Closed. The Kilgour-Matas report article has been created and is stable. And the related Organ transplantation in the People's Republic of China article is listed as a Good Article and is developing, though has attracted concerns regarding how comprehensive the coverage is. Dilip rajeev has modified his editing approach to comply with Wikipedia standards. As Dilip rajeev appears able to edit without dispute, and his main concerns regarding the above articles have been addressed, there appears to be no reason to keep this discussion going. I will leave a note on Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive57#Dilip_rajeev. SilkTork 28 December 2010

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Moderated discussion

This discussion is the result of this Arbitration Enforcement request. User:Dilip rajeev has concerns about the content of Falun Gong related articles. Other editors are disturbed with the manner in which Dilip rajeev has raised his concerns, which has been classed as disruptive. A central aim of Wikipedia is to create articles which are fair, balanced, accurate and true. Achieving that is not always easy. Disruptive editing can impede even a legitimate attempt to achieve balance and neutrality.

The aim of this moderated discussion is to investigate Dilip rajeev's concerns regarding the Falun Gong related articles in an atmosphere of impartial and honest inquiry. User:Jayen466 has agreed to enter into a discussion with Dilip rajeev regarding his concerns, and I will moderate.

Dilip rajeev has been advised that Falun Gong related articles are subject to an ArbCom motion which directs people to these sanctions. This means that if Dilip rajeev edits any Falun Gong related article in a manner that fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process, such as reverting, edit warring, not engaging in discussions, or removing sourced material without prior consensus, then he will be returned to Arbitration Enforcement for a topic ban to be imposed.

This discussion is to take place between Dilip rajeev and Jayen466 only, and on this subpage which is not in public view, but which can be accessed by anyone. I would ask observers to restrain from adding their views directly, as that may distract the process. If someone would like to make a comment, please get in touch with me. If someone does make a comment here without first consulting me, I will remove that comment, and discuss the matter with that person.

I will remind both Dilip rajeev and Jayen466 to comment directly on the issues, and to read statements carefully before clicking "Save page" in order to reduce the possibility of making personal comments that may hinder the process. If either of you notice the other making comments about behaviour rather than content, please do not respond - instead, notify me and I will issue a formal warning, to be followed by sanctions if necessary.

If there is any aspect of the manner in which this discussion is being set up that you are not clear about or disagree with, please get in touch now. SilkTork *^YES! 19:36, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much, Silktork. I assure you I'll strive my best to adhere to wikipedia policies. If any unintended fall happens from my side, I request it be taken in good faith and I be pointed out. I assure you I'll take immediate steps to address them. Dilip rajeev (talk) 14:11, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestions regarding the first set of issues to consider

This is to humbly put forward the suggestion that we take the initial goal of this discussion as investigating the concerns I raised on AE. My concern, in short, is that : There is a systematic removal of centrally relevant content, misrepresentation of sources, watering down of relevant content from RS, etc., happening on these pages ( in fact, on all pages having to do with CCP's violation of human rights).

We could structure this discussion/investigation by:

Focusing on an article, a section - discussing an issue at a time, till we come to consensus, or have satisfactorily shared our perspectives on the particular issue, before we move on to the next.

I'll be pointing out instances where content has been misrepresented, watered down, or blanked to push a POV. I will try my best to keep the focus on the content alone and not on the specific editor who engaged in the behavior. In certain circumstances, I might have to point out instances where the blanking was driven by straw-polls, dummy-discussions and attack on contributors - but there as well I will refrain from pointing to any editor. . If it is seen there is substance to my concern( that there is extensive blanking, extensive misrepresentation of sources, etc. ), we could investigate the issue deeper, find out the involved editors, and, if found necessary, request for a panel of uninvolved admins to review the results of our investigation and take appropriate steps to address the concerns.

I also request that I be allowed to present evidence from closely related pages such as the 6-10 office, Propaganda in the People' Republic of China, etc. The activity on those pages being closely related to, of the same nature as, and, in certain cases, by the same set of editors, as that on these pages, I believe, it is necessary that we at least superficially investigate them.

I am also putting forward a suggestion that we devise a mechanism to collate the evidence we collect - the material we both agree constitutes evidence supporting my concerns. I'd be glad to let Jayen, if he agrees, do that part of the task, as I am sure he will do it in an impartial, honest manner.

I also suggest we start by analyzing Persecution of Falun Gong page as on March 16, 2009. Blanking of material, misrepresentation of sources, etc being most apparent on that page.

Dilip rajeev (talk) 14:11, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@Dilip. This discussion is to focus on content issues - the articles to be included in the range of that discussion are to be agreed between you and Jayen; however, it is outside the scope of this discussion to deal with behaviours of individuals, or the collecting of evidence regarding the behaviours of individuals. If in the process of going through this content discussion you are able to identify behaviours that give you cause for concern, please do not bring them to this arena, but keep such evidence elsewhere and open a RfC when you feel you are ready. SilkTork *^YES! 17:52, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. I agree. We'll focus on the content itself and on improving these pages. I am sorry but I got the purpose of the discussion wrong. I am completely willing to discuss the issue with Jayen.Dilip rajeev (talk) 18:00, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal

What I would propose is that we discuss any content concerns here in the first place, and that you, Dilip rajeev, undertake voluntarily to refrain from performing any reverts (WP:0RR) in article space. This is both to prevent article disruption and to protect you from the risk of sanctions. I believe this is a must at this stage. Instead I would ask you to raise any concerns you have with any edit made to one of the Falun Gong/China articles here on this page. SilkTork and I will look at your concern, and where appropriate take action, e.g. by broaching the matter on the article's talk page, taking the matter to noticeboards, or starting a content RfC.

I also propose that for now you voluntarily refrain from adding new content to articles directly, but instead restrict yourself to proposing material for discussion on talk pages. For now, it will make sense for you to propose any such material here on this talk page first of all, so we can have a look at the sourcing etc. and advise you, before we take the material to the relevant talk page together. Should the material prove contentious, despite being well sourced, I intend to use content RfCs, noticeboards etc. to obtain wider community input. Let us do the arguing. If you are frustrated by a lack of progress, please do not accuse any editor of wrongdoing on any article talk page. Talk to us here first, rather than responding to other editors directly.

I am not at this point interested in collecting evidence on other editors' past actions. I would rather start with a clean slate and simply make a good-faith effort to get the articles right, involving the wider community as much as possible in the event of any dispute. I would like the encyclopedia to benefit from your subject matter knowledge, and your familiarity with the sources. If you want to consult with Olaf and Asdfg12345 offsite, please feel free to do so.

Does this sound like a viable plan to you both? --JN 466 14:51, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jayen, Siltork mentions that "The aim of this moderated discussion is to investigate Dilip rajeev's concerns regarding the Falun Gong related articles in an atmosphere of impartial and honest inquiry." Its not about harping on any editor's past behavior - but analyzing impartially my concerns of disruptive behavior on these pages. I would turn down the suggestion of 0RR and of no-edits, but would firmly assure you that my edits will strictly adhere to the highest standards required of an editor by the Wikipedia Project. I cannot impose on myself restrictions for alleged activities which I firmly belive I am not guilty of. Since my being active on wikipedia after the last AE thread, I believe I have not done more than 3 reverts all together on the central Falun Gong articles. What is being completely ignored are my claims on AE of disruptive activities of editors which lead me to do those two are three reverts( or semi-reverts) spanning a long period of time. Its the very same editors, who have extensively disrupted these pages ( a claim which I request be imparitally investigated) who exaggerate and distort these sporadic reverts, attempting to present me as nothing but a disruptive editor. Olaf and asdfg, have extensively contributed with their subject matter expertise. These editors have managed to corner them, present them as disruptive SPAs, and get them blocked.

These pages are on probation by the ArbCom - if there be activity, as I claim, that has continued for a long while, on these pages, shouldn't they be brought to light? Particularly when those guilty of such edits are constantly attacking other editors and winning by strength of numbers? Dilip rajeev (talk) 15:09, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@JN466. The terms of this discussion are that Dilip adheres to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behavior, and any normal editorial process. Dilip has been informed that reverting, edit warring, not engaging in discussions, or removing sourced material without prior consensus, will result in a return to Arbitration Enforcement and a topic ban. There is no topic ban in place at the moment, and I feel it inappropriate to impose one now. I feel we should extend to Dilip full courtesy and respect in the expectation that he will conduct himself honourably. SilkTork *^YES! 18:14, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@Dilip. I advise you to take full advantage of the opportunity being offered here, and not risk a termination of the process by making any edit that could be disputed. I would recommend that you discuss potential edits here first, and wait for consensus. The choice is yours however - the quicker but more risky strategy of editing without first gaining consensus, or the slower but safer and potentially more productive strategy of first getting consensus. SilkTork *^YES! 18:14, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Silktork. I understand and I assure you I will fully explain all my edits and get consensus before making them, and strive to address the concerns raised promptly.Dilip rajeev (talk) 06:03, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Discussions

Jayen, shall we move our discussion on creating a page on the KM reports to here? Dilip rajeev (talk) 06:03, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, let's. SilkTork, Dilip rajeev dropped a couple of links with sources onto my talk page: https://www.yousendit.com/download/THE2Rm80WlRwM2xMWEE9PQ , http://www.yousendit.com/download/THE2Rm82bEo5eFVLSkE9PQ

I have reviewed (part of) them, and as far as I can see there is more than enough material directly focusing on the report to justify a stand-alone article on it, per WP:N. Could you have a look as well and let me have your thoughts? --JN 466 22:17, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If I understand correctly, you wish to expand the material in Organ_harvesting_in_the_People's_Republic_of_China#Kilgour-Matas_report, and you feel that there is going to be enough material to justify breaking out into a standalone article per WP:Summary style? If that is the case, could you explain why you feel that Organ_harvesting_in_the_People's_Republic_of_China#Kilgour-Matas_report is not detailed enough, and what you intend to add to that material. SilkTork *^YES! 09:23, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I downloaded both documents. They are duplicates. Is one of your links incorrect? SilkTork *^YES! 09:27, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Having just done a Google search for Kilgour-Matas report I found two book sources, four scholar sources, twenty four approved blog sources, a CRS Report for Congress, along with a substantial number of other sources. That the report's key findings are controversial and appear to be largely based on disputed telephone transcripts is not a reason not to have an article on the report. As long as an article on the report is neutral, and includes a balanced discussion of the findings from reliable sources, there would be no bar as far as I can see to having a stand alone article on the topic. My question would still remain, however, that why is the current material (Kilgour-Matas_report) not enough? And I would add, after reading that material, that I would consider a tidying up of Kilgour-Matas_report should logically take place before considering breaking out that material into a stand alone article. I found reading about the Kilgour-Matas_report in Organ_harvesting_in_the_People's_Republic_of_China to be difficult. The article is not well organised and presented. SilkTork *^YES! 09:48, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For your reference, there has been some discussion related to this between Enric Naval and myself on my talk page: [1] --JN 466 14:10, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There are several issues regarding the reprot that cannot be covered in the Organ Harvesting in China namespace: Corroborative reports ( There has been a Royal Society Journal article, a Yale university thesis, etc), arguments for and against the reports findings, the impact the report has had on international transplant policies, etc. There was more information on the subject matter here: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Reports_of_organ_harvesting_from_Falun_Gong_practitioners_in_China&oldid=302879132#The_Kilgour-Matas_Report but most of it got removed when the pages were merged.

The topic clearly meets WP:N given the coverage it has received in media. The reports were also discussed in the CBC documentary Beyond the Red Wall, in a Weekly Stardard cover-story, etc. Kilgour Matas was nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize for his work on the reports, and David Matas was recently given the given the Swiss Section Human Rights award for the work. It has also had an international impact [2] on organ transplant policies. The reports had resulted in United Nations Committee Against Torture calling on China to investigate the allegations[3][4]. None of these details can be covered in a sub-section of the Organ Harvesting in China page. Thats the central reason I felt we need a separate namespace for this topic.

WP:N tells us "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article." In this case we have a report that has had an international impact and is actively changing transplant policies around the world.

Soilktork, could you, when time permits, go through the sources I present above and share your perspective on having an article to cover the info?

Sincerely, Dilip rajeev (talk) 15:34, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Nobel Peace Prize nomination and human rights award certainly are additional arguments in favour of a standalone article. --JN 466 16:06, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. However I would ask that the process goes in this order:

Tidy up the material on the Kilgour-Matas_report in Organ_harvesting_in_the_People's_Republic_of_China
Work on creating a new article on the Kilgour-Matas report in a subpage I will create in my userspace.
Invite opinions on the new article.
Move it out into mainspace, reducing content in Organ_harvesting_in_the_People's_Republic_of_China per WP:Summary style if appropriate, and creating a link to the new article from that parent article.
Listing it at AfD for a community discussion.

I will oversee each stage, and be responsible for initiating each new phase. You can urge me to move onto the next stage, but I would ask that you do not initiate stages 2 - 5 yourselves. I am aware there has been a lot of community discussion on this topic, and there are current concerns about the implications of creating such an article. This has to be managed with those concerns in mind. Do you both agree with and accept my request? SilkTork *^YES! 17:46, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Totally with you on this one. --JN 466 20:18, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree as well. Dilip rajeev (talk) 07:15, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Shall we begin the tidying up of Organ_harvesting_in_the_People's_Republic_of_China by drafting something in userspace as well? --JN 466 12:02, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tidy up the material on the Kilgour-Matas_report in Organ_harvesting_in_the_People's_Republic_of_China

Silktork, I think Jayen has a very good suggestion here and am also of the opinion it would be better to start the process by drafting something in userspace. Dilip rajeev (talk) 14:55, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Could you set up a page in your userspace for the purpose? Dilip rajeev (talk) 17:42, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for delay. I have now copied the content of the article here. Please feel free to edit. SilkTork *^YES! 01:23, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jayen, Could you pull out a minute to skip through this article: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Reports_of_organ_harvesting_from_Falun_Gong_practitioners_in_China&oldid=309220914 . There is much info there we could use for the KM reports section. Dilip rajeev (talk) 06:39, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi SilkTork, I have made some critical additions to the article in userspace. If you'd review it, we could merge it with the main namespace. Most of the content on KM reports is out out-of-scope /boderline in the Organ Harvesting article. A complete discussion would require a space of its own.

Could you create the Kilgour-Matas Reports page in your userspace as well so that I could work simultaneously on that article as well.

Dilip rajeev (talk) 07:45, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have looked at the edits to Organ_harvesting_in_the_People's_Republic_of_China and they appear to be neutral, and to consist mainly of tidying up and reorganizing existing material, plus the addition of information about a PhD Thesis from Yale University. I'm happy with the tidying. I will ponder the thesis a little longer. I would also like JN's input on this. SilkTork *^YES! 09:53, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The changes look okay to me too. I think Hao Wang's Yale study meets RS; it has not been very widely covered, as far as I can see, but I can find references to it in a Huffington Post article and on the UN human rights website, and Hao Wang has written about the topic in the Yale Daily News. I'd be okay with this going into the article. --JN 466 17:02, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks much for reviewing it, Silktork. I wanted to mention that I, attempting to speeding up the process, and thinking the discussion was largely inactive, had, after metioniong the issue with Silktork and Jayen, gone ahead with creation of an article on the topic[5].

The central portion of the article, and the intro are completely newly written. The corroborative reports section draw, for information, on an earlier version of a page on Organ harvesting in China. All content is centrally relevant, but since it has been blanket-reverted by user:PCPP, am hoping we could use the forum to arrive at a consensus on the content, and if it belongs on wikipedia.

Its a major human rights issue that has received international attention, but despite it being 4 years since release of the reports, wikipedia still does not have an article on the topic.

I request Jayen and Silktork to kindly review the content in the page I created.

Dilip rajeev (talk) 16:26, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Requesting an article in userspace for the Kilgour Matas page

Siltork, may I request a page in your userspace for the Kilgour-Matas article? Myself and Jayen could work on reviewing the newly created article. Jayen had suggested we make use of the process to review the article and I also think it would help much in creating a stable article. Dilip rajeev (talk) 16:43, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If we could work in parallel on the two pages, it would speed up the process much. Dilip rajeev (talk) 16:47, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I support the idea, and following the 5-step process outlined above, though I would value SilkTork's assistance in reviewing the draft for NPOV and sourcing, if he can find the time to chip in. --JN 466 17:11, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have created a space - Wikipedia:Article Incubator/Kilgour-Matas report (updated to link to Article Incubator). I would like reassurances from Dilip rajeev that all terms of the conditions of this process will be adhered to in future. SilkTork *^YES! 11:03, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Silktork, I assure you I will adhere to the process strictly. Dilip rajeev (talk) 15:00, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewing: Wikipedia:Article Incubator/Kilgour-Matas report *(updated to link to Article Incubator)

Silktork, Jayen, May I please request for the content to be reviewed. The central section is a synopsis of the report, which I believe could improve much with your attention.Dilip rajeev (talk) 15:12, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Scheduling

A suggestion. How about we divide the task of reviewing the article into bite sized chunks and set ourselves a schedule for working through them? We could, for instance, set apart the the next three days for a preliminary review of the structure of the article. from there we could proceed to a review of content... Dilip rajeev (talk) 14:39, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments on KM report draft

I have had a look at the current article status. My initial impression: for the article to survive the AfD, I feel we must reduce its reliance on primary sources and Falun Gong sources. Dilip, some weeks ago you dropped me a pack of great press sources on my talk page. I propose that we cite these sources as much as possible, and reflect their priorities. Currently, for example, the first four sources cited in the lead are the two versions of the KM report itself, and UN papers. The article has a much better chance of attracting "Keep" votes in community discussion if these statements, especially those cited to the report itself in the lead, are cited to press sources. Ideally, all the sources cited in the lead should be mainstream press/scholarship. Would this be possible? --JN 466 22:27, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
One thing that must be mentioned in the last paragraph of the lead is the Nobel Peace Prize nomination, cited to a non-Falun Gong newspaper (I think several mainstream Canadian papers covered this), as well as any other human rights prizes KM received. --JN 466 22:30, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
We should include a "Synopsis" of the entire report, roughly following the structure of the report itself. Within that section, it will be entirely appropriate to use the report itself as a source; this is commonplace in synopsis writing in Wikipedia. However, any synopsis of the report's content in the lede should be cited to a mainstream press/scholarship source. --JN 466 22:44, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Similarly, UN documents referencing the report can be cited directly in a "Reception" section, but we should not cite UN documents in the lede; we should cite mainstream press articles commenting on the UN response. --JN 466 22:44, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks much for your feedback, Jayen. Agree with whatever you've pointed out; all the suggestions above seem very helpful. I think I could update the lede with the latest sources by end of Monday here.Dilip rajeev (talk) 11:42, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jayen, I've updated the lede a bit, adding two news sources - the Christian Science Monitor and Washington Times. The UN response seemed to belong there as it sufficiently 3rd partly, and as important as any scholarly source or news item. I think we should retain it in the lead - by itself, it speaks much about the "notability" factor. Wikipedia's central inclusion criterion for topics is that. Dilip rajeev (talk) 14:03, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've also mentioned the nobel prize nomination and another human rights award. Dilip rajeev (talk) 09:14, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am hoping I will get some time this week to spend on looking into this matter more closely. I am contactable by email if either of you need to get in touch urgently. SilkTork *^YES! 17:06, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is good that we have the Nobel peace prize nomination and HR award in the lead now, but we should also add it to Reception section at the end of the article, preferably with a little extra information (I think the press reports mentioned the two nominators by name, for example; one IIRC was from Israel). --JN 466 15:52, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speaking of e-mail: Dilip, could you enable e-mail on your account? (Or alternatively, send me a mail that I can reply to.) Cheers, --JN 466 16:26, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jayen, I have added the mention of the awards to the reception section, along with the names of the nominators. Thanks,Dilip rajeev (talk) 11:39, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am now looking into this issue. It may take a while as there is much to read and check - I do not anticipate having an answer for a few days. First I am looking at the edits to the userfied "Organ harvesting in the People's Republic of China" - User:SilkTork/Cambridge and merging them with the mainspace Organ harvesting in the People's Republic of China. I am editing the Organ harvesting in the People's Republic of China first, to make it clearer, check cites, and personally become more familiar with the issue. I am encountering problems, some of the sources are not clear, and I am not certain of the time-line of events. The opening two sentences of the Harry Wu section mention two different dates: "In 1992, the Laogai Research Foundation set up by Chinese dissident Harry Wu was instrumental in proving (using court files, medical records and eyewitness testimony) that organs were harvested from executed criminals and used for transplants.[6] The Laogai Research Foundation, along with the American Broadcasting Company, went undercover and responded to an ad for kidney transplantations in China in an American newspaper, exposing the organ trading prevalent in 1997." Yet the main source given for this information, [6], gives these dates: "the practice of organ harvesting is the subject of an October 1984 document issued by the Chinese Supreme People¡¯s Court, Supreme People¡¯s Procuratorate, Ministry of Public Security, Ministry of Justice, Ministry of Public Health and Ministry of Civil Affairs titled, 'On the Use of Dead Bodies or Organs from Condemned Criminals.' The document, released publicly in 1990...."

As the Kilgour-Matas_report is to be a sub-article of Organ harvesting in the People's Republic of China I feel we should get that article sorted first, as the more reliable is the parent, the more likely it is that the child will be accepted. SilkTork *^YES! 09:42, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Reports of Chinese authorities removing organs from executed prisoners have been circulating since the mid-1980s". [7]. SilkTork *^YES! 09:50, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I'm working on the time-line and it's starting to take shape. Where I'm not clear is why Harry Wu's report is so vital as it seems that it was legal to take organs from executed criminals, and this had been known about since the mid 1980s. The point of Harry Wu's investigation should surely be that the harvesting was being done without the consent of the families, though this is not stated in the article. There seems to be an assumption that because an organ was taken from an executed criminal that no consent was sought or given, and the "evidence" for this is that the organs were being sold. Or is it that taking organs from executed criminals even with the consent of the families is seen as immoral because of a distrust that the Chinese government would deliberately execute criminals for minor offences purely to sell their organs? SilkTork *^YES! 10:45, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think this statement from Kilgour Matas describes a cause for concern: "To go from executing no one to killing Falun Gong practitioners for their organs without their consent is a large step. To go from executing prisoners sentenced to death for political or economic crimes and harvesting their organs without their consent to killing Falun Gong practitioners for their organs without their consent is a good deal smaller step.” People are sentenced to death for having committed no real crime. If I remember a statistic I read somewhere the majority of death-penalty crimes in China are of a non-criminal nature. In fact, its not uncommon for people to get years in prison for something as minor as comments made online. Dilip rajeev (talk) 14:29, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have now included awareness of the ethical concerns about coerced consent and potential corruption in the lead so that is now a bit clearer. I'm still not quite sure why Harry Wu's report has been picked out, as there appears to have been concerns raised by various bodies over the years. Is it that Harry Wu's report is the one that the previous editors of the article were most aware of, and so used that, or is there a specific notability about his report that prompted greater media awareness or a change in attitude of the Chinese authorities? SilkTork *^YES! 18:12, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Prod

Hi, If the pages are mostly done, how about we take the initiative to move it to wikispace? We could keep improving them as we receive feedback from a a wider audience.

Dilip rajeev (talk) 10:56, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for prodding me. I get easily diverted from this task! We still need to finish Organ harvesting in the People's Republic of China. I have worked on the background to the Falun Gong claims - that is the fuller story of organ transplanting in China. The section in that article on the Falun Gong claims now needs to be addressed. I will look at what you have done in User:SilkTork/Cambridge, do some research of my own, and then merge everything together. When I am satisfied that Organ_harvesting_in_the_People's_Republic_of_China#Claims_of_organ_harvesting_from_Falun_Gong_members (or whatever the section on the Falun Gong claims ends up being called) is acceptable, then we'll move forward with summarising that material (which is already clearly too large for the Organ harvesting in the People's Republic of China article, so needs trimming) and then linking to Wikipedia:Article Incubator/Kilgour-Matas report* (updated to link to Article Incubator) which we'll move into main space after I have examined it.

I have no problems with you giving me a nudge. You can contact me here, on my talkpage or by email at any point at which you feel I am dragging my heels. What I don't want is you moving anything into mainspace too soon as that could undo the work we have all already put into this. SilkTork *^YES! 18:54, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, Silktork. Please take your time. If you need my help with a particular section, of if you'd like me to do improvements to certain sections, kindly let me know. I'll be glad to do my best to help.

Dilip rajeev (talk) 18:15, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Silktork, Jayen,

I wanted to bring to your attention this set of edits by User PCPP which blanks out a significant amount of very relevant material at the end of the article. I think Jayen is already well aware of how the user has been blanking content from articles related to human rights abuses by the CCP.

Silktork, Could you suggest an effective mechanism for handling such disruptions?

Dilip rajeev (talk) 14:40, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am still working on that page, so there is likely to be more editing done on that section. I haven't really got to grips with the particular concerns of the Falun Gong in that article as I am still (slowly) working my way through the general background to the organ harvesting. I'd like to see how the Falun Gong claims sit into the general story of the organ harvesting, and what impact those claims had on China's responses to international concerns about their organ harvesting programme - I note that they have stopped advertising organs for sale, and that they are making other positive steps to address concerns. I'm aware that the Falun Gong claims did generate some publicity, especially via the Kilgour-Matas report, and it would be useful to get that publicity into perspective. It appears that concerns had been raised for some time with little or nothing being done, then after the report, the international concerns become more numerous, and China starts to bring in positive legislation. The Organ harvesting in the People's Republic of China article still needs a fair bit of work - the Falun Gong claims and the reaction to them need to be put more clearly in an appropriate timeframe so that some assessment can be made of their impact. The whole section on the claims also needs to be trimmed to make it of a more appropriate length for the article, and the more detailed material moved into a standalone article. It's moving in that direction - but it is taking time as its not really my sort of topic. However, I will finish it. SilkTork *^YES! 10:18, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not directly related, but since this pattern repeats so frequently on these and related pages, I think it might serve a purpose to point it out: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=50_Cent_Party&action=historysubmit&diff=368240760&oldid=367442294 . 50% of the article on "China's 50 cent Party" is blanked out in a series of IP edits. Dilip rajeev (talk) 06:59, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Many articles get vandalised - that is, sadly, an everyday occurance. I looked at the 50 Cent Party article and saw three instances of IP vandalism since the article was created in January 2009. That is not particularly high, and is being managed, but I will semi-protect the article if the vandalism continues. Please let me know. SilkTork *^YES! 10:18, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Silkork, the disruptive edits are spread out over subjects related to human rights abuses in China. The same user has now blanked out a lot of significant content from a related article - the page on the newspaper which brought the organ haversting allegations to light first. I had earlier pointed out dozens of instances where the user blanks out material under sneaky edit summaries from all articles related to human rights abuses in China. The latest set of blanking are here: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Epoch_Times&action=historysubmit&diff=380001748&oldid=379453267 .

Jayen, Could you kindly share your thoughts on handling this.

Dilip rajeev (talk) 04:44, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Silktork, Kindly let me know if there are issues I could help with. I can pull out a lot of time over the coming few weeks, and I'd be most glad to help. Dilip rajeev (talk) 16:19, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Organ transplantation in the People's Republic of China, the parent article from which the potential Kilgour-Matas report article will emerge, has been nominated for a Good Article. I am waiting for the results of that before splitting out Kilgour-Matas report. You could look at Organ transplantation in the People's Republic of China and see if that article will meet Wikipedia:Good article criteria, and tidy it up. It was nominated a while ago, and hopefully someone will get around to reviewing it shortly. SilkTork *^YES! 18:52, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The article you've done seems great! I'll see where I can help. Meanwhile, here is an article by David Matas: http://www.2shared.com/document/y5l8Ddq3/David_Matas_Speech.html . A succinct coverage of the issues involved.

Dilip rajeev (talk) 05:47, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Silktork, A section in which I see room for improvement is the "Other reports" section. Its good as of now but mentioning the Yale thesis, Ethan Gutman, etc., may make it more comprehensive. These reports are covered in the Kilgour Matas page.

Was thinking of including the Yale thesis. But before including , I wanted to confirm with you if there was a thought behind its exclusion.. perhaps that a more detailed coverage of the reports is best reserved for the Kilgour Matas page, while cross-section could be presented in the main article?

I'd think the Yale thesis is worth mentioning on the main page as well. Please let me know your thoughts on this. I'd want your suggestion before I go ahead and do any changes.

Thank you.

Dilip rajeev (talk) 06:03, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

David Matas' comments are here: Ending Abuse of Organ Transplantation in China ( http://www.theepochtimes.com/n2/content/view/41204/ ). Same as the doc above.

Dilip rajeev (talk) 10:27, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't looked at your sources yet. Perhaps JN466 might comment. SilkTork *^YES! 11:35, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lede

The first sentence of the article is unsourced and claims:

"Transplantation in the People's Republic of China has taken place since the 1960s, and China has one of the largest transplant programmes in the world, peaking at over 13,000 transplants a year by 2004."

The above contradicts the KM reports which say there is no extensive transplantation network in place in China.

"Largest transplant programme" would be but a mis-characterization of an organ harvestation network. I see the article has the title "Organ transplantations in China" now. "Organ harvestation" is quite different from "transplantation" and when it comes to China, the notability factor leans towards the former. These forced harvestations cannot be clubbed together with or characterized as part of a "transplantation programme." From one perspective, it amounts to glorifying a brutal racket of killing innocents, prisoners of conscience, for their organs as the "largest transplant programme."

The statement in the lead, I think, is not objective, and does not to align with reliable sources. According to KM Reports there is a cultural aversion to organ transplants in China and there is no proper transplantation network in-place in China.

Dilip rajeev (talk) 18:54, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've just noticed this. Forgive me for not responding earlier. I'd be interested to see where the KM report contradicts the quote, which is sourced to The Lancet in the section in which it is used. I have now placed a link to the source next to the lead statement, as others may also question it, and contentious statements should be sourced.

"Organ harvesting" is not an appropriate title. The situation is explained throughout the article, and readers will make up their own minds. SilkTork *^YES! 14:33, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kilgour-Matas report

I have moved the draft of the Kilgour-Matas report from my userspace to: Wikipedia:Article Incubator/Kilgour-Matas report. After about a week there, I will ask another admin to look it over before moving it into mainspace. Because of the article's troubled history (and also as part of what I originally agreed to), I will put it up at AfD to get a wider response to the notability of the material. If the community consensus is that the material is notable enough for a standalone article, the Falun Gong material in Organ transplantation in the People's Republic of China will be reduced to a sentence and readers directed to the new standalone Kilgour-Matas article. SilkTork *^YES! 11:49, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Moved Kilgour-Matas report into mainspace and listed it at AfD

See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kilgour-Matas report. This is in line with what I said I would do. SilkTork *^YES! 00:05, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Close discussion?

It has been 8 months since this discussion was opened. Have we made sufficent progress? Have concerns been addressed? The main issue was that Dilip rajeev's editing was contentious; while Dilip felt that his concerns regarding development of Falun Gong related articles were not being taken seriously.

The questions to be answered are:

Is Dilip rajeev able to be trusted to edit within Wikipedi'a behaviour guidelines without being monitored, and without any special restrictions?

Is Dilip rajeev confident that he can address any issues related to Falun Gong material in a calm and reasonable manner, using appropriate processes and resources (such as WP:Dispute resolution)?

If we can satisfactorily answer these questions then this moderated discussion can be closed. If we are unable to satisfactorily answer these questions we will look at the options open to us. SilkTork *^YES! 11:32, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dilip has not edited much in recent months; the last major dispute I can see was in September at Talk:Shen_Yun_Performing_Arts#Epoch_Times. Lots of familiar names in that discussion, on both sides. --JN 466 12:06, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am aware of that incident - User_talk:Dilip_rajeev#Shen_Yun_Performing_Arts and User_talk:PCPP#Shen_Yun_Performing_Arts. Dilip did strike the personal comments. I will hold this discussion page on my watchlist until the end of the year, and if there is no more activity then I will close this discussion and leave a note on the Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement page. SilkTork *^YES! 17:31, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the links, you did well there. Do feel free to drop me a note on my talk page at any time if I can be of assistance. --JN 466 22:20, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]