Talk:Sujiatun Thrombosis Hospital/Archive 1

Archive 1

Redirected

Page redirected to Reports of organ harvesting from Falun Gong practitioners in China on August 7, 2009.
(See bottom of discussion for rationale) Seb az86556 (talk) 03:45, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Long quote

Regarding this and the other repeated reversions over the last couple days: can we have a discussion on whether or not to include it? My rationale for removing it before: it's a long and unnecessary quote that gives undue weight to this one thing, and doesn't say anything that isn't already expressed by the following quote ("they could easily have missed a walled-off underground facility"). The point is simple, that there are factors the inspectors didn't take into account and their findings might not be accurate....we don't need a 4-line quote to say that when a couple words will do, it's like ramming this down the reader's throat. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 12:52, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

I see your point, but please consider the background. The point is that this visit was used as a heavily publicized counter argument that there is no way that in Sujiatun these atrocities could happen. If it says that "they could easily have missed a walled-off underground facility" it caries with it implicitly a human error, which is, well, human so nothing serious. But when it's stating explicitly that "Is the State Department certain its officers toured an unaltered facility? Did they take an architect with them? Collect forensic samples? Sift through ashes? Interview any hospital personnel privately, off-site? And on their tour, did they reject the company of the inevitable CCP handler or hospital operative? If the answer to these questions is no, then the Americans' findings are interesting but hardly dispositive," this now shows exactly what kind of attributes would have been needed to make a fair evaluation, but where missing completely, which is very unlikely a human error due to the gravity of the accusations. This is why I say that this is an important detail because only this way can the reader actually understand more deeply what is going on. --HappyInGeneral (talk) 21:07, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

In that case, then, we don't need to include the full quotation, but can just say something along the lines of "although they reported that there was no organ harvesting in China, Ethan Gutmann has raised several shortcomings of their investigations (such as...), and that the report was not enough to disprove the allegations of organ harvesting," something like that. As a rule of thumb, it's always better to sum up the main point rather than quoting all the details. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 22:25, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Sounds good. --HappyInGeneral (talk) 06:50, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, done, see diff: [1] --HappyInGeneral (talk) 07:08, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

That looks good. I reworded it a little more (mostly just copyediting; I figured it would still be good to include a couple examples of why Gutmann thinks the investigation was insufficient). rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 13:34, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

This is a hospital FFS!

There's tons more about the allegations than there is about the frigging hospital, so please will the other guy quit your POV-pushing in the name of "balance". Ohconfucius (talk) 09:35, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

You are building a narrative that tries to debunk the allegations. Don't deny it. Either we remove all of the opposing stuff as well, or you will let it stay there per WP:NPOV. ✔ Olaf Stephanos ✍ 09:39, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Oh, and please quit this wikilawyering and cat-and-mouse insertion of different text designed to get yourself out of the reach of WP:3RR, because what you are in effect doing is consciously inserting an undue bias into the article. What you are complaining about is called neutral point of view, and if you don't like it, you can take me to ARBCOM. Anyhows, I don't mind if you put the article up for deletion, but I cannot accept the way you left it. Ohconfucius (talk) 09:44, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

• I see you blanked the section. I think you missed a bit, so I finished the job fer ya. ;-) Ohconfucius (talk) 09:47, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

• No, sorry. If the link stays, so does the rest. Remember, WP:NPOV is a pillar of WP. The link of the article is capable of misleading without the text - it's called 'Reports of -' and not 'Allegations of -' or 'Reports of allegations of -'. And please don't even dream of reinstating that K&M stuff, as you know full well it's a more general allegation of no direct relevence to the hospital. Ohconfucius (talk) 10:03, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm not going to start an argument. Let's see what they say here. ✔ Olaf Stephanos ✍ 10:08, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

• Good. Ohconfucius (talk) 10:17, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

I certainly support OhConfucius' attempts at bringing more balance to the article. As it stands the article is quite useless and like OhConfucius mentioned, is an attack article based on allegations that are inconclusive and circumstantial. I would say either delete this page or shed some light behind the dubious nature of these allegations, which are frequently used by Falun Gong media to fan the flames against the Chinese government and propagate their cause. This would certainly resemble WP:Coatrack. They use sensationalist wording like "concentration camp" to garner attention. Colipon+(Talk) 23:17, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Redirect

The only reason this article exists was to act as an unnecessary spinoff of the article titled "Reports of organ harvesting from Falun Gong practitioners in China". As per suggestions on WP:NPOV/N, I move that we redirect this article to the "organ harvesting" page. Colipon+(Talk) 23:25, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Skeptical but not completely opposed. What if someone actually wants to write something about the hospital... like, something that makes sense? (I guess a skillful person could easily kill the redirect and start over, so in that sense, it wouldn't be too much of a problem...)Seb az86556 (talk) 03:14, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Agree, and Olaf seems to agree too. Anyway, until such time as some remotely encyclopaedic information can be reliably sourced to attest to its notability, and not some trivial mention in the scandal press about atrocities which may or may not have taken place there. I will action it. Ohconfucius (talk) 03:39, 8 August 2009 (UTC)