list of evidence they cite the documents available from the Chinese government. --HappyInGeneral (talk) 20:55, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Comment. ..Lol..:D.. What u are now claiming is David Kilgour and David Matas, two of the most-highly respected figures in the International Community, were "bought" and you know it because in their report's "appendix" they say .."in fact we were bought" :D. ( Well.. just in case someone is very new to the topic : The entire text of the report ( including all appendices ) is available online on many websites .And here are streaming videos of the international press conference where Kilgour and Matas submit there reports. In the very beginning itself they state that the investigations were done voluntarily and were not "paid" by anyone. What you are doing is referring to a letter requesting independent investigation and distorting it to push CCP propagana. )

I am also beginning to have rather serious concerns on who this "Bobby Fletcher" is. It is, in fact, well documented how the CCP hires spies and thugs to assault Falun Gong practitioners outside of China, interfere with peaceful protests etc...the assaults have gone up recently with many arrests of CCP hired thugs recently made. Also many are hired by the CCP to post pro-CCP comments on youtube, etc. on videos related to Tibetan Unrest, Persecution of Falun Gong etc. I don't assume the CCP is likely to spare wikipedia either. Some editors were, in the past, banned for vandalizing Falun Gong pages and the same editors were found removing info from the 1989 Tiananmen square incident page and other pages related to human rights violations by the CCP. I notice that this user has all these characteristics . Repeatedly adding POV tags to well written articles, making the weirdest claims ( like the slander against Kilgour and Matas he writes above) in his thinly veiled attempts to support the CCP's persecution and remove/sideline/POV-ize very relevant material. There are many such instances, a few of which I would like to point out here. Here he tries ( please see here ) to characterize brutal and unbelievably inhumane persecution as "cancer". Wang Bin's case from Kilgour-Matas reports he repeatedly attempts to pass of as "autopsy"(please see here) while attempting to cover up his vandalism by citing sources which do not even remotely support the allegations he makes . Even now international Human Rights organizations are working to release many prisoners of conscience, including Xu Na, the wife of popular Chinese singer Yu Zhou who was murdered by the CCP because he practiced Falun Gong ( http://en.epochtimes.com/news/8-5-7/70333.html , http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/asia/china/article3779899.ece ). The persecution, needless to say, is a well-documented fact and even many American citizens, Cambridge university students, etc have been imprisoned and tortured for years -would this "bobbyfletcher" please give his "explanation" for these incidents along with an "explanation" for the fact there is a lot publicly verifiable evidence being pointed to by Kilgour and Matas point in their reports ... to mention one, the Chinese organ transplant websites carried a lot of self-incriminating stuff.. online archived versions of which are still available. He also often resorts to personal attacks on users as he has been doing recently against User:Asdfg. Such behavior , I believe , constitute a serious violation of wikipedia policies.

Dilip rajeev (talk) 12:42, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Personal attacks are not allowed on wikipedia--PCPP (talk) 04:46, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Where is the personal attack?--Ave Caesar (talk) 04:54, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

He suggested that bobby_fletcher is a CCP agent paid to post comments on wikipedia--PCPP (talk) 06:29, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Raising concerns about a user's possible conflict of interests doesn't seem to violate WP:NPA. --Ave Caesar (talk) 17:30, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

What? Dilip_rajeev flat out accused bobby_fletcher of being a "CCP spy and thug" used to "assault FLG practitioners". Don't you know a damn thing about wikipedia guidelines?--PCPP (talk) 03:31, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Hahaha, that's the pot calling the kettle black. --Ave Caesar (talk) 14:14, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Comment. I was merely raising some concerns I had - it was not by any means meant to be a personal attack on the user.. But here is an article I came across a few minutes back.. "Sowing Confusion"... the person the article discusses is the user I mention above. I find the last paragraph of the article especially worthy of attention. Dilip rajeev (talk) 15:55, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

• Keep. Obviously a notable topic. Omido (talk) 19:11, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

• This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 08:56, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

• Keep This is not a news report as such. It is an article based on a number of articles from a variety of reliable sources, such as the Christian Science Monitor. If the story started with reports from the Falon Gong movement, that is hardly surprising. Stories of murder and persecution usually start with reports from those close to the victims. I do not think merging with the general article about Chinese organ harvesting is appropriate, because this article is longer and better sourced than than one. If the article wanders into too much general criticism of the policies of the Chinese government, that should be handled by editing, not deletion or merger. It satisfies WP:N and WP:V. Edison (talk) 15:32, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Speedy Keep - a very well-researched article, which is not 'soapbox' at all. It should not be merged either, as it deserves its own page, especially considering the research inolved. Tris2000 (talk) 16:41, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
• Keep Plenty of non-Epoch Times media sources to confirm the notability (and seriousness) of the subject. Ecoleetage (talk) 16:52, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
• Keep Well-documented account of systematic torture including Amnesty International sources. In my humble opinion, only a Chinese government official could view this page as a "soapbox".— Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.250.52.230 (talk • contribs) — 24.250.52.230 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
• Merge Merge with the master Falun Gong entry, with the qualification the master entry should be thoroughly vetted for it's obvious pro-Falun Gong bias. Falun Gong is an authoritarian spiritual movement. Arguably a cult. It's the nature of any persecuted movement -- whether or not that movement is "good" or "bad -- to propagandize in its own behalf. Falun Gong members have, arguably and not proven beyond a reasonable doubt, nor proven to be associated as formal representative of Falun Gong sections, been associated with Aleph (formerly Aum Shinrikyo) prior to the Tokyo subway system sarin gas incident, and other planned but, for whatever reasons, scuttled attacks. However, there are legitimate questions regarding the ethics of Falun Gong along these lines. Also, circa 2000, the SF Chron reported on Falun Gong texts purporting extraterrestrial aliens will take over the earth (no, this was not a quote from Margaret Singer [d. 2003], but the statement of the articles' writer) that have never been translated into English. Further, Falun Gong receives a great deal of support, almost surely an undue amount of latitude, in the United States and from global human rights organizations due to their direct conflict with the present Chinese government, noted for human rights abuses hardly limited to Falun Gong members. Even further, the prior repeated notices of deletion removed with discussion indicate an at least partially orchestrated campaign by Falun Gong supporters to promote this entry as fact without benefit of debate. Finally, the notion the Chinese government is running a Ishigurian organ harvesting program greatly strains credibility. It's also saying, On the one hand the Chinese government cares nothing for its people, on the other hand they have gone to great expense and effort to create and conceal a vast, organized and computerized compulsory organ harvesting program primarily to save the lives of its people, unless you believe the organs are sold outside China to wealthy buyers. And the part about injecting a lethal quantity of potassium to stop the heart when an organ is required, medically this makes no sense. A heart or live sure. But a kidney or cornea, why kill the "donor"? One can survive with without corneas or a kidney -- even without two kidneys with proper medical treatment. Why not keep these Falun Gong "donors" alive as, pardon the atrocity of the notion, "organ crops".— Preceding unsigned comment added by 464kelvin (talk • contribs) — 464kelvin (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Comment. Note that the account is apparently registered for the sole purpose of making this comment.Also, to be noted that adding an Afd Tag to an obviously notable topic, according to wikipedia policies, constitutes vandalism.

This person's very comment that one can survive without a "cornea", "two kidneys" and a "liver" as an avenue of disproof for the organ harvesting reports itself speaks for the completely vitiated nature of his comments. If a kidney alone costs $60000 as advertized on Chinese websites itself, it is clear who stands to gain from the murders. The statements made by this user attempting to assiciate Falun Gong with cults and stuff is 100% pure CCP propaganda. Such propagand is possible in China because media is completely closed there. Even BBC and CNN websites are and not accessible from mainland china. They characterize Falun Gong practitioners and Dalai Lama with all such labels .. including the very often used "anti-china american spy" - a term often used against both Falun Gong practitioners and Dalai Lama by chinese state controlled media - meant to incite hatred by playing on the patriotic sentiments of the chinese masses. Kilgour and Matas point out:

"According to Amnesty International, the Chinese Government adopted three strategies to crush Falun Gong: violence against practitioners who refuse to renounce their beliefs; "brainwashing" to force all known practitioners to abandon Falun Gong and renounce it, and a more effective media campaign to turn public opinion against Falun Gong."

"Incitement to hatred is not specific enough to indicate the form that persecution takes. But it promotes any and all violations of the worst sort. It is hard to imagine the allegations we have heard being true in the absence of this sort of hate propaganda. Once this sort of incitement exists, the fact that people would engage in such behaviour against the Falun Gong - harvesting their organs and killing them in the process - ceases to be implausible."

In response to this user's attempts to slander Falun Gong with this CCP-ish propaganda, - i wish to clarify for the benefit of those new to the topic that there is absolutely no "membership" or any concept of that sort in Falun Gong - Falun Gong is a system of xiu lian or cultivation practice, which anybody may self-learn on their own - All books, exercise instruction videos and lecture videos are available for free download on FalunDafa.org. Those who practice Falun Dafa may voluntarily help you learn the exercises but it is always done completely voluntarily and free of charge. I would sincerely and most humbly urge the reader to kindly go through the teachings and form his/her own understanding of why millions around the world practice Falun Gong.

Further, many studies have scientifically proven profound health benefits of Falun Gong practice - this includes a genome profiling study, done by reputed researchers, on 6 Falun Gong practitioners , - published in the JACM journal. The study concludes "enhanced immunity, downregulation of cellular metabolism, and alteration of apoptotic genes in favor of a rapid resolution of inflammation" and also that the practice may "regulate immunity, metabolic rate, and cell death, possibly at the transcriptional level." Falun Gong has always been highly regarded by prominent figures in the Qi Gong community - one of the world's most prominent figures in Tai Chi, Da Liu, - the Tai Chi Master who first brought Tai Chi to North America, states "I had been teaching Taichi and studying various Qigong practices for more than 40 years when I started looking into Falun Dafa. I now tell all my students to practice Falun Dafa." - Da Liu, at the age of 95. My purpose in pointing these things out is not, in any way, to proselytize but to merely clarify how vitiated CCP's propagandistic attempts to justify its torture, killing and persecution of thousands of innocents, including women , elderly and children are. It is well documented by Amnesty, HRW, Kilgour-Matas, US Congress Resolutions 188, 304, etc and many other sources how the "cult" label was coined by the CCP shortly following onset of the persecution campaign to justify its persecution of millions and it is that very propaganda tool the above user is trying to push here.

Dilip rajeev (talk) 08:42, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

No personal attacks please. And your comment "Also, to be noted that adding an Afd Tag to an obviously notable topic, according to wikipedia policies, constitutes vandalism." is blalantly false per WP:Deletion policy.--PCPP (talk) 08:55, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, the account was created specifically to comment on this post after a recent personal encounter with what I would term Falun Gong "recruiting materials". I was surprised by what I perceive as an extremely pro-Falun Gong bias in the two Wikipedia entries in question, but not surprised the one was flagged as in question for bias and the other flagged as marked for deletion. I didn't sign it because it was late my time, my family was nagging me to start watching a DVD with them, I didn't immediately notice HOW to sign, but it wasn't my intent to remain anonymous -- I thought in fact it would automatically sign the comment since I was logged in. Note, also, please, I did not agree the AFD entry should be outright deleted, but merged, because whether accurate or not, it's a topic with enough gravity to deserve mention in a thorough reference work. The argument for keeping a Falun Gong organ "donor" alive if possible should be self-evident in a business sense. If you've planted both corn and tomatoes on the same farmland, you don't burn the tomatoes and harvest the corn because the corn comes in first -- if that's the proper chronology; practical ag is not my area; you harvest the corn then harvest the tomatoes when they come in. In more direct terms, if a kidney brings US$60,000 and a heart brings US$250,000, and the kidney can be harvested for US$2,000 by first killing the "donor", or for $US10,000 by making best effort to keep the "donor" alive during and after the harvesting, it only makes financial sense to take the US$50,000, after cost, for the kidney, then later take the US$250,000 -- whatever it is less cost to harvest -- for a total of US$300,000 less cost from the "donor", rather than a permanent cap on that donor of $US60,000 less cost. To cap profits from a single "donor" by klling them when they are already in captivity makes no sense in "black-market" retailing of human organs. Further, surely there is indeed a "black-market" trade in human organs, but such a vast effort specific to Falun Gong practitioners, if Dilip rajeev prefers that term to "members", perpetrated by a government closely watched by West democracies and human rights organizations, in a carefully orchestrated and largely secret manner, well-run right up until the last minute when the process becomes recklessly wasteful of the "donors" when such a government certainly has the resources to conserve "donors" and at least triple profits, this strains credibility. The Chinese government is not the only entity to label Falun Gong a cult, whether or not their interest in doing so is self-serving; recognized Western experts in cults and authoritarian spiritual movements have also determined Falun Gong is a cult. As for the comments about the medical benefits of Falun Gong practice, Dilip rajeev wrote "the JACM journal" but certainly must have intended "the JCM journal". JCM is the Journal of Clinical Microbiology. JACM is a journal of computer science and would have no bona fides in such research as mentioned. As for the research itself, one study of six Falun Gong practitioners may be interesting and perhaps should lead to further study, but it is hardly definitive proof of any salubrious effects of Falun Gong practice. Furthermore, the same effects may also be achieved by regular dosing of human-engineered drugs, drugs that will still eventually kill a human being over the course of time. A cursory study of a limited group -- and rajeev does not mention the control's outcome, if there was indeed a control -- over a relatively brief period of time, again, it's interesting but goes nowhere in proving these claims. All the government and human rights groups mentioned in rajeev's comment are highly susceptible to any and all claims of atrocious human rights violations by the Chinese government. I'll assume rajeev's comments about Wikipedia's policy on AFD tags and vandalism were a misinterpretation of Wikipedia policy, not an attempt to impugn my credibility or intent; therefore I'll make no further remarks on that point. I do however suggest that in the interest of identifying possible bias, all further commenters to this AFD state whether or not they are practitioners of Falun Gong/Falun Dafa or are supporters of the present Chinese state and its policies. I am neither. 464kelvin (talk) 16:21, 4 July 2008 (UTC)— 464kelvin (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

comment The "JOURNAL OF ALTERNATIVE AND COMPLEMENTARY MEDICINE" cited by editor Dilip is neither notable nor authorative. Another telling fact is one of its author, FLG practitioner Lily Feng, has died from cancer. Whatever "benefit" she claims doesn't seem to have helped her.

But that's beside the point. Multiple editors have not objected to the POV pushing by certain editors. Dilip please stop removing the POV flag. :::Bobby fletcher (talk) 16:59, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

• In response to the above comment(s). Just some more publicly verifiable evidence for you to ponder over. An archived Chinese transplant Website ( one of the websites referred to by Kilgour and Matas in their reports) says:

"If you send your personal data to this center by e-mail or fax and accept the necessary body examination in Shenyang , China in order to assure a suitable donor, it may take only one month to receive a liver transplantation , the maximum waiting time being two months. As for the kidney transplantation , it may take one week to find a suitable donor,the maximum time being one month. Although the procedure to select a donor is very strict,, the transplant operation will be terminated if the doctor discovers that there is something wrong with the donor's organ . If this happens, the patient will have the option to be offered another organ donor and have the operation again in one week."[4]

To be noted that other countries have a wait time of over 5 years for an adult kidney. Here you are offered another organ if the first one fails in less than a week. The Journal of Alternative and Complementary Medicine is a journal of high reputation in the field, published by Mary Ann Liebert. I have linked the research paper, and you may read through for yourself. Wikipedia itself characterizes the JACM as among the "important or pioneering periodicals" published by Mary Ann Liebert.[5]

Further, your style of comparing human beings to corns and potatoes, and your talk about the "business" strategy of keeping humans alive to "crop" organs is, to put mildly, extremely shocking. Still .. try to consider that organ harvesting by the CCP from prisoners is a well documented fact ( by Amnesty, U.S. Executive Congressional Committee reports, and even by public admissions made by the chinese authorities themselves). According to a 2006 Congressional Executive Commission report, Huang Jiefu, China's Vice Minister of Health, had indicated in July of 2005 that as high as 95% of organ transplants in China derive from execution. The report states that circa 65% of "capital offenses" in China are for nonviolent "crime".(Ref:Congressional Executive Commission on China Annual Report 2006). I would also urge you to read the KM reports in its entirety.

I most humbly request the admins here to kindly look into the nature of edits being made by "PCPP", "Bobby Fletcher" etc. PCPP had, a few weeks back, moved the article "Persecution of Falun Gong" to "Falun Gong in People's Republic of China" (the vandalistic edit was quickly reverted by other editors). Bobby fletcher keeps adding a POV tag to the well written, well researched and objective article Reports of organ harvesting from live Falun Gong practitioners in China. He adds the tag repeatedly with no consensus and the tag was removed by other editors before. He keeps re-introducing it while making baseless accusations on others. Among other disruptive edits made by the user recently on the same article include the one here. I know this discussion isnt pertinent to this page but such disruptive edits make it very hard to work on the article. Kindly look into the issue.

Dilip rajeev (talk) 17:04, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

XD coming from someone who does nothing but edit warring on FLG articles and has been blocked 3 times. Just because you think it's "well written, well researched and objective", doesn't make it so, and doesn't automatically exclude all others from disputing it. Any editor has the right to add the POV tag if he disputes the content, there is no need to gain consensus especially from cabals.--PCPP (talk) 03:59, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

There is no absolute right for one editor to keep a POV tag on an article if the consensus on the talk page does not support it. Edison (talk) 03:37, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

I just wanted to point out that the person I mention in my post above is the person the article here: "Sowing Confusion" discusses. I find the last paragraph in the article especially worthy of attention. Requesting admins to kindly look into the matter.

Dilip rajeev (talk) 15:58, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

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.