Oh cool, now we both agree Wikipedia isn’t propaganda again? Super, I’m glad we’ve established that. :D

No, actually, I never said that. You seem to be very confused about how sources work on a fundamental level.

If a king commissions a history book that heaps praise on himself, but that book also talks about the king's ugly, crooked nose, then even if everything else in the book is unreliable propaganda, we can reasonably treat the part about the nose as credible, because it goes against the work's overall bias, meaning that the only reason for its inclusion would be if it were true. It would be the same way if a source biased towards China admitted to things that reflect negatively on China. That is why I can cite Wikipedia or other Western sources while still considering it biased. Another reason is that you presented as a source which means you accept it as a source. I don't have to accept it as a source in order to point out that it contradicts your position. If you cited Infowars and that source contradicted the claims you were making, I would be well within my rights to point out the contradictions, regardless of the fact that I obviously don't consider it a reliable source.

There are a total of four, count 'em, four paragraphs under the “Counterarguments” section. That’s almost the length of an acceptable third grade book report

So much of your comment is just talking about length as if that had any relevance whatsoever. I assure you that I can find extremely long sources peddling all sorts of nonsense conspiracy theories. You don't seem to understand how to evaluate sources at all.

The World Organization to Investigate the Persecution of Falun Gong

That sounds like a reliable, unbiased source.

This is no different than when US conservatives go into like a Planned Parenthood with a secret camera and cut the footage up and take things out of context to make it look bad.

When asked about Bo’s involvement in organ harvesting, one senior Politburo member reportedly told investigators that Standing Committee member and security chief Zhou Yongkang “is in charge of this specifically. He knows it.”[72]

A city-level official in Liaoning province was asked by investigators what instructions Bo Xilai may have given on organ removal from Falun Gong prisoners. The official replied: “I was asked to take care of this task. Party central is actually taking care of this…"

This is your smoking gun? Lmao.

There are legal avenues for organ donation in every (afaik) country in the world. They called up two people who are not involved in that field and don't know all the details and they were tricked into directing them to other officials who would know more. Wow, amazing.

Kilgour, Matas, Gutmann, and experts in fields such as medicine wrote to the Post saying that drug prices can be 2.5 to 4 times cheaper in China than in the U.S., making sales data an unreliable proxy for dosage, and that a country’s global share of immunosuppressant sales does not need to match its share of transplantations, citing Japan and the U.S. as counterexamples.[144] Their letter also states that most Chinese hospitals have an unofficial pharmacy whose “significant” amount of business data are not included in IMS figures.[144]

Sorry, let me clarify something. Are you trying to argue that it's theoretically possible that China could be engaged in organ harvesting, or are you claiming that there's actual evidence of it, that it's a proven thing? Because this is arguing that it may be theoretically possible, despite evidence pointing in the direction of it being impossible.

If you want to say that it's theoretically possible China may be involved in organ harvesting, then I will return to what I said originally, that I'm sure the China in your head is doing all sorts of horrible nasty stuff, and I fully condemn imaginary China, which has nothing to do with the China that actually exists.