Talk:Wang Wenyi

message: Anybody know the chinese characters of her name? I've haven't been able to find it - mainly because there hasn't been any articles in Chinese on this incident.... I'm curious.
:My guess (and I can't read Chinese at all) would be 王文怡. I got it from this article about the incident. Someone should confirm this however first. Bennity 23:54, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Chinese characters 

message: It would be very surprising to find anything if we ask the suspected or criminals-affiliated party to guide a tour for investigation. so I would be surprised if U.S. report found any evidence in the Sujiatun site three weeks or one month after the news exposure. Three weeks leave enough time to  relocate or erase the evidence. That is why a Third-party, Independent investigation on a large-scale of labor camps and medical facilities affiliated with secret death camps is called for. Recently Sky TV reporters went under cover . Also the first two witnesses went to public . Despite China's Ministry of Foreign Affair spokeman Qin Gang's invitation, however, several members of CIPFG and reporters have been denied entry to China for investigation. .  Fnhddzs 19:47, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Regardless of your opinions, an official publication of the US Department of State holds more weight than conspiracy theories by Falun Gong and The Epoch Times. And the CCP is not a "criminal-affiliated" organization.--PatCheng 01:08, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Thanks for your reply. It is good that U.S. government tried to help. However, since CCP-China runs dictorship. They hold possession of the evidence and have monopoly control of them. The reversal of burden of proof applies on this situation. Three weeks of no response has proved that they are guilty. Since it is easy to relocate and erase the evidence, I would be surprised if U.S. government could find anything. Fnhddzs 04:27, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Fnhddzs, here's the reference you are looking for. Wu also questioned the veracity of Falun Gong's claim:
"Some China-watchers are also skeptical. Harry Wu, executive director of the Washington-based Laogai Research Foundation, which investigates abuses in the Chinese gulag, pointed out their "evidence" is just hearsay. "No pictures, no witnesses, no paperwork, no detailed information at all," he said. "Nothing." 
Also, given the sheer volumes alleged -- the thousands of people transported and murdered, organs harvested and exported, and transplants performed -- Wu wondered how all this could occur without one actual eyewitness coming forward. 
Wu added: "The Falun Gong practitioners say, 'We believe this is true because Chinese Communism is a barbaric, evil system. They will do anything.' So the conclusion is -- they did it. The evidence? Today, not enough." --bobby fletcher 12:30, 23 May 2006 (PST)
Indeed. The organ harvest is not new. It was since 20 years ago on executed prisoners. And later on they harvest live organs so they make the executed person not die before their organs are harvested.  Falun Gong practitioners in labor camps in China without any trials are no exception. They have no human rights in China. Fnhddzs 21:06, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

text: No human rights in China? The Human rights in the United States article has more evidences of human right violations, so you can safely claim "no human rights in USA"?
BTW, read a document from the Clinical Research Centre of the Ministry of Health Malaysia. The Liaoning Thrombus Medical Treatment Center, or so called state concentration camp is invested by a Malaysian company (Country Heights Health Sanctuary), and has hosted Honorable Minister of Health Malaysia. Sounds like CIA flights?--Skyfiler 22:09, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

text: The "centration camp" is coined by the Epoch Times, not me. --Skyfiler 02:15, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Argument should not base on the lack of information or the credibility of the opponent but should base on credibile evidence. Speculation should not be reported as fact.--Skyfiler 02:15, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  As I said, the evidence is in monopoly control of CCP. Live organ harvesting on people to be executed is nothing new in CCP-led China. Falun Gong is no exception since it is being persecuted now. If we give permission to such inhuman things, the next victims may be ourselves with no exception. Isn't true that some patient's marrow are stolen during surgery? The patients are neither to be executed or practitioners of Falun Gong. Together, let's stopping atrocities. Defending other's human rights is defending ourselves. Fnhddzs 20:29, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Are you aruging that getting information from non-CCP sources is impossible, so CCP must prove its innocence for any charge?--Skyfiler 20:59, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I mean, considering the evidence could be easily transferred or erased, the reveral of burden of proof could apply. The reversal of burden of proof has been applied in civilized socities to prevent effects of unfair situations. The cases could include medical incident, employment discrimination, intellectual property etc.. In the situations that applicable, no full evidence is required and maybe only partial evidence or inference could warrant. I heard CCP prisons could raise deers, goldenfishes to beautify the prison for reporters to interview, but the tortures could still happen without letting reporters see. The Sujiatun site is a hospital. It is alleged to involve the organ harvesting of Falun Gong practitioners since 2001.  The woman witness's ex-husband was doing cornea-removal and he is currently receiving chemotherapy for his terminal cancer. The witness tries to help to reduce her ex-husband's sin by exposing the information out. Her ex-husband was majoring brain surgery. But in China a cosmetic surgeon could do kidney transplantation (there is a Chinese video). Where will our own safety go if hospitals get permission to kill lives? For years, with the one child policy, hospitals have been used to kill newborns without a blink although hospitals did save a lot of people. The issue is: who deserve to be killed? Even the people to be executed have human rights and do not deserve to remove organs when they are alive. I am really concerned about the situation. Some day we maybe suddenly become the targets that deserved to be killed. At that time, nobody could speak for us since we gave that permission. Fnhddzs 22:47, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

text:  So far, three CIPFG members' visa applications to enter China to do investigation got refused, despite Qin Gang's invitation. Fnhddzs 23:36, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Regarding the live organ harvesting investigation 

message: I'm sorry to say the article is in a rather messy state right now. Things to do include:
*citing sources correctly, preferably using the ... tags (see WP:FN)
*copyedit (complete sentences, clearer English)
*Add sections and present the material in a comprehensible, chronological manner
Sandstein 19:51, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've removed the first one, as I've converted them all. Jude (talk) 12:42, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cleanup tags 

message: From User:Ohconfucius:










See Wikipedia:External links and Wikipedia:Spam for details --HappyInGeneral 15:29, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: According to Wikipedia:External links: "Adding external links can be a service to our readers, but they should be kept to a minimum of those that are meritable, accessible and appropriate to the article.". So I revert the links and please remove those and only those that are not "meritable, accessible and appropriate to the article.". --HappyInGeneral 15:31, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

text: *There is no requirement for biography to be "complete". It just has to be encyclopaedic. Important though she is in the FG/Epoch Times scheme of things, in wikipedia world, she is only a borderline notable who committed a misdemeanor; as a journalist, she acted in a manner considered unprofessional because she got too emotionally involved. What we need to write is based on reliable published information, not from any source which might be dug up, however trivial. I have today completely re-written the article, using a large number of small edits which have been described in detail in the edit summary. Most of the links have been removed because they are no longer valid, or because they only mentioned in passing that Wang Wenyi protested outside on the white house lawn (basically adding no value per your definition). Some were already, or have been (by me) incorporated into the article. They are still contained within the article only visible in edit mode. Ohconfucius 04:02, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

text: *I would also mention that a number of the referenced sentences were factually incorrect or out of line with the reference, and had to be replaced or amended. Ohconfucius 04:04, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Links 

message: Draw your own conclusions. Ohconfucius 06:58, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Spontaneous demonstration or premeditated act?

message: I have removed the paragraph regarding her passport refusal as she is an US citizen, and China does not recognise multiple citizenship, so she has effectively gave up her Chinese citizenship when she became an US citizen. Why should China give out a passport to a non-Chinese citizen? This is the same for all Chinese emigrants, including myself. Inclusion of this to "demonstrate" that China refuses her entrance is blatantly wrong and biased. --antilivedT | C | G 08:04, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Why would China refuse any passport? Isn't that itself very telling? Restoring sourced info. --HappyInGeneral (talk) 09:41, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  To visit China when you have a foreign passport is to apply for a Visa, not to apply for renewal for your void passport. The source never said that her visa application was refused, merely that the consulate refused to renew her passport, which is the right action to do as she has given up her Chinese citizenship by becoming a US citizen. This applies to EVERYONE, why is it so hard to understand? --antilivedT | C | G 09:52, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  By source I mean . The other source does say something about refusal of visa but my point still stands that the refused passport has got nothing to do with her being a FLG practitioner. --antilivedT | C | G 09:57, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, that is a very good point which I never connected with. Of course it's perfectly reasonable that she cannot get her Chinese passport renewed. Same for my wife who is also a naturalised foreign national, so there is no victimisation here. But the existence of the paragraph would seem to imply there was. Also, each country has absolute discretion to issue visas or not to foreign visitors. No victimisation can be proven, so if such appears, would violate WP:NPOV. Ohconfucius (talk) 10:02, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

text: Well the article says she's a naturalised citizen so I assume she is (unless naturalisation doesn't mean naturalisation). They did refuse to give her a visa to go to China but as China is a sovereign country they have the right to decide who to let in and who not to let in, and you cannot prove the refusal is discrimination. --antilivedT | C | G 06:28, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

text: For some reason I have a bad feeling about that. Quick! Whip up an article on her visa discrimination and put it up on clearwisdom! --antilivedT | C | G 12:22, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

text: Personal attack? Incivility? Ohconfucius had already established that "No victimisation can be proven, so if such appears, would violate WP:NPOV.", and as self-published sources are rampant in the FLG circle it is perfectly reasonable to assume that eventually this alleged discrimination will be first published in FLG-sponsored media, then perhaps cited by mainstream media and then cited on here. How is that a personal attack, how is that incivil? --antilivedT | C | G 12:55, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Passport refusal removed