Davives

I'm not sure that "Peaceful demonstration against forced organ harvesting in Great Britain." is the best picture to put on wikipedia as people of all ages read it and some people will probably be discouraged from reading by that picture. I think it would be better to remove it or replace it with another picture like "Organ harvesting demonstration hold in June 2006,Hong Kong" that you put on the 13 May 2014 version of Persecution of Falun Gong. thanks Aaabbb11 (talk) 09:40, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

I understand this is not a cheerful picture, I'm sorry you disapproves "Peaceful demonstration against forced organ harvesting in Great Britain." But there's many of the same kind, if you take a look on the "Persecution of Falun Gong"'s page, like [2004-7-6-gao rongrong3.jpg]. I think the picture has to match with the facts, don't they? Best. Davives (talk) 19:32, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

I have no problem with the picture of Gao Rongrong (it isn't really that graphic) as it is a very important picture of something that happened rather than a reenactment. One graphic picture in an article can't be used to justify adding another which is far more graphic. Someone else has deleted your picture.

The gif of the false fire might be a good addition to the article, if you want to add that.

In my experience many people find the topic of organ harvesting too horrific to read about it, even without graphic pictures. So in my opinion the use of graphic pictures is a very important issue to think about. thanks Aaabbb11 (talk) 00:18, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

I wasn't sure which picture was best. Honestly, I just asked my young sister which one did she like the most, and she pointed me the one I published :) Anyway, it's OK. Pictures are carrying information, so we have to choose carefully. Davives (talk) 17:33, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Investigators

If someone does an investigation and finds nothing (while others do) maybe it doesn't count. Can you be a gold miner if you can't find any gold? I think this applies to the organ harvesting investigation and people like Wu who didn't find evidence, which was rebutted in Appendix 16 of revised Kilgour Matas report. Plenty of people did find evidence. If an individual didn't find evidence I think their opinion shouldn't be in the article. (sorry if you may have already knew this) best wishesAaabbb11 (talk) 09:20, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

I agree 100% with you. I didn't mention Harry Wu anywhere, did I? I don't understand your message, maybe I'm french so my english is quite poor. Best. Davives (talk) 20:37, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

I'll try and explain better. If many people look for evidence, some people may find evidence, while other people find nothing. If someone did not find evidence, it is probably not important enough write it on wikipedia. Wu comments were rebutted, in Appendix 16 of the revised Kilgour Matas report.

You didn't mention Wu but I think he was on the french persecution of FG page. I was just mentioning it as some info on english FG pages shouldn't have been there. Many FG pictures have been removed. thanks Aaabbb11 (talk) 22:16, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

The french page was going thru severe war-editing, that's why I didn't insist too much on this point that was very controversial. But I still agree, there's no point in quoting Wu's work, it can't even be qualified an investigation. The context, in 2006, was that very few people belived in forced harvesting. I will fix the picture's issue, I was to blame for I didn't put the right license for thoses. Best! Davives (talk) 19:07, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Hey, I came upon your sandbox while doing a related Google search. I didn't want to edit your draft directly, but I've been working on something similar (though not as far advanced), so I thought I'd email you some suggested wording and other sources things you may have missed. Cheers. TheBlueCanoe 21:04, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

给您一个星章！

	特别星章
	Thank you for writing about Organ-Harvesting! Good。 Wetrace (talk) 11:56, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Nomination of Organ harvesting from Falun Gong practitioners in China for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Organ harvesting from Falun Gong practitioners in China is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Organ harvesting from Falun Gong practitioners in China until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

- || RuleTheWiki || (talk) 17:13, 25 April 2021 (UTC)