Talk:Forced organ harvesting from Falun Gong practitioners in China/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

NPOV... Yet again

@Vacosea I asked you to self revert. It looks another editor beat you to the punch. It is clear you do not have consensus for these changes. Please come to talk to discuss. Your edits are clearly non-neutral. Simonm223 (talk) 15:10, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

I was trying to reduce the undue length of some of the sections. My first edit organized everything by year and reduced the reaction of Kilgour and Matas to the response from the Chinese government because the section should focus on the latter. Vacosea (talk) 19:20, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

I added more information to the counterargument section and trimmed down what proponents say to counter the counterarguments, since that section should focus on the counterarguments themselves. Vacosea (talk) 15:33, 8 August 2025 (UTC)

I am concerned that @23impartial seems to be trying to push the POV to make the "China Tribunal" seem much more than it is. It's an advocacy group that advances Falun Gong's extraordinary claims. That's it. I find it remarkable that Wikipedia is so vulnerable to obvious anti-medical WP:FRINGE claims from an anti-vax, anti-medicine NRM like FLG as long as they're echoed by english-speaking politicians. Simonm223 (talk) 16:33, 9 August 2025 (UTC)

I appreciate you bringing up your concerns. It's important to sort this out before we continue. I am not interested in pushing anything here. I am just trying to cover information from available reliable sources on this topic. I am unsure how the WP:FRINGE claims made by this NRM are relevant to the human rights crises they are subjected to, which is a serious matter. So I think it's important to talk this through and see what each other thinks.

I think one thing that makes this topic tricky is that it involves a government that is still in power. Therefore, the Chinese government would not have set up a court to investigate and prosecute claims against itself. Any investigative work would have to come from an outside body like an international court. I assume that was how the "China Tribunal" came into being. The tribunal consisted of non-Falun Gong people and was headed by Geoffrey Nice, who was the lead prosecutor for Slobodan Milošević's trial for the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia. Geoffrey Nice also chaired the Uyghur Tribunal, so there is no reason to believe he specifically advocates for Falun Gong.

As for the China Tribunal itself, it fully performed the functions of any criminal court and its conclusion was thus used or mentioned by different governmental bodies and reliable sources. Specifically, "the Tribunal examined a large amount of written evidence and interviewed over 50 witnesses during a 12-month period” (according to a report by the International Bar Association). Its conclusion/judgment was adopted or used by the EU and U.S. Congress. The U.N. received its findings and found the claims surrounding forced organ harvesting credible. The conclusion was cited by many academic journals, such as the American Journal of Transplantation, the Journal of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery, the Journal of Heart and Lung Transplantation, and the Columbia Journal of Bioethics. The tribunal was also widely reported by reliable media (NBC, Reuters, The Guardian, Sydney Morning Herald, the Telegraph, etc.), which you probably already knew and I won't belabor.

The tribunal is already barely mentioned in the lead on this page. With your consensus, I hope it gets the weight it should. 23impartial (talk) 17:03, 10 August 2025 (UTC)

The existence of the putative human rights crisis depends entirely on the eyewitness testimony of members of an NRM with a reputation for things like trying to deny its adherents access to vaccines and other routine medical treatment. This has been amplified by politicians, mostly from the UK and Canada, who have treated said eyewitness testimony as if it wer indisputably true. Frankly it's very alarming that Wikipedia acts as if this were really happening rather than treating it as anti-medical / anti-communist propaganda. Simonm223 (talk) 17:31, 10 August 2025 (UTC)

The tribunal presents mostly the same information as before. It is not a part of any official judicial system. It has been reported on in passing, but I don't think it should be presented as a legal verdict. This article already favors the Falun Gong by excluding "allegations" from the title and mentioning the Peabody Prize in the lead which is actually undue. Vacosea (talk) 09:21, 11 August 2025 (UTC)

I’d like to emphasize that Wikipedia is not about whom the page favors or disfavors. It is about what reliable sources say and summarizing them fairly and proportionally according to their due weights, not personal opinions. Please be aware of WP:FALSEBALANCE.

I want to address the single reversion of many of my edits recently made by Vacosea. I will explain my edits and hopefully we can come to a consensus.

The lead currently almost dedicates one paragraph to one single article by the Washington Post. The tribunal, although covered extensively (and not in passing) by many reliable sources (e.g., NBC, Reuters, The Guardian, Sydney Morning Herald, the Telegraph, US News & World Report, The Hill, etc.), is only mentioned in one sentence at the end of a big paragraph. Based on MOS:LEADREL, the tribunal should receive more coverage than the WaPo article. So I suggest that the tribunal receive more coverage in the lead, perhaps a few sentences covering its conclusion like I did. But I do agree with Vacosea that we shouldn’t use the word verdict, as cited sources use judgment or conclusion.

I relocated and modified the line, “A tribunal initiated by an organization co-founded by Matas agreed with these conclusions in 2018”, because this is inaccurate and WP:SYNTH. The tribunal was set up in 2018, but the conclusion was made in 2019. It considered much more evidence than the Kilgour/Matas/Gutmann report, including counterarguments, such as the 2017 WaPo article, which was also addressed in the tribunal’s final report. The tribunal drew its own conclusions as reported by the sources that I cited above, and should be described this way in the lead.

Also, I believe that placing quotation marks around "independent" is editorializing per MOS:EDITORIAL, as it is unsupported by the cited sources.

In the revert, Vacosea also removed two RSes that said China may have falsified transplant/donation data (Guardian, Canberra Times), and downplayed the language to data inconsistencies in the lead in a later edit.

Vacosea added “U.S. government staffers have questioned the credibility of some of the evidence” to the lead without citing any sources. If this refers to US State Dept staff visiting Sujiatun hospital in 2006, that was before the Kilgour-Matas report was released, and the credibility of the evidence thus could not have been questioned by the staff. If it refers to a 2006 report by a U.S. congressional research staffer, that is way outdated. Given that the U.S. House of Representatives passed bi-partisan resolution H.Res.343 in 2016 calling the evidence of forced organ harvesting credible, and then passed bi-partisan Falun Gong Protection Act addressing organ harvesting issues in 2025, that congressional researcher’s opinion in 2006 had been overridden and is no longer relevant today.

At the beginning of the second paragraph in the lead, the correct year should be 2016, not 2006. Kilgour and Matas released their preliminary report in 2006, which later expanded into their 2009 book “Bloody Harvest.” Gutmann did his own investigation separately and published them in his 2014 book “The Slaughter”. The three didn’t join hands until 2016 when they published the report "Bloody Harvest/The Slaughter: An Update," with new evidence. All three citations at the end of that sentence referred to this 2016 report.

In terms of death toll, Gutmann gave the estimate of 65,000 from 2000 to 2008 (not each year) in his 2014 book. That was why I attributed the tens of thousands of deaths to their previous publications. Based on all the coverage about their 2016 report that I have seen, they apparently didn’t give a death toll estimate in that report. Instead, they gave the estimate of annual transplants to be 60,000-100,000. The 100,000 death toll per year apparently comes from a Diplomat article that cited Matas in passing, which is undue and shouldn’t be attributed to all three of them either (it is also possible the reporter mixed up the number of transplants and the number of deaths, which are not the same thing). Thus, Vacosea’s edit of “the number of deaths range from tens of thousands to 65,000 to 100,000 per year depending on the time period” appears to be WP:SYNTH that none of the cited sources say.

Considering the above, I think that at least some of my reverted edits should be restored. If anyone has any differing opinions or suggestions, I’m happy to discuss here so we can come to a consensus. 23impartial (talk) 14:13, 12 August 2025 (UTC)

Only two or three sentences of the lead are not pro-Falun Gong. This is approximately line with the quantity of text in the article's body. The tribunal is not an RS, and most RS treat allegations as allegations, not as facts. The U.S. Representatives are duely mentioned in the lead and cannot "override" different views in the U.S. government in the past. Vacosea (talk) 22:01, 12 August 2025 (UTC)

While Robertson's studies are quoted by RS, it is more indirect compared to the Washington Post article which questions Falun Gong findings from the paper's own position. I don't know whether we should cite Robertson in wikivoice when their titles "Analysis of official deceased organ donation data casts doubt on the credibility of China’s organ transplant reform" and "Compliance with ethical standards in the reporting of donor sources and ethics review in peer-reviewed publications involving organ transplantation in China: a scoping review" do not explicitly claim data falsification. When summarizing different data there can be inaccuracies introduced, which I appreciate you pointing out. Most of my edits however corrected information that was misrepresented or sources not properly disclosed. Vacosea (talk) 22:01, 12 August 2025 (UTC)

The death estimates of "tens of thousands to 65,000 to 100,000 per year depending on the time period" is for the most part correctly sourced, but the 100,000 figure does come from the Diplomat only and may be omitted from the lead. In terms of that paragraph's organization, do you want to follow the body exactly, which itself is not entirely ordered by time? Vacosea (talk) 22:21, 12 August 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for voicing your opinions. I’d like to address a few things and hopefully we can come to a consensus.

The tribunal’s own reliability is less relevant here, as we are using reliable secondary sources to summarize its findings. I agree that we shouldn’t state the tribunal’s conclusions as Wikipedia’s own fact. However, the secondary reliable sources that I listed above report its conclusions prominently without addressing them as “mere allegations.” They were cited in an EU resolution, US congressional hearings, legal and medical publications that I listed above as serious, formal findings. We can summarize its conclusions with clear attribution to reflect the way they are presented in RS, without editorializing or taking a stance ourselves. For similar reasons, the quotation marks around “independent” tribunal should be removed, or we can use “non-governmental.”

Regarding Robertson's 2019 paper, it is not uncommon that a scientific paper's title doesn't directly state its conclusion. But the conclusion section of the paper reads: "A variety of evidence points to what the authors believe can only be plausibly explained by systematic falsification and manipulation of official organ transplant datasets in China." Thus I think the two reliable sources' (Wikipedia prefers secondary sources in general) title "may have falsified" (Guardian and Canberra Times) accurately reflects the paper's conclusion. They didn't say China falsified data for sure. "May have" is an accurate summary of the paper's conclusion. "Data inconsistencies" is indeed an inaccurate summary.

As for the lead’s organization as you asked, it does not have to perfectly follow the body’s order, and should be its own overview of the article’s topic per MOS:LEAD. Chronological order makes most sense to me, as different evidence and investigations came out at different times and the whole thing evolved over time. For example, Kilgour-Gutmann-Matas’s 2016 report had more evidence than their previous publications, and the tribunal considered more evidence than KGM’s 2016 report, including WaPo’s counterarguments. So to me, at least for the investigation and reporting part, roughly ordering it by time is the least confusing to readers.

As for the line, “U.S. government staffers have questioned the credibility of some of the evidence”, I assume you meant the 2006 report by Lum. That 2006 congressional research report addressing Kilgour-Matas’s first report is way outdated. If included, it should be dated. Otherwise, it would give people the wrong impression that it is the U.S. Congress’s position today. If that report is due to be in the lead, so should Robertson’s 2020 report addressing WaPo’s immunosuppressant data claim, if not more so (as Robertson published several peer-reviewed medical journal papers on this topic). 23impartial (talk) 13:42, 13 August 2025 (UTC)

For counterarguments it is less efficient to list chronologically. I would like to summarize them if possible. About Robertson's research, it is closer to an argument by elimination, therefore the "may have" as you have pointed out. He was also an editor at The Epoch Times. On a related matter, The Washington Post's response to the rebuttals is missing from this article. Your suggestions for the lead is going to end up with too much debate about the current status of organ donations in China, leaning primarily on Robertson's research, that is a couple of steps away from proving ongoing organ harvesting from Falun Gong practitioners. I have combined two paragraphs so that the lead is more focused and expanded those details in the Background section. Vacosea (talk) 21:46, 13 August 2025 (UTC)

"Independent" is vague and relative to the context, such as independent of government or something else. We should disclose connections when the article relies so heavily on Kilgour, Matas, Gutmann, and Robertson. UN groups also use "allegations" . The pro-harvest arguments can be made chronological and we can work them. Vacosea (talk) 21:46, 13 August 2025 (UTC)

I see that you’ve already made changes to the lead. Some were what we’ve discussed and some were not. Nevertheless, I want to address a few additional things and hopefully we can come to an agreement.

Based on Robertson’s 2020 report, the group of experts wrote two letters to the WaPo editor, who replied to the first letter, but not the second one (response to WaPo’s response). As the report summarized both letters, it already incorporated WaPo’s response. The lead should stand on its own as a concise overview of the topic written with NPOV. On immunosuppressant issues, we need to include both sides of view in the lead.

When Robertson published his research paper with Dr. Jacob Lavee and Dr. Raymond Hinde, he was a PhD student at ANU and a research fellow of VOC, not affiliated with Epoch Times anymore. Your edit of saying so is WP:OR, not supported by RS. These peer-reviewed papers in medical journals carry more weights than a news article per WP:TIERS. They are directly related to China's claim of completely relying on voluntary donation, which is mentioned in the Lead. Your edit of moving these sources down from the Lead to the background section is downplaying the issue.

Regarding the UN statement, it didn’t mention the tribunal per se. But this 2022 Telegraph article reads: The [Tribunal's] findings were largely corroborated a year later by no fewer than eight UN Special Rapporteurs, who described “credible indicators of forced organ harvesting”.

You said the article relies heavily on Kilgour, Matas, Gutmann, and Robertson. I believe that is misstated, as although Kilgour/Matas/Gutmann were more involved at the initial stage of this issue, as I mentioned above, the international response and investigations evolved and more medical professionals, organizations, and governments became involved in investigating and speaking about it. As for Robertson, he was not the only author of those peer-reviewed papers and his publications were also reported by many reliable sources.

To make it more efficient, I propose the following changes:

• In the second paragraph of the lead, the year should be corrected. The estimated number of deaths should be attributed to Kilgour-Matas and Gutmann’s previous publications.
• In the third paragraph, the part about the WaPo article should include a brief mention of the argument by the group of experts. The last line about “met with skepticism” needs sources and should be specified by what the sources have stated. I suggest language like what you just added to the Background section, about how organ transplant data may have been falsified and manipulated, including misclassifications of non-voluntary donors as voluntary.
• Then, chronologically it makes more sense to move the tribunal down, before the last paragraph, with more information added in accordance with reliable sources.

23impartial (talk) 15:51, 14 August 2025 (UTC)

If the UN statement does not mention the tribunal, how could it be considered corroborated? The statement from the Special Rapporteurs uses the words reports of alleged organ harvesting, reportedly registered, appears to be, according to the allegations received, and allegations of organ harvesting through out, so allegations is the prevailing characterization. Vacosea (talk) 19:38, 14 August 2025 (UTC)

Not only was Robertson an editor, not just a reporter, for The Epoch Times, he is also affiliated with the Victims of Communism Memorial Foundation. They have been listed as competing interests. As recent as 2020, only a month after the ABC published articles critical of Falun Gong , Robertson and Rogers (another researcher cited by you working closely with Robertson) wrote to the ABC in defense of Falun Gong, even though by their own words the original articles did not concern organ harvesting. The link between Falun Gong and researchers arguing for organ harvesting appears to be very strong, and the bulk of the most critical recent sources do come from Robertson. Vacosea (talk) 19:38, 14 August 2025 (UTC)

I don't think making everything chronological in the lead would work well, but within each paragraph I tried to organize the sentences by year. The reference to the VOC was removed from Gutmann because there is currently no source indicating he was affiliated at that time. As for the China Tribunal, I kept both independent and its link to Gutmann and Matas via ETAC, because independent by itself would be misleading in the context of that paragraph, which refers to Gutmann and Matas several times. Vacosea (talk) 22:49, 14 August 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for your recent edits cleaning up the organization and chronology of the lead. Your time and work after our discussions are appreciated.

Since you made a few additional points, I’d just like to address them here so we can be on the same page.

Regarding the wording of “allegations” used by the UN statement, I want to point out that the UN and UNHCR typically use hedged language such as "alleged" for human rights abuses, even in cases where their own special rapporteurs have found the evidence credible, which is obvious in this case. This is a standard diplomatic style, especially when member states — in this case, a permanent Security Council member — contest the claims.

The 2022 Telegraph article didn’t refer to this UNHCR public statement per se, as the exact quote “credible indicators of forced organ harvesting” in the article doesn’t appear in this statement. As a reliable media with a reputation for fact-checking, the Telegraph must have its own channel to verify what the Special Rapporteurs did and said. The UN press release is a primary source. Secondary sources, like this one, are generally preferred when available.

As for Robertson’s 2019 peer-reviewed paper in BMC Med Ethics, competing interests are different from conflict of interest. Robertson’s co-author Dr. Jacob Lavee even listed “has previously spoken against abuses of organ transplantation in China” as a competing interest. In fact, another 2022 article by Robertson and Lavee in the American Journal of Transplantation has a disclosure stating that they “have no conflicts of interest to disclose as described by the American Journal of Transplantation.” Dr. Jacob Lavee, actually once questioned the claims of organ harvesting at the beginning but later believed it is true through his own investigation.

I am fine with mentioning Robertson’s current affiliation with VOC, as it is relevant. But his prior affiliation before his research is less so. As for Robertson and Wendy Rogers’s article on Falun Gong, it is not unreasonable for researchers investigating this issue to develop some sympathy towards the primary victim group. That would not disqualify their peer reviewed publications as reliable sources. By the same token, I suppose that we would not disqualify a paper on the Holocaust because the author had voiced sympathy toward the victims, or to disqualify a paper on racial discrimination because the author participated in the civil rights movement before starting their research career.

Robertson and Lavee’s 2019 BMC paper has been cited 36 times by other publications according to Google scholar. Their 2022 AJT article has also been cited over 20 times. They are solid reliable sources.

Again, thank you for your recent edits and for voicing your concerns. 23impartial (talk) 05:03, 16 August 2025 (UTC)

It's probably better to disclose a source's affiliation with Falun Gong or The Epoch Times. As for the U.N. statement and the use of "allegations", speculations about politics or the Telegraph's "own channel" may or may not apply, but big claims such as those made by this article generally require greater evidence of consensus than usual. Vacosea (talk) 05:24, 18 August 2025 (UTC)

I still think the article is giving far too much weight to the so-called China Tribunal. This article still seems like it was ghost-written by the Epoch Times. Simonm223 (talk) 15:58, 26 August 2025 (UTC)

I see the concern about balance. Since reliable sources provided substantial coverage of this tribunal, a bit more detail than what is currently in the lead would better reflect WP:DUE. Thank you. Path2space (talk) 14:51, 27 August 2025 (UTC)

No, that's the opposite of what we should be doing with this naked anti-Chinese propaganda campaign. The "China Tribunal" is a farce. It's a black-spot on Wikipedia's reputation that we treat it with such extensiveness. Simonm223 (talk) 14:58, 27 August 2025 (UTC)

I hear you.  This isn’t about whether we personally like the content or not (WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT), but about reflecting the proportion of coverage in reliable secondary sources, per WP:DUE. Thanks. Path2space (talk) 16:37, 27 August 2025 (UTC)

I already added more to the lead for the proponents' argument including the China Tribunal . It should have sufficient weight now considering it is only one of the many parts to this topic. It's not just a matter of how many RS discuss it. If what they cover is very specific or not new information, much of it would be summarized together in the lead. Vacosea (talk) 23:57, 27 August 2025 (UTC)

Appreciate your work on the lead. I think the chair of the tribunal should be mentioned, since that role is highlighted in multiple media reports. I also notice that some of the current wording, such as “campaign,” may read as editorializing. It would be better to be consistent with what the sources say, per WP:NPOV and WP:WTW. Thanks again. Path2space (talk) 02:25, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

He was much less involved than the other names in the lead over the decades. "Campaign" was used by Reuters but organization may be better. Vacosea (talk) 16:39, 28 August 2025 (UTC)