Talk:The Epoch Times/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Taking off the sharp edge

fyi to any editors: i tried to take the sharp edge off some of the characterizations and descriptions of the epoch times that were present in the article, to make it a little more neutral and objective in tone. content is content - we just present it without a bunch of adjectives and gotchas. Happy monsoon day 02:04, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

...And I just reverted your softening of the connection to Falun Gong because you were not neutral. Don't take that information out of the article as it is critical to the understanding of the new organization. Binksternet (talk) 02:42, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

at no point did i take the information out but it's simply ridiculous to put it in the opening sentence. let's open the article on the new york times by stating that it was founded by jews then shall we? Happy monsoon day 18:59, 21 December 2014 (UTC) here is the issue: factual information must be presented neutrally and sensibly. it is completely weird to repeat, multiple times, again and again (you see what i did there?) basic, factual information about the religious affiliation of the newspaper. that information should simply be conveyed in a neutral and appropriate tone in the appropriate places. it makes no sense to insert it in similar ways again and again - unless our attempt is to make a political point. and no, I don't think that is the purpose of this encyclopedia.Happy monsoon day 19:02, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

a final point: you will need to dispute each edit I have made explicitly and precisely with reference to relevant policies. you will please provide the diff of the edit that you dispute, and raise your concern or reasoning. at no time are you allowed to simply do a blanket revert of defensible and sensible edits i am making in an attempt to bring the article in line with NPOV policies. first order of business: making the lede neutral, since this is a newspaper, first and foremost. secondly, removing biased language like heavily which is not justified by the sources. you will need to demonstrate exactly why 'Falun gong' should be in the first sentence, and you will need to show in every instance why the word heavily belongs in the parts in which it was placed. no blanket reverts. these articles are probably under some kind of restrictions, so be sure to carefully document your thinking and editing. bw.Happy monsoon day 19:07, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

You have failed to adhere to WP:NPOV by removing the valid assessment by third party observers. Both the Congressional Research Service and David Ownby write prominently about the Falun Gong foundation of the newspaper. We must tell this to the reader in the first sentence because it is so important. Your wish to whitewash the article cannot be honored. Binksternet (talk) 19:22, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

that is untrue. i did not at all attempt to remove the information - I merely saw that it was put in an appropriate location in the article. where in the npov policy does it say that falun gong should go in the first sentence? it is not actually an assessment - it's just basic factual information. it is a matter on which reasonable people can disagree. I will not make further edits until i hear the opinion of other people, but it seems to me that you are being highly unreasonable. Your reverts even put back a spelling error, and inserted more weasel words (like 'heavily'). care to answer to that? Blanket reverts are rather frowned upon. any lurkers care to weigh in on whether putting falun gong in the first sentence is appropriate? Let's here it. Happy monsoon day 02:17, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

According to MOS:LEAD: "The lead should summarize the most important points, including any prominent controversies". STSC (talk) 03:09, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

@STSC MOS:LEAD: para2 "The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview. It should define the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points, including any prominent controversies."

Looks like you are good at chopping stuff out and claiming it as quote. More disruptive behaviour. Aaabbb11 (talk) 13:06, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

"Associated with" is vague

Epoch Times is newspaper with strong focus on human rights issues which is staffed by FG practitioners. FG is spiritual practice. "Associated with" is vague & should not be used. Aaabbb11 (talk) 15:15, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

@ 02:45, 1 May 2015‎ RadCfin stated in edit summary "Falun Gong was removed from the first line as "associated with" is a vague construction that lends itself to misinterpretation, and a good description is in history".

@ 18:28, 30 June 2015‎ Happymonsoonday1 stated in edit summary "actually the article already does say that the newspaper was founded by flg peeps. "associated with" is vague. just explain it properly - doesn't need to be in very first sentence guys". Aaabbb11 (talk) 15:29, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

You should quote reliable sources to make your argument rather than point to the opinions of other editors.

You should also be very much aware that the Epoch Times has been trying to distance itself from the Falun Gong.[1][2][3] We at Wikipedia are rightfully cynical about this attempt to increase its mainstream credibility.

Third party observers have stated their views:

• Ming Xia, a political science professor at the College of Staten Island, says the newspaper is "a strategy for the Falun Gong to expand its outreach to the non-followers and non-believers". She describes the paper as a communication arm of the Falun Gong.
• Huffington Post says that the paper is pro-Falun Gong and anti-Communist, despite its claims to have no "official affiliation" to Falun Gong. The paper posts communications from the Falun Gong.
• David Ownby, Associate Professor of History University of Montreal, says the paper was founded by Falun Gong practitioners, that most or all of its publishers are Falun Gong practitioners, and that the reporters and workers are mostly Falun Gong practitioners.[4] Ownby says that the paper's refusal to give "straight answers" about its connections "feeds suspicion" that the paper is financed and controlled by the Falun Gong, which is opposite of the impression they are trying to give.[5] Ownby says that if the Falun Gong practitioners working for and managing the paper stopped doing so then the paper would cease to exist.
• Of course the Chinese government has a sharply anti-Falun Gong view. The Chinese Embassy to USA says that Epoch Times is a "mouthpiece" of the Falun Gong along with the Minghui website.[6]
• Bloomberg says that the paper is linked to Falun Gong.[7]
• The Wall Street Journal says that Epoch Times is one of "two new weapons" used by the Falun Gong against the Chinese government, the other being New Tang Dynasty Television.[8]
• Forbes magazine says that Epoch Times is "Falun Gong-affiliated".[9]
• SFist says that three media organizations were established by the Falun Gong to promote their causes: The Epoch Times for print, New Tang Dynasty Television for video, and Sound of Hope for radio.[10]
• Professor Heather Kavan of Massey University in New Zealand says that the Falun Gong are "heavily involved" in the Epoch Times.[11]
• David Ownby says that the newspaper "has clear if unidentified links with Falun Gong."[12]
• Author Lao Cheng-Wu says that the Epoch Times newspaper was originally the Epoch Times Weekly, a free-of-charge propaganda sheet which was published by the Falun Dafa Research Society, controlled by Falun Gong founder Li Hongzhi in Taiwan, before it was "restructured" to become the international newspaper that we know today.[13]
• Professor Yuezhi Zhao of Simon Fraser University in Canada writes that the Epoch Times has "an indisputable ideological and organizational affinity with Falun Gong", and that it is produced and distributed by Falun Gong members, or at least by those who are sympathetic to Falun Gong.[14] Zhao writes that, despite the newspaper's claim to neutrality, its coverage of China is not neutral, having a deeply Falun Gong-oriented stance. Zhao says that the Falun Gong is using the Epoch Times as a political arm to build an anti-Communist alliance of the various Chinese democracy movements outside of China.[15]
• Professor Kevin J. O'Brien of the University of California at Berkeley writes that spokespersons of the Epoch Times have said the newspaper is not affiliated with the Falun Gong, but all the evidence demonstrates otherwise, that the newspaper's articles show a strong connection to the Falun Gong.[16]

So I don't think your proposal has merit, to weaken the first paragraph by pushing the Falun Gong connection downward, and to use weaker wording. Binksternet (talk) 16:43, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

@Binksternet. Thank you very much for all the info. Suggest we state that ET is mainly or mostly staffed by FG practitioners. Aaabbb11 (talk) 20:42, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

I have a feeling Binksternet's impressive research into ET's FG affiliation as exposed by a large number of academic scholars and journalistic sources has settled the matter once and for all. --Elnon (talk) 21:28, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

@Elnon. When this article was created in 2005 Falun Gong was mentioned. So the fact that ET is staffed by FG is old news. Don't know when the obsession with having FG in the first sentence began but might check it out. Aaabbb11 (talk) 08:51, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

No need to exert yourself in that direction: My "obsession" is for accuracy and proper weight. Falun Gong must be in the first sentence for accuracy and proper weight. Binksternet (talk) 15:14, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

@Binksternet I think it would be worth comparing what is used for NYT.

"The New York Times (NYT) is an American daily newspaper, founded and continuously published in New York City since September 18, 1851, by the New York Times Company. It has won 117 Pulitzer Prizes, more than any other news organization."

The important thing is that "associated with" is not clarifying the link between FG and ET. FG is a spiritual practice, while many of the people who work there are FG practitioners. Don't see why we can't say that many of the people working at ET are FG practitioners. Aaabbb11 (talk) 16:29, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

You are setting up a false equivalence. Under no circumstances is the Epoch Times the equal of the New York Times. Thus there is no reason to compare the two articles. Binksternet (talk) 17:27, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

I agree. If you want accurate info about what is happening in China you should read ET not NYT. FG articles are often hotly contested. Anything to do with the CCP on wiki is liable to get distorted. Is NYT the most well known newspaper? Aaabbb11 (talk) 17:40, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

I propose this

Epoch Times is a multi-language, international media started in 2000 by Falun Gong practitioners. It has won awards for its reporting of human rights and other issues. Aaabbb11 (talk) 18:56, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

References

No, you are trying to weaken the connection. Binksternet (talk) 02:53, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

Epoch Times is a multi-language, international media staffed mostly by Falun Gong practitioners. It has won awards for its reporting of human rights and other issues. Aaabbb11 (talk) 08:46, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

References

I propose this

Epoch Times is an anti-communist pro-Falun Gong international newspaper. It has been given a number of awards by the West partly due to its anti-communist stance. STSC (talk) 06:37, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

@STSC I hope you aren't adding original research like that to articles. Aaabbb11 (talk) 10:31, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Oh? I can understand a Falun Gong fanatic would try to hide these facts from Wikipedia. STSC (talk) 11:21, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Don't think a member of mensa would write your second sentence. Aaabbb11 (talk) 13:01, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

I see no original research in STSC's proposal since his description of Epoch Times is taken almost verbatim from the Huffington Post mentioned above ("the adamantly anti-Communist Party and pro-Falun Gong newspaper, The Epoch Times"). --Elnon (talk) 03:11, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

@Elnon Where did the second sentence come from? Aaabbb11 (talk) 07:06, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

It appears that we have the consensus on the "anti-communist" bit. I would compromise on the second sentence of my proposal and change it to "partly due to..." Is it better? An award was given for the Epoch Times "The Nine Commentaries on the Communist Party" series [17]; this information supports my second sentence. STSC (talk) 10:20, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

@STSC

1. There is no consensus on anti communist being in first sentence. Falun Gong are against the CCP's persecution of FG.

2. Your reference gives no indication why ET won the award. So your second sentence still seems to be original research.

3. If you look at the heading, what we are debating is whether "Associated with" is vague, so you are off topic. I suggest you start a new topic, with an appropriate heading. Aaabbb11 (talk) 11:01, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Don't pick and choose what to put in the lead

There're two notable facts about Epoch Times: -

• Pro-Falun Gong
• Anti-communist

Don't just mention the awards and hide this relevant information from the lead; Wikipedia is neutral and must not be hijacked for any propaganda purpose. STSC (talk) 00:27, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

@STSC As a very long term editor you should know better than to add unsourced info. Guess I should give you another warning for disruptive behaviour. Your heading is not a good choice in my opinion. Aaabbb11 (talk) 10:43, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

You obviously do not know about the MOS guideline on the lead; maybe your Falun Gong friends on Wiki should teach you one thing or two. You even have the cheek to mention "disruptive behaviour" soon after you were blocked, I think it's about time you should get a topic ban. STSC (talk) 18:07, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

@STSC The fact that you think FG is anti-communist clearly demonstrates you know very little about FG. And you don't seem to be interested in changing what you have written on the ET article when you are presented with the facts. FG didn't have a problem with the communist party of China before the persecution of FG began. So you are distorting information on wiki. So it is you who should get a topic ban my friend. Aaabbb11 (talk) 12:52, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

The source[18] says "Meanwhile, The Epoch Times, a pro-Falun Gong paper that brands the Chinese Communist Party as evil..." It discusses several cases of pro- and anti-Communist efforts outside of China, with the Epoch Times listed as an anti-Communist example. Binksternet (talk) 16:55, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Reporters and newspapers print what they believe is correct. However FG didn't have problem with the Communist Party of China before the persecution of FG began in 1999 and Communist Party members were doing FG. So FG practitioners are against the Persecution of FG rather the Government of China. The Communist Party of China would like people to think that FG are against the Government of China but that is incorrect. Aaabbb11 (talk) 16:30, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

RFC: Validity of sources used in the article

Should two disputed sources, by Maria Chang and Michael Savage respectively, warrant inclusion in this article?--PCPP (talk) 12:44, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

In my opinion, statements by a scholar like Chang carry far greater weight than those of a columnist like Savage. Martin Rundkvist (talk) 20:31, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Comment, Michael Savage is well known as an extremist demagogue in the United States (and in the United Kingdom, from where he is banned for hate speech); his statements should be carefully qualified if they appear in the article. But I don't think his comments, as empty praise/condemnation of the newspaper, are as necessary as, say, the scholarly analysis of Maria Chang. Include Chang, ditch Savage: if editors want to find praise for Epoch Times, they can find much better commentators than Savage.

Sidenote: in the current revision, Savage is included while Chang is excluded. Readers can see the text attributed to Chang in this old version of the page. It should say political scientist instead of "politician scientist"; Maria Chang is not a politician. Quigley (talk) 22:05, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Comment - Not at all an expert in this field, but after cursory review I think I largely agree with the two comments above (i.e. Chang good. Savage bad). NickCT (talk) 22:23, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Comment - The argument is solely about giving undue weight to a heavily disputed and controversial viewpoint in this article. See WP:UNDUE: "In articles specifically about a minority viewpoint, the views may receive more attention and space. However, such pages should make appropriate reference to the majority viewpoint wherever relevant, and must not reflect an attempt to rewrite content strictly from the perspective of the minority view. Specifically, it should always be clear which parts of the text describe the minority view, and that it is in fact a minority view. The majority view should be explained in sufficient detail that the reader may understand how the minority view differs from it, and controversies regarding parts of the minority view should be clearly identified and explained." If someone insist on including Chang's words, they must be properly contextualised per WP:NPOV, so that everyone will see that Chang is by no means representing an academic consensus. At the same time, it would mean that the focus is further shifted from The Epoch Times to academic controversies on the nature of Falun Gong. There are separate articles for that; the apparent reason for avoiding this crucial point is merely ideological struggle. (I take no stance on Savage.) ✔ Olaf Stephanos ✍ 00:02, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

You've repeatedly asserted that Chang's view is a "minority viewpoint", but haven't substantiated it. Before, you have said that Chang refers to Falun Gong as a "group" rather than your preferred "set of beliefs", but that red herring controversy is not part of the text that goes into this article. Her comment is directly relevant to The Epoch Times because it explicates the newspaper's well-known connections to Falun Gong, and its denials of that; it would be a disservice to our readers to hide or bury it. Quigley (talk) 00:16, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

I'll comment some more on this later. For now, I'd like to point out that Chang's argument is disputed precisely in its portrayal of Falun Gong; just take a look at the Falun Gong articles and their controversies. The Epoch Times has not denied that a large number of its founders and employees practice Falun Gong. But they're not members of any Falun Gong organisation, because no such formal organisation exists and therefore cannot create any sub-organisations. In other words, The Epoch Times has no parent organisation. "The Epoch Times was founded in 2000 by a group of Falun Gong practitioners who understood the vital need in the Chinese community for an honest media outlet. Soon dissidents and others who simply wanted a chance to express their true views on the important questions of the day began appearing in the pages of The Epoch Times, and the Chinese community realized it had a trusted source of information." [19] ✔ Olaf Stephanos ✍ 01:24, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Chang did not say that Falun Gong was an organization, or that the Epoch Times had a parent organization. Quoted from the source, "[Chang] says the [Falun Gong] movement 'seems to be treating organisations it has created, such as The Epoch Times, as front organisations to influence public opinion". Front organizations need not be controlled by another organization; they need only serve a party or interest (e.g. documenting persecution of Falun Gong, deriding the CPC), while purporting to serve another interest (e.g. objectivity). Quigley (talk) 02:40, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

I can see Olaf's point; I checked their marketing page[20] and they are almost boastful on the FLG link. Generally I find Chang to be something of a dilettantish observer of FLG, always more prepared to provide a slogan (what does “concerted information-PR-propaganda campaign” mean, exactly?) than present a sensitive and well thought-out argument. The implications of Chang's views are the dispute, because this way of looking at Falun Gong practitioners is a minority viewpoint; it is first of all inaccurate, in how it posits an organization rather than individuals, and secondly it is stigmatizing and irrelevant to the Epoch Times. Turning her rhetoric into plain English would be a summary simply saying that “Maria Chang believes The Epoch Times was set up to represent Falun Gong’s viewpoint in the public sphere.” Delete Savage, too. The Sound and the Fury (talk) 01:33, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Think what you wish, but Ms. Chang's book on Falun Gong is generally found to be well-researched and authoritative. Public relations and propaganda means exactly what it means in English. As I said to Olaf above, Chang does not "posit an organization rather than individuals", she was speaking of a "movement". The Falun Gong connection is relevant to the Epoch Times as much as the Chinese Communist Party connection is relevant to the Global Times.

Your proposed summary misrepresents her analysis (which is hardly 'rhetoric'): she does not only say that the Epoch Times represents Falun Gong, but that it was established to appear unconnected to Falun Gong but to propagate pro-Falun Gong PR. And that obscure unmanaged link buried deep inside the Epoch Times website didn't establish any "connection" between it and Falun Gong. It simply portrayed the founders as group of concerned "Chinese-Americans" who saw media not report on persecution of Falun Gong and thus decided to create this wonderful newspaper that would "truly [help] people stay informed about the issues that affect their neighborhoods, their country and their world". The naked denial of an agenda (despite having one) is consistent with Chang's analysis. Quigley (talk) 02:40, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Agree with Quigley. Colipon+(Talk) 05:17, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Endorse the poignant observations of Quigley. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 12:54, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

I seem to recall a review by Professor Ownby that demolished Chang's work; Pye's angle is of the sociologist, primarily. Of course, when it comes to something like Falungong, feelings every which way run strong. I don't see how TSTF's summary contradicts the idea that the newspaper has a pro-FLG agenda; i.e., it is de facto representing the views of the practitioners to the public, thus "conducting pro-Falun Gong PR". Of course the FLG-ET connection is relevant, though I agree with those who have pointed out that Chang's take on Falungong, while unfavorable, is not the most commonly accepted ('movement' and 'organization' here serve an identical semantic purpose, "Othering").

The Times themselves don't seem to be pretending they are unconnected with FLG, though of course they're also not going to spill their real reason for existing. That's why comments along the lines of what Chang says are useful; but the rebarbative delivery and muddying the waters in defining her subject aren't. Until some better source can be found which establishes Epoch's Falungong advocacy, I recommend taking out the heat and leaving the light—paraphrasing them both (that is, both Maria and Michael). If elsewhere in the document it's clarified that Epoch puts forward pro-FLG views, and that this is connected with its FLG-practitioner background, then Chang would be redundant, since she says no more than this (a commonplace observation when boiled down). Homunculus (duihua) 14:28, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

I've not found such a review, but Ownby has written similar things to Chang about the Epoch Times, except with softer tone (he is, admittedly, sympathetic to Falun Gong): from page 10 of the French Ombudsman's report: "Professor Ownby was critical of the way Falun Gong cloaks itself in secrecy, and of the methods it uses to disseminate its message.... [The Epoch Times] is so lacking in balanced reporting that it resembles the anti-communist propaganda from Taiwan in the 1950s.... he... was denied permission to visit the offices of [The Epoch Times]... he talks about the half-truths voiced by the movement and its lack of transparency, aspects that inevitably feed the suspicion Falun Gong practitioners have something to hide". The last bit is very similar wording to Chang's.

Remember, Chang's input is to highlight the secrecy in its affiliation (which as it has been pointed out above, is repeatedly denied (In the second link there's another academic who mirrors Chang's analysis: Ming Xia from the College of Staten Island: "To some degree, Epoch Times indicates a part of the Falun Gong strategy to embed itself into the large civil society for influence and legitimacy")), not just its affiliation. That report uses the language "movement", though Ownby consciously doesn't, reflecting "practitioners"' preferred language. I don't see a big semantic difference, and in either case that is not relevant to the main point she and others are trying to make. Quigley (talk) 15:38, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

RfC Comment - I can see no reason whatsoever to exclude reference to Chiang's statement that The Epoch Times is related to the Falun Gong movement. I rather quickly found at least moderately positive reviews in Foreign Affairs, The China Quarterly by David Palmer here, and Asian Review of Books. In none of those remarks do I see anything which leads me to think that the work qualifies as "extremist" in the academic world. I can see no clear indication that Chiang's statement is "heavily disputed", so I have no reason to believe that the extraordinary conditions which apply in those circumstances apply here. In any event, it would be incumbent on those asserting such dispute to provide clear evidence of same, and to date I see no indication of such evidence being presented. All I see is a dispute about the words "organization" and "movement", which are not in any way synonyms. John Carter (talk) 15:20, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree with John Carter that Chang is clearly not an extremist. I think the complaint against her is that she apparently confuses individuals who practice Falun Gong with Falun Gong as a whole (which would refer to the breathing exercises and religious doctrine, as well as all the individuals who adhere to them). This seems to be a common dispute, actually. Was Epoch 'founded by Falun Gong', or 'founded by individuals who practice Falun Gong'? Obviously it's the latter, because the former has no meaning.

So when the source in question says: "the movement 'seems to be treating organisations it has created, such as The Epoch Times, as front organisations to influence public opinion via a concerted information-PR-propaganda campaign'." I understand the objection to be it is not logically sound to posit 'Falun Gong' as an entity that can 'create organisations'. It's more precise to say that certain individuals who practice Falun Gong founded the media company. (Though clearly they did so to influence public opinion). This is why I suggest extracting the sensible meaning from her words and not including that which carries no meaning.

Though, I don't see how Chang's comment relates to the Epoch's putative secrecy on their FLG connection. Didn't Olaf Stephanos just post something directly from the journal, saying that they were founded by Falun Gong practitioners? The Epoch's overall strategy to influence public opinion in favor of Falun Gong and against the CCP, of course, warrants proper explanation. The Sound and the Fury (talk) 17:06, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

And I agree saying that "the movement" founded The Epoch Times would be acceptable. The fact that it was founded by several practicioners of Falun Gong is sufficient to say that, in my opinion anyway. John Carter (talk) 17:21, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

When it is said that "a movement accomplishes something", it is understood that its members/adherents/practitioners have done it. This is not difficult. Chang's quote on secrecy, which was on this article for a time, is "[in China] where to survive, the movement has to create organisations that are publicly unaffiliated with it" (emphasis mine). Olaf did not post something from the newspaper, you did, which purported to be an admission of being founded by Falun Gong practitioners, but actually when I read it (and quoted from it in my replies), the only identity given to themselves by Epoch Times founders is "Chinese-American", and they only mentioned Falun Gong as an example of what they thought was unfair reportage in the world media. I posted links in my past reply that cited an Epoch Times spokesman who said, "We are not funded by Falun Gong, we don't speak for Falun Gong, and we don't represent Falun Gong", which contradicts common outside histories and characterizations of the newspaper. Quigley (talk) 17:31, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

I posted one quote from the Epoch Times newspaper, see above (01:24, 9/11/10).

Here's what Ownby says about Maria Chang's analysis in Journal of Chinese Religions 32 (2004): "Ms. Chang's scholarship is often so sloppy that she undermines her own credibility. [...] Reading this chapter, I had the same feeling I often do when grading midterms ("No? No Nol That's NOT WHAT I SAID?"). I would not let a graduate student get away with a chapter like this, and if Ms. Chang did not know any better, someone at Yale University Press should have told her. [...] Admittedly, this chapter is a low point, but then the book is only four chapters long. The following chapter "Falun Gong: Beliefs and Practices" is undermined by the fact that Ms. Chang has just demonstrated that she knows little about Chinese religious history. Why then should we trust her to analyze Falun Gong?"

And David Palmer writes in Pacific Affairs: Volume 82, No. 4 – Winter 2009/2010: "Although there is as yet no book-length academic study of falun gong, Chang, a professor of political science at the University of Nevada at Reno, seems to be either unaware of almost the entire body of scholarly literature on the related issues she discusses, or to consider it irrelevant for her purposes. Either way, it is a disservice to readers who might otherwise have used her book as a gateway for more in-depth research. Chang’s book thus can hardly be considered an academic work, in spite of its publication by a distinguished university press. [...] As a result of Chang’s almost exclusive reliance on journalistic accounts, rather than first-hand research or primary sources (other than Li Hongzhi’s major works), she departs little from the standard Western media “script” on falun gong, i.e. the brutal repression by a totalitarian state of innocent meditators with weird ideas. There is little critical evaluation of the sources used or of alleged but unverified “facts” used as critical weapons in the propaganda war between falun gong and the CCP."

✔ Olaf Stephanos ✍ 20:36, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

And in all those quotes, which admittedly do not speak particularly highly of Chiang's work, there is absolutely no evidence that the point in contention is among the described weaknesses of her book. Basically, for the amount of space the above quotes take up, they have yet to indicate the book does not meet WP:RS standards, and, despite the contention that the subject is "controversial", no evidence has been presented that I've seen to substantiate that point. So, for all the space taken up above, none of it seems to address or even come close to substantiating that the point of contention is controversial or that the book cannot be relied upon in this matter. John Carter (talk) 21:25, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

So effectively you are arguing that the quotes provided above are irrelevant. As far as I remember, you yourself have cited a number of reviews, which were supposed to be favorable, in order to establish Chang's credentials. So if positive reviews can establish credentials, why would highly negative reviews, such as the two above—one of them by the most preeminent professor of Falun Gong—count for nothing? The fact is that these reviews call into question Chang's scholarship, and reinforce the point that has been made before: Chang's 'take' on Falun Gong is definitely not quite a mainstream one.

Three key points that Chang makes can be summarized as: 1) The Epoch Times was founded by Falun Gong practitioners; 2) Its content is favorable to Falun Gong and, broadly speaking, advances Falun Gong’s case against the CCP; 3) It does this without openly stating that it's a 'Falun Gong newspaper'. Well, the first two points are already in the article. The last is untrue, at least in part, because we have the quote from The Epoch Times saying that the newspaper was founded by Falun Gong practitioners, and they are open about it in other articles as well (see [21], for instance). Given that two of the points that Chang makes are already covered, and one is simply contradicted by the facts, all that is left is her rebarbative rhetoric. What purpose does it serve to the reader? What new information is it delivering to advance the discussion? Is it just a mean catch phrase against Falun Gong that some editors want to include? For all of the above reasons, and given that her scholarship on Falun Gong has been badly trounced not by one but two respected academics in her own field, giving her opinion such weight is truly exorbitant. ✔ Olaf Stephanos ✍ 00:05, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Please do not seek to put words in my mouth, Olaf, or try to prejudicially reword them. And your own assertion above, that it is not a Falun Gong newspaper, has been said repeatedly by several sources, making it significant enough point to be mentioned. And I acknowledge that Chang, a political scientist, would not be a good source for material relating specifically to religious/spiritual matters, but a discussion about whether a given publication is tied to a group does not fall within the religious/spiritual realm. Regarding sourcing, Lucian Pye, in Foreign Affairs, Vol. 83, No. 5, 9/10/2004, p. 183-184, starts his review of the book with the words "This is an excellent introduction not only to the beliefs and practices of the Falun Gong...," a fairly supportive statement. The China Quarterly, review by David Palmer, on p. 181 of its March 2005 issue which you quoted above, also says "In its general lines, Falun Gong: The End of Days is accurate and balanced in its presentation of the falun gong issue," which you seem to have missed somehow. Political Science Quarterly's review of Winter 2005 says, "This very accessible book is certainly worth reading and recommending to students," a fairly positive statement. Choice in its Vol. 42#2, p.309, recommends the book, calling it "carefully balanced and clearly written." The review in the Far Eastern Economic Review says she relies a bit too much on the internet, and describes the slection of material as haphazard and somewhat sloppy, but ends "Still, by reading this compact volume one undoubtedly learns a lot about Falun Gong..." Library Journal recommended the book. All in all, I have to say that the book has been received well, and even Palmer speaks well of it. Your statement that her work has been "badly trounced", I regret to say, is itself not supported by the evidence, particularly given the apparently selective quoting from Palmer. Regarding the matter of The Epoch Times and its reliationship to Falun Gong, please see any of the following quotes:

• "Epoch Times, which is affiliated with Falun Gong," The New American, 5/15/2006, p. 8
• "Falun Gong-associated publication," The Weekly Standard, article by Ethan Gutman, 5/18/2006, 11.32
• "Epoch Times also serves as a mouthpiece for Falun Gong," Pacific Affairs, 6/2010, p. 349
• "Epoch Times, another China-related daily published by the Falun Gong," Foreign Policy, 5-6/2010, p. 40
• "the Falun Gong owned Epoch Times," Statesman (India) in the article "Is Nazi China Rising?", 6/24/2009
• "Falun Gong newspaper Epoch Times," China Post in the article "Gaffes mark Hu's visit to US," 4/26/2006, also in South China Morning Post, 4/26/2006, in the article "Insularity is not an option," and New Straits Times, 4/27/2006, in the article "Guess who did not bone up on China"
• "Epoch Times, a Chinese newspaper that denies it is a front for Falun Gong but tends to be remarkably sympathetic to it," from Statesman (India) in the article "Did numbers turn China against cult?", published 4/24/2006, and lastly
• "The Epoch Times, a newspaper published by the dissident Falun Gong group," The New York Times, 4/21/2006, p. A15.

Yesterday I reviewed a number of articles in a subscription database and it does seem that the most commonly used words to describe The Epoch Times' relation to Falun Gong are "affiliated" and "associated." However, there do seem to have been several references in the English language, as per the above, that ET is owned by Falun Gong. Those statements seem to have been so significant that ET has formally denied them. And please do not make statements about "facts" which are in no way facts, as you did above. It is true that Falun Gong has denied having any sort of formal organization, but there have been other sources which have said that it clearly has at least some sort of informal organization. Now, I grant you, an organization which has no formally defined or recognized structure by definition cannot legally "own" anything, but we are not here to judge the statements of sources, but to repeat them, as per WP:TRUTH. My own choice in this matter would be to create a separate subsection of the article about the relationship of The Epoch Times to Falun Gong, which would discuss all the issues raised, included the question of ownership. And, if the Statesman (India) and The New York Times are considered better sources for the statement that the paper is owned by Falun Gong, substitution would be reasonable. John Carter (talk) 15:46, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

My personal opinion is that the Chang issue is ultimately quite trivial.

Olaf appears to be picky about giving her words "a concerted information-PR-propaganda campaign" so much weight when someone like Ownby has written so disparagingly about her scholarship and Palmer says "There is little critical evaluation of the sources used or of alleged but unverified “facts” used as critical weapons in the propaganda war between falun gong and the CCP". I think Olaf's concern is in that respect somewhat justified. Chang definitely seems to imply some kind of organization that can establish and own and even fund all kinds of things on its own, but we don't know whether she has adopted this view from actual research or from unverified journalistic accounts (re Palmer's comment). I don't see Olaf Stephanos claiming that there would be no connection between Epoch and the Falun Gong movement. I think it's self-evident that many influential Falun Gong adherents in the West must stay in touch somehow. Whether they can be perceived as some more or less unified entity having, for example, its own operational structures and management chains, is not supported by any research I've seen. I don't think they're giving orders to each other or anything. They just share a similar belief system. I understand that Olaf wants to give prominence to good research, so that people don't form the conception that Falun gong is run like Scientology or whatever. I recall a Susan Palmer (?) quote in one of the FLG articles, she said that she started doing fieldwork with similar ideas in mind but was later proven wrong.

That said, I understand the NPOV and RS policies. I'm not in favor of using any "catch phrase" like Olaf calls it, but we need to find a way to explain the matter in more detail. Correct me if I'm wrong, but Olaf did seem to agree to that, even though he said that the matter belongs into another article (falun gong outside china?). —Zujine|talk 00:24, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

There is at least one academic journal article I have which deals pretty much exclusively with the nature of the Falun Gong "organization". I haven't read it recently, but I ran it off yesterday for rereading too. If I remember correctly, it said that there is sufficient evidence to draw the conclusion that, given the ease of communications today, there is some sort of informal structure which clearly functions as an organizational structure for Falun Gong. I think you might be thinking about David Palmer if you're talking about the author of "Qigong Fever." And I agree that the subject of FG's structure needs to be addressed to some detail in some article, probably not this one though. However, I am not sure how to interpret language like "rebarbative rhetoric" which Olaf uses. The beginning of this RfC simply talks about using Chang and Savage as references in the article; it doesn't give any clear indication what material is specifically is being discussed in terms of sourcing from them, and that makes it much harder to figure out how to respond. Without a clear indication of what specifically is being challenged, a reasonable response is somewhat difficult. And, like I said, even Palmer in general gave the book a favorable review, even if he did specifically criticize it in some specifics, , despite Olaf's comments and conclusions to the contrary. Like I said above, Chang is as opposed to the others primarily a political and social scientist, and that seems to be reflected in her book. A clearer indication of what exactly is being challenged, however, would be quite valuable. John Carter (talk) 00:46, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

This article from the USC Annenberg Online Journalism Review seems a fairly solid source to indicate that Falun Gong has a fairly effective online organization, saying it is "thoroughly wired", among other things. John Carter (talk) 23:32, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

• Note that I just undid a series of large and no doubt controversial changes by editor PCPP. The changes were not explained, and included removing material that there had been a consensus on (I did not read carefully, but it appears so to me) above.

  On the specifics, I don't have too many problems with the additions, but Ming Xia needs a better source than a blog, and information can be simply be added, rather than deleting other information. Some of the other changes were fine by me, such as moving information around; but why were the words "as well as an alleged recording of a speech by the first secretary of education Liu Shaohua" deleted? Also, I didn't understand that there was consensus to remove the information from the controversial radio-jockey, Savage? In sum, while I do not disagree with many of the changes, I find several of them somewhat problematic, and would like input from other editors for thoughts. Perhaps a good idea is to reinstate the non-controversial changes, and discussants can pore over those that are likely to be in dispute. The Sound and the Fury (talk) 03:03, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Well I see no major problem with the changes, considering that 3 months passed since the RFC with no particular action. But if you want to further discuss the changes that's fine with me. There is a consensus with the removal of Savage as outlined by Quigley etc, and which you also agreed. The Ming Xia sources actually comes from a Associated Press release, and was simply reposted on the blog. I'll see if I can find the original source.--PCPP (talk) 10:39, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Um, what consensus was there to remove Savage? Please cite it. None exists as far as I can tell. The man is a reliable source on his own opinions; his opinions are notable. They are attributed as his opinions, his assessment. The Epoch Times is anticommunist, Savage is anticommunist (from what I can tell, I don't know anything about the guy really). I just can't help feeling that the reason for wanting to delete this is something other than his position, but more like, what praise he made of the newspaper. --Asdfg12345 05:44, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

If you actually bothered to read the rest of the section, several users agreed with the removal of Savage - he is a talking head with no expertise in the area of religion, and was banned from the UK for his extremist views. We don't need to add his comments to every article he once commented about. And you have a serious case of conflict of interest in editing this article.--PCPP (talk) 08:15, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

No, there was not a consensus. People shared their different points of view on the matter. His being banned from the UK for "extremist views", does that mean he is not a reliable source for his own opinions? That makes him more notable: he's a controversial figure that governments actually bother to ban. Please show me evidence that there was a consensus on the matter, or I will rightly put his opinions back, because so far as I understand, he is a reliable source on his views, and his views are notable--please point out if the logic is wrong. Asdfg12345 15:22, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

I will take your failure to give a proper response to mean that you have none. --Asdfg12345 18:34, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

The logic is wrong where you say, "his views are notable". He is no more qualified to speak on the veracity of the newspaper than any other layperson. In fact, his strongly stated political views might make his assessment less reliable than that of the average person, because he might feel an affinity to the paper's views. If you can find praise from a higher quality source, I would not object to that better source's inclusion. Quigley (talk) 01:03, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Do you mean to say that repute itself is not sufficient for him to comment on the topic? He's a conservative commentator... and The Epoch Times' view on communism is fairly conservative. What do you need a degree in to be able to comment on The Epoch Times? And on what topics do we allow Savage to comment? Keep in mind that these are his opinions, and are being representated as such; they are not meant to be the final word on this publication, nor, I think, is anyone taking them as such. --Asdfg12345 03:07, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Your comments make no sense and smells of WP:ILIKEIT - Savage's "conservatism" focuses mainly on the United States eg attacks on American liberals and opposing illegal immigration, which is completely different from Epoch Times' anti-CCP stance, which doesn't even qualify as "conservative". The rest of the critics are professional academics and journalists, and according to your logic, Rick Ross and James Randi would reliable sources on FLG as well. And I count at least six users agreeing with the removal of Savage,[22][23][24][25][26][27] a discussion that you failed to engage in, and now pretends's there's no consensus?--PCPP (talk) 03:20, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Well, despite that I think that the rest of the comments smell more like WP:ILIKEIT, I appreciate your reminding me of the various views that were aired; more people dislike it than like it, so I will desist for now. I still disagree, and await Quigley's explanation on the logical side of things (which is what we should actually be dealing with, rather than a vote tally)--but if nothing comes of that, then I'll have nothing to say. --Asdfg12345 03:29, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

"What do you need a degree in to be able to comment on The Epoch Times?" Journalism, media communications, political science maybe? Could you imagine having someone like Michael Savage commenting on the veracity of the New York Times for Wikipedia? Of course not, because such praise or putdown of media outlets by political figures is so common to be worthless. The strictest Wikipedia policies on undue weight and fringe theories mention a scholarly consensus rather than a general consensus for a reason: specialists in the field are better at sifting for quality than are Wikipedia editors. So, better than Savage's opinion, probably glossed from a few articles that he read from the paper, are meta-reviews by the Columbia Journalism Review, FAIR, AIM, or something like that. It's harder to look for reviews of the Epoch Times because it is not as big or mainstream as maybe it would like, but the only thing that you can discern from the quote from Michael Savage are the political leanings of Michael Savage. Quigley (talk) 04:32, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Political views?

Previously I stated my view that being "pro-Falun Gong" (whatever that means) is not a political view, because Falun Gong is a spiritual practice. Someone recently added this as part of the political views of The Epoch Times. One question is: any source? Second question is: does this claim make sense to begin with? Discuss. --Asdfg12345 20:48, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Absolutely it does. Today's paper, for example, features as its #1 story on the front page an analogy between Schindler's List (The Holocaust) and, according to the publication, millions of Chinese disappearing into concentration camps. 66.108.223.179 (talk) 02:56, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

What about declaring Hu Jintao to be an "evil toad spirit"? Or declaring the CCP to be an "evil spirit from the west"? Or propagating rumors and libel (Shenzhou EVA being faked underwater, intentional exaggeration of any and political unrest in China, inventing stories of a massive underground complex for harvesting organs)? Or is that all just on the Chinese version that you guys can't see? 184.64.72.53 (talk) 15:21, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

interesting...

The Malaysia edition image

There is no hard rule about how many fair-use images can be included in an article. The Malaysia edition image adds much to the article because it clarifies the fact that the U.S. is only one of the 30 countries in which the paper is published. Before my changes the article had included two high-resolution images from the New York edition. I've been reverted two or three times without a notice or explanation in the edit summary. Imagine Reason (talk) 23:07, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Clarifying that there are international editions does not require an image. -- Whpq (talk) 00:41, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

At a glance any reader would see that the different editions worldwide bear similarities as well as differences. Conveyance of this via text would be difficult and incomplete. Imagine Reason (talk) 05:02, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

That's a rather weak assertion. -- Whpq (talk) 10:35, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Do we have sources that discuss the differences and similarities? If so, an image illustrating it would be consistent with NFCC IMO. If not, I don't think more than one image can be easily justified. Hobit (talk) 01:05, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

I am not aware of any. But more importantly, the current article has no such discussion so the Malaysian image doesn't belong in the current article. If there was sourced commentary on the differences in the article, then we would be in a different situation. -- Whpq (talk) 15:29, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

I've asked at WT:Non-free content for other opinions. -- Whpq (talk) 13:13, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

• I concur with Whpq's assessment. The image is not discussed in the context of sourced commentary regarding the image. It's decorative. That it is emblematic of international editions is original research. It's superfluous to the article, and with the image absent the article reads the same and the reader's understanding is not sacrificed. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:08, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

We've now come full circle on the image.

Please see File_talk:Epoch_Times_LA.jpg. Thank you. Imagine Reason (talk) 05:25, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Multiple language pages?

I caught a French edition of this recently and it appeared rather different than the English one. It occurred to me that we may want to have separate pages for the different language editions of this newspaper; this page would be for the English, but another would be for French and another Chinese. Comparing the content of them they are obviously editorially distinct. I may have read that somewhere else, but it may be a sensible move for this page. Thoughts? The Sound and the Fury (talk) 17:30, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

A similar thought occurred to me the other day when I updated the logo on the page. That is, I wasn't sure whether to use an English or Chinese logo, but seeing as the page is about a paper called the Epoch Times (as opposed to the Chinese version Dajiyuan), I opted for english. I don't know about the French, but the English and Chinese are radically different in terms of tone, editorial content, history, distribution, etc. One potential challenge is that we would still need to describe the news organization as a whole somewhere. If each article is named for its own language edition, and there is no parent company (to my knowledge), where would that go? Homunculus (duihua) 17:50, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

I made some changes just now, including moving information around, defining the sections more clearly, and generally tidying up. I think this idea is still viable as long as the sources are present. I haven't made an effort to discover relevant sources. TheSoundAndTheFury (talk) 23:05, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

The only way we could have multiple articles on separate editions is if those editions individually each meet notability guidelines. Considering that we have even deleted pages on non-English language editions of wikipedia itself based on their lack of independent notability, which I think gets a great deal more attention in the independent press than The Epoch Times does, I am very, very dubious that any such spinout articles would meet survive. From what I can tell, doing a quick overview of the articles discussing the "Epoch Times" available on Highbeam Research, some 188 total, the only individual edition which looks to me like it might qualify at all based on notability would be the Hong Kong edition, and that one just barely. And, honestly, that material would probably be better included in Falun Gong in Hong Kong, as there probably isn't enough encyclopedic content available on it to merit a separate article. I tend to think that any material about "local" editions of any edition of The Epoch Times are probably best included in similar articles, given the fact that the amount of material in any spinout articles would very likely be minimal. John Carter (talk) 14:48, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Yep, that's a key consideration. The untapped part is Chinese language RS content that may inform the Chinese version of Epoch Times page, and French-language content that might inform the French Epoch Times page. But whether there is sufficient content to justify separate pages is not yet known. We'd have to do research on those other languages and see what was available, to see if it warranted this idea. TheSoundAndTheFury (talk) 18:29, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Well, I think we have just recently more or less ensured a lot of the potentially interested editors who have access to Chinese language RS won't be editing for a while. Of course, any editor is perfectly free to develop a few articles to the exclusion of others, some of which might be just as if not more relevant to the topic, but, personally, I would have to seriously wonder whether the possible results in this particular case would merit the high degree of effort for the, quite possibly, small degree of return. John Carter (talk) 20:02, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

There is good reason to believe the Chinese edition could merit its own page. As to the other language and national editions, an interim solution at least would be to create distinct listings within this page describing their basic features (ie. history, circulation, sections, etc). Should sufficient material be found to meet notability guidelines, some of these could then be broken out into distinct articles. Homunculus (duihua) 00:34, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Politics versus religion

Despite Augustine's declaring in the City of God after Christianity's designation as the official religion of the Roman Empire, that its message is spiritual rather than political, religion has always be entangled with earthly politics.

In 1943, [Abbot Low] Moffat [(1901–1996)] resigned his [New York State] Assembly seat and took a position with the United States Department of State. He served as the head of the Division of Southeast Asian Affairs from 1944-1947 and in 1946 met with Vietnamese nationalist leader Ho Chi Minh. His reports to his superiors cautioned against Washington's inflexible opposition against nationalist movements in Vietnam and other colonies. Convinced that American statesmen had erred grievously in making anti-communism the cornerstone of postwar foreign policy, he later asserted that it seemed as if the world had been plunged "right back in[to] the wars of religion." In subsequent years, he was openly critical of American involvement in Vietnam.

Political Science of Religion is one of the youngest disciplines of Political Science. It was established in the last decades of the twentieth century.

—05:22, 21 June 2013 (UTC)Pawyilee (talk)

Fundings?

I realize it's rather rhetorical to ask where funding for free weekly newspaper comes from. And if you didn't know, for most of them, funding comes from ads and so on; for others there is a parent company, usually a much larger media corporation. However, for an international newspaper covering most non third world countries; with a circulation rivaling those of the New York times; and one that is clearly politically motivated with its consistent PRC bashing on its every issue, this funding issue deserves a critical look. Thoughts?

In the talk section's archive 1 and 2, a search (ctrl+f) for "funding" yields interesting documents with quite revealing information. Nothing comes of it since as discussion goes nowhere and presence of a "funding issue" section in the article either by itself or within the "criticism" section.

Also I'd just like to point out there won't be a neutral position for this topic, and if there seems to be one, it's not or it's already biased, as all information on this topic lean heavily in one direction or another. If this article as with all articles relating to FLG, whenever a seemingly neutral description is given without a just as expensive opposing view presented, the article is biased and needs to be augmented.

So, funding. Sources, issues, criticism, etc. Thoughts? Gw2005 (talk) 04:07, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

• From the versions I have read/seen, there are usually a handful of small classified; larger ads are principally those announcing group (ie Falun Gong) meetings, so it seems likely to me that revenues from advertising are not the principal source. But as it is a private organisation, I wonder how far this investigation will get. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 02:38, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

fyi here in nyc it has ads. see http://epoch-archive.com/a1/en/edition.php?dir=us/nyc/2012/05-May/30Happy monsoon day (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 21:50, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

There are public records of Falun Gong associations providing funds to Epoch Times, found in non-profit declarations (Guidestar is a clearing house for non-profit disclosures):

Southern USA Falun Dafa Association. $10,350 were given to Epoch Times in 2002, $22,700 in 2003, $14,750 in 2004:

http://www.guidestar.org/FinDocuments/2002/760/692/2002-760692185-1-9.pdf

http://www.guidestar.org/FinDocuments/2003/760/692/2003-760692185-1-9.pdf

http://www.guidestar.org/FinDocuments/2004/760/692/2004-760692185-1-9.pdf

Falun Dafa Association of New England. $57,609 were spent on computer and print media, $97,755 in 2003, $116,823 in 2004:

http://www.guidestar.org/FinDocuments/2002/043/576/2002-043576893-1-9.pdf

http://www.guidestar.org/FinDocuments/2003/043/576/2003-043576893-1-Z.pdf

http://www.guidestar.org/FinDocuments/2004/043/576/2004-043576893-02038ba1-9.pdf

This fact was originally in the wiki, but were removed by Falun Gong disciples who came here to push POV Bobby fletcher (talk) 22:40, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

You wouldn't be able to find out who removed the material, would you? John Carter (talk) 23:06, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Not really clear by looking through the archives, but this material was originally presented (by this same editor, it would seem) as far back as 2007 or 2008. Other editors seemed to have difficulty interpreting this information or its utility, as it is a primary source. The documents appear to indicate that the Falun Dafa Associations purchased advertisements in the Epoch Times to promote the practice, as well as from some other media entities. Homunculus (duihua) 01:33, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

isnt that relevant because it indicates a connection between flg and epoch times?Happy monsoon day 15:54, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

It does a bit more than "indicate" a connection, it rather clearly demonstrates a connection, so, yes, it is relevant. Regarding the apparent OR regarding the motivations of the editors involved, if it were removed while the content was under discretionary sanctions, then I think it might potentially be worth bringing before AE or some other form of administrative attention. John Carter (talk) 18:20, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

A little bit of ancient history - this information is not new, just it has been habitually blanked by people who used to circle the wagon (and why I stopped editing years ago). If you look at the oldest talk archive, it was already proposed, added and blanked repeatedly.

Bobby fletcher (talk) 23:18, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

well first of all lets agree on something before adding it to the page because its a pretty controversial issue as far as i know and we have to make sure its solid of course. but about what you mentinoed mr carter you seem to know something on this: what connection do you think it demonstrates and how? also is it fine to use primary sources like this?Happy monsoon day 01:05, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

It is perfectly acceptable to use primary sources if they are the best available. In fact, in several articles relating to religion, like Jesus, we regularly use primary sources, like Biblical texts, specifically for that reason - that they are, basically, all we have available. But non-profit disclosures like these sources are almost certainly legal documents, and thus perfectly acceptable. One could of course go to WP:RSN to verify if one saw fit to do so. However, the documents can be used to indicate that the specific entities involved gave money in the amounts indicated for the specific purposes indicated. To go further, like saying "They fund The Epoch Times," is an ill-definied statement not supported by the facts, but specifically repeating the facts as indicated in the official records, or a non-controversial summing like "Group X is on record of donating Amount Y to The Epoch Times as per Document Z," is perfectly acceptable. John Carter (talk) 01:18, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

as i understand we're talking about the purchase of advertising space for promoting flg arent we? maybe we should have a section on all epoch times advertisers, or something about who else flg clubs bought advertising on?Happy monsoon day 01:25, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, you do mention that in the third posting in this thread, which I overlooked. I was more directly thinking of the fourth posting in this thread, below yours, dealing with the information from Guidestar. Yes, we definitely could include information to the effect of "[FG group] paid [sum] to The Epoch Times for advertising," based on your evidence. But we also could definitely use the information from Guidestar about how the Southern USA Falun Dafa Association gave them roughly ten thousand dollars. If Guidestar or some other reliable source indicates that the money was given for cost of advertising, that would reasonably be included as well. However, if we don't have sources saying that, then all we can go with is the information we do have. John Carter (talk) 01:37, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

I would look at the matter from a different angle i.e. let an expert in finance/media calculate what that whole operation (including translators) would cost if everything is paid. Then deduct a percentage for voluntary input. See what figure comes up and assess what relations it bears to the ads. Ask the question if there is a funding gap, and could that be met by Falun Gong practitioners (how much per head), outside or from within China? I am not suggesting they are a front, but Brian Crozier's Conflict Studies publications were a front, as he describes himself in his memoirs 'Free Agent'. At the end of the day, when I get something for free, I always assume that somebody goes to the trouble and expense because he/she has an agenda. The above analysis could be done by a student group of business studies and journalism.

144.136.192.4 (talk) 04:52, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Christian Science Monitor?

The Christian Science Monitor is comparable insofar as being being a religious publication that is not primarily a religion-origin periodical. Would it be sufficient to "See also" one to the other? Can anyone think of a category name for such periocicals? The Watchtower magazine could conceivably qualify in such a category, too, whatever one might think of their Witnessing. --Pawyilee (talk) 04:17, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

I think the CS monitor and the Watchtower are fundamentally different. The most explicitly religious thing about the monitor, in my opinion, is its name. I've read it for years and it's essentially a secular news source, with the exception of isolated articles about CS. I personally consider it to be one of the most objective news sources out there, closer to Wikipedia's idea of NPOV than well-respected publications like the NY Times (in my opinion). The Watchtower, on the other hand, is an explicitly religious magazine, and it doesn't really claim to be anything else. I see the Epoch Times as somewhere in between the monitor and the watchtower, but probably close to the monitor. However, I think it is more influenced by its association with Falun Gong, and I do think there's an important difference in that the CS Monitor actively acknowledges its relationship to Christian Science, whereas the Epoch Times seems to keep the relationship to Falun Gong hidden, in spite of certain things (like anti-PRC bias) being pretty obvious.

As to the suggestion, I wouldn't support adding either of these publications under "see also" because I'd worry that comparing it to the monitor might come across as making an implicit claim of greater objectivity than is warranted, whereas comparing it to the Watchtower would also break NPOV in making an implied claim of direct religious association. Cazort (talk) 02:57, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Accuracy in Media

Note that Accuracy in Media is not a "non-profit watchdog" as the passage said, but according to its own article, a politically conservative activist organization with a dubious reputation, including promoting conspiracy theories on Vince Foster and the UN. Also, the claim that "some people support ET for xxx and some oppose ET for yyy" are unsourced, weasel words.--137.111.13.200 (talk) 11:31, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Neutrality of article

Links have been deleted

The 10 July 2014‎ version of the article [28] had links to ET websites, similar to Al Jazeera's article, but they were deleted a day later. There seems to be no reason why this article shouldn't have links like Al Jazeera. This seems to be bias against this article.Aaabbb11 (talk) 04:35, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Epoch Times related links

I count 29 of the current 71 references are to Epoch Times pages and 2 others to nine commentaries. So the claim that "This article may rely excessively on sources too closely associated with the subject, preventing the article from being verifiable and neutral" appears unfounded now.Aaabbb11 (talk) 06:38, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

It's at least 29 references too many. Secondary sources should be used instead. --Elnon (talk) 19:17, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

@Elnon: If you go to BBC on wiki, click on edit, bbc.co.uk is listed 121 times. When Epoch Times is breaking a story like organ harvesting in March 2006, its appropriate there are links. ET is a multinational media company. It unlikely that other organisations are going to provide up to date detailed documentation about it.Aaabbb11 (talk) 02:00, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

As a single-subject editor - since your first appearance in Wikipedia on November 30, 2014, all your edits have been in Falun Gong-related pages -, you do not seem to be at a loss for good reasons not only for making use of ET as a primary source but also removing content that may cast your "multinational media company" in a poor light as here, here, here and here. I am not sure these edits of yours plus your reverting some of Binksternet's edits entitle you to remove the "multiple issues" tag. --Elnon (talk) 23:50, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

@Elnon: 1. The link between ET and FG is mentioned at the top of the 1st and 2nd sections and elsewhere. Repetition lowers the quality of articles especially if its in the same section.

2. People get arrested if the CCP finds out they have been giving information. Like Cao Dong [29]. If there isn't a live link available maybe its a trivial issue.

3. Do you think that ET needs a link to China Daily? How come there is no link to ET on China Daily?

4. The place for an in depth discussion about Wang Wenyi is probably on her page where there seems to be plenty of info. Simple issue - she shouted and ET apologized.

5. Those 4 edits were before neutrality was raised as an issue. Person who raised issues about this article doesn't seem interested. After issues raised I put links to CCP pages on this article and deleted links to ET pages and this comment "When The Epoch Times began printing its scathing “Nine Commentaries” on the CCP, printers in Hong Kong could not print them fast enough to satisfy eager readers." [30] etc. So 18 edits later its a different article to what it was when someone raised issues.

6. In the case of awards the ET link maybe the only one available, where possible there is an independent link. For big issue like Organ Harvesting there are plenty of non ET links.Aaabbb11 (talk) 02:54, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Award winning should be displayed prominently

The fact that ET has won awards for its reporting of human rights should be in first paragraph as human rights issues are a major feature of ET coverage.

For instance Epoch Times is the only newspaper that has in depth coverage of Gao Rongrong. Aaabbb11 (talk) 21:53, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Anti-scientifc

I'm wondering if their seeming [31] anti-scientific viewpoint should be mentioned here? Jerod Lycett (talk) 21:32, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

staffed mostly by Falun Gong practitioners

There was no objection in the Talk:The Epoch Times#.22Associated_with.22 is vague discussion above to "staffed mostly by Falun Gong practitioners". I am not aware of any source that says ET is associated with Falun Gong. I think "staffed mostly by Falun Gong practitioners" should be used in the first sentence rather than associated with FG. Aaabbb11 (talk) 18:49, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

No. Binksternet (talk) 20:14, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

I think if you disagree with something you should be able to explain why. A number of people have pointed out that "associated with" is vague. Wiki should aspire to be written in clear English rather than vague statements. Aaabbb11 (talk)

"Associated with" represents the sources, which are also vague. Binksternet (talk) 15:24, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

source http://www.usembassy.it/pdf/other/RL33437.pdf is dead. Aaabbb11 (talk) 16:42, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

There are multiple archives of that document at the Wayback Machine. It says "The Epoch Times, a U.S.-based newspaper affiliated with Falun Gong..." Binksternet (talk) 16:16, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

The document states

1. In addition, Falun Gong followers are affiliated with several mass media outlets.

2. The Epoch Times, a U.S.-based newspaper affiliated with Falun Gong, first reported...

3. In addition, FLG followers are affiliated with several mass media outlets, including Internet sites. These include The Epoch Times...

It is not clear in the second instance (which is being used in the article) whether ET is affiliated with Falun Gong the spiritual practice or Falun Gong practitioners. Aaabbb11 (talk) 18:17, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

It doesn't really matter. We say "associated with" or "affiliated with" in a vague manner just like our sources. No need to fish for specifics where there are none. Binksternet (talk) 21:53, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Its FG followers who are affiliated with ET not Falun Gong the spiritual practice as per the reference. Big mistake in first sentence. Aaabbb11 (talk) 11:47, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

the lead as it stands now is still rather biased. we might as well say "The Epoch Times is an anti-communist, multi-language, online, print, international media organisation associated with Falun Gong which reports on a range of topics, including China, human rights, science, technology, politics...." etc. etc. "Associated with" basically means nothing. I suggest simplifying and clarifying by just stating what the newspaper is without trying to put it in a box, and then later explain that it was founded by FLG people. Attempting to cram all this in the lead is rather awkward and unbalanced.Happy monsoon day 22:51, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

seems this is coming up again here https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Epoch_Times&curid=1988214&diff=690450343&oldid=690449056 ; i would indeed like to know why this statement *must absolutely be in the very first sentence no matter what*. it really seems to be over the top. basically we could just add 10 ways of describing it in the first sentence, then? the fact is that it is a newspaper. i see it in nyc. i suggest that the (obvious) falun gong affiliation be noted in the lead, but the article starts to look biased if it tries to both characterize the political and religious slant in the first sentence. what do others think?

I think you are not portraying the newspaper in accordance with published sources. I think you are selecting favorable sources and ignoring unfavorable ones. The newspaper is widely seen in the context of its anti-communist, anti-PRC, pro-Falun Gong stance. Few people think of it as a pure newspaper. Binksternet (talk) 16:56, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Not at all. I am simply trying to bring a sense of balance and perspective to the first sentence of the article. First and foremost, Epoch Times is a media company. As a media company, it has a founding story and a background. All that should be explained. What I am not trying to do is prematurely sway reader impressions of the legitimacy (or not) of that story before they even know what it is. Since when does a newspaper get characterized as "anti-communist" based on a story in HuffPo before the reader even learns that it's a newspaper? It's just bizarre. I repeat: please find me a precedent on the entire encyclopedia for this kind of treatment.

You may even note that I advocate going 'one further' than you, so to speak. I propose to accurately state that it was founded by Falun Gong after the practice was persecuted. "Associated with" is simply vague. Epoch Times clearly has its anti-CCP, pro-FLG stance and coverage. But whatever else it is, it is a media organisation. This, to me, is simply common sense. Happy monsoon day 02:37, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

You say "First and foremost, Epoch Times is a media company". I say first and foremost the Epoch Times is the mouth of the Falun Gong. I say that because WP:SECONDARY sources present the newspaper as a biased political organ. Binksternet (talk) 03:27, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

I think we have come to the nub of the matter. You see Epoch Times as "the mouth of the Falun Gong" and a "biased political organ", and you demand to have that viewpoint represented in the first sentence. Why isn't the Christian Science Monitor characterized that way in the first sentence of that article? To be very clear, there is no attempt by anyone here to suggest that Epoch Times was not founded by Falun Gong practitioners, nor that secondary sources have raised questions about its neutrality. All that should be set forth in the article per Wikipedia content policy. We're talking about the technical question of how an opening sentence of an article should be made.

The first thing that anyone is new to a topic wants to know is: What is this thing? Is it an idea? A plant? An animal? A person? A process? What category of thing? In this case, we are dealing with a media organization. The first sentence should describe that thing, and it shouldn't overload the reader in doing so. Please see WP:LEAD for a refresher:

"Try to not overload the first sentence by describing everything notable about the subject. Instead use the first sentence to introduce the topic, and then spread the relevant information out over the entire lead."

Indeed, Epoch Times is notable for its Falun Gong founding story - but the first sentence is to explain what the topic actually is. It's a newspaper. All I am saying is that the first sentence should simply announce that - this is a newspaper. The second sentence should describe the founding of that newspaper and the political and religious links it has. Even Christian Science Monitor is constructed that way - and it makes sense - so why insist on treating this company differently? Happy monsoon day 15:34, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

One brief comment from someone with an interest on the sociological aspects of Falun Gong. Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view#Impartial_tone requires us to describe disputes instead of engaging in them. "A neutral characterization of disputes requires presenting viewpoints with a consistently impartial tone; otherwise articles end up as partisan commentaries even while presenting all relevant points of view." I have to say that I agree with Happy monsoon day. His argument seems fair, since nobody's really trying to hide the paper's background. But it's still, first and foremost, a newspaper, and the vast majority of the articles have nothing to do with Falun Gong. Sure, they seem pretty anti-totalitarian and pro-democracy, but that applies to a large number of other media outlets in the U.S. as well. They don't sympathize with Nazism or fascism. Regardless, I wouldn't use the word "anti-totalitarian" in the first sentence of the lead.

Moreover, I don't see them as being confessional or religious per se. Their Falun Gong coverage is almost exclusively about the persecution, which is really a non-confessional human rights issue. I don't see them promoting and advertising Falun Gong as a qigong practice on a regular basis. And I know the paper is a vehicle for all kinds of Chinese dissidence. I've seen them covering Tibetans, Uyghurs, persecuted Christians, lawyers and democracy activists etc. -- in fact, more so than other newspapers.

But to be honest, sometimes the article quality seems a bit uneven. They've written interesting stuff about Chinese politics and some other topics, but the occasional New Agey clickbaits are just not for me... TheSoundAndTheFury (talk) 04:54, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

i agree with that. i pick up the newspaper here in nyc and while it has an uneven quality, it's certainly not some raving religious rag. not as familiar with online version. anyway, about the use of sources for the basic fact of saying that it's a newspaper please see wp:primary " A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge." Also, the policy on that used to be that primary sources could be used to make basic, non-controversial statements about themselves. This is kind of obvious and commonsensical. viz New_York_City_Fire_Department.

of course, we are not going to quote epoch times saying epoch times is the Best Newspaper in New York City, but we can certainly use them as a source for the fact that they are a newspaper that publishes a daily edition in New York.Happy monsoon day 14:57, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Anti-communist

is a distortion of this reference http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/02/13/chinese-press-abroad_n_4729474.html in my opinion. The word communist appears in that article 14 times. 13 times it is followed by the word party, as in Communist Party of China.

On List of communist parties there are many communist parties, so I think this needs to be clarified. Aaabbb11 (talk) 20:54, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

There's 'Falun Gong' section in the 'Anti-communism' article, so in broader sense, the Epoch Times is anti-communist. STSC (talk) 23:20, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

First sentence of Anti-communism#Falun_Gong is "Falun Gong practitioners are against the Communist Party of China's persecution of Falun Gong". Sadly, you don't seem willing to acknowledge the difference between anti-communist and against the persecution of FG by one communist party. Aaabbb11 (talk) 00:33, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

So, Falun Gong is quite OK with the communists in North Korea? Why 'Falun Gong' is put in the 'Anti-communism' article then? Should it be removed from that article? STSC (talk) 00:52, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Because the Communist Party of China claims that FG are against the Government of China it is good to have the true position stated on Anti-communism. If you want to know if FG have an opinion about North Korea I suggest you contact one of their contact people. There is contact info for about 70 countries on falundafa.org Aaabbb11 (talk) 16:47, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

The source is crystal clear that Epoch Times is against Chinese communism. Binksternet (talk) 07:33, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Reporters and newspapers print what they believe is correct. However FG didn't have problem with the Communist Party of China before the persecution of FG began in 1999 and Communist Party members were doing FG. So FG practitioners are against the Persecution of FG rather the Government of China. The Communist Party of China would like people to think that FG are against the Government of China but that is incorrect. (repeated from above) Aaabbb11 (talk) 16:30, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

I don't give a monkey about your beloved FG, just show us a source that says Epoch Times is not anti-communist. STSC (talk) 02:38, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Please read what Binksternet said. There is a difference between between being anti-communist and opposing what the CCP is doing. Seems that you just want to put a label on FG in the first sentence. But sadly your label is WRONG. Aaabbb11 (talk) 14:56, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

I said the source supports the "anti-communist" label. The source is not alone, either; for instance, there's Professor Wanning Sun of Western Australia who called the Epoch Times "a globally circulated pro-Falun Gong, anti-Communist Chinese-language newspaper." We also have Professors Robert S. Ellwood and Mark Csikszentmihalyi who wrote that the Epoch Times is "an anticommunist newspaper connected with the Falun Gong organization." Professor Kirk A. Denton writes in a footnote that "An article in the anticommunist, Falun Gong Epoch Times claims..." Professors Gerry Groot and Glen Stafford of the University of Adelaide write that the Epoch Times is a mouthpiece of Falun Gong, and that the newspaper "runs a strong anti-communist line."

So we're done here. The Epoch Times is certainly anti-communist, against the CCP. Binksternet (talk) 16:58, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

This issue is spelt out clearly in the first sentence of Anti-communism#Falun Gong. The issue was raised on Talk:Anti-communism#Falun Gong are against the Communist Party of China.27s persecution of Falun Gong on 7 July, and so far I am the only person to comment. Maybe issues concerning the first sentence need to go to arbitration. Aaabbb11 (talk) 14:30, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

I'm not going to stop you from filing a case with the Arbitration Committee, but I can tell you from past experience that they will not make a decision about article content, especially in this dispute where perfectly good and very reliable sources say that the newspaper is anti-communist. There are no sources saying the newspaper is not anti-communist, so your position is unsupported. ArbCom will most likely decline your case. Binksternet (talk) 17:56, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Actually, you would be taking it to WP:AE if you are seeking to have the existing sanctions imposed, not the committee itself, but I also agree that all that would be done is a review of the conduct of the editors involved. That is all that they can do there. They cannot address matters of content. And from what I can see over at Google books, it looks to me like there are sufficient independent RS which specifically call the Epoch Times "anti-communist" for the description to at least be included in the article. John Carter (talk) 18:03, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

no dispute that the paper is anti-CCP, and in general anti-communist in its stance. question is why that should be the forth word, and not be explained later. I await elucidation. (Separate from the other disputes down the page.) Happy monsoon day 21:14, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Is the labelling of the Epoch Times as far right sufficiently supported by the sources?

The lede currently calls the Epoch Times far-right and tries to substantiate this with inline citations for several sources, but I see some potential problems with this labelling.

First of all, the fact that multiple sources use a certain descriptor for something doesn't necessarily mean the descriptor can be used in wikivoice. "Far-right" is a value laden WP:LABEL; as such, it may well be that it should at the very least be attributed even when reliable sources use it. As the guideline page states, terms like this are best avoided unless widely used by reliable sources to describe the subject, in which case use in-text attribution.

But perhaps descriptors like "far right" are analogous to other descriptors like "pseudoscience" that can be used in wikivoice when they are unambiguously supported by the evidence. In this case, in the spirit of WP:FRINGE/PS, it would be correct to use "far right" as a label if it is indeed strongly supported by reliable sources. And I am somewhat sympathetic towards this argument: for instance, it makes sense that communism is described as far-left, since this is clearly a reasonable decision based on reliable sources, and many communists would themselves agree with it.

The problem with this objection is that sometimes domestic political controversies lead to reliable but biased sources describing their political opponents as far right or far left, claims that do not necessarily bear serious scholarly weight. In such cases WP:LABEL clearly ought to apply; in fact, preventing this type of thing from being given the wikivoice treatment seems to be the precise goal and spirit of WP:LABEL.

WP:Original research—which is permitted for the purpose of discussing the reliability of sources on talk pages—tells us that the Epoch Times is quite unlike groups unambiguously and routinely described as far right by reliable sources, such as neo-Nazis. Its editorial position is well within the mainstream right of the United States, with the paper having received high praise from prominent Republicans. As such, it is quite plausible that many of the descriptions of the Epoch Times as far right are a case of reliable but biased sources labelling people they don't like as extreme, which means WP:LABEL applies. This is especially the case considering that many of the sources cited for the claim, such as the NYT, Guardian, and New Republic, have a left-leaning bias.

There's also an issue with the reliability and pertinence of the sources themselves, irregardless of WP:LABEL. Some of the sources appear to call the Epoch Times far right only in passing. As such, these labels most likely do not represent the results of high-quality, in-depth studies but rather the personal opinions of writers, repetition of claims made by other sources, or even WP:Citogenesis resulting from Wikipedia's labelling of the Epoch Times as far right. This is a problem with sources like the Diplomat, Foreign Policy, and Zeng et al. Other sources like ChinaFile focus mainly on the German version of the paper, whose bias may be different from the paper as a whole. Ipnsaepl28 (talk) 23:43, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

Short answer to the OP question: yes - Nick Thorne ^talk 04:31, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

In regard to (t)he lede currently calls the Epoch Times far-right and tries to substantiate this with inline citations for several sources, it seems a bit disingenuous to characterize fifteen citations as "several". And it's easy to find "several" (i.e. fifteen) additional reliable sources without much difficulty, which call the Epoch Times far right. Seems to meet widely used by reliable sources to describe the subject – unless you're arguing that the sources are not reliable, in which case WP:RSN is thataway (but you might want to check the archives first). Mojoworker (talk) 23:32, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

Your response misses the entire point of my citing WP:LABEL, which is that you need to use in text attribution—ergo not wikivoice—even for terms widely used by reliable sources.

And no, avoiding using loaded terms like "far right" in wikivoice does not require going to WP:RSN and demonstrating that sources using these terms are unreliable. It naturally follows from WP:LABEL and also WP:BIASED, which states that bias may make in-text attribution appropriate for reliable but biased sources, and there is an existing consensus that many mainstream media sources are biased. Ipnsaepl28 (talk) 01:40, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

Who is the biased "mainstream" source to which you are referring? WP:CONTEXTMATTERS, and if the source is not known to have a bias for or against Falun Gong, then that argument falls apart. Binksternet (talk) 02:11, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

Re: Removal of AllSides

Binksternet removed my addition of a paragraph on AllSides' editorial review of the Epoch Times by claiming that The initial Allsides assessment was changed to be more positive in response to pressure from Falun Gong but did not provide any evidence. I have seen no evidence for this on the internet. Is there any evidence for this claim? If not, I believe that the fact that this is an editorial review and not a user survey, combined with the recent RFC concluding that AllSides may be used on a case-by-case basis, with editorial reviews being more reliable, argues in favour of including the AllSides source.Ipnsaepl28 (talk) 02:09, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

Allsides says that they "entered into an agreement with the Epoch Times" in 2021 to make Allsides free for people who want to see the Epoch Times results. They said that Epoch Times was rated a solid right-wing position prior to August 2020. They said that online user responses flooded them with center or lean-right results, and they conducted an editorial review, changing "right" to "lean right". WP:CONTEXTMATTERS, and with Epoch Times messing with Allsides, swarming their online review system, paying them money and making a business arrangement, Allsides loses its reliability in this situation. Binksternet (talk) 02:40, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

I concur with Binksternet. Due to the arrangement that AllSides made with The Epoch Times, they can no longer be considered an independent source with regards to TET. Cullen328 (talk) 03:00, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

Allsides says that they "entered into an agreement with the Epoch Times" in 2021 to make Allsides free for people who want to see the Epoch Times results.

It's important to clarify that this agreement is one that makes certain Epoch Times articles free for AllSides readers, and not AllSides free for Epoch Times readers. There is no indication that the Epoch Times paid AllSides in any way; in fact, they explicitly say this type of thing does not happen, and if money was involved in the agreement, which there's no indication of, it would most likely be AllSides paying the Epoch Times to get rid of their paywall. In any case, this appears to be a routine thing that they're trying to set up with all sorts of media companies, including USA Today and other mainstream sources, and not a special case of Epoch Times applying pressure on AllSides.

They said that Epoch Times was rated a solid right-wing position prior to August 2020. They said that online user responses flooded them with center or lean-right results, and they conducted an editorial review, changing "right" to "lean right"

There's no evidence that this was a coordinated move by Falun Gong members or the Epoch Times. Unless you can provide evidence of manipulation, this will remain pure speculation on your part. Ipnsaepl28 (talk) 03:50, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

Per the entry at WP:RSP, AllSides is often unreliable in general. That they are both unreliable and have a conflict of interest in this case makes them unusable here. MrOllie (talk) 12:10, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

As I have explained, the allegations of conflict of interest appear to be unfounded. RSN has concluded that AllSides is reliable on a case by case basis. Since this is a more reliable type of AllSides article (editorial review, not user-contributed content), I believe it meets verifiability.Ipnsaepl28 (talk) 14:37, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

If Allsides enters into a business arrangement with any newspaper including USA Today, then that pushes the neutrality down too far for Allsides to be cited. They are already considered somewhat unreliable in general by WP:RSN, and the business arrangements ruin any further consideration. Binksternet (talk) 15:51, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

Allsides does not have any sort of business arrangement involving it being paid by news outlets. And in any case, simple business or financial relationships do not inherently undermine reliability. Otherwise we would have to ban basically every media outlet owned by a big corporation or funded by a government (which is essentially all of them). Ipnsaepl28 (talk) 00:14, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

You realise you're using a blog post to support an argument about the reliability of a source, don't you? I suspect you're drifting into CIR territory. - Nick Thorne ^talk 01:43, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

Using WP:CIR so that you can build a case for banning people who disagree with you regardless of any policy violations is inappropriate. Anyone can accuse anyone of incompetence, and a legitimate editorial disagreement handled via talk pages instead of edit warring does not become incompetence just because other people don't like the viewpoint being expressed.

In any case, both I and Binksternet are using sources of equivalent quality—statements about AllSides itself on AllSides itself. Ipnsaepl28 (talk) 11:38, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

Elsewhere you are arguing that a statement based on citing two peer reviewed sources - who are contradicted by no reliable sources - is UNDUE, and here you want to add a source from a lone, unreliable outlet who is in conflict with many other sources that have been cited on the subject. If you don't understand the contradictions inherent in pushing these two arguments, you really are in CIR territory. - MrOllie (talk) 12:18, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

Due weight is distinct from reliability. Unreliable sources are almost always undue, but it is also undue to give too much prominence to claims found in reliable sources. There cannot be a contradiction between these two arguments because this argument is about reliability and the other argument is about the due weight that ought to be given on the assumption that the sources in question are reliable.

It is WP:UNCIVIL to jump straight to alleging incompetence, especially if the allegations are based on transparently and unambiguously false premises. Ipnsaepl28 (talk) 17:23, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

"Unreliable sources are almost always undue" it seems like you can answer your own question then... If allsides is transparently and unambiguously unreliable in context what are you even arguing? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:35, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

This use of allsides is just not appropriate. Binksternet would appear to be correct that allsides has a clear conflict of interest when it comes to FG. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:34, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

Forthcoming opinion documentary

ET will release a "documentary" on 22 July 2022 called "The Real Story of January 6." 164.47.179.32 (talk) 22:54, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

Far Right?

It is not fair to characterize Epoch Times as a far right ness outlet. Conservative or right center would be more appropriate. It certainly doesn't meet the definition of far right embedded in the page.Warriorsoul911 (talk) 16:06, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

Have you read the cited sources? They say far right.

This has been discussed multiple times. Binksternet (talk) 16:27, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

In the spirit of WP:NHC, we should not jump to appealing to past discussions or consensus if they are not founded on policy or sound editorial judgment. The relevant style guidelines state that a contentious WP:LABEL should not be used without attribution (i.e. should not be used in wikivoice), and this is the case even if there are cited sources. Ipnsaepl28 (talk) 05:07, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

Since it can legitimately be argued that Epoch Times is not far right, despite the oft repeated claims that it is, would it not be better to qualify the classification, something like "allegedly far right"? Personally I think the claims it is far right are wrong, and often coming from liberal sources who use that classification as a way of attacking an outlet they don't right. I'm not sure "conservative" is right either, perhaps alt-right? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.58.212.207 (talk) 23:16, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

What does it can legitimately be argued even mean? --Hob Gadling (talk) 08:23, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

Twitter censorship 2022

Editor Bloodofox complains that all the sources, that report on the warning screens that Twitter imposed on links to The Epoch Times from 28 July to 30 July 2022, are unreliable. How about Not the Bee? Article: Twitter is censoring every article from the Epoch Times and is refusing to tell the news organization why. --Bejnar (talk) 18:23, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

Please review what Wikipedia considers to be a reliable source here. I don't think an extension of The Babylon Bee meets this threshold. We need something solidly in WP:RS territory to report on this. :bloodofox: (talk) 18:29, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

The thing about Not the Bee is that it reports actual stories that it regards as off-beat or funny, but that are authentic news, unlike The Babylon Bee . Check it out. --Bejnar (talk) 01:29, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

The thing about Not the Bee is that it is a social media site that mixes their own postings with postings by users. It has no editorial oversight and isn't a usable source for Wikipedia. MrOllie (talk) 01:41, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

I believe you'll find that the "Social Feed" is separate from the "Articles", and the "Social Feed" is where "Social Posts" and "Article Comments" are located. --Bejnar (talk) 14:29, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

Nah. It is a social media site / fake news outlet that is full of anti vax nonsense, among other counterfactual trash. MrOllie (talk) 14:35, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

We have consensus that Not the Bee is not a WP:RS, its either a fringe disinformation outlet or its a humor outlet... Neither are usable. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:45, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

Far right label has a blank citation

Far right label has a blank citation and therefore has no citation. This label is unsupported and should be removed or provide a valid citation. 24.10.119.175 (talk) 18:42, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

The citation at Special:Permalink/1111291668#cite_note-far-right-1 is not blank; it is a bundled citation that contains 21 other citations. Please click on each of the 21 citations to view them. — Newslinger talk 22:12, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 October 2022

My suggested change: this article is ENTIRELY one-sided. It does not talk about, in the opening statement/introduction at the top, ANYTHING positive about the organization. Such as: how they attempt to obtain BOTH SIDES of the story (and are often declined because the other party doesn't Want the news to come out). This is the heart of responsible journalism: OTHER outlets make absolutely no attempt to show both sides of the story, yet are completely free to make editorial comments which no doubt their editors push hard upon.

The sources I use as my claim are every article I've read from Epoch Times, combined with every TV news and other kind of news outlet, in contrast that I would like to call Yellow Journalism. While Epoch Times naturally as all humans have bias, they at least ATTEMPT TO show a hearing from both sides, and in that a nod to impartiality. 67.11.187.188 (talk) 14:37, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

•  Not done. Plenty of sources are cited describing the newspaper in negative terms, noting that it is the house organ of Falun Gong, and that it publishes falsehoods that serve the larger goals of Falun Gong. Binksternet (talk) 15:43, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 November 2022

Remove any mention of the political affiliation, no other news papers or stations have this and having it here is absolutely pointless and biased 2604:3D09:AE81:2C00:D0AC:3A23:DCCA:228C (talk) 20:24, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

 Not done. Wikipedia articles summarize what reliable sources say about the topic, and such sources discuss their politics. Cullen328 (talk) 20:33, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

Inaccurate use of far-right label

The far-right label needs to be removed. What makes the Epoch Times (ET) a far-right media company? 10 of 11 cites to that label all come from media sources, they all seem to be repeating the Daily Beast's characterization which was made from the perspective of a viewpoint, not a fact.

From a quick search of far-right and far-right on the Daily Beast website, you can see that the latter label is thrown around brazenly towards various conservatives. If they are all far-right, what far-right organisations are they from? There is no substance to this claim.

Even under Wikipedia's definition of far-right the label is not accurate. You could say ET comes across as anti-communist at times. But by that token, you would have to affix the label far-right to a lot more people. Martin Luther King Jr, a well-known Christain was anti-communist. “Communism and Christianity are fundamentally incompatible,” he said, adding “cold atheism wrapped in the garments of materialism, communism provides no place for God or Christ.”

I could give many more examples. Wikipedia does not provide the factual basis for the label far-right on the ET page.

If this inaccuracy is the starting point of the page then what else is inaccurate. Aside from taking 'sides' Wikipedia needs to provide evidence of what makes ET far-right since the far-left label is not used for certain media companies that align the communist groups.

If you'd like to provide an accurate representation of ET you could say they emphasize human rights issues predominantly the persecution of Falun Gong pratitioners in China, as well as Uyghurs.

Anon 149.167.130.226 (talk) 01:14, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

 Not done no reliable sources provided to support changes to the description of this publication. Simonm223 (talk) 13:38, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

FAR RIGHT??? The definition of this term when you click on the embedded link is "Extremist". I think you can fairly say the newspaper is "right-leaning" or "right wing" even, but "far right" has slur-like connotations and the onus is most certainly on those who make the claim to prove it. LEst Wikipedia be accused of being "far-left" !! 58.104.248.40 (talk) 09:26, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

Exactly, they're spreading their own misinformation but claim that they're doing the right thing, a little ironic huh! 2602:FE43:1:CF6E:45BD:8E07:F794:FEF7 (talk) 17:37, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

Sources. Wikipedia, correctly or wrongly, is an encyclopedia that operates off of so called 'reliable sources', if you want to know which qualify according to community standards. See here. — Moops ^⋠T⋡ 17:22, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

Using "far right" is inaccurate and at its core, a statement of opinion that is not needed.

Superlative statements like this do nothing to help this article (unless there is political agenda with the author that created those words).

Reading through the 17 citations reference, they were all references of other liberal opinions. Blakestheory (talk) 22:17, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

The citations include multiple high-quality academic sources as well as The Times and Fortune. None of the cited sources for the far-right descriptor are opinion pieces. — Newslinger talk 07:17, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

Please provide one citation of "fact" providing that "far right" that is not based on another bias opinion. It seems that popularity of an over run "far left" opinion, is trying impose it's own relative statement here. Popularity, does not make facts and data (citing Flat Earth).

I would be ok to leave it in if we added "from a far left opinion, Epoch Times is a far right" (but this shoots down the main point about the usage of superlative statements in Wikipedia).

To state "high quality" is also a superlative statement of opinion.

The usage of superlative statements by it very nature is a proof of a bias.

Again "far right" is a superlative statement of a bias, and should have no room in Wikipedia.

Perhaps we need to create an Wikipedia entry on "Superlative Statements", explaining what they are and why they are dangerous, polarizing, and divisive (not need in Wikipedia). Blakestheory (talk) 13:57, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

Please provide one citation of "fact" See the many citations already in the article. That you disagree with them does not somehow make them unusable. MrOllie (talk) 14:22, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

Hummm.... I never said I disagreed with the content of the articles that happened to be cited.

Popularity simply does not make facts and data (citing Flat Earth). Blakestheory (talk) 14:34, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

You have not provided any evidence that the reliable sources cited in this article, including the high-quality academic sources, are "far-left". Again, none of the cited sources for the descriptor are opinion pieces. Wikipedia is not censored, and an editor disliking certain parts of the left–right political spectrum is not a policy-based justification for removing this reliably and amply sourced content from the article. — Newslinger talk 05:07, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

As someone who has written for The Epoch Times for three years, I find the Wikipedia characterization of the paper as "far-right" to be comically absurd and yet another indication that Wikipedia has turned away from its original goal of even-handedness. For example, for roughly two years ET wrote quite detailed evidence-based articles on why Trump-Russia collusion was fraudulent while the New York Times and the Washington Post (both of which I have written for, btw) were going on and on as if it were a reality. Who was right? Do you call the NyT and the WaPo "far left?" There is more concrete evidence for that.

I think your view of The Epoch Times (based almost exclusively on envious nonsense that appeared in other publications and not once, that I can ascertain, on anything like serious research) is rather transparent propaganda, shameful for an "encyclopedia.". If you did any research, you would realize the people who started ET were fleeing oppression in Communist China the likes of which most of us have never had to remotely experience. It's time for the people running Wikiedia to straighten up and return to the noble roots of this site. That one of your principle founders left and now criticizes your very ham-handed bias is indicative of something.

The claim that The Epoch Times is far-right is for one purpose only--to cancel it because it tells the truth. Rlsimon (talk) 22:28, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

That founder believes that the US election was stolen and in other right wing conspiracies. I'm glad he's critical of Wikipedia, I'd worry if he supported what we do. Doug Weller talk 14:52, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

I agree it's not far-right. What reliable source can prove a publication is *not* something? Isn't the onus on the claimant to provide proof of the claim? If the article says far-right, it should have a reliable citation, which it does not. "Far-right" should be removed until (and if) it can be proven. Cdnshipsnote (talk) 18:13, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

Apparently you didn't read any of the cited sources yet you offer your unfounded opinion. Binksternet (talk) 19:15, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

No, it's far-right. Any website that promotes Nazism is far right by all standards, except for those who embrace Nazism. 2600:8803:FF08:100:5EE:FA01:5451:A228 (talk) 03:54, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

Name calling without any proof to back up the claim... I see a pattern. 199.46.249.140 (talk) 20:43, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

References

All reference material indicating that the Epoch Times is "Far Right" is editorial opinion from other news organizations and not original source material proving the assertion. The label needs to be removed. The paper has a strong bias against China but I would not consider it "Far Right." The term itself has been widely used, and abused, to immediately discredit any dissenting opinions not following the corporate media narrative. Reference material provided even admits outlets like the CBC have had to issue corrections on misleading articles referencing the Epoch Times. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 35.131.196.68 (talk) 18:42, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

Please see the first three sources in Special:Permalink/1074347906#cite_note-16, which are high-quality academic sources. — Newslinger talk 18:58, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

The academic sources appear to call the Epoch Times far-right in passing instead of focusing specifically on its bias, which may affect the due weight that should be accorded to them. Also, "far right" is a pejorative WP:LABEL and therefore should usually be attributed, even if used in reliable sources. Ipnsaepl28 (talk) 05:03, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

Picking and choosing which academic source is not "true content".

One can equally pick an academic source that will conflict with this position.

Clearly the original author has an bias and political agenda, otherwise such extreme "far" statements would not be necessary in good/fair/unbiased Wiki authoring. Blakestheory (talk) 00:11, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

Which high-quality academic sources state that The Epoch Times is not far-right? Far-right politics is a subset of right-wing politics, and it has a specific meaning in political science. The term far-right is descriptive, not pejorative. — Newslinger talk 06:56, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

Per Wikimedia own entry for "Far Right" it clearly is pejorative. Blakestheory (talk) 14:06, 5 September 2022 (UTC)— Blakestheory (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Far-right politics is simply the rightmost end of the left–right political spectrum. Being far-right is not innately a negative thing, even if some organizations that are associated with far-right politics are ones that you may find distasteful. The Epoch Times being a questionable source is not due to the fact that it is a far-right publication, but due to the fact that it frequently promotes conspiracy theories, as explained in the article. — Newslinger talk 05:13, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

Can anyone show us one of these "far right articles"? Is the hebrew version antisemitic? How can one of the largest world wide published in 23 languages media be far right, which means discriminating, antidemocratic, antisematic, homophob and ultra-nationalist, as well as having nativist ideologies and tendencies? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.43.88.35 (talk) 13:08, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

Being published in multiple languages is not mutually exclusive with being far-right. Responding to your question, while this article does not state that The Epoch Times is antisemitic, antisemitic content that is translated to Hebrew is still antisemitic.

You may have misread the Wikipedia article on Far-right politics. It states that "far-right politics now include neo-fascism, neo-Nazism, the Third Position, the alt-right, racial supremacism, and other ideologies or organizations that feature aspects of authoritarian, ultra-nationalist, chauvinist, xenophobic, theocratic, racist, homophobic, transphobic, and/or reactionary views". It does not say that every far-right publication espouses all (or any) of these views. — Newslinger talk 07:11, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

Racism is exclusively right-political? Since when? You don't need to be right or left to be bigoted. There are, and will always be racists on both sides of the political aisle.EytanMelech (talk) 15:59, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

This is interesting. Who changed the definition of "Far-right"? Homophobic is far-right? So most religions are far-right nowadays? Chauvinist? So only Nazis are chauvinistic? Come on... Things are getting ridiculous. TechArtGer (talk) 17:17, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

No. If one were to say 'All horses have four legs' would that mean that all four legged animals are horses? MrOllie (talk) 17:25, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

Still the question: Who changed the definition of far-right to those attributes? In the german version of far-right here on wp there are none of these characterizations. Has this change also taken place in "real" encyclopedias like the Britannica? TechArtGer (talk) 21:16, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

See Help:Page history, it holds the answer to your question. MrOllie (talk) 22:04, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

Epoch Times entry

I just read the full Epoch Times Wikipedia entry. It is excellent. But it does not mention one of their newest media entities: California Insider, a YouTube channel.

California Insider YouTube Channel was launched on August 2021, By March 12, 2023 it contains 160 video segments, typically between 25 and 40 minutes long. Each video consists of interviewer/host Siyamak Khorrami interviewing one person. The website states that California Insider "showcases leaders and professionals across the state with inside information about trending topics and critical issues. Our mission is to inform California residents through the experiences and knowledge of our guests."

Please add this information to the Epock Times Wikipedia entry to make it more complete and accurate.

Scott Lewis Nyack, New York lewisw@enr.com 98.113.218.253 (talk) 00:36, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

Far Right label is inaccurate, and 'reply' comments are not responsive.

The description in the first few sentences of the Wiki on Epoch Times, which says the Epoch Times is 'far-right,' is unsupported and appears inaccurate. Worse, the responses to questions about this label come off as sanctimonious rather than balanced. Articles like this are what give Wikipedia a bad name. AristosAchaion243 (talk) 16:38, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

Sorry you feel that way. Binksternet (talk) 17:04, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

Me: Good afternoon, sir. I'm searching for knowledge.

Wikipedia: Oh, good. You've come to the right place. It's been said that I am the greatest historian in history.

Me: That's wonderful, sir. Who said this?

Wikipedia: I said it. I wrote it. I read it. It's printed. Consequently, it's fact. It's history!

~ The Little Prince (1974 film)

.

I think this perfectly sums up the attitude of the Wikipedia admins on this page and their poor attempt to veil their bias by hiding behind sources that "prove" their own world view. Just because a "source" says something, it does not make it true. This is why quality news and information outlets will try to write in an unbiased way, letting the reader decide for themselves. Starting the article with the statement "The Epoch Times is a far-right international multi-language newspaper ..." is highly biased. At the very least in order to show even a tiny bit of effort in being unbiased, the article should start more like, "The Epoch Times is a international multi-language newspaper generally considered to be far-right...". But based on previous responses from the admins, I doubt they will humor dulling their bias even slightly. 199.46.249.141 (talk) 18:44, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

Just because a "source" says something, it does not make it true. You seem to have issues with Wikipedia's foundational policies, for example WP:V and WP:NOR. This encyclopedia is built on summarizing other sources. We cannot decide to simply ignore policy for this one page. Wikipedia is exactly as biased as the sources it draws on, by design. MrOllie (talk) 19:00, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

Cool, since some sources say New York Times is far left we can characterize that newspaper as having a far left political slant. Thanks! 2600:8801:1000:A:CD02:289E:8D35:8B6F (talk) 01:23, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

See WP:OTHERCONTENT. Isi96 (talk) 02:32, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

That certainly needs to happen. There are *many* sources that make that same claim. So based on the abusive "far-right" label here (because some other articles say so); that is the proper thing to do. Dr UNIX (talk) 05:36, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

Again: See WP:OTHERCONTENT. Also, only reliable souces count. --Hob Gadling (talk) 11:27, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

An absolutely terrible sentence

I realize this was written under duress, but this is just not good:

"The Epoch Media Group's news sites and YouTube channels have spread misinformation and conspiracy theories, such as QAnon and anti-vaccine misinformation"

First of all, it says "misinformation" twice. It has spread misinformation such as anti-vaccine misinformation? Second of all, "Qanon" is not a factual claim, it is a political movement and loose term for a group of conspiracy theories. It is not grammatically correct to say that someone "spread QAnon". By analogy, we would not say that someone "spread misinformation such as Billy Butthead", we would say something like "spread misinformation such as repeating Billy Butthead's claim that pigs can fly", or hopefully something less clunky than that.

I say "something less clunky" because I have not thought of it myself, and have instead taken the cowardly option of tagging this bad grammar with {{clarify}}, but I hope someone finds themselves up to the task. jp×g 11:13, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

"have spread misinformation and conspiracy theories about subjects such as QAnon and vaccination"? --Hob Gadling (talk) 11:35, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

Wow, that was embarrassingly simple. Beautiful. I will put it in. jp×g 12:08, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

The [1] reference for far-right claim is missing

i wanted to find out who claims this organization to be far-right but the reference was missing. is this normal? Bogomoletsilizarov (talk) 12:57, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

The first reference has bundled a number of other references within it: when you click on it, it should show you the bundled references, which are labelled [2]–[22].

Hope that made sense / was helpful, let me know if you need any more help. GnocchiFan (talk) 13:02, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

It's working. That is a grouping of 21 references, in fact. MrOllie (talk) 13:03, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

Not Far-Right

It is inappropriate and inaccurate to apply the opinion that Epoch Times is far-right. 2600:1001:B113:5825:855E:CDC8:1962:63E9 (talk) 11:31, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

Refer to the FAQ section at the top of this talk page. - Nick Thorne ^talk 12:30, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

It's far right. the Falungong who founded the Epoch Times literally believe that interracial marriage is a crime. They also believe that alien aliens introduced science into the world with the ill intention to use human bodies... Truly a news source worth believing 118.200.37.42 (talk) 10:47, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

Evidence for why the Epoch Times is not "far-right"

allsides.com is a bipartisan news website that specializes in bipartisan media. They make efforts to hire employees from across the political spectrum and provide news sources from across the political spectrum. To do this, they employ a method for determining the left-right orientation of various news outlets. The following are selections from their analyses of the left-right bias of The Epoch Times.

"During a Blind Bias Survey, people from all sides of the political spectrum and a diverse array of ages and geographic locations rate the bias of content from a media outlet blindly, meaning all identifying branding information is removed.... A total of 881 people from across the political spectrum rated the bias of The Epoch Times. The weighted average was 2.58, which is in the Lean Right category. The middle 50% of responses lied between -0.02 (Center) and 4.13 (Right)....The Epoch Times did several things right in its reporting. Multiple AllSides panelists noted that the publication did a good job of citing multiple sources across the political spectrum and of using full quotes in its reporting — not snippets or phrases taken out of context. The publication did not display common types of media bias such as spin, sensationalism, opinion presented as fact, unsubstantiated claims, flawed logic, or omission of source attribution. In today’s increasingly polarized media landscape, the panel agreed it was good to see Epoch Times journalists presenting full quotes from both sides of the aisle in order to present a fair and balanced story.... One team member noted The Epoch Times always used the word “said” or “told reporters,” and avoided common spin words and phrases that confer judgement upon the speaker, such as, “admitted,” “tirade,” “refused to say,” “conceded,” or “bragged.” Much of The Epoch Times’ reporting was balanced; its right bias was mostly displayed via story choice.... The AllSides panel noted that The Epoch Times had a clear anti-Chinese Communist Party and anti-communist bias. It’s worth noting the anti-Chinese Communist Party bias is linked to The Epoch Times’ history. The publication was founded in 2000 by John Tang, who was affiliated with the Falun Gong religious movement, which has been heavily persecuted in China. Tang founded the website as a response to the persecution of the religious group within mainland China."(allsides.com) Alexander Cloudt (talk) 21:32, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, allsides has come up at WP:RSN plenty of times. It isn't really reliable for anything, certainly not to undercut the many, many sources we have that establish the Epoch Times as far-right. MrOllie (talk) 21:39, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

Articles in the Epoxh Times do not reflect a far right perspective.

Articles in the Epoxh Times do not reflect a far right perspective. 2604:3D08:1B7D:FFE0:C071:7CC8:4EC3:24B3 (talk) 15:51, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

See the FAQ at the top of this page. MrOllie (talk) 15:57, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

Far right is fascism it is a radical claim that epoch times is far right

Clearly this page is biased and is coming from a leftist perspective. Far right claim should be changed to right wing. Mapgrobot (talk) 00:32, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

See the FAQ at the top of this page.

MrOllie (talk) 00:45, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

The question is not whether the Epoch Times is far right, but whether the Epoch Times is described in "reliable sources" as far right. I have addressed this question in the "Not Far Right" section of this talk page. The answer to that question seems to not be clear, with two separate publications being falsely lumped together in two reliable sources. Other Choices (talk) 09:41, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

The Epoch Times "Truth, Tradition, Hope"

The Epoch times is the 4th largest newspaper in the united states, they value truth, tradition and hope. They are considered by some people and organizations to be far right.

Why not be objective and factual? Rubott003 (talk) 13:52, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia is based on WP:SECONDARY sources, none of which mention the "truth, tradition and hope" values. Binksternet (talk) 14:56, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

False statement in first paragraph

The article currently states that the Epoch Times is an international multi-language newspaper and media group headquartered in New York. Dun & Bradstreet's business directory proves that this is false. There are many "independent" Epoch Times news organizations in various countries, with the "parent" company located in Taipei, Taiwan. See https://www.dnb.com/site-search-results.html#AllSearch=Epoch%20times&CompanyProfilesPageNumber=1&CompanyProfilesSearch=Epoch%20times&ContactProfilesPageNumber=1&DAndBMarketplacePageNumber=1&DAndBMarketplaceSearch=Epoch%20times&IndustryPageNumber=1&SiteContentPageNumber=1&SiteContentSearch=Epoch%20times&tab=All

I tried to improve the first paragraph using this very reliable source, but my edit got reverted. Other Choices (talk) 22:38, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

Does DNB ever explicitly say that the Taiwan org is the headquarters, or is this just interpretation of the search results? Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 19:33, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

Not "headquarters." The word used is "parent." It's important to stay close to the source.

And, since these are all independent companies, we cannot assume that the "far-right" reputation of the German Epoch Times goes for any of the others, especially with the "China File" reliable source clearly saying the opposite (regarding the U.S. Epoch Times). Other Choices (talk) 20:12, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

Does DNB ever explicitly say that the Taiwan org is the parent of the others, or is this just interpretation of the search results? Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 20:21, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

The Taiwan Epoch Times is listed simply as "parent," while all the others are listed as "independent." It is an obvious inference ("interpretation") that "parent" refers to the Taiwan organization's relationship with the other "Epoch Times" organizations listed in the D&B search results. Perhaps that is a problem at Wikipedia. What do you think? Other Choices (talk) 08:01, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

I don't think that the inference is obvious enough to make the conclusion not original research. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 12:05, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

I understand the point. I'm inclined to disagree, but not sure. This is one where I'll defer to more experienced editors. Perhaps someone else will share a thought. Other Choices (talk) 14:02, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

However, I don't think there is any uncertainty about the various Epoch Times publications being "independent," as opposed to a single monolithic organization, as the article falsely portrays. Other Choices (talk) 21:06, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

Having multiple subsidiaries, each with its own DUNS number, is not proof of editorial independence. Many multinational corporations maintain separate company registrations for their corporate assets in different jurisdictions, and if your original research is correct, then The Epoch Times is one of them. However, your original research cannot be used in this Wikipedia article. — Newslinger talk 07:30, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

Could you please explain why you think I have done "original research"? I simply followed a reliable source -- Dun & Bradstreet -- that says that the various "Epoch Times" are "independent."

Could you please cite a source for your phrase "multiple subsidiaries"? Is that just a guess or your imagination?

And the issue of "proof of editorial independence" seems to be separate from the question of what reliable sources (in this case Dun & Bradstreet) say. Other Choices (talk) 18:07, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

A Dun & Bradstreet Business Directory search result is a primary source. Per the WP:PRIMARY policy, "Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation" and "Do not analyze, evaluate, interpret, or synthesize material found in a primary source yourself; instead, refer to reliable secondary sources that do so". It is original research to interpret the "Location Type" column of the search results to claim that the corporate assets of The Epoch Times are independently operated and/or editorially independent. The Dun & Bradstreet Business Directory makes no claim as to how the corporate assets are actually operated; you need reliable secondary sources to make such claims. — Newslinger talk 21:49, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

You refuse to cite a source for your phrase "multiple subsidies," and now you use a similar groundless phrase "corporate assets." You seem to be repeatedly violating https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view Other Choices (talk) 06:06, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

The neutral point of view policy applies to article content, not to talk page discussions. The Dun & Bradstreet Business Directory search page that you linked to lists multiple companies with names containing the words "Epoch Times" and a "Location Type" of "Subsidiary" (not "subsidy"), including "NEW ZEALAND EPOCH TIMES LIMITED" and "UK EPOCH TIMES LIMITED"; these are among the corporate assets of The Epoch Times. Despite all of this, the focus of this discussion should be on whether there are reliable secondary sources for the claims you are making. — Newslinger talk 06:46, 24 September 2023 (UTC)