Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kilgour-Matas report

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 keep. The objections to this article appear to ones that should be dealt with through editing rather then deletion. If there are issues with content being kept against policy then WP:DR is the way forward with RFC/mediation probably the most useful parts to try, Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:17, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kilgour-Matas report[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

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

Procedural nomination. The material in this article is controversial, and the article's history has been problematic. It was previously nominated for deletion and kept. Then the material was merged into Organ transplantation in the People's Republic of China where it has sat awkwardly as the material is as much (or more) about the Falun Gong movement and its persecution by the Chinese authorities, and the Falun Gong's responses to that persecution, as it is about organ transplantation. The Organ transplantation in the People's Republic of China article was listed as a Good Article, but that listing has been challenged because it contained this material. I have moderated a discussion regarding this material, and as part of the agreement of that discussion I said I would oversee editing of the material to restore it to a standalone article, and then - because of the contentious history of the material - would put it up to the community to discuss. My own view is that the material is notable, it has a number of reliable sources, and the topic involves a number of notable people and organisations. I will be ivoting to keep. SilkTork *^YES! 23:47, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Has reliable sources and is about notable people and organisations. Meets WP:N, WP:OR, WP:NPOV, WP:BLP, and WP:V, and is not excluded by WP:NOT. SilkTork *^YES! 23:56, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 06:26, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 06:26, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article's title is notable and the content is well-referenced. However three sections: "Organ transplantation in the People's Republic of China", "Sujiatun allegations" and "Other reports", are excessively long for an article with this title. Axl ¤ [Talk] 10:26, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Whilst I agree that the article generally satisfies WP:N, WP:OR, WP:BLP, WP:V, and WP:NOT, I find the article a long way from neutrality, and I have grave reservations that it is ever capable of complying with this pillar of Wikipedia; Needs to be watched carefully to ensure it does not become an attack page. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 05:47, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (vote voluntarily withdrawn). To save myself from stress, I have withdrawn myself from Falun Gong-related pages for months but I am extremely surprised at the resilience of its advocates. I understand that User SilkTork has made a great effort in ensuring the article's neutrality and will now act to protect it, but I alert the users voting here to look at the greater context under which this article was created. One of the major contributers to this article, Dilip Rajeev, is an unabashed Falun Gong practitioner and advocate who has written for Falun Gong newspaper the Epoch Times. Wikipedia's administration has been totally blind in not banning this user for good. Colipon+(Talk) 18:59, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion here is basically consisting of only involved parties. I do not think this is a fair process nor is it constructive. To ensure neutrality, I will now voluntarily withdraw myself from this discussion. Colipon+(Talk) 10:49, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Question: Ohconfucius and Colipon, could you please clarify as to which policy matter your complaints on this article relate to? Ohconfucius seems to acknowledge compliance with relevant policies, but then suggests it be deleted because it may not be neutral? I thought neutrality was a separate issue. Colipon's remarks do even less to explain his wish to have the article deleted. I may be lacking some background. I seek to understand these two views more fully before supporting or opposing the page. On the surface, the page seems to clearly comply with notability requirements; I understood that the question of whether an article is neutral or not is a separate matter. The Sound and the Fury (talk) 19:23, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Neutral point of view is a core policy of Wikipedia, and while it is not explicitly mentioned in WP:DEL#REASON as a reason to delete, it is appropriate to raise as a cause for concern. Also, future maintenance has been included in various deletion discussions; people evaluate the value of material against the time and effort required to maintain a page in a form that complies with Wikipedia's standards. This page in one form or another has been problematic, as have other Falun Gong related pages. There have been numerous hours spent ~~debating~~ fighting over Falun Gong material, and those involved are at this stage frustrated and exhausted.

One question here regards if this page is from this point forward going to be any more problematic than other Falun Gong related articles. Another qestion regards how we deal with disputed point of view issues - there are various processes in place for that, and deletion might be seen as an inappropriate venue as it is purely a seven day unmoderated discussion which doesn't have the means or time for examining all aspects of the dispute. My personal view of this issue is that a number of pro-Falun Gong users don't fully appreciate Wikipedia's role and our standards regarding NPOV, and are a little too keen to get over their message about the persecution of the movement. I feel it more appropriate to listen to their views, and instruct them in how to present the material in compliance with our standards (as the material - once Falun Gong sources are filtered out - is usally highly notable), than to remove or deny the knowledge as being too much effort to maintain. While this is my personal view, I am making no commitment to personally maintain this or any other article. The ongoing maintenance of Wikipedia is for this and future communities, not any one individual; and no decision should be made on Wikipedia based on the promise or commitment of any particular individual.

Does that help? SilkTork *^YES! 09:35, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That does help. In that case I see no reason to delete the page. Can anyone show an example of how the original page looked (as in, badly sourced, poor research, biased language, etc.) such that it was so biased it had to be deleted? Indeed, per Homunculus's query, I'm not sure why there isn't a page on the topic generally, rather than just one on the Kilgour/Matas situation: It seems that a handful of researchers have turned their hands to trying to get to the bottom of these allegations, and produced a sizable body of research. It would seem to me more sensible to put that all on its own page, rather than have one page just on this report. I do not know if this option has been explored.The Sound and the Fury (talk) 01:00, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have sorted the article's history so it is all available under the history tag.

The name of the article has changed several times - you'll see one of the names above under the previous AfD. Part of the previous issue with the material has been the choice of title. This title is very neutral, and does deal with a notable report. The report itself attracted attention - rather more, from my understanding, than the original allegation alone attracted. There is no dispute that the report is notable; however, there might be valid arguments that the allegation alone is not notable. Also, when the allegation is placed against the rather larger allegations of China a) dealing in illegal international trading in organs and b) using the organs of prisoners, both of which are adequately dealt with inside the Organ transplantation in the People's Republic of China article, then an argument for dealing just with the Falun Gong allegation in a stand alone article would be unlikely to succeed and might cause rather more dispute. The Persecution of Falun Gong article is the more appropriate place to deal with a quick overview of this allegation, and does already have a section on the matter. The section currently links to the Organ transplantation in the People's Republic of China article, but if this AfD passes as a Keep, then that link will be removed, and a link to this article used instead. SilkTork *^YES! 10:19, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for continuing this dialog. I just want to make sure I am understanding right. Are you suggesting that information about this report is more widely available than information about the phenomenon (or alleged phenomenon) it purports to document? Or, I mean, are you saying that the report itself, about allegations of organ harvesting from Falungong, is more notable than the allegations of organ harvesting from Falungong? That would be unusual indeed. Prima facie, it would also not seem to be the case. As mentioned, several other researchers, not just Kilgour and Matas, have published on the Falungong/organ harvesting connection. The notability of the allegations is surely not related to their veracity. Can it be proven that the report has garnered more attention than the allegations? If so, the current approach would make sense. If not, there should be a separate page on the allegations, and the contents of this page rolled into it. Please let me know if there is a fault in this logic. The Sound and the Fury (talk) 06:15, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You raise a good point, though I think this is a discussion better placed on either the talk page of Kilgour-Matas report or Persecution of Falun Gong as part of ongoing development. My view is that the report is notable, and there is material enough for an appropriate stand alone article which deals with the circumstances leading to the report, the report itself, and the responses to the report. I am less certain that the "Sujiatun Concentration Camp" allegations by themselves are as notable or notable enough for a standalone article. Though the allegations have attracted some attention, it was not of the same level as the report itself, which went beyond that particular allegation and involved the general persecution of the Falun Gong as well as the international concerns about the organ transplantation programme in China; added to which the writers of the report are notable in themselves - so when they write a report people pay attention. However, it would be acceptable to build up material in either Kilgour-Matas report or Persecution of Falun Gong (or both) on that specific allegation, and if it was felt the material had grown large enough, to split out into a stand alone article per WP:Summary style. This document is useful - the list of contents shows a section on the allegations with a sub-section devoted just to the report. If you wish to continue this discussion, I have copied the above to here. SilkTork *^YES! 10:10, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notable. --JN 466 23:28, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep WP:N. Material in conformance with WP:RS. I compiled the initial article sourcing each sentence to reliable sources, and its was reviewed and refined, over a period of months, by two other editors ( Silktork and Jayen). I request editors to analyze the article, reearch further on the topic, and vote here as per the central criterion for inclusion of an article WP:N; and also considering WP:RS, and WP:NPOV of the content . Dilip rajeev (talk) 18:23, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Obviously fits the requirements of notability, sourcing, etc. The travesty and tragedy is just that 1) it took so long for this to happen. 2) the injustice whereby the anti-Falun Gong activists had the page deleted will not be redressed. It took outside editors to come and fix this ridiculous miscarriage of policy. Colipon and Ohconfucius and their pals hijacked the original process, and got the page deleted. The information here is the same as what was on the original, though probably presented differently. The fact that it's now being restored means the two anti-Falun Gong activists were wrong to begin with. They should apologise (and refrain from editing articles where they clearly have such an extremely negative emotional investment that they can't possibly edit rationally and objectively--as has been clearly demonstrated here and all over these pages). --Asdfg12345 21:54, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Above bad faith attack is not warranted. Neither does this discussion prove me wrong inasmuch as WP:CCC. The above is just another manifestation of the general bitterness now harboured by asdfg since his topic ban which I am on record of not having supported; what is strange is that he seems bitter towards me. I'll let it pass. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 00:33, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I would add that I ceased making any substantive edits to Falun Gong articles for the best part of a year now. I hear all those Falun Gong SPA clapping their hands in glee. ;-) --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 00:43, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Clearly notable. —Zujine|talk 23:06, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It is unnecessary, inappropriate and against Wikipedia guidelines and ethos for people to be making personal comments in this discussion. It is precisely because of such behaviour that Falun Gong related material is problematic. I do note that the personal attacks were started by Colipon, a declared anti-Falun Gong editor, so while the personal attacks by the pro-Falun Gong editors is not excusable, it can be understand to be a response to a provocation. I am putting a warning on the user pages of those concerned, and asking them to retract their personal comments. If they do not do so before the end of this AfD, then I will ask that their !votes are discounted. SilkTork *^YES! 09:31, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Merge per WP:UNDUE and the previous merger proposal - while the subject is notable, it is a part of a larger issue of illegal organ transplantations in China, highlighted by other investigations by US Dept of State and Harry Wu which came to different conclusions. Solely by their coverage and sources alone, we can have separate articles on US Department State investigations on illegal organ transplantations in China and Harry Wu investigations on illegal organ transplantations in China, but Wikipedia doesn't function that way. The fact remains that K&M remains the only source claiming that organ harvesting is targeted at FLG practitioners, that allegations has never been proven, that K&M is closely associated with FLG and receives most of their publicity from them, and that no further progress in the allegations has been made since - K&M continued to make their accusations and give conferences, the PRC government continued to deny the allegations, and third parties continued to "express concerns" without actually proving anything.--PCPP (talk) 09:41, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: For ease of access, the merge discussions are here: September 2008: no merge; and August 2009: merge. SilkTork *^YES! 10:16, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Whatever you guys do, it won't last long anyways. Rinse, lather, repeat. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 15:40, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable. The topic can certainly stand on its own. Actually, by topic I'm referring to the charges of organ harvesting from Falun Gong more generally; Kilgour and Matas are not the only ones who have investigated these claims. Ethan Gutmann has arguably been researching the issue more vigorously and over a longer span of time than Kilgour and Matas.Homunculus (duihua) 17:00, 22 November 2010 (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.