Talk:The Epoch Times/Archive 1

Employing Falun Gong people?

Is there any truth in the allegations that The Epoch Times employs a disproportionate number of Falun Gong practitioners? [1] That might warrant an mention, if true...

Wall Street Journal once ran an investigation on Epoch Times's tax records, and found that XU Kangang, a FLG speaker, is the chairman of the paper's board.

Hello!? It's the "Epoch" Times, isn't it transparent from the name what it's all about? Don't people know what Falun Gong is about any more?

What should we be able to tell from the English name? It doesn't tell me anything. The Chinese title 大纪元, however, may mean something. My dictionary gives me the translation "The Great Beginning of an Era". Mlewan 08:18, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Falun Gong claims there are "epochs" of repeated universe histories, from creation to destruction. "Epoch" Times is pretty much equivalent to the Chinese title of "The Grand Epoch." It refers to Falun Gong. Most of the many Falun Gong media have names transparently linked to Falun Gong or, self-referentially, to Falun Gong media discourse.

I have also heard the explanation that the paper was begun in 2000, at the beginning of a new millenium. I am pretty sure your explanation is closer to the true inspiration of the name, however.

Dajiyuan literally means "Grand Epoch" or "Great Century". The Epoch Times was founded at the beginning of a new century and new millenia. The name takes note of that, and also suggests this is a very significant time in the world with issues such as the situation in China and Global warming as examples. The term does not refer to the teachings of Falun Gong. --Playing fair 13:33, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

History

I've been updating the languages some, which are sometimes still switched back. Korean and Ukrainian editions are in fact apparently in print. To verify the lanugages listed, go to http://english.epochtimes.com/language.html. I think it best if the article stays consistent and lists the same number of languages stated in the introduction (which should at this point be 9), until that number gets too long to be practical. (Of course, if someone thinks it's already too long of a list, let me know how long you think it should be so I won't keep updating!)

Under the "history" section, I believe that what Li Hongzhi is currently cited as saying is correct--the paper was founded by Falun Gong practitioners, with a (if not the) pricipal motive from what I can understand being to create a forum in which the concerns facing Falun Gong practitioners would be heard by the general public. I do not know how many of the involved founders had journalistic experience, although I would think that a core of them did have either journalistic or related experience, and that those who were not reporters quickly became such--thus the paper's statement that it was created by a small group of journalists in 2000 would not be innacurate either, and keep from putting off those who might think it was a "Falun Gong" paper and not related or of interest to them.

I don't think that Minghui is associated with the Epoch Times (ET) in the same way that Sound of Hope (SOH) and New Tang Dynasty Television (NTDTV) are. I have always understood that ET, SOH, and NTDTV are all part of the Epoch news/media group, whereas Minghui (Clearwisdom) is a site specifically for Falun Gong practitioners that may be used from time to time as a news source. I have never understood it to be an actual affiliated media. This is not made clear from the current phrasing. Also, what is the last source mentioned? I don't recognize it as an affiliated Epoch group media.

Financial Section

In the new financial section, I had taken out "daily" in the sentence that describes the Epoch Times as the most widely distributed free daily newspaper. It has since been replaced. While the Chinese version is daily (at least for the regions I know about), I thought most of the other languages were weekly or bimonthly (or biweekly for a time in New York), depending on the region and country. Therefore, although I don't think the article currently states the frequency of publication, it seems confusing to say it is the most widely distributed daily newspaper, especially for readers who may have had experience with the English version as a weekly paper. So I'm wondering if there's a good way to make this clearer.

Based on looking at the layout of the Epoch Times, wouldn't any normal person realize they get at least some financing at least from ads like most papers do? This doesn't seem so mysterious and unknown to me; they aren't about to run all those ads for free, except the ones that are specifically associated with the newspaper itself or with their partner media. I'm not trying to say this necessarily accounts for all funding, but I recall ads were included in this section a while ago, and was promptly deleted.

• Here's the money trail found in non-profit declarations (Form 990, Page 2, Part III c):

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/2004/760/692/2003-760692185-1-9.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

(These are but two examples of the hundreds of FLG non-profits in US.)

Please add this to the main page, I stand by my research and welcome any corrections.

[Bobby fletcher|Bobby fletcher] 12:44, 14 May 2007 (PST)

RE: allegations regarding Falun Gong and Epoch Times

The Epoch Times from what I can tell is largely put together by Falun Gong practitioners at present, who as I understand were instrumental in its founding. However, contributions to the paper do not consist solely of practitioners' contributions, nor is it by any means intended to be that way. I don't think the large practitioner contribution is something that people who work on the paper generally deny when asked. It just isn't necessarily something that they shout to the rooftops because the paper is not intended to be judged by the spiritual inclinations of its writers; it is intended to be judged by its content. If you need my source, it is my own experience helping with the paper.

It says, "The paper rarely publishes letters and opinions that do not suit its cause, such as pro-communist and anti-Falun Gong comments, which the paper deems unnecessary. The Times argues that most, if not all government-censored Chinese news sources already contain opinions in agreement with Chinese governmental policies."

Where is the news in this paper? Why do they need to masquerade as a newspaper if their objective is to cast Falun Gong in a sympathetic light by propagandizing "the other side," whatever that is...

It says "The Epoch Times is a conservative Chinese newspaper, " It's not a newspaper and it's not conservative (conservative in what?) It's an anti-CCP pamphlet with a mix of editorialized news and shrill opinions, printed in a newspaper form factor and left out in Chinatowns everywhere for free and picked up by people for entertainment or to wrap fish.

Even if there are more articles about Falun Gong in the paper than in others, its mission is not to cast Falun Gong in a sympathetic light. If you want to see the paper's goal, go to http://english.epochtimes.com/aboutus.html.

Yeah, whatever. They didn't start out as the English version. Their reputation precedes them.

Actually, not necessarily. As a non-Chinese speaker, I am not aware of Chinese-language media unless I am told about it specifically, and I was aware of and learned about the English version before the Chinese version. I therefore was not able to judge the paper based on its Chinese-language reputation, because I did not have access to information about it except through following up on English-language Epoch Times connections.

Here are some non-profit declarations showing the money trail between Falun Gong and Epoch Times(Form 990, Page 2, Part III c):

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/2004/760/692/2003-760692185-1-9.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

(These are but two examples of the hundreds of FLG non-profits in US.)

Thanks for posting these.

In the first group, the second page seems to have been moved.

This first set also looks more valuable than the second for tracing a trail between Falun Gong and the Epoch Times. Falun Dafa practitioners in general do seem to produce a lot of flyers, CDs, etc. meant to inform about Falun Dafa. These include things like introductory flyers, and the "False Fire" CDs produced a few years ago to counter negative media coverage after the self-immolation incident in Tiannamen Square. I imagine the associations would also have some use for computers to help them update Falun Dafa-related websites and such. So there's no real proof in the second group that any portion of the "computer and print media" went directly or indirectly to the Epoch Times.

In the first group, would at least some of this have been given for various event advertisements? It would make sense to me that advertisements are not for free, since the Epoch Times is not owned by Falun Gong (or officially affiliated on the same level like the other Epoch media are), and the Epoch Times might be one likely place to advertise information about practice sites and workshops. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.75.247.239 (talk) 19:46, 7 December 2006 (UTC).

RE: allegations regarding Falun Gong and Epoch Times

If my personal experience is any guide, The Epoch Times definitely is connected to the Falun Gong organization. I was given a copy by someone who was proselytizing for them. She was distributing the paper together with other pieces of literature promoting Falun Gong and their web site. And she told me that by reading these things I would understand better who the Falun Gong were.

Falun Gong practitioners do not normally distribute the Epoch Times with their flyers. This inaccuracy has been up as fact several times in the article, despite its subsequent removal by different parties. Also, although the Epoch Times is most definitely not meant to be a newspaper on Falun Gong and reports mostly on other topics, it does contain more articles than most other media sources to update people on the difficulties facing the practice in China today. Letting people know about this is actually more important to most practitioners than trying to convince people to start practicing, which they aren't supposed to push or force onto anyone anyway. This leads me to wonder whether "proselytize" is actually an accurate word for what they are attempting to do, although I agree that the reality of it might often seem otherwise. Regardless of any connection to Falun Gong, the greater number of Falun Gong articles may have been her actual reason for distributing it along with the flyers.

The number of people associated with Epoch Times is few compared to the total number of Falun Gong believers. Without commenting on my strong suspicion of the strong link as originally stated, it still seems quite conceivable that a few individuals with anti-CCP political agendas may take advantage of Falun Gong as a haven.--yiliu60 03:51, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

My my they certainly polarized, bending and lying the truth like only give falungong side to public my comunity are been victim by they news.http://www.theepochtimes.com/news/6-5-3/41164.htmlDaimond 08:57, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Have you submitted feedback regarding this article? You can do it online. The paper won't necessarily change the way they do things like this unless people insist that they need to do so.

what for it would open and indentify my place instantly and be target by they crime act, remmeber they conection each other, and i think i had enough of them and they karma fruitly result: they been kicking forever from our place and create anti falungong group in indonesia.Daimond 16:16, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

With regards to the accusation of Epoch Times as the mouthpiece of Falun Gong, it seems there are already at least one or two publications out there through which Falun Gong represents itself openly. Compassion magazine is one of them. I think I remember someone mentioning another to me, although I can't remember what it was called.

The Chicago Reader recently published about the Epoch Times, and mentions some of the connections with Falun Gong. One section in particular says, "In 2000 a group of practitioners retaliated [to the persecution of Falun Gong], choosing a name evocative of the new millennium and launching the Epoch Times as a Chinese-language newspaper distributed in expatriate communities. The paper's representatives insist the Epoch Times isn't controlled by Falun Gong and doesn't speak for Falun Gong -- though contributions from individual Falun Gong practioners help keep it afloat. What's certain is that if China hadn't put its foot on Falun Gong's neck the Epoch Times wouldn't exist." The link to the article is http://www.chicagoreader.com/hottype/2005/051014_1.html.

This article essentially states that Falun Gong is not affiliated with the Epoch Times. My personal opinion is that it is -- I suspected as much the first time I ever picked it up, and it seems like way too big a coincidence that it popped up in New York at about the same time as Falun Gong demonstrations and literature handouts; the party line of the two is identical; distribution techniques are very similar; and an inordinate amount of space is devoted to the subject. I believe the argument that Falun Gong already has official organs, so why would it need the Epoch Times, to be extraordinarily weak. It has always been in any organization's interest to make people believe that it is supported by unbiased sources. In fact, nobody denies that the Epoch Times is a Chinese newspaper, but if you read the newspaper itself, the Chinese connection isn't apparent at all until you notice the strategically placed articles about China. I believe this obfuscation is probably intentional. Of course, this is all my personal opinion, which has no place in Wikipedia. But the opinion that the two are unrelated is just that, an opinion, and it has no place in Wikipedia, either. So I'm removing it from the article. --Masterofzen 21:38, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Criticism

A previous version of this article stated that with regards to the Epoch Times' penchant for negative reporting on China, "It should be noted that although a concentration of these articles may be published in the Epoch Times, many of these negative reports can also be found in neutral overseas Chinese newspapers." Does anyone know if other overseas Chinese papers do carry these articles? A lot of US papers do carry some of them. Should something about this be added back in?

That depends on how you define "neutral newspaper". It is a fact that most papers in almost any language take one stance or another to some degree. In the US, for example, NY Times and LA Times are left leaning newspapers, while NY Post and Wall Street Journal are conservative. In my opinion, there are hardly any newspapers that are neutral. So to answer the question, you can find plenty of these negative-China stories in anti-PRC overseas Chinese papers, such as those Taiwan affilaited ones like the World Journal and International Daily News. However, I would hardly call these papers "neutral". Pseudotriton 06:07, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

CCP renunciations

The number of CCP renunciations reported by the Epoch Times is constantly revised on their site. This number recently broke 4 million, so it would be more current to keep this number in the article than to change it back to 3.5 million. If you want to check revisions to this number, go to their English website at http://english.epochtimes.com. It's not too hard to find their updates on this subject. Thanks.

The number of CCP renunciations reported by the Epoch Times is still going up. It is now over 4.6 million.

Their so called 'renunciations' are a joke, and should be put onto petitiononline.com. There's no confirmation of identity or membership, and even non-members, babies, dead people, and non-existant people can be signed into, and each IP can be signed more than once. They recently held an anti-China rally on October 1 in Sydney, and I saw local Australians signing, 'renouncing' their CCP membership. Since when did CCP employ foreigners as members? These 'renunciations' means nothing and are not legally recognised, unless done through the proper channels (US immigration forms I-400 & I-485, and [2].

The current article says that "no major CCP official in either the central or regional governments had ever resigned because of the 'Commentaries.'" I'm not entirely convinced that this is not at least a little misleading. There was a case this summer of two diplomats in Australia, Chen Yonglin and Hao Fengjun, who resigned within about a month of each other. I don't know what you'd count as a major officials, but the cases were widely publicized in Australia, and Chen Yonglin received some attention from the New York Times. It seems the Chinese government was (naturally) a bit worried about the publicity the defections were receiving, in any case. It seems also that they may both have been influenced by the Nine Commentaries in their renunciations. Although most reports mentioning this specific point are associated with the Epoch Times, there seem to be a few mentions elsewhere, too.

Diplomats hold little power in or outside China, and it's more likely that these two left the embassy (not resigned) for personal reasons (such as wanting to betray China because its poor) rather than the 'Nine Commentaries'. These two never quoted from 'Nine Commentaries' and are, according to themselves, free from outside influences. Since then these two has disappeared off the media, and faced wrath from the general Chinese community in Australia.

This comes from http://www.theepochtimes.com/news/5-7-7/30101.html, which is a statement of the Chinese defector Han Guangsheng (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Han_Guangsheng): "After carefully reading the “Nine Commentaries on the Communist Party,” I feel even stronger that the CCP’s rule that is forced upon the Chinese people is a tragedy for the Chinese nation. Therefore, I admire very much the courage in of former CCP diplomat in Sydney Chen Yonglin and former “6-10 Office” officer Hao Fengjun, who came out publicly to resign from the CCP and to expose its crimes. I would like to come out to support them so that they know they are not alone."

It seems in here that he claims that he and others including Chen Yonglin resigned as a result of reading the 9 Commentaries. I knew about Chen Yonglin's defection and assumed it was because of the 9 Commentaries since he gave exclusive interviews to the Epoch Times. So when I read: "Regardless, the commentaries have had no discernible effect on Chinese politics, and no CCP official in either the central or regional governments is known to have resigned on account of the "Commentaries"." I thought that that wasn't right. I would say that the 9 Commentaries has had some effect on Chinese politics since having diplomats defect and give speeches against a government must have some impact. And if Chen Yonglin resigned after reading the 9 Commentaries, that means at least 1 official resigned because of them.

What that text said was "major, influential officials inside China". FLG and Epoch Times claimed that over 10 million people resigned because of the "9 commentaries", yet only two minor embassy workers has came forward. Both Chen and Hao has now disappeared from the media, and influenced little inside China. --PatCheng 14:50, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

There are a few recent articles (Oct. 27-28 2006) that have been posted on the Epoch Times Website regarding the defection of Jia Jia, Secretary General of the Science and Technology Association of Shanxi Province from the Chinese Communist Party. The articles state that it was directly related to the Nine Commentaries and articles from the Chinese version of the Epoch times. Has anyone seen any articles about this elsewhere? See below for links to three English Epoch Times articles about him:

  http://www.theepochtimes.com/news/6-10-28/47497.html
  http://www.theepochtimes.com/news/6-10-27/47482.html
  http://www.theepochtimes.com/news/6-10-27/47465.html

It seems like maybe a few other places have begun to report briefly on it, but it's still not treated as a big deal by most media. There was mention of him on Channel 8 in San Diego yesterday, and I think there was supposed to be an article on him in Washington somewhere, but I'm not really sure which paper or where to look for that one.

Reversions

When making reversions, please make sure you check all the reversions you make to be sure the edits you are cutting aren't actually based on anything. Among the last few reversions, there was a mention of a second recent award won by the Epoch Times in Canada during Ethnomedia Week 2005 earlier this month (September). The Epoch Times did receive recognition in this ceremony, and it is worth note regardless of Wikipedia writers' opinions of the newspaper itself. The mention of the Epoch Times itself can be found at http://www.nepmcc.ca/articles/awards03.htm (the paper's publisher was recognized), which can be reached from Ethnomedia Week website at http://www.nepmcc.ca/frnt.htm. Thanks.

I find it rather ironic that this cut was made by the editor who seems to want to cut out any seemingly negative parts of the article, and limit the views presented on this page. One of the other editors accused you of "Falun Gong vandalism" in his reversion because of this, as the significant number of Falun Gong practitioners involved in the paper was discussed above. I don't know if you're a practitioner trying to defend the paper or not, but if you really consider yourself to be one, I am rather surprised that you would go about engaging in edit wars when there is a perfectly decent discussion page on which to explain your edits, and perhaps reach some resolution might be reached. (I would appreciate your using the discussion page a little more regardless. Having the page change so often makes it more difficult for the article to stay stable, gain any reliability, and eventually be updated and improved.) I'm sorry for my impatience with this, as I realize I haven't been much of a help taking a stance in or stopping the edit wars up to now.

CCP members resigning

has caused over 5.2 million CCP members to resign. The number is somewhat disputed, as anyone regardless of Chinese citizenship or CCP membership can sign more than once.

Can sign what more than once? Or should it read "can resign more than once"? AxelBoldt 22:29, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Biblical ?

The paper's Chinese editions tend to carry a large number of articles promoting traditional Chinese mythology and Biblical stories

I don't think the Chinese edition contains a significant amount of Biblical stories in any sence. Maybe Falun Gong stories is a better term.--Skyfiler 16:10, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Actually they refered to the CCP as the anti-Christ and that the CCP will be destroyed by "God". I didn't know Falun Gong worshipped a god.--PatCheng 00:10, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

maybe they were refer to Li Hongzhi, but I am not sure because they have their own definition of Christianity.--Skyfiler 01:34, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Falun Gong practitioners don't worship anybody, Li Hongzhi included (or at least they're definitely not supposed to, or they're not following the teachings of Falun Gong!).

Based on what I've read and heard from practitioners' perspectives, I don't think that practitioners mean that Li Hongzhi will destroy the CCP as "God," although he certainly seems to play that role in many regards. I think in general practitioners believe that given the nature/laws of the universe, heaven, earth, today's society, etc, or however you wish to express everything that is relevant to us currently, put together with the past and present of the CCP, the CCP cannot survive and will (and is) destroying itself.

Why even give them credit by discussing all their claims like they are real? Pseudotriton 06:14, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

You don't have to give Falun Gong credit, you can always wait and see. But in the mean time why not get informed and judge for yourself.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by HappyInGeneral (talk • contribs) .

HappyInGeneral, most of these claims do have a taint of truth in them, but do please take them with a grain of salt. Seeing your user page, it seems that you are a practitioner of Falun Dafa. Don't be so emotional. I'm not denying the acts of torture or the organ snatching, but even the US government has said that even though the claims are true, they are overly exaggerated. Plus, the organ snatching seems to have some elements of conspiracy theories. - XX55XX 20:46, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Page is protected

I have protected the page from editing as there has been an extremely aggressive edit war with no discussion whatsoever. Please use the talk page.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 01:19, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Are the disputed parties progressing towards resolution? I have seen no discussion at all in the past ten days. If there is no objection, I will request unprotection. Calwatch 23:32, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

External Links

Wouldn't it make more sense to provide one link to the main page-where users can open up foreign editions of the paper by clicking on a separate set of links-instead of having 13 individual links to foreign versions of the same paper?

There's also links that lead users to other, foreign-language, editions of the paper, IIRC. Ruthfulbarbarity 18:01, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

I tried adding a link to the language editions page of the English site, which lists other language editions and provides links to them. It doesn't seem to be working from the main page, despite the fact that I tried to format it just like the other web links. Does anyone know why this is? Could someone who knows how they work fix it? Thanks!

Opinion line in first paragraph removed

"Its arbitrary judgements pertaining to the Communist Party of China have often proved to be the most notorious forms of anti-China propagandas."

I'm removing this sentence. from the first paragraph. I think it should be obvious why. It is already stated that critics find the paper biased. The terms "arbitrary", "notorious", "anti-China" are clearly highly debatable and don't belong here. Perhaps it could go elsewhere with a citation?

Blatent POV pushing by an anon IP. It's gone. CovenantD 14:30, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Controversial sentence describing "Dafa"

Tomananda this is a recurring theme - how Falun Dafa is to be defined. To you it is a mind control cult with political objectives, Li Hongzhi is such-and-such, etc.. To practitioners it is traditional Chinese cultivation practice. You have come up with Fa-rectification and weeding out corrupt beings this time. I would put "a form of traditional Chinese meditation practice". Well, how should we decide how Falun Gong is defined in one sentence? I think the only way to do so is to, by dialogue, discuss the reasons for each different approach until reaching a consensus about the best sentence to use. By reasoning we will be able to find which is the most appropriate. I disagree with defining it the way it is now on the page. Fa-rectification is one way of understanding it, however I would say that it is not the most immediate thing, the most obvious thing, or the most basic thing. It is actually a POV to put it that way. I will try to use an example, though this may not be a good one, I just hope it illustrates my point. When people ask, who is George W. Bush? The standard response woud be, The President of the United States. Not, the greedy capitalist who cheated his way to the top and is now waging false wars for his countrys interest... etc.etc., some other things. That's just an example, it's nothing. The point is that in normal ways of talking and understanding things, the way something is most briefly defined is through the most surface method, the most obvious thing about a subject, or the mainstream thing about the subject, or what that subject itself says. It is to try to reduce the matter of one specific opinion. Describing Dafa in that way is a matter of one specific opinion. Describing as what I said, however, is not. That is the way Falun Gong manifests - the exercises and people following moral standards - and that is the way it is understood by the majority of people who come into contact with it, and it is the way that it is generally conveyed in the public sphere - as a form of Qigong with moral princples. So I would propose using that description for those reasons. I know the reason you want to use Fa-rectification and weeding out corrupt beings. But that is actually not a reason to include it in wikipedia. The actual reason, aside from your personal mission, needs to be a bit more sound than that. So you should explain why what you are saying should take priority over the mainstream interpretation of Falun Gong, or the immediate, surface and most obvious interpretation of Falun Gong. --Asdfg12345 11:22, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Asdfg: As editors, we just need to report from our sources. In the case of the Epoch Times article, I am not proposing to report that the Falun Gong is considered a cult by some cult experts. We should, however, report what Li himself has said about the purpose of the Epoch Times and how he thinks it should be run by his practitioners. With that goal in mind, I have just expanded the edit. By relying on additional quotes from Li himself (all from the same speech in San Francisco) it becomes clear what Li considers to be important concerning "validating the Fa." You'll notice that when talking about the Epoch Times and other Falun Gong media mouthpieces, Li clearly has "Fa-rectification" and the disintergration of the CCP in mind. You should also note that when talking about the use of the Nine Commentaries as a tool for destroying the CCP, Li does not add any language about "truthfullness, benevolence and forebearance"....so your addition of that language here, which is reporting what the Master himself has recently told his disciples who work in Falun Gong media outlets, what they should do and why, does not quite fit.

Surely if the Master wanted to define the role of the Epoch Times editors in purely moral terms, he would have done so. But instead, he defined their roles in instrumental terms...that is, the Epoch Times must work to destroy (or "disintegrate" as he says in this speech) the CCP. The meaning is really unambigous. Please read the entire speech and you will see that what I have summarized here amounts to fair and correct reporting. --Tomananda 03:08, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

PS: Here are some quotes to support the sentence about the Dafa:

Li states that (only he and...) the Dafa offer salvation:

Why is it that a being needs to be saved by Dafa and me personally? Or, to put it plainly, [think about] what kind of a being is worthy of salvation by the Great Law of the cosmos? For a being who is saved, could it just be about personal Consummation? So what kind of being deserves to be a Disciple of Dafa? Would you say those people who hide in their homes and "study the Fa" do? Or those who only want to gain from Dafa but don't want to give for Dafa? Furthermore, what about those who, while Dafa disciples are being persecuted, don't want to speak up for Dafa and yet still "read the book" at home and try to get things from Dafa--what kind of people are they? You be the judge.

“My Version of a ‘Stick Wake-up’” (October 11, 2004) [3]

Li states that the dregs of humanity and degenerate world will be weeded out:

Once the saved ones have attained the Fa and left, the dregs of humanity and degenerate world that are left behind will be weeded out. Essentials for Further Advancement II, item 28

Even though the meaning is correct in the sentence I provided, I can offer a different version of the same sentence which only relys on direct quotes:

"The term Dafa refers to Li’s “Great Law of the cosmos” which offers salvation to those beings who are worthy, while “the dregs of humanity and degenerate world that are left behind will be weeded out” in a process he calls “Fa-rectification.” [4] --Tomananda 08:44, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

This is not a discussion for the ET page. This has proven to be very complex, requiring the participation of many editors to resolve, just as we've tried on the Falun Gong page. Tomanada, you know this, so don't try to make it seem so simple. It seems that you're trying seize an opportunity to impliment your biased definion of Falun Gong into another Wiki article. Until we can reach some sort of decision on the main page, there should not be any attempt to define Falun Dafa on this page. There is a link, that's good enough for now. Mcconn 17:56, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

No, a link is not good enough. We can't introduce a term like "Dafa" and not say something about it in the context of salvation, since Li himself made reference to salvation when talking about the mission of the Epoch Times. Once again you are attempting to obscure the teachings at a higher level. Li has a clear vision of what the Epoch Times needs to do in relation to his Dafa and Fa-rectification, and since he is the Master whose disciples maintain the Epoch Times, it makes no sense to ignore this important material. How can you possibily call my edits "biased" when they rely on direct quotes from Master Li? In fact, why do you think the Epoch Times has the word "epoch" in its title? Don't you think a Wikipedia article needs to report this stuff, or are you going to continue to try to suppress this material, thereby obscuring Li Hongzi's role in defining the purpose and operations of the Epoch Times. --Tomananda 18:58, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

This article is not neutral. Why is it that a small group of individuals can dominate this article with their bias POV when it is clear that the majority oppose the decision? I wholeheatedly agree with the comments made by Asdfg12345 and Mcconn here - clear and simple, this is not an accurate description of Falun Gong, nor have I ever read any reference of "weeding out dregs of humanity" in The Epoch Times or it's mission statement. It seems, everyone else that has tried to change this comment would agree. What is your real motivation here? To report fairly and in a neutral manner or diffuse your own opinion? Certainly not the former. --Playing fair 11:40, 3 December 2006 (UTC).

What nonsense! Some of us actually think that this article must report Li Hongzhi's statements concerning the origin and purpose of the Epoch Times. Your master has said that the Epoch Times was created by Dafa disciples for the purpose of validating the Fa. He has also said the the purpose of the Epoch Times is to save people. Those are his words, not mine. Finally, it makes no sense to introduce a term like "Dafa" in this ariticle without clarifying what it has to do with salvation. Since the purpose of the Epoch Times is to save people, don't you think a reader of this article deserves some exposition as to what it is people need to be saved from? Hence the insertion of a brief sentence to explain that. The original sentence that appeared was:

"The term Dafa refers to Li's "Great Law"[3]which offers universal salvation and is at this time weeding out corrupt beings in a process called 'Fa-rectification.'"

If you prefer that original sentence to the new one, I am ok with making a substitution. But in either case, there is no legitimate editorial justification for deleting this information all together. For you to claim that this is simply my POV is total nonsense. --Tomananda 19:51, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree with tomananda people like me must know what this epoch time did and for? if not it would mistaken to normal or standrat news, like me before and very confused with they articel without wikipidia information maybe i would stay confuse and darknes with they way to release the news or question they way to release news. Epoch time certainly not only have below standart journalist but not credible as news. It's look like people try minoring the fact what epoch time did?. even until now the financial resouce of epoch time are closed to public. for some certain reason they don't want other people know who finance them Daimond 15:37, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Tomananda please dont assume that everyone who offers a diffent opinion practices Falun Gong. My agency works with the local office of The Epoch Times in both English and Chinese so I have seen how they work. I can say that this article, as it currently stands, does not present an accurate representation of the newspaper and its mission statement. From what I see, you and a few selected individuals continue to dominate this article with your edits while your POV is very clear and reflected in your choice of quotes and sources. I am simply trying to keep a professional playing field here. As to the financial resources of The Epoch Times not being public knowledge - that is the right of any private company. The newspaper speaks for itself, readers can make up their own minds based on the content and that is why people choose to continue to read it. --Playing fair 23:13, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

don't bullshit in here, playing profesional it look like you are not one as you said. if speak that epoch time have right not to publish they source, So where the right to know for us who behind this epoch time and the conection. and i have seen they work to damage my comunity if you forget it, and the news paper are misleading ( not only below standrat journalist and many bending the fact) and doing great crime, what you do make it more worst and make people question what you motif behind, looks like the falun gong try hide and have try sperated the epoch time with falungong activity. and this other The term Dafa refers to Li’s “Great Law of the cosmos” which offers universal salvation to all sentient beings, at the same time weeding out those who have become corrupt and who damage the cosmos, in a process he calls “Fa-rectification this made by falungong folower when i said vague they not understand. this word as reader looklike sood good the comestic word than other term but if you look carefully and question the word, would make you relize there are wrong in this word and these word who look like good would indicate and destroy the founder falungong its self. Its clear there some people try insist use this word would not understand with this word they indicate the founder of falun gong as liar. when people question who this all sentient being or all being in this word. did they think animal world? and where the falungong wild animal folower voluntry come out from jungle to hear the teach of you founder ? did the founder speak to bunch crazy dog, tioger, lion and shark and suddenly they understand and do meditation, etc, as you founder teach?. so congratulation to some falun gong people who insist to use this word certainly the falungong folower are speak they founder are liar maybe you founder would give you medal of honor to falungong folower who stamp and label you founder falungong as liar. What i could said they indicate they founder as liar, this word grant me right to call you founder as liar cause you said it you founder as liar.Daimond 16:18, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Daimond we are talking here about EpochTimes, if you have problems with the credibility of the articles, please point those out, and perhaps offer proof about it. Making only slander only talks about the person who is doing the slander not about the thing that is slandered. --HappyInGeneral 11:02, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

About Tormananda's brief explanation of Dafa. The word Dafa appears in the following context:

However as revealed by Li Hongzhi, the founder of Falun Gong (also known as Falun Dafa), the Epoch Times "was established by Dafa disciples for validating the Fa." [5]

As you can see it's about Dafa disciples, so the explanation follows: "The term Dafa disciple refers to practitioners of Falun Dafa"

What else would you want to explain here about Dafa disciples? After all there is the link for Falun Dafa, so everything is explained there. --11:02, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Introduction

The introduction is to explain what The Epoch Times is in an objective manner, not to launch straight into criticizm - which seems to be the case right now. As was mentioned by Asdfg12345 above:

"When people ask, who is George W. Bush? The standard response woud be, The President of the United States. Not, the greedy capitalist who cheated his way to the top and is now waging false wars for his countrys interest... etc.etc., some other things. That's just an example, it's nothing. The point is that in normal ways of talking and understanding things, the way something is most briefly defined is through the most surface method, the most obvious thing about a subject, or the mainstream thing about the subject, or what that subject itself says. It is to try to reduce the matter of one specific opinion."

This is a relevant point for this part of the article too. For instance, if you check out one of the links in this article to the Wikipedia explaination of the Communist Party of China then you will note that the article does not launch straight into critisizm toward the government and any critisizm is quite lightly worded... considering. Oddly, unless I missed something while skimming through, there doesnt seem to be any mention of their atrocious human rights record (which is an undisputed fact to anyone who has been brought up outside of China) except a solitary link to the Tiananmen Massacre at the bottom of the page. This just goes to show that this is an encyclopedia - not an avenue to vent one's own interpretation of what the newspaper is and its background.

So I have incorporated some information from the ET website and am adjusting the introduction to the following:

The Epoch Times (Simplified Chinese: 大纪元; Traditional Chinese: 大紀元; Pinyin: Dàjìyuán) is a privately owned and independent, general-interest newspaper. The founding Chinese-language Epoch Times started publishing in response to the growing need for uncensored coverage of events in China. It has been in continuous publication since May 2000. Headquartered in New York, the newspaper has local bureaus and a wide network of local reporters throughout the world. Currently distributed free-of-charge in roughly 30 countries worldwide, The Epoch Times maintains editions in ten languages in print, and 17 languages on the web.

Subjects covered include international and national news, business, science and technology, arts and entertainment, life, health, sports and travel, although varying in different countries.

The newspaper claims to have a special strength in its coverage of China and human rights issues, and frequently contains articles with strongly opinionated views on the Communist Party of China (CPC), mainland Chinese society, and groups against the CPC, especially Falun Gong. While the paper claims an independent stance, it has been criticized as being biased with links to Falun Gong and having an anti-Communist stance.

I feel that these short paragraph summarize the content of the rest of the article that follows. What does everyone think? --Playing fair 15:21, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

I think this introduction introduces things more completely than the other one that was previously (and that is now) there. I have read the notes others have written in the article history section and the rest of this discussion, and think this introduction still contains the points I would have thought they are concerned about. (Actually, I think it takes note of all the views expressed in the other introduction period.) But evidently I am wrong about others' concerns. Those who disagree with this introduction, it might be helpful if you could explain more completely why your introduction is better instead of just changing it back again. 66.75.247.239 06:15, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't totally disagree with your version of introduction, Why don't you introduce it here for discussion before deleting the old version? --Yueyuen 08:10, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Thats fine, but nothing was deleted. Check out the history, I edited the most recent version by adding content, not deleting. Then my second attempt was to make the same changes with a previous version that still had the quote in the history. Oh, I also corrected the date of the introduction of the 17th language. If there is something that I missed then why not just add in the missing info rather than enter into a revert war? --Playing fair 09:48, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

I found it unfair to reader for delete conection betwen falungong and epoch time certainly some people try to hide some fact about the conection( very clear). The conection are important to see the way the epoch time behave and atitude so many people would not miss interpertion they way or confuse by the action, like they way epoch time and falum gong cloberation crime do to our comunity. it would clear they position why they involved falun gong crime activity. Daimond 15:46, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry if I don't understand what relationship this comment has to this section. This section is to discuss two different intro's, neither of which exclude the link to Falun Gong. I think you have strong feelings about this, but personally, I also haven't seen any evidence of the collaboration in criminal activity, or that Falun Gong practitioners generally organize or commit crimes period.

The page is now unprotected again, and I haven't seen any discussion explaining why Playing Fair's is less complete, so I've changed it back.66.75.247.239 00:31, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Quit CPC

You know, at this rate and by simple arithmetic, in about 4 years around 100,000,000 people would have quit the CPC, whose current membership is below 70 million.

I think I will contribute to the cause by asking my son and all of his Canadian friends to quit the CPC. They have been devoted members of the Communist Party of China for years, and after reading the Epoch Time's exposure of all the evil deeds, all the negative impact the CCP has left in China, they have decided it is time to renounce their membership. I will encourage them as it is obviously the right thing to do. I will also ask my mom, my aunts, my next-door neighbor to do the same. Oh, the mayor too, don't forget him! He loves Falun Gong and therefore hates the CCP. They would all love to submit one of these forms telling the Epoch Times they want to forever quit the CPC. Let's see that's... 25 or so people. Not quite enough. But I am working for the cause to rid China of all evil. So I am eternally happy.

Colipon+(T) 08:53, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

If you realise the evil nature of the things the CCP is doing to innocent people then you actually should renounce it and let your son know about these things as well. You should just present him the information about what the CCP does to people and let him make up his own mind about it. It is the same with others. It is an issue of an invidual's conscience and what kind of path they want to take. Everyone needs to give their own stance on this. Don't take it so lightly. If you lose your conscience you lose everything.--Asdfg12345 02:52, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Colipon's point is not to comment on the Chinese Communist Party. It is to comment on why he finds the Tuidang movement to be ridiculous and lacking in credibility. I don't think he would participate with a renunciation or otherwise regardless of what he thinks of the CPC because he does not find it an effective method of combatting the issues you are trying to raise.

I do agree that he is being disrespectful of the conscience aspect. His sarcasm actually really bothered me the first time I read his statement. But I do not think that it is because he cannot see any value in ideals or any of the CPC's faults. I think a lot of people I know would probably agree that, well, yeah, the CPC has done a lot of bad things, regardless of whether they have read the Nine Commentaries. But to speak of it in such black-and-white terms as is presented in the Nine Commentaries and by Tuidang, or as Falun Gong practitioners see them (good vs unreedeemable evil with no grey area), is linguistically speaking a bit out of the movies for a lot of people. I think for some people, this makes the Nine Commentaries less comprehenible and rather alienating.

In addition, the heavy Falun Gong participation in the Epoch Times makes it seem a bit wierd-- it's as if it's part of an effort by Falun Gong practitioners to undermine the CPC because of what the Chinese gvt is doing to them, and who knows from the outside how much of this has gone on cyclically, and to a Falun Gong outsider, it could seem very much like everyone's just angry at everyone else and pointing fingers all over the place.

Oh thank you. I must apologize if my sarcasm seemed lacking conscience, but it is all I have left after exhausting all the other options (dialogue, constructive criticism, perspective analysis, logical reasoning, spiritual examination, recounting of personal stories, etc.), frankly. I would rather not use it until I have no choice. Colipon+(T) 21:21, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Anonymous person I hope you have read about the horrendous suffering that Falun Gong practitioners endure at the hands of the CCP. I hope you are clear about what is going on. In the end I do not actually understand what Colipon has against Falun Gong. Even if all the teachings were made-up, Falun Gong would still be a benign force. Besides, everyone who practices feels like their lives have been saved. I used to smoke heaps of weed, listen to drum n bass all the time, watch porn, and not really give a shit. Now I wake up early and do the exercises, I am extremely healthy, kind to everyone in my family, sleep less, do more things, and I listen to Bach and Mozart. We have benefited so much from Dafa in so many ways, and we want to tell people that. We think it is a pure and wonderful thing. We want them to stop killing and torturing practitioners in China. It is so simple. I don't know what stops some people from seeing that.--Asdfg12345 22:28, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Asdfg, there is no need to tell me what I already know. That's why I was just hoping that if you or another practitioner reading this page is part of the Tuidang effort (or any other aspect of your efforts), you'd be able to use what I said to find a way to reach a wider audience and keep from alienating people. You did not seem to see what I was trying to say in Colipon's words or in mine. But then again, I think this has been an issue since the beginning, and I haven't seen that anyone has done much about it. I am just sorry that you aren't addressing the intellectual needs of all of those who still could understand and support what you are trying to address.

(More simply I hope: I think most people do see that you are trying to stop killing and torturing, and would normally love to help. But in most cases where people don't help, it seems to me it is because practitioners in general are doing it in a way they cannot relate to, in a way they do not see as effective, or in a way that alienates them. Unfortunately, this is happening rather too often, and the problem has still not been resolved.)

Colipon's equation

Asdfg, let me present this to you one more time. I am not for what the CCP are doing, my feelings are basically represented in the following equation:

Communist Party of China's persecution and whatever horrible things they may have done

does not equal

Falun Gong can paint itself with legitimacy

Or actually, even simpler,

“ Two wrongs do not make a right. But you guys surely are trying hard. ”

I actually commend your efforts, asdfg. I would've stopped trying long ago. If I were you I'd stop arguing with these ignorant souls including Colipon and just go home and cultivate and listen to my classical music. They're never going believe me anyway.

Colipon+(T) 04:09, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

I still do not really understand Colipon or his attitude, but can you please explain your remarks further, anonymous person? I understand that the purpose of tuidang is to stop the persecution. The CCP does such awful deeds, and after 5 years of writing letters, petitioning, protesting and so on, then jiuping came out to put an end to the persecution by disintegrating the party. If they stopped persecuting do you think practitioners would keep doing these things? It is just to stop the persecution that these things are being done. Not a single practitioner has raised an arm against the CCP or nor will any ever respond with violence. I won't repeat again the enourmous injustice of this whole thing. The response, tuidang and jiuping, plus all the things practitioners are doing, including the involvement of media outlets, those things seem like a pretty peaceful way to handle it. It is simply a matter of telling people about what is happening, and that is basically all practitioners have done. If people want to make a principled choice, if they can recover their conscience and stand up to these atrocities, then that is really good for them, and reading jiuping and renouncing the party is their chance. I am expressing my understanding. You are right when you say that I do not understand what you (or you and Colipon) are getting at. I am sorry. You will have to really spell it out for me.

Also, Colipon, I have not wanted to argue with you. I have tried to explain my perspective to you, and also tell you how I have benefited from Dafa, so that you hear for yourself. I do not think that you should have bad thoughts in your mind about Dafa, I mean that I do not see any reason for anyone to think bad about it. If one were to evaluate it by its function, that is if you looked at the outcome of what practicing Falun Gong has brought people, you would see that Dafa just makes people good. Like I say, it's really simple.--Asdfg12345 21:31, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

I pretty much just called myself ignorant. Let's leave it at that. Colipon+(T) 08:48, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Asdfg: Your pronouncement that "Dafa just makes people good" is circular. In effect, you are saying that the Falun Gong and Li Hongzhi can't be criticized because it "makes people good." Thus the debate is closed. We are good, so don't you dare criticize us! This is circular reasoning at its worst. What can be said about Li Honzhi is that he tells his practitioners that they are good, in fact actually morally superior to non-practitioners. He teaches that only practitioners can detect the existence of Truthfullness, Benevolence and Forebearance in the cosmos, but "ordinary people" cannot. Thus FG practitioners are given "special knowledge" by the Master which sets them apart from the rest of humanity. As a result, practitioners are capable of incredible arrogance.

In Spain, Samuel and I encountered practitioners who came up to us to preach not only how good the Dafa is, but how good they, themselves were. The leader of your group in Spain actually threatened Samuel and the organizers of the conference with jail time for supposedly violating Spain's hate speech laws. His legal argument was this: any criticism you make of the Falun Gong amounts to hate speech, because it will be used by the evil CCP to support it's persecution of us in China. What utter nonsense!

Long before Li Hongzhi had his teachings banned in China, he was encouraging his followers to harass and threaten his critics. If the Dafa really were a "good" philosophy, it would not need to be propped up by legal threats against its critics. You can't have it both ways. If practitioners were actually to live up to their own stated principles of "Truthfullness, Benevolence and Forebearance" they would not suppress the free speech of their critics in such vicious ways. Here on Wikipedia it's the same thing. Although you don't treaten lawsuits against your critics (that would get you barred from Wikipedia for sure) you constantly delete any material which you think puts the Falun Gong in a bad light. Ironcially, that includes your Master's own words. --Tomananda 20:07, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Could you FLG people just let the Communist Party of China self-destruct? They face so many social, political, economic, and international challenges they're bound to collapse sooner or later anyway (go read Social issues in the People's Republic of China). Buddha Law says so too. I'd advise you to stop wasting all this energy convincing people the Communist Party is evil so it could collapse. It just makes FLG look horribly opinionated and biased to the neutral eye. Colipon+(T) 21:26, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

References & justification for NPOV tag

In addition, I find the fact that almost all "references" on the page link to the Epoch Times itself to be disturbing and highly biased. I will work towards fixing this obvious shortcoming by promoting NPOV. For now the tag has been placed on the article. Please do not remove it arbitrarily without discussion first. Thank you. Colipon+(T) 04:23, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Does Li Hongzhi make the Falun Gong look bad ?

The relentless blanking of material which reports what Li Hongzhi actually says to his disciples about salvation and the Fa-rectification has got to stop. Most recent case in point: an anyonymous editor has just deleted the Li Honzhi quote from this sentence:

The term Dafa refers to Li’s “Great Law of the cosmos” which offers salvation to those beings who are worthy, while “the dregs of humanity and degenerate world that are left behind will be weeded out” in a process he calls “Fa-rectification.”[6].

His/her justification for this deletion is that it makes the Falun Gong look bad. Since this particular quote from Li Hongzhi is relevant to the subject and well sourced, I see no justification for deleting it simply because "it makes Falun Gong look bad." Li has made many statements of this sort on the Fa-rectification and has frequently talked about "weeding out" beings in his Fa-rectification process. This material is essential for an understanding of the Falun Gong and what motivates practioners to work to destroy the CCP. Li tells his practitioners that only they can detect the moral principles of the cosmos--Truthfullness, Benevolence and Forebearance--and that if they live up to their requirements as "Fa-rectification Dafa disciples" they can look forward to salvation and becomming gods with Li's help. Li has made the concept of "Fa-rectification" the central event in his Falun Gong theology. It is the essential motivating force for practitioners and they look forward to its completion soon. Certain categories of people are being "weeded out" during this Fa-recifiction process. According to Li, this is a cosmic event which he himself initiated, the gods no longer caring about human beings because we have all become too corrupt. I have written one very short and simple sentence relying on a direct quote from Li which sums up this point. If that sentence makes Falun Gong look bad, don't blame me, blame Li Hongzhi. --Tomananda 21:23, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

History, part II

See Paper denies representing Falun Gong By NAHAL TOOSI, Associated Press Writer.

"The Epoch Times began as a Web site based in an Atlanta suburb after its founders grew alarmed about what was happening to fellow Falun Gong members in China, Gregory said." (Stephen Gregory, chairman of the board for English-language editions.)

This differs from what the Wikipedia article says. BlankVerse 10:36, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Changes on 2006-02-05 explained

1. fixed typo from newpaper to newspaper

2. here:

As stated by Li Hongzhi, the founder of Falun Gong (also known as Falun Dafa), the Epoch Times "was established by Dafa disciples for validating the Fa." The term Dafa disciple refers to practitioners of Falun Gong. The term Dafa refers to Li’s “Great Law of the cosmos” which offers salvation to those beings who can meet his requirements, while “the dregs of humanity and degenerate world that are left behind will be weeded out” in a process he calls “Fa-rectification.”[7].

Here first you explain what the term Dafa stands for here: “The term Dafa disciple refers to practitioners of Falun Gong.”

Then you explain the term Dafa again here? “The term Dafa refers to Li’s “Great Law of the cosmos”... “.

I think this is a mistake and typo slipped in, because the word Dafa would be a duplicate, however explaining the word Fa which is not in the dictionary and which you might have wanted to explain, makes sense. So in the second sentence word Dafa changed with word Fa. So I fixed this and now the sentence reads: “The term Fa refers to Li’s “Great Law of the cosmos” ... “

3. I changed

“The term Fa refers to Li’s “Great Law of the cosmos” which offers salvation to those beings who can meet his requirements, while “the dregs of humanity and degenerate world that are left behind will be weeded out” in a process he calls “Fa-rectification.”[8].”

to

The term Fa refers to Li’s “Great Law of the cosmos”[9].

Because the term Fa here is representing “Great Law of the cosmos”, which would be somewhat literal translation, however I doubt that you can explain the “Great Law of the cosmos”, here in just a few words.

4+5. Original sentence:

“Because of this, the paper has over the years been accused by the Chinese government as well as concerned people outside of China of being a propaganda mouthpiece of Falun Gong.”

changed to

“Because of this, the paper has over the years been accused by the Chinese government as well as some people outside of China of being a propaganda mouthpiece of Falun Gong.”

Because the word concerned is POV, at best there where some people, also added Citation needed, because I would like to know who they are.

6. fixed typo: criticise to criticize. Also changed statement:

“It is dismissive of positive developments in mainland China such as economic growth.”

to

“It is critical of positive developments in mainland China such as economic growth, by presenting the human and environmental costs of this growth, and pointing out how the CPC members used a unique totalitarian and capitalist system to shift the wealth to themselves.”

because, it is not dismissive, but critical to the way the economic growth was achieved.

7. Original statement:

“At their Chinese language renunciation website [10], it was stated that "the evils of the Communist Cult will be punished by God at Judgment Day", "The CPC will be destroyed in 2005", and called on members of the CPC to burn Communist memorabilia. [11]”

changed to

“At their Chinese language renunciation website [12], it was stated that "the evils of the Communist Cult will be punished by God at Judgment Day".”

Because I looked at [13] and it seems (according to my limited Chinese knowledge) that is talking about a prophecy which was made in the past and according to it the CCP rain would end at 2005. It did not declare that the CCP will end in 2005. So please leave this quote out until you find an English version of it, which is verifiable by English readers. Thank You.

PS: please comment here each point you wish to revert. Thank You.--HappyInGeneral 12:45, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

I wish to revert "3" and I have done so. This is because I believe that is not an accurate description of the word "Fa" in this context, and the reference cited does not really provide that information either. There are some comments above in this section: Controversial sentence describing "Dafa", good idea to read it. I was going to copy some things out of it but it would have ended copying the whole lot. I will assume you have read it and that others who will engage in this discussion will have read it. Tomananda makes good points about the purpose of the paper and its relationship to the salvation of sentient beings. I also feel that it is relevant to include this information. That is, what Li Hongzhi has said about the role of the paper should be reported. However, it should not be reported according to what Tomananda thinks, or with his particular goals in mind. It should be reported in full and neutrally. If someone wants to get to work on that, create a little subsection with a small explanation, that is fine. It should be a quick explanation, because it would be wikinappropriate to explain the whole Fa-rectification here, then again on more pages. There should be something small with links so people can get the idea. This isn't an attempt to suppress the teachings, but to make sure they are properly presented. I can't work on this now becuase I am doing stuff on the Falun Gong overseas page. I apologise for that, but after I do the other things I have to do on wikipedia I will do this. Just a small box or section to explain that the paper was started by Dafa disciples to clarify the truth and save sentient beings, based directly on the words of Li Hongzhi, I think that would be in order. The now customary imaginative or extravagant interpretations should be avoided. --Asdfg12345 15:40, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Again referring to the section above (Controversial sentence describing "Dafa"), and that after it, the basic point I would like to reiterate is that the representation of "Dafa" proposed by Tomananda, or "Fa" as now being promoted, is not a definition we have agreed up or reached a consensus upon, and nor can it be said to be a neutral or accurate representation of those words. Just because there is a footnote to Teacher's words does not signify that the quote is a faithful summary of them, nor does it mean that the words represent a NPOV on the subject. For example, we could just as well write "Dafa refers to Truthfulness-Compassion-Forbearance, which is thought of as the characteristic or spirit of the universe in the teachings of Falun Dafa.", or "Dafa refers to Falun Dafa, a traditional Chinese practice based on the principles of Truthfulness-Compassion-Tolerance." And I also explained above how in general in presenting things, anything, and especially on wikipedia, the mainstream, surface, or most obvious explanation of something is given. At the most basic or surface level Falun Dafa is a set of qigong exercises and free teachings. There is much more than that, of course, but in giving the example about Bush before I said that the official definition or explanation of something is usually given, and competing definitions, or more detailed explanations are presented later. That is why I am removing that stuff. --Asdfg12345 17:40, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Asdfg, The fact that Dafa means "the great law of the cosmos" is definitional, so we agree on that. However, there is no justification for deleting what is equally important, a reference to Fa-rectification. Li has spoken clearly about the role of Dafa in judging all beings (that's a direct quote) and also in providing salvation. These concepts of salvation and judgment are not unique to Li. I am not insisting on one particular Li quote over another (there are many which would fit just as well in the disputed sentence), but rather your refusal to allow the subject itself to be referenced here. --Tomananda 18:48, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

You have not addressed my concerns or problems at all. The concept of cultivation practice, for example, or the principles of Truthfulness-Compassion-Forbearance, are equally central and important. Salvation and Fa-rectification are very important too, and I am not saying they are not. I am saying it is a POV you are pushing to define "Dafa" in that way in this context. I proposed, in another section or in a little box a short explanation of the relationship of the Epoch Times to those concepts, and i think that would be more appropriate. Giving biased definitions of these highly contested terms is not. Again, it is not that I refuse these topics be discussed or mentioned here. Not at all. But I refuse their inaccurate or biased portrayal based on your own concepts and according to your POV. I proposed several other ways "Dafa" may be characterised briefly here just to demonstrate that point a bit more, and also suggested a more neutral way to present the paper's role in the salvation of sentient beings, which I think your reference does not really seek to address. In particular, I have not seen your recent edit - but if you put that stuff about "the worthy ones are offered salvation while the rest are weeded out", which I have explained to you is a huge misrepresentation of the concepts you referring to (this discussion is on the Falun Gong/talk page) - then that would be stepping further over the line of appropriate editing behaviour. --Asdfg12345 19:06, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

There is no need to define "Dafa" at all on this page. That's what the Falun Gong page is for. If people are really that curious they can click on it and go to the Falun Dafa page. It's enough to say that a "Dafa disciple" is a person who practices Falun Dafa. This article isn't about Falun Dafa, it's about the Epoch Times. Mcconn 03:19, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Your argument is not convincing. Dafa can be mentioned briefly on this page just as compassion, tolerance and truthfulness are mentioned on many pages.--Pirate101 06:51, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Dafa is mentioned briefly, in the sentence: "The term Dafa disciple refers to practitioners of Falun Dafa." --HappyInGeneral 13:13, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Pirate101 are you able to please draw attention to some past edits of your that have added information to wikipedia? All I can see is blanking with little explanation or reverting to the kind of unsourced and one-sided stuff we get from Tomananda and Samuel. Also note that from now on I will be keeping an eye on the timing of your edits in conjuction with other relevant users, and paying closer attention to your contributions to wikipedia. I also hope you will stop restoring the contested and inaccurate material. There are many unaddressed issues above, and alternatives have been proposed. I explained all this to User:Tomananda on the Falun Gong talk page, so you probably already know.--Asdfg12345 01:45, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Rolling back my own edits

I saw too late that the editor I reverted had struck through his controversial statements on the Talk:Falun Gong page. Since he has done so, my characterization of his editing status (which I have since reverted) is no longer accurate, IMO. --Fire Star 火星 17:55, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Statement about the Dafa and Fa-rectification (response to Asdfg)

I have read your long post on this subject and despite all that you have said...plus all the many quotes you provide from Li...you have not suggested any language which quickly summarizes the Dafa and Fa-rectification for this section. As I've said all along, I do not object to alternative wording or the substitution of a different Li quote to replace the one I propose. Instead, my objection is that you constantly seek to remove a reference to Dafa and Fa-rectification in this article. First as to relevance: As a practitioner, you are fully aware that Li has made you responsible for working towards the elimination of the Chinese Communist government as a condition for your own salvation. Li constantly refers to the role of "Fa-rectification Dafa disciples" in his speeches to Falun Gong practitioners world wide. He has also stated that the Epoch Times was created for the purpose of validating his Fa. Given this background, it is essential to report in this article the clear connection between Li's teachings on Dafa and the Fa-rectification and what he expects of his disciples, some of whom manage the Epoch Times.

You state in your long post that "Tomananda's interpretation of Li Honghzi making things up to keep pace with the political situation in China has no relevance." No relevance? How can you possibly suggest that there is no relevance in Li's teaching about the role of his "Fa-rectification Dafa disciples" and the destruction of the CCP? Li constantly connects these two thoughts in his lectures and there are an abundance of quotes to support that. The problem, Asdfg, is that I don't believe you are willing to allow this information to be honestly reported in Wikipedia. The FG's relentless campaign against the CCP cannot be fully understood by Wikipedia readers unless they know the basic teachings on what a Fa-rectificatin Dafa disciple must do to reach salvation. Li casts the battle between his Dafa and the Chinese Communist Party as a monumental cosmic battle between good and evil. And it's the non-negotiable role of all his disciples, as well as the editors of the Epoch Times, to do everying possible to further the ultimate goal.

Let me break down the component parts of the sentence you continually delete from this article:

• The term Dafa refers to Li’s “Great Law of the cosmos”
• which offers salvation to those beings who are worthy,
• while “the dregs of humanity and degenerate world that are left behind will be weeded out”
• in a process he calls “Fa-rectification.”[7]

Surely you agree with the first part: that Dafa refers to Li's "Great law of the cosmos". He has said that on various occassions, and I don't think we should argue about it here. Also, you must surely agree to the action of Dafa: which is that it "offers salvation to those beings who are worthy." If you need me to provide footnotes of each of these points, I will.

It's the rest of the sentence which I think you object to. As you know, the quote about "the dregs of humanity and the degenerate world" came in an earlier quote from Li, and I think that may be what causes the problem for you. Since you and the whole army of "Fa-rectification Dafa disciples" are now dedicated to exposing the "evil and wicked CCP" as a mandatory act to achieve salvation, you no doubt may find it odd for me to use an earlier Li quote, going back to the time when he was more focused on degenerate beings in general, rather than specifically those beings who resist his Fa-recitifaction by supporting the CCP. Do you deny that there has been a change of focus in Li's statments about the target for Dafa's judgment in this regard? No matter, even if you do it is not an essential point for this article.

As you know, I had previously proposed a longer edit on this subject for the Introduction page:

Li claims to provide salvation for mankind and his Dafa (great law) is judging all beings in a process called Fa-rectification. In the Fa-rectification process, all beings will be judged based on their moral quality and the attitude they have towards the Fa-rectification. Li states: “Once the saved ones have attained the Fa and left, the dregs of humanity and the degenerate world that are left behind will be weeded out.” In more recent speeches, Li has stressed that “the old forces are to be weeded out during Fa-rectification, the vile party (the CCP) and the evil specters will likewise be weeded out…and all who have a hand in what they do.”

But certainly we can both agree that a statment of that length would be too long for the article on the Epoch Times. So once again, I invite you to offer some compromise language for the Epoch Times page. For example, how about replacing the earlier Li quote with the more recent one since it does, after all, directly effect the role of the Epoch Times as an outspoken advocate for the destruction of the CCP. So using that approach, the new sentence would read:

• The term Dafa refers to Li’s “Great Law of the cosmos”
• which offers salvation to those beings who are worthy,
• while “the old forces are to be weeded out" in a proces called "Fa-rectification," along with the the vile party (the CCP) and the evil specters...who have a hand in what they do” --Tomananda 23:40, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

I have to say first of all that you have not introduced anything new to your argument, or addressed the issues I raised in my points above. I could very well respond with a compilation of previous responses. In the end you have only repeated the same things you have always been saying, and when you say, for example "As a practitioner, you are fully aware that Li has made you responsible for working towards the elimination of the Chinese Communist government as a condition for your own salvation." and "No relevance? How can you possibly suggest that there is no relevance in Li's teaching about the role of his "Fa-rectification Dafa disciples" and the destruction of the CCP?" nothing has changed, because wikipedia does not report original research, and your identification of Fa-rectification with the destruction of the CCP is merely that. Find a source which makes that equation. That is your own pet interpretation. I am going to simply quote Olaf's reference to the relevant policy:

Tomananda is not allowed to exploit a primary source and make his own interpretation about it: "Dafa refers to...", etc. That is a good example of original research, as defined by Wikipedia policies: "Any interpretation of primary source material requires a secondary source." [40] However, if this statement is published by a reputable secondary source, and the source comments on an alleged interrelationship between the Epoch Times and these words, anybody is entitled to report the existence of such allegations in the article and summarize or quote them directly. Of course, this doesn't mean that primary sources are altogether proscribed in Wikipedia. "Although most articles should rely predominantly on secondary sources, there are rare occasions when they may rely entirely on primary sources (for example, current events or legal cases). An article or section of an article that relies on a primary source should (1) only make descriptive claims, the accuracy of which is easily verifiable by any reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge, and (2) make no analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims. Contributors drawing on entirely primary sources should be careful to comply with both conditions." (ibid.) ---Olaf Stephanos 16:52, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

And as for the legitimacy of the interpretation itself, I will briely quote Teacher:

"It is for the purpose of saving all beings and saving the people in the world today that we help people to see the wicked CCP for what it is. Of course, no matter how the CCP tries to hide the evil face of its wicked gangster regime, once the world’s people come to know it for what it is, they will realize that it is evil, and they will not cooperate with it anymore, choosing instead to withdraw from the Party. And that is when it ceases to exist. But that is not what we are trying to do—our goal is to save sentient beings." Teaching the Fa in the City of Chicago

Maybe you accidently missed that part, I am not sure. One thing I acknowledged was that there should be some explanation that the inception of the paper was for, and continues to be for the purpose of the salvation of sentient beings; find the direct words of Li Hongzhi which say that and it is fine. That should be stated, because it would obviously constitute an important piece of information from a primary source for the article. That is not in question, and it is quite separate from the current conflict.

Another aspect of this conflict is about your interpretation of Li Hongzhi's words, which is also original research, and about the way you put them in these articles. If you request I can make a post specifically in response to why it is mistaken to characterise things as you have. In the meantime, yes I do very much dispute the "those who are worthy" clause - and if you want to refer to this, from 14th of Dec, 2006:

"...BTW, Li himself has talked about a being who is worthy of salvation by the Great Law of the cosmos" so that's why I used the word "worthy" in my paraghraph. Here's the complete Li quote:"

Why is it that a being needs to be saved by Dafa and me personally? Or, to put it plainly, [think about] what kind of a being is worthy of salvation by the Great Law of the cosmos? For a being who is saved, could it just be about personal Consummation? So what kind of being deserves to be a Disciple of Dafa? Would you say those people who hide in their homes and "study the Fa" do? Or those who only want to gain from Dafa but don't want to give for Dafa? Furthermore, what about those who, while Dafa disciples are being persecuted, don't want to speak up for Dafa and yet still "read the book" at home and try to get things from Dafa--what kind of people are they? You be the judge. “My Version of a ‘Stick Wake-up’” (October 11, 2004) http://faluncanada.net/library/english/jw/jw041011_e.html

You do not have to, as I will now repeat what I said earlier:

That article is directed toward the situation of Dafa disciples and about who is worthy of being a Dafa disciple; it is referring to Consummation and salvation for Dafa disciples - not about the general situation for those who will be saved but who do not practice cultivation. The word "salvation" has been used in different senses. It muddles the issue by interposing one meaning with another. You may not have done that deliberately, and I won't accuse you of deliberately trying to muddle things up. I will just say that it is now pointed out to you.

But back to the edit in question, I think in the end there is another issue and it is a more important one to consider, and it is that any definition of "Dafa" in this context is not necessary, or relevant - at all. I object to your definition of "Dafa" on the grounds of original research, which it most certainly is, but I also object to the need for defining "Dafa" in this part anyway. That includes saying "Dafa is just gentle meditation exercises and the principles of Zhen-Shan-Ren which has benefited millions of people." I would also object to that, you know. This page needs to talk about the Epoch Times through the use of WP:reliable sources. Li Hongzhi is a primary source, so what he has said about the paper can be included. If there are comments from Li Hongzhi stating that the purpose of the paper is for the salvation of sentient beings, and that it was started for the salvation of sentient beings, that is relevant information and should be included. Giving a definition of "Dafa" - when "Falun Gong" is already quickly defined in the introduction, and when there is an article on Falun Dafa where, if we ever get around to it, these terms will be properly explained - is simply not relevant or necessary. That is above and behond the violation of original research and the strong POV you are pushing. These are quite different issues, and you are perhaps unintentionally confusing them. By the way, it really is quite a sensational edit you are pushing, and I am surprised you have taken my refutation of it so seriously. In fact, it does not matter if I do not keep removing it, because there are other editors who won't stand for it, either.

Why don't you give me a little bit of time? I have a bit of a to-do list at the moment for things I have got to do on wikipedia, so I will add this to the list, and I will put in a reasonable and responsible paragraph about the paper's role in the salvation of sentient beings, according strictly to the words of Li Hongzhi. That is what this article needs, you have well pointed it out, and for that I acknowledge and thank you.--Asdfg12345 04:59, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Asdfg: There is a clear and undeniable link between the mission of the Epoch Times, according to Li, and the mission of "Fa-rectification Dafa disciples." Li is quite clear about this and it is most definately relevant to this article. You seem to acknowledge that I am correct about that and you ask me to give you a little bit of time. But you also have gone ahead, once again, and deleted the sentence in question. This is not cooperative editing. I again ask that you come up with your own wording to complete the sentence. And by the way, you didn't even respond to my questions above. I will re-iterate: Do you or don't you agree with the first two segments of the sentence as I have presented them? --Tomananda 05:42, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

PS: I forgot to respond to your challenge of my use of the word worthy. You correctly cite the Li quote, which is:

• "Why is it that a being needs to be saved by Dafa and me personally? Or, to put it plainly, [think about] what kind of a being is worthy of salvation by the Great Law of the cosmos?"

And yet you reject my formulation of this thought which is:

• "The term Dafa refers to Li’s 'Great Law of the cosmos' which offers salvation to those beings who are worthy..."

What, exactly, is incorrect in my formulation? Do you disagree that according to Li "The term Dafa refers to Li's 'Great law of the cosmos'"? Or do you disagree that "the Dafa offers salvation to those beings who are worthy..."? Rather than my having to defend what seems to be a straight forward rendition of your master's teachings, why don't you explain to me exactly what is incorrect in that portion of the edit? You do agree that the Dafa offers salvation to beings, don't you? Is it just that you object to the term "worthy"? If so, why don't you suggest another formulation that preserves the basic concept, rather than to reject what amounts to an accurate indirect quote from your own master? --Tomananda 06:15, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Once again we reach this point. Let's just get the mediator to look at this one. Any response to the above comment would merely be copy-pasting my earlier posting. I'd also say it's too late for these tricks, and that you should change your tactics right now. I am talking generally. This latest edit is the last in a series of edits and behaviours that are unnacceptable according to at least the basic wikipedia policy of WP:Original Research. What I suggest is that from now on you start finding things in journals, especially peer-reviewed ones, books, newspapers etc., to advance the arguments you want to make. You have found some, to be sure, but I'd say you need to keep doing it, because there is a whole lot of content on these pages that you will have to start accounting for real soon. As for this, I have already responded. I will now leave a message on the mediators page. --Asdfg12345 10:41, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Tormananda, please don't come up with definitions about Dafa. Anyway you pushing this way the Fa rectification as being the definition of Dafa, is a very incomplete original research. If you want to explain this term you can create a wikilink to it, still it will then have to include the fact that "Dafa is just gentle meditation exercises and the principles of Zhen-Shan-Ren which has benefited millions of people." + a lot more. And this way we are back to the Falun Dafa page. Also please note that we never objected to this sentence: "The term Dafa disciple refers to practitioners of Falun Dafa." --HappyInGeneral 15:41, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Roll back own edit, express committment to wikipedia policies and principles

Actually, let me append one thing (you may like this part, Tomananda): I will not make that revert again for the rest of this month. There should be obvious reasons for this. One of them is to try and demonstrate in an open and dignified way that I want my edits to be in good faith, that I do not want to engage in edit wars, that I believe in the principles of wikipedia, and also that I believe that in the end this behaviour, which I now see is at least WP:TE and quite probably also WP:DE, will be otherwise dealt with appropriately. It is also to demonstrate that consensus is opposed to this edit and this type of behaviour in general. That's all for now. Let me draw Armed's attention to this. As I mentioned I have quite some other things to do, so I will not check this page again until I do it all, then we will see what should be done. You win, Tomananda. --Asdfg12345 11:55, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Li says the Dafa is the "Great law of the cosmos"

Li says the Dafa is the "Great law of the cosmos" but if I report this in Wikipedia I am "playing tricks" and Asdfg will flag that statement as "dubious"? Give me a break! I am not violating any Wikipedia policies by reporting the words of your Master. If I can't report your Master's words (complete with appropriate citations), then you can't either. Should I start blanking your Li quotes now? The problem is not in my editing, Asdfg, it is in your refusal to accept any honest reporting about what Li calls the teachings "at the higher levels." You acknowledge above that the Fa-rectification does have a direct relationship to the mission of the Epoch Times. I thank you for that acknowledgment. But what you don't do is allow me to report on that (using your master's own words) or, alternatively, provide your own edits. You make excuses, saying you will get to this eventually.

Other Falun Gong practitioners made similar excuses on the Falun Gong talk page many months ago. Please understand that I have great sympathy for you. The Master has created quite a predicament by having you believe certain things, but then demanding that you not talk about those things with "ordinary people." By my way of thinking, that makes you brainwashed...or at least incapabable of thinking independently about the higher teachings of Master Li. If you could think independently, I'm sure you would be able to construct a simple sentence about the Dafa judging all beings (actually that's what Li himself says) and then adding something about Fa-rectification and how it relates to the mission of the Epoch times, or for that matter your own mission as one of Li's "Fa-rectification Dafa disciples." That is what Li calls his disciples these days, isn't it? Or do you think I'm making up those words too? Or playing tricks?

Asdfg, this issue has been at the core of the editor debates since the very beginning. If you go back and check the discussion pages in March, 2006 (almost a year ago), you'll see much discussion about the need to report on all the teachings of Master Li. You'll see, for example, that it took many months of heated debate and endless reverts to get agreement on the section on homosexuality. You'll also see that it consists of a compiliation of direct quotes from Master Li, all of which are fully cited from Falun Gong's own web pages. Back then is when I first introduced some edits on Li's Fa-rectification and then, as now, it elicited a series of attacks against me and my intentions. In effect, nothing I have ever reported (I say reported instead of "written" because I always use Li's own words) has ever been accepted by the FG practitioners. At the same time, no FG practitioner has ever written (or reported) in a simple and concise way about the judgment of the Dafa and the elimination of beings who are not worthy. Again, those are Li's words, not mine. Yes, it's true that more recently Li has changed his focus on this subject. Now, instead of talking about the elimination of degenerates during the Fa-rectification, Li tends to direct all his attention to the "evil and wicked Chinese Communist Party" and anyone who dares to resist his Fa-rectification or think badly about it.

Asdfg, many reputable cult experts in the United States consider these kinds of manipulative techniques a form of brainwashing, or "undue influence." Real psychological damage can be done to an individual when he is made to give up his ability to reason independently. And I know from direct personal experience that Li Hongzhi has damaged more than one family in the United States, leading to divorces and other kinds of break-ups, all in the name of his "Dafa."

As an editor on the Falun Gong pages, my objective is not to take a stand on the Chinese Communist Party (sorry about that!). I believe I have acted in good faith all along, exercising restraint and flexibility in the editing process, yet also suffering an enormous amount of personal attacks. I put up with the attacks against me (didn't you recently characterize me as "inarticulate" when writing about the FG?) and Samuel puts up with all the legal threats from the Falun Gong, because we both recognize there is a story to be told about the Falun Gong which the Western media has yet to fullly understand or articulate. That story...let's call it "the dark side of Falun Gong"...can be told in Wikipedia simply by allowing an honest reporting of what Li teaches, plus reporting the opinions of academics and other critics of the Falun Gong. That's what I have done from the very beginning and its what I will continue to do. --Tomananda 18:32, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

PS: Since you have objected so strongly to the use of Li's 1999 quote about the Fa-rectification, I have replaced it with a current (2006) quote on the same subject. I hope you can accept this compromise and please don't dismiss this edit as my POV. It is the POV of your master and it addresses what the duty is of his "Fa-rectification Dafa disciples" during this period. --Tomananda 23:47, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm, quite an amount of attacks. In a nutshell you want to have many readers for a site about "the dark side of Falun Gong" and for this you feel the need to reinterpret what Fa-Rectification is, right? Well if that is what you really want to do then go ahead and do it, but keep in mind the Wikipedia policies and keep your hands of the Original Research. Now about context, do you really think that The Epoch Times page is the right place to do it? Or is this because the Falun Gong page is protected and you are just too anxious to get your edits on this in? --HappyInGeneral 15:55, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

How can you possibly say I am "reinterpretting" Fa-rectification when all I am doing is quoting your Master? The quote has direct bearing on understanding the history of the Epoch Times, since it explains what the motivation is for the Falun Gong practitioners who run it. Do you disagree with Li Hongzhi? Do you think it is inaccurate to say that it is the goal of Falun Gong practitioners to save people? Or to work towards the destruction of the evil and wicked Chinese Communist Party? Would you be willing to say that all you need to do is culitvate your xinxing (moral character)in order to be a Falun Gong practitioner? Do you think of yourself as a "Fa-rectification period Dafa disciple"? If so, what do those words mean to you? --Tomananda 17:59, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Actually I'm talking about the Wikipedia rules here, if I tell you in detail with some short quotes what all the things you stated above mean to me, it would be quite different from what you are advocating, because I would introduce the school principles into them, but even so it still would be Original Research. Wikipedia is here to report not to make judgments, if you want to do just that I can suggest your own web site, IRC channels, etc... see WP:NOT#SOAP --HappyInGeneral 08:11, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

You're avoiding the point, which is that my introducing a relevant quote from your Master which speaks to what the mission of "Fa-rectification period Dafa disciples" is--and that includes those disciples who run the Epoch Times--does not constitute original research. Yes, if you were to expound on what this all means to you personally, that would constitute original research. The questions I asked were more rhetorical in nature, meaning that I know as well as you do that you cannot just stay at home and study Zhuan Falun, do the exercises and cultivate your xinxing in order to be considered a Falun Gong practitioner by Master Li. The requirment now is that you and all Falun Gong practitioners must work to destroy the Chinese Communist Party, according to Li. He gives that message repeatedly and it is critical to an understanding of the history of the Epoch Times. --Tomananda 17:26, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

See bellow about quoting out of context. --HappyInGeneral 11:41, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

I searched in the two references you provided but none of the text like: “Great Law of the cosmos” and "is judging all beings" can be found in them. --HappyInGeneral 14:51, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

"advertises itself as a qigong practice"

Hello, I heard there was some debate over the inclusion of the above phrase to describe Falun Gong. Since "advertises" can potentially be read with a slightly negative connotation, would there be more agreement for another term, such as "consider themselves a qigong group" or "self-identify as a qigong group"? Alternatively, you could try to find a description of qigong that everyone felt applied to Falun Gong, so you could right something like "who practice meditation to improve their health". Or, if the problem is whether or not "qigong group" is too limiting, you could consider a wording such as "who practice qigong, among other things." (Or would "among other things" be considered overly inclusive by some?) Another approach would be to find a specific source, and say something like "a qigong practice, according to [Source]".

I am not sure what everyone will be able to agree on, but I hope that at least gives you ideas. Also, I don't know whether or not you already found a solution to this, as I can't find the phrase in the current version of the article, so I apologise if this message is out-of-date.

— Armedblowfish (talk|mail) 22:52, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

You raise a good point. Actually, Falun Gong is quite different from traditional Qi Gong. There are really two components: the exercies themselves (which Li describes in his first book called Falun Gong) and the soteriological, cosmologicical and ethical teachings which first appeared in another early book called Zhuan Falun. Li makes clear that the exercises are not what's really important, but rather the teachings expounded in Zhuan Falun. Thus when the Western media call Falun Gong a "meditiative group" or "meditative practice" they are grossly mis-reprsenting Falun Gong. I think practitioners are perfectly happy with this mis-representation, however, because they don't talk about the teachings "at the higher levels" anyway. Those teachings especially concern salvation during this period of the "Fa-rectification." Li states that traditional religions can no longer save people, only his Dafa can.

The "Fa-rectification" is an on-going cosmic event which Li claims to have initiated. Now in it's tenth year, the "Fa-rectification" will result in beings returning to their "higher levels" (the idealized realm from whence all beings came, a realm in which there is no moral corruption, homosexuality, etc). Beings who are not worthy will be eliminated or, as Li often says "weeded out." The role of Falun Gong practitioners is to help save "all sentient beings" during this period and to the extent they meet Li's requirments as "Fa-rectification period Dafa disciples" they will not only reach "consumation" but also be turned into "gods."

Does any of this sound like traditional Qi Gong to you? Of course not, but that's because the practitioners have been so succesful in concealing their beliefs "at the higher levels." It may seem odd that a quasi-religious group such as the Falun Gong would believe they are uniquely offering salvation to all beings during a period of cosmic realignment, but then never actually present those ideas directly to the public. It's rather like a fundamentalist Christian group that never says openly that "Jesus saves." With the Falun Gong, only Li and his Dafa can save, but you will never hear that spoken by a practitioner, because Li explicitly forbids his disciples to speak about the teachings at the higher levels when talking to "ordinary people." Here's a recent quote from Li on this subject, spoken directly to his practitioners in San Francisco during one of his many appearances which are never open to the public:

So when you clarify the truth you absolutely must not speak at too high of a level. Right now when you clarify the truth you only need to talk about the persecution of Dafa disciples, how the evil party has been violating the human rights and the freedom of belief of the Chinese people, how historically the evil party has persecuted the Chinese people and the people of the countries belonging to the wicked Communist bloc, and how it is persecuting Dafa disciples today in the same way. And that's enough. As for high-level cultivation and gods, you shouldn't talk about those things. Teaching the Fa in San Francisco, 2005 (November 5, 2005) [14]

So as to what to call "Falun Gong," it depends on whether we rely on what the practitioners call it (eg: an "advanced cultivation practice") or what critics and academic writers call it (eg: a quasi-religous sect, a new religous movement or even an "authoritarian cult"). --Tomananda 18:26, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Few corrections here regarding Tomananda post:

1. Exercises are important because they help the mechanism that transforms the body, but these will not work without energy/gong which is obtained through raising the xinxing, this is of course just my understanding, based on the quote below:

Falun Dafa is also a cultivation practice of mind and body, and it requires exercises. On the one hand, the exercises are used to strengthen supernormal abilities. What is “strengthening?” It is the reinforcement of your supernormal abilities by your powerful gong potency, thus making them progressively stronger. On the other hand, many living beings need to be developed in your body. In high-level cultivation practice, the Tao School requires the birth of the Immortal Infant (yuanying), while the Buddha School requires the Vajra’s indestructible body. Furthermore, many supernatural abilities must be developed. These things need to be developed through the physical exercises, and they are what our exercises cultivate. A complete cultivation practice of mind and body requires both cultivation and practice. I think that everyone now understands how gong comes into being. The gong that really determines your level of achievement is not at all developed through practice, but via cultivation. By upgrading your xinxing and assimilating to the characteristic of the universe in your cultivation among everyday people, the characteristic of the universe will no longer restrict you; you are then allowed to move up. Your de will then begin transforming into gong. As your xinxing standard improves, so grows your gong. It is just such a relationship. (from Zhuan Falun: [15])

2. Zhuan Falun is the main text, talking about other stuff, quoting from later articles is often out of context as long as the audience did not study Zhuan Falun first. For example let’s quote your quote a bit more extensively [16] to see what you have left out:

As cultivators, you can understand and comprehend what I've just said. There is no need to tell these things to ordinary people. When you clarify the truth don't talk about these things. If you talk about these things, you will scare people off and throw their thinking into disarray. It will be very hard for them to understand it. If when you clarify the truth you talk about things at a level that's just a little too high, let me tell you, you will no longer be saving sentient beings but instead pushing them down. You can't talk about things at too high of a level. Talking about things at a high or low level is not a simple question of whether you are exercising good judgment. It is a question of whether you are saving sentient beings or destroying them. So when you clarify the truth you absolutely must not speak at too high of a level. Right now when you clarify the truth you only need to talk about the persecution of Dafa disciples, how the evil party has been violating the human rights and the freedom of belief of the Chinese people, how historically the evil party has persecuted the Chinese people and the people of the countries belonging to the wicked Communist bloc, and how it is persecuting Dafa disciples today in the same way. And that's enough. As for high-level cultivation and gods, you shouldn't talk about those things. It's very hard for ordinary people to understand them. You can understand these things, but remember that you too started out as an ordinary person and have come to understand and accept high-level Fa principles after cultivating step by step up through to today. In teaching the Fa, Master likewise started from the simple and progressed to the profound. If I had told you these things right at the beginning, if I had taught you these things right away six or seven, or seven or eight, years ago, you wouldn't have been able to accept them. And even if you could accept them, you wouldn't have understood clearly what I was talking about. That being the case, you not only need to clarify the truth, you also need to be wise while doing so. You should do it with wisdom and not talk about things at too high of a level. (from Teaching the Fa in San Francisco, 2005 (November 5, 2005) [17])

--HappyInGeneral 11:35, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

None of these unnecessarily long quotes contradict anything I have said. It's ludicrous for you to claim that you are "correcting" my post.

1. I said the exercizes are not really what's important, but instead studying the teachings expounded in Zhuan Falun. Here's what Li says about that:

"Why do I tell you to study, read, and memorize Zhuan Falun? It is to guide your cultivation practice! As to those who only do the exercises but do not study the Fa, they are not disciples of Dafa whatsoever." Essentials for Further Advancement, English Version (September 6, 1996)

2. I said that Falun Gong practitioners are not allowed by the Master to talk about the teachings "at the higher levels" with ordinary people. You have provided more of Li's words from the same source, but they don't contradict what I said, nor do they add anything to this discussion. The basic point is that you are not allowed to talk about the teachings with us ordinary people at the higher levels. If you wanted to contradict that point, you could do so by proposing an edit about the Dafa and Li saving sentient beings, or about how the Fa-rectification will "weed out" some people, but not others. Can you give it a try? Or will you continue to obfuscate the teachings, with the quaintly superior attitude that Li instills in his practitioners? If you could just for once be open and honest about the Dafa, using your own words to explain things rather than relying on extremely long quotes from the Master, you would prove my assumptions wrong. Until you are able to demonstrate that level of independent thinking, I will continue to see your behavior in the light of Li's instruction that:

"It is not allowed to casually disclose so many heavenly secrets to ordinary people. Zhuan Falun, 2nd edition, p. 91.

The question we need to ask is: why does Li not allow his practitioners to reveal so many "heavenly secrets" to ordinary people? Is it really because "ordinary people" are too dumb to understand? Or perhaps it's because he knows his outrageous claims and inconsistencies would soon wilt if exposed to the daylight of public scrutiny. One of the ways cult leaders maintain control is that they pretend to reveal secret knowledge to their inner group of followers, who in turn are made to feel special and priviledged because of that secret knowledge. But if those same people had to share their secret knowledge with outsiders on a regular basis, they would find many challenges to their way of thinking. Yes, I know that in a technical sense none of this information is "secret" because it is all available on Falun Gong web sites. But as long as practitioner editors control the selection of content from Li's teachings for these Wikipedia pages, the public will continue to be in the dark about the true nature of Li Hongzhi's teachings. And its because of Li's small army of censors that the Falun Gong has managed to maintain such a false image of itself in the West.

Please understand that I have compassion for you, as well as any Falun Gong practitioners who may be tortured or abused in China. But I also have contempt for Li Hongzhi who, in my mind, exploits his practitioners in pretty outrageous ways, while deceiving the public about the true nature of his teachings and his campaign to destroy the Chinese government in the name of the Dafa. --Tomananda 08:52, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

1. As you might have noticed I said “Exercises are important because they help the mechanism that transforms the body”, you are saying that the “exercizes are not really what's important”, well actually they are not the only one important thing. Actually both of them are important. You point out the teachings are very important, which is true, but you forget to mention that they are important because they help in one’s raising his moral standard, because that is the only way energy can be provided for the mechanism that transforms the body. You are insisting in saying that the exercises are not important, well let me ask you did you read in any of the scriptures that you can obtain consummation without doing any exercise? Can you transform/improve your body without doing any exercise? Well study the Fa more and I’m sure you’ll have an answer to all your questions :)

2. You say that, quote: “I said that Falun Gong practitioners are not allowed by the Master to talk about the teachings" at the higher levels “with ordinary people.” Let me tell you this, nobody can interdict me anything, so at most, you could only say that practitioners are not encouraged to talk about things that may sound odd to a person who does not have a good idea about what we are talking about and what is it that we are referring to. This is where context is very important. For example one should be able to accept that there is something intelligent that created us, before he is able to accept that it might have a plan. Can you understand this logic? See from wikipedia Quoting_out_of_context there is a nice example with Darvin :)

PS: you say: “Please understand that I have compassion for you, as well as any Falun Gong practitioners who may be tortured or abused in China.”

Thank you so much for this, and really I think this is the most important right now. I mean there are people who believe in Darvin’s theory, there are people who believe strictly in Christianity, and there are people who believe in Falun Gong. That is all fine. But we should really think a little about what is somewhat acceptable what is somewhat unacceptable and what is completely unacceptable. I think that completely unacceptable is for one person to kill/torture another person. Really if we as a society arrived at this stage where we might ponder if killing and torture of people who want to be moral persons is acceptable, then we are truly in a big problem from so many points of view, one obvious is that we would never know when our time to be tortured/killed comes, because in this state anything is possible. I just updated my user page with this link: [18] --HappyInGeneral 14:01, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

As usual, you change the subject to the alleged persecution of practitioners in China, rather than responding directly to my complaint that the Falun Gong is not honest with the public about its teachings. Li says unambiguously that you are not allowed to talk about the teachings at the higher levels when talking with ordinary people, yet even that teaching you seek to obscure. As long as Falun Gong practitioners continue to lie about their beliefs, presenting a false view of their practice to Westerners in order to gain sympathy and support in Master Li's campaign to destroy the CCP, I will speak out. The only way you can truly win me over is to begin to speak honestly about the Dafa and Li's campaign to destroy the CCP. The fact that you seem incapable of doing that is most disturbing to me. You cannot claim to assimilate the principles of Truthfullness, Benevelovence and Forebearance and at the same time lie about your own beliefs. Perhaps I could forgive Li for his intolerant teachings on homosexuality and mixed race people, his claims of supernatural abilities, including his Fashen which supposedly know what his disciples are thinking at all times, and his claims about sickness karma which jeapordize the health of practitioners. Those things might be forgivable in the name of religious freedom. But I cannot forgive the deceptive practices which Li has managed to so well ingrain in his disciples that I suspect you don't even realize when you are being deceptive. I leave it up to any objective third parties to read through these discussions and determine for themselves who is speaking the truth. --Tomananda 18:29, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

I would just like to point out that this discussion has happened many times before - the identical discussion. When I first arrived on this project I tried to explain this to Tomananda, over and over again, and spent a while doing so. I thought of doing it again when I read some of the above. I felt right away "oh, that is just so unfair to claim that, I already responded clearly to that months ago!" What I think is that there won't be any resolution this way. I also think that strictly speaking it does not matter in terms of the articles. I think we should spend our time improving the articles instead of this. There is one thing, though, a request... it may actually mean I need to engage in this conversation again with you, Tomananda, or I can refer you to previous posts, but I do please request that you stop accusing us of not talking frankly about any aspects of the teachings. To say we are covering up and so on, that is really unfair. This is the same thing time and time again, I know, but it is important to clarify once again. Every instance of these conflicts has been one where (let's just say, according to us), you have failed to grasp the part of the teachings you are referring to, without fail on the surface by the way you represent them in words, but even more so in essence, which has escaped you completely. Of course, you may not agree, but it must be told to you again. We practice Falun Dafa, so we know what it is and we know what we are doing. The points of contention have always been with your representation of the teachings, not with representing them per se. You have always aggressively advocated your version of the teachings (putting them right in the introduction, using them definitionally, consistently reverting them - in this case you did not discuss it before complaining to several other editors about my reversion), even when it deviates quite far from what Li Hongzhi has actually said, either in words or in essence. When we try to put it another way you dismiss it, and keep saying that we are trying to cover up. I have been reading the wikipedia policies recently, so later I might point out the parts in them that specifically refer to this - assuming bad faith, thinking other editors are trying to suppress you, that there is a conspiracy against you, that you are here with a mission to expose someone or something, etc. The point of saying this, and my request to you, is that you please just stop making these kinds of claims on the talk pages. It is unproductive, as usually someone responds to it. I think the reason it usually gets a response is because maybe people reading it who do not know the history and who do not know better may believe what you are saying. Every time we go through this it wastes everyone's time. We were coming up with a definition for "Fa-rectification" on other occasion, and we gave you one. Now you are saying we have not. What actually happened was that you dismissed it. This is all recorded on the main Talk page so I am happy to drag it back out. This is not to prove a point to you. The point of this is to please ask you to stop these kinds of conflicts, stop making these posts about "the dark side" of Falun Gong that you are here to expose and stop saying that we are lying about everything. There are lots more productive things we can do with our time, and on these pages. --Asdfg12345 20:41, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

"To say we are covering up and so on, that is really unfair." I think it would be more to the point to just say innaccurate, as opposed to fair or unfair. Maybe I'm just being to picky with words....

Li says The Dafa is judging all beings

Asdfg and Happy in General: Please stop this game of deceit. I have directly quoted Li, and now those direct quotes are deleted because "they don't appear in the scriptures"? Here are the direct quotes:

Mankind! Awaken! The vows of gods in history are being fulfilled. The Dafa is judging all beings. :“Further Comments on Superstitions” (July 13, 1999) in Essentials for Further Advancement II.[19]

So what this says is, the goal of Dafa disciples' clarifying the truth during this period is to save people and eliminate the poisoning of people by those old elements and by the vile party's evil specters. The reason is, the old forces are to be weeded out during Fa-rectification, the vile party and the evil specters will likewise be weeded out for sure, and all who have a hand in what they do will be weeded out. This is a law laid down in Fa-rectification, and it has to be done this way. Teaching the Fa in Canada (6/10/2006) [20]

The second quote has direct relevance to the history of the Epoch Times because it explains what motivation of the Epoch Times practitioner/editors is. You may not like this information to be reported hear, but it does meet Wikipedia standards for sourced material which is notable and relevant to the subject matter. I ask you to stop blanking this material. And Asdfg, I thought you were going to stop blanking...why the sudden change? --Tomananda 23:36, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

nono, I said I won't do that revert for the rest of feb. we'll figure out a good way to discuss the relationship of the paper to the salvation of sentient beings. giving pov definitions of "Dafa" won't cut it. I saw one version which was sort of okay, but introducing a range of concepts that need further explanation to be meaningful is not good for the reader (wicked specters, old forces in particular, no one knows what that is without explanation). When you abandon your paranoia that im trying to cover things up we'll work better together. wait, i might respond to your other thing below, i haven't read it yet.--Asdfg12345 23:55, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Asdfg, I am not paranoid, but I am honest. And when a practitioner blatantly lies to justify the blanking of relevant sourced material, I feel it needs to be addressed. Most recently, Happy in General actually claimed that my Li quotes "do not appear in the scriptures" in her edit summary. Frankly, I have become accustomed to this level of mandacity. Li teaches you to lie (or at least conceal the truth), and so I shouldn't expect to change that behavior merely by pointing it out when it occurs. To put it bluntly, you cannot meet your obligations of being a Wikipedia editor if you insist on concealing the teachings at the higher levels. If you want me to trust you at all, I ask you to state you do not accept Li's speech limitations when talking to ordinary people. Specifically, I ask that you state for the record that will not obey Li's instruction that you must not talk about the teachings at the higher levels to ordinary people. Here's one of the direct quotes to remind you: "So when you clarify the truth you absolutely must not speak at too high of a level." Do you feel cofortable disobeying that directive for the good of Wikipedia? --Tomananda 00:07, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Just to show how twisted you are, I said: "I searched in the two references you provided but none of the text like: “Great Law of the cosmos” and "is judging all beings" can be found in them." and indeed if anyone takes a look at that version of the page [21] will see that those terms were not sourced. And I really object in using terms like “Great Law of the cosmos” and "is judging all beings" without them being sourced because that can easily lead to confusion. And yes confusion is your game, just read my points above when I proved with quotes that your interpretation of the "exercises not being really" important and how the context of you quotes are actually something that is relevant, both of which you choose to ignore by saying that I avoided your points talking again about the persecution, if you notice that was in a PS note were I was actually thanking you. --HappyInGeneral 12:33, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

How dare you call me "twisted"!!! Can you ever get beyond your devotion to Li Hongzhi to see that I a human being worthy of respect? Are you capable of that? Yes, the link for that quote was incorrect and I fixed it in the last revision. But the fact that an incorrect footnote was there does not justify your having deleted it with the explanation: "this quote is not in the scriptures." If you are not sure what the source of a Li quote is, you should just say so. And you didn't prove anything in your post about the exercises...See my earlier post above in which I actually compare the exact words form Li to the words I used in the edit. --Tomananda 18:25, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

With regards to the exercises, these are the words I see you use to try to prove they aren't important:

"Why do I tell you to study, read, and memorize Zhuan Falun? It is to guide your cultivation practice! As to those who only do the exercises but do not study the Fa, they are not disciples of Dafa whatsoever." Essentials for Further Advancement, English Version (September 6, 1996)

This statement does not say that the exercises are not important, nor does it support that claim. It says only that practitioners also need to read and study Li Hongzhi's teachings. On this point, Happy in General seems to be right. If you disagree, you will need to find a better argument. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.75.247.239 (talk) 07:19, 17 February 2007 (UTC).

I'll only answer to say I am not going to answer this kind of thing any more, and suggest you stop saying these kinds of things too. We have really thoroughly thrashed this out more than once. I still haven't learnt my lesson. Okay, I hope to say from now on you won't get this from me anymore. I hope to present only comments related directly to the content of the article, and no more. --Asdfg12345 01:09, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Actually, Asdfg, you've never answered this question, which I think is reasonable since we are talking about doing edits which report Falun Gong teachings at the higher levels. By "higher levels" Li seems to mean those teachings which pertain to Fa-rectification and who is worthy of being saved by his Dafa. Those are his words, not mine. So let me ask this question one more time, using different language: As an editor for Wikipedia, are you willing to say that you will not be limited in your edits on the Fa-rectification and salvation by Li's statements concerning what Falun Gong practitioners are supposed to talk about when clarifying the truth with ordinary people? That's really all I am asking and surely you can see how the question relates directly to our dispute about content. --Tomananda 03:13, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

An overriding principle I have when talking about Dafa is to use wisdom. That is to be understood with one's self. So when I meet regular people and I only have 5 minutes with them there would be no sense talking about universal salvation, there would be no way to explain such big metaphysical concepts in a few words... I probably don't need to say more, as the innappropriateness of such an approach should appear obvious to any reasonable person. I am not sure if you are advocating that we take that approach, and start talking to the general public about Fa-rectification, and that while the Buddha Fa is being persecuted every being is choosing its own future -- are you suggesting we adopt that approach? Do you think that would be an effective way of having people understand the persecution and Falun Gong? Just take those as rhetorical questions. I do want you to answer them. I keep telling you we have never advocated the censoring of any content. It is the way you are presenting it that we have a problem with. Anyway, this will be resolved and I will have a look at this soon and come up with something. What I envisage is a paragraph or something mentions that the paper is playing a role of saving sentient beings, which is pertinent. Nothing like "Dafa" or "Fa-rectification" should be defined in a few words, maybe an embedded link to an explanation on another page would be a good approach. I see many wikiarticles doing this when complex subjects are involved. Okay, I will look soon. I tell you once more: it is not my intention to hide any of the teachings on wikipedia or anything like that. I don't think you have realised it yet. We think this is the most righteous and best and most wonderful thing ever, do you think we are ashamed of it or something? The problem is with a misreporting or incorrect reporting, so as long as that is avoided it is fine. I have said this before so now I will try to come up with something for this section. Thanks.--Asdfg12345 21:27, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Li asks: What kind of being is worthy of salvation by the Great Law of the cosmos?

Hey, the word Dafa is Chinese for "great law." But Li sometimes adds "of the cosmos." Here's one quote, do I need to find more? Will you ever give up this charade of blanking Li quotes about the Dafa and Fa-rectification. By the way, would you care to answer Li's question for the readers? The question is: What kind of being is worthy of salvation by the Great Law of the cosmos?

Why is it that a being needs to be saved by Dafa and me personally? Or to put it plainly [think about it] what kind of being is worthy of salvation by the Great Law of the cosmos? For a being who is saved, could it just be about personal Consumation? So what kind of being deserves to be a Disciple of Dafa? Would you say those people who hide in their homes and “study the Fa” do? Or those who only want to gain from Dafa but don’t want to give to Dafa? Furthermore, what about those who, while Dafa disciples are being persecuted, don’t want to speak up for Dafa yet still “read the book” at home and try t get things from Dafa—what kind of people are they? You be the judge. from: “My Version of a ‘Stick Wake-up’” (October 11, 2004) http://faluncanada.net/library/english/jw/jw041011_e.html --Tomananda 23:44, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Tomananda, you probably don't care what I think of you, but sometimes I just feel like your heart is not sincere when you write things such as the above. If there is a little truth to that, please consciously try to raise the standard. If not, let me please apologise and just say this: I have responded to this, once on the main talk page, and once right above. Actually, I won't say it again here, just read what I said earlier. You have either deliberately or unconsciously misrepresented the teachings in the way you have used that quote. I won't accuse you of anything. I am just drawing it to your attention. This is the third time now, actually. (Also, I never did that revert since I said I would not.)

I also want to draw your attention to something important. This is very relevant to you. I have recently been familiarising myself with the ArbCom policies. I think a couple of these points from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration_policy/Past_decisions#Neutral_point_of_view_.28and_associated_principles.29, are directly relevant to you:

• Wikipedia articles should contain information regarding the subject of the article; they are not a platform for advocacy regarding one or another point of view regarding the topic. Sweeping generalizations which label the subject of an article as one thing or another are inappropriate and not a substitute for adequate research regarding details of actual positions and actions which can speak for themselves.
• Injection of personal viewpoints regarding the subject of an article is inappropriate and not to be resolved by debate among the editors of an article, but referenced from reputable outside resources. See Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Neutral point of view.
• Wikipedia's Neutral Point of View policy contemplates including only significant published viewpoints regarding a subject. It does not extend to novel viewpoints developed by Wikipedia editors which have not been independently published in other venues.

By the way, have you read WP:TE?? You might want to check that out too. We can resolve our content issues without too much problem. You raise good points and I acknowledge them. I just wish you could acknowledge some of the things I say to you.--Asdfg12345 00:59, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

I understand that you think I am "injecting my personal viewpoint" when I insert direct quotes from Li on relevant topics, but does that really make sense? I guess you could accuse me of bias for picking one quote over another, but I have offered up multiple quotes on multiple occassions. The current editing issue here is how best to present a brief explanation of the Dafa which relates to what Li has already said about the misssion of his disciples who founded the Epoch Times in order to validate the Fa. That's what Li says, not me, and he also says that his disciples during this period of Fa-rectification have certain duties concerning their relationship with the Chinese Communist Party. I have provided a very succinct quote from Li which captures the major points about that. In response to my inserting that quote, you accuse me of "injecting my personal viewpoint." How can that be? It seems to me that it is your obligation to point out, specifically, why that quote is not relevant to the History of the Epoch Times. It's interesting that instead of talking about the contenct of this quote, you are attacking me for allegedly "injecting my personal viewpoint." What's wrong with this picture? --Tomananda 02:56, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

I see the relevance of making the Falun Dafa connection early on, but I think you've gone overboard. This article, and especially the very beginning, is not a place to start including quotes defining "the goal of a Fa-Rectification Dafa disciple". At most, this page should make reference to Fa-Rectification, which can then be linked to an appropriate section on the teachings page where it is documented completely. The fact is that this subject is far too complicated to try to summarise it at the beginning of the Epoch Times page. You are running into so much opposition with these edits because we don't believe that people can properly understand these concepts with the little bit you're quoting, while at the same time this isn't the place to be talking about this subject at length. When the teachings page opens up I will make a point of starting a section on the Fa-Rectification. Then we can have a chance to lay it all out, and say as much as we think is necessary. Then, when we provide this hyperlink, people can read all about it. That's how things are generally done on wikipedia.

As for saying that Dafa is "saving all sentient beings in the process called Fa-Rectification". We could also say that Dafa is the "Law of the universe - Truth, Compassion, Forbearance - that created all life". This is a much more straightforward and clearer explanation of Dafa. We could also say that it's the law that Mr. Li teaches. It's not like your little summary is the only way that this term can be understood. And if it's not the only way that it can be understood, then it's a pov. The only way to do it is to provide the whole picture (or a summary of it), or link it to a place that does so. And, just like I was mentioning above, I don't think the beginning of the ET page is the place to provide the whole picture.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to "cover-up" Mr. Li's teachings. There is a place and context for them, but for what you want to include, that place isn't here. I appologize if I don't get back to you right away, I don't have access to internet where I'll be staying for the next couple of weeks. Mcconn 07:47, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

HappyInGeneral, a practitioner editor, recently left me a note telling me what blanking is. The following is his message:

Samuel, if you remove sourced material, that is blanking:

Blanking: Removing all or significant parts of pages or replacing entire established pages with one's own version without first gaining consensus both constitute vandalism. Sometimes important verifiable references are deleted with no valid reason(s) given in the summary. However, significant content removals are usually not considered to be vandalism where the reason for the removal of the content is readily apparent by examination of the content itself, or where a non-frivolous explanation for the removal of apparently legitimate content is provided, linked to, or referenced in an edit summary. An example of blanking edits that could be legitimate would be edits that blank all or part of a biography of a living person. Wikipedia is especially concerned about providing accurate and non-biased information on the living, and this may be effort to remove inaccurate or biased material. Due to the possibility of unexplained good-faith content removal, template:test1a or template:blank, as appropriate, should normally be used as initial warnings for ordinary content removals not involving any circumstances that would merit stronger warnings.

This is from WP:VANDAL page. --HappyInGeneral 13:09, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Accoring to this rule what you practitioners are doing violate Wiki rules, please stop removing Li’s quote, a sourced material.--Samuel Luo 06:09, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Actually, it seems McConn has just provided you with a non-frivolous explanation for its removal, and has suggested a few substitutions. I think a few of his suggested substitutions are biased, but so is the one you and Tomananda have been pushing (its context does not neutrally represent all possible views and interpretations). I think McConn is correct in suggesting a minimal explanation with a link to further explanation of Dafa's teaching, especially given the subject's apparent volatility. The only thing left to do is find this minimal explanation, but it doesn't seem anyone has gotten far enough removed from arguing to productively discuss the options that have been/could be suggested.

McConn's claim that by inserting this particular Li quote I have gone "overboard" must be based on something other than the basic content of the quote, which is a clear statement of what Li considers the goal of his disciples, including the founders of the Falun Gong. If this particular quote is "overboard" I suspect it's because of its style of language and grandiosity. However, I did not select it for those reasons, but rather because it does go to the question of why the Epoch Times was founded in the first place, and gives a pretty clear picture of the goals that motiviate Li's disciples. There is a long history of Falun Gong practitioners rejecting out of hand any and all edits I have ever inserted on Fa-rectification and their role as "Fa-rectrification period Dafa disiples." I have tried both direct and indirect quotes from the Master, as well as using my own language, closely following Li's and supported by footnotes. The bottom line is this: no matter what is inserted, certain material relating to the teachings at the higher levels has always, eventually, been deleted by the practitioners. Regardles of why, that is the case. I am open to converting this Li quote to a shorter indirect quote, or to finding another quote, or for coming up with our own agreed upon language. However, I strongly argue that this information is essential for an understanding of the rationale for the history and very existence of the Epoch Times. BTW: whose post is this anyway? --Tomananda 21:34, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

PS. Forgot to include this Epoch Times link which clearly shows the connection between the goals of the Epoch Times and the elimination of the CCP: [22] --Tomananda 00:01, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

What does "validating the Fa" mean for the Falun Gong practitioners who run Epoch Times?

Falun Gong practitioners Asdfg and McConn have challenged the insertion of this Li Hongzhi quote in the Epoch Times page, under the section "History":

In a 2006 speech, Li stated that the goal of his “Fa-rectification period Dafa disciples” while clarifying the truth is “to save people and eliminate the poisoning of people by those old elements and by the vile party's evil specters. The reason is, the old forces are to be weeded out during Fa-rectification, the vile party (CCP) and the evil specters will likewise be weeded out for sure, and all who have a hand in what they do will be weeded out. This is a law laid down in Fa-rectification, and it has to be done this way."

I have argued repeatedly that without this quote, or one similar to it in content, the reader will not understand the spiritual/religious goals of Falun Gong practioners who manage and edit the Epoch Times. To date, no practitioner has offered a better quote from Li, or their own wording that clearly explains the motivation and goals of the Epoch Times practitoners. Instead, they continually delete my edit and attack me personally (Asdfg has called me "inarticulate" and "paranoid", while Happy in General has called me "twisted"). Clearly, Li Hongzhi himself understands what their goals should be, and has made statements to that effect, but at least two FG practitioner editors for Wikipedia, McConn and Asdfg, continue to challenge this material without offering an alternative of their own.

I am doing this post for two reasons: 1) to summarize the main points on both sides and 2) to request our mediator, Armedblowfish, to intervene and offer his judgment. Summary of main points:

1. The History of the Epoch Times section correctly reports that in Li Hongzhi's opinion, the Epoch Times was created by his disciples for the purpose of "validating the Fa."

2. The same section also correctly reports that the Epoch Times functions as the platform for the promulgation of the Nine Commentaries, a document which attacks the Chinese Communist Party and demands that it be eliminated.

3. The Li Hongzhi quote is extremely relevant to the Epoch Times page because it explains the link between Li Hongzhi's teachings on Fa-rectification and the goals of the Epoch Times. To merely report that the Epoch Times was created to "validate the Fa" is not sufficient for an understanding of the History of the Epoch Times. Why, for example, does the Epoch Times function as a platform for the Nine Commentaries? Is it just because the editors of the Epoch Times don't like the Chinese Communist Party? Or is there more to the story?

4. In the above quote, Master Li Hongzhi, whose personal intervention is needed for the salvation of all Falun Gong practitioners (that includes his practitioners who founded and now run the Epoch Times), clearly explains what the goal of these practitioners must be in relationship to the continued existence of the Chinese Communist Party.

5. To summarize Li's main points from the quote:

• The goal of Falun Gong practitioners is to save people; and
• to eliminate the poisoning of people by...the vile party's evil specters; and
• Among the categories of beings who will be weeded out during Li's Fa-rectification are:

• the old forces
• the vile party (CCP)
• the evil specters
• and all those who have a hand in what they do.

Thus this quote, using Li Hongzhi's own words, clearly explains the rationale for the very existence ot the Epoch Times...a newspaper which actively promotes the elimination of the Chinese Communist Party in a variety of ways, including promulgation of the Nine Commentaries and soliciting on-line resignations from the CCP both in Chinese and English.

6. Against these arguments, FG practitioners claim that:

• This quote does not fit into the context of the Epoch Times page;
• The quote does not fully explain Li's theories of Fa-rectifaction;
• My insertion of this quote constitutes some kind of violation of Wikipedia policy which Asdfg threatens to take to the Arbitration Committee

7. Here's my response to those claims:

• The quote (or some substitute language that has yet to be proposed by any FG practitioner) is fundamental for an understanding of the mission of the Epoch Times
• I agree that this quote does not fully explain all the complexities of the Fa Rectification, but strongly argue that it is appropriate for the Epoch Times page. Yes, Asdfg, I know that you proposed some language for the introduction section of the main Falun Gong page, but that is a different issue. I am actually in favor of adding more exposition about the Fa-rectification on the main page, as well as the page called "Teachings of the Falun Gong." But for the Epoch Times page, all that is needed is a brief statement about the goal of Falun Gong practitioners who manage the Epoch Times..that is, their goal of saving people and helping with the Fa-rectification process which will ultimately eliminate the entire CCP and all its helpers.
• Finally, it is absurd to argue that I am violating any Wikipedia policy to insert edits on this subject, especially since my edits are direct quotes from your Master, and are clearly relevant to this topic of the History of the Epoch Times.

Armedblowfish: this endless back-and-forth is intolerable. I ask that you intervene on this issue as soon as possible. --Tomananda 19:34, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

I said I would not remove it again. We will come up with something appropriate. I am sorry if we have caused you distress, and it was never my intention. I have tried to be genial, but it is difficult, so I apologise if I have been sharp with you. I don't recall calling you "inarticulate". --Asdfg12345 21:33, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

I can’t help but feel that making so many connections without a secondary source is original research. Your argument is A+B+C=D.

• A) The people who established Epoch Times are Dafa disciples
• B) Right now is the Fa-Rectification period
• C) Fa-Rectification period Dafa disciples’ goal is x.
• Therefore D) the people who established ET have goal x, which is why they have a y bias.

This seems to fit the definition of sythesis; combining primary sources in order to form your own an argument. While it is a logical connection, so is the example used in the explanation of synthesis. The basic rule of sythesis is as follows:

Editors often make the mistake of thinking that if A is published by a reliable source, and B is published by a reliable source, then A and B can be joined together in an article in order to advance position C. However, this would be an example of a new synthesis of published material serving to advance a position, and as such it would constitute original research.

If you had a source that claimed that ET has an anti-ccp stance (their y bias) because of goal x, then that would be totally acceptable, but I think that without this secondary source you are doing original research.

Here is what I propose for the content in question:

As stated by Li Hongzhi, the founder of Falun Gong (also known as Falun Dafa), the Epoch Times "was established by Dafa disciples for validating the Fa." The term Dafa disciple refers to practitioners of Falun Dafa.

As you can see, the term “validating the Fa” will be linked to a future section on the teachings page that will explain this concept (and naturally in context of the Fa-Rectification). This eliminates the need to define the term “Fa”. I think you want to define “Fa” in the way you have because it mentions Fa-Rectification, and thus makes it easier to draw the connection you had following (which I’ve argued above as OR). However, as I’ve said, it is a pov definition, and not wholly accurate. And we can’t use an inaccurate definition simply because it helps connect two points.

--Mcconn 09:50, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

I would like to add to this, just copying the first point from Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#Identity:

Identity

This is perhaps an area where Wikipedians’ flexibility and plurality are an asset, and where we would not want all pages to look exactly alike. Wikipedia’s neutral point of view and no original research policies always take precedence. However, here are some nonbinding guidelines that may help:

• Where known, use terminology that subjects use for themselves (self-identification). This can mean using the term an individual uses for himself or herself, or using the term a group most widely uses for itself. This includes referring to transgender individuals according to the names and pronouns they use to identify themselves.

The way the information about the role of the paper is presented, using the quote from Li Hongzhi, is in the context of defining "Dafa". Definitions are not for this purpose. I am not here making a comment directed at the information you propose in and of itself, Tomamanda -- Mcconn has already said something about that -- but only the way it has been presented. This may be a redundant message in light of Mcconn's post above. Aside from this, in cases where validating the Fa, Fa-rectification, clarifying the truth, or other specific terms are mentioned, I think those words should be embedded links to somewhere on the Main Page, or a glossary, where one definition is given for each term based strictly on Li Hongzhi's words. I think that would be a simple and clear way way to deal with this ongoing conflict around definitions, especially in these kinds of situations. Of course, the relevant information should certainly be reported, and I think doing it this way only allows it to be reported more clearly and with less difficulty. I will stick to what I said and not remove the section in question until the end of Feb. Hopefully we can put something relevant, in accordance with wikipedia policies, in at that time. --Asdfg12345 18:10, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

I just want to add that I am not talking about removing this content altogether, and my earlier statement about it being relevant stands. If there is some primary source, direct material that can be used without violating original research we should report it appropriately.--Asdfg12345 19:27, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Your assertion that the Li quote amounts to a "synthesis" is unfounded, and ultimately we will need a ruling from the mediator on this because the quote (or one like it) is needed to explain what "Validating the Fa" means in this context. I can't help but say, once again, that you are trying to conceal the teachings at a higher level. It's interesting that despite all your citation of Wikipedia policy on this edit, neither one of you actually claim it is an incaccurate representation. It's clear to me that you are trying to obscure this information by having embedded links. As I said before, I am open to alternative quotes or alternative wording, but I am not open to omitting this information from the History section for the Epoch Times. And one more point: you have introduced the word "biased" for the motivation of the Epoch Times editors. I am not suggesting we make a characterization of their motivations, other than to directy report what Li himself says about their role as his disciples. Would some other editors who are not FG practitioners please weigh in on this debate? Fire Star, what are your thoughts on this? --Tomananda 21:09, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Actually, you do need to respond to what Mcconn has said and not dismiss it. The reason I have not come up with anything is because as I read the jingwen, when I come across parts related to this I will make note of them. I am reading them now, and I mentioned I won't make a move until March. Then when I have a few things noted down I will write something based strictly on them. Mcconn has demonstrated that what you are proposing is in essence a synthesis, and that is based directly on WP:OR. Fire Star is certainly not a neutral observer. Fire Star has violated wikipedia policies on this and other Falun Gong pages in her editing (I can show clear examples if you like), and has made comments on the talk pages unbefitting an admin (I can show you those too). It is interesting that you appeal to her as a neutral voice. Besides, no one can just sweep aside policy and add content based on their opinions. These policies serve as an objective, absolute benchmark about the content that goes on wikipedia. Mcconn's objections stand.

It is a little too much when you say we are trying to obscure information by having embedded links. There should be definitely be a central definition for these terms. It is not fitting for an encyclopedia to either 1) reproduce the whole definition every time or 2) give different definitions on different occasions.

Aside from that, back to the other thing, what we need to do about this situation is find words of Li Hongzhi directly saying "the purpose of the paper is such and such and such", or words very directly expressing the relationship of the paper to some aspect of the teachings -- salvation of sentient beings, Fa-rectification, whatever. Mcconn has, in direct reference to the relevant policy, demonstrated that it is a violation of OR to make a logical synthesis of two statements. So we have to find something direct and explicit instead. --Asdfg12345 21:41, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Asdfg: I have responded to McConn's argument, but since you want more I'll cite the same source McConn cites on Original Research in the form of "synthesis". Here's the relevant section in its entriely:

==Synthesis of published material serving to advance a position==

Editors often make the mistake of thinking that if A is published by a reliable source, and B is published by a reliable source, then A and B can be joined together in an article in order to advance position C. However, this would be an example of a new synthesis of published material serving to advance a position, and as such it would constitute original research. "A and B, therefore C" is acceptable only if a reliable source has published this argument in relation to the topic of the article.

Here is an example from a Wikipedia article, with the names changed. The article was about Jones:

Smith says that Jones committed plagiarism by copying references from another book.

Jones denies this, and says it's acceptable scholarly practice to use other people's books to find new references.

That much is fine. Now comes the unpublished synthesis of published material:

If Jones's claim that he consulted the original sources is false, this would be contrary to the practice recommended in the Chicago Manual of Style, which requires citation of the source actually consulted. The Chicago Manual of Style does not call violating this rule "plagiarism." Instead, plagiarism is defined as using a source's information, ideas, words, or structure without citing them.

This entire paragraph is original research, because it expresses the editor's opinion that, given the Chicago Manual of Style's definition of plagiarism, Jones did not commit it. To make the paragraph consistent with this policy, a reliable source is needed that specifically comments on the Smith and Jones dispute and makes the same point about the Chicago Manual of Style and plagiarism. In other words, that precise analysis must have been published by a reliable source in relation to the topic before it can be published in Wikipedia.

In the example above, the editor has reached a conclusion based on two difference sources. He expresses that conclusion in the form of an "if" "then" statement:

If Jone's claim that....is false, this would be contrary to...., which requires that....." etc.

In my edit, I have neither drawn my own conclusion about anything, nor have I made an argument that if this is true, than that is true. Rather, I have simply inserted a complete Li Hongzhi quote which speaks to the question: What does he think the goal of his disciples is now? There is no reasonable way that you can say the insertion of that quote represents my opinion or personal POV. At best, you could argue that it is not relevant to the subject matter, but that would be a different argument. So if you are trying to make a case that the quote needs to be deleted, you need to come up with a better justification than just saying it is POV. Perhaps we simply will never agree on this, which is why I said we need to seek outside opinion. I proposed that Fire Star respond because she is an adminitrator who is well versed in these Wikipedia policies. However, a response from our Mediator, Armedblowfish, would be just fine. --Tomananda 22:48, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Tomananda, I am sorry, but the mediation is currently on hold due to the Arbitration case. — Armed Blowfish (mail) 05:19, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I am glad we can discuss this rationally. I do want to cooperate. I make this page here Talk:The Epoch Times/History section attempt where we can edit freely and come up with something. I will write something now. We can keep the discussion about it on this page, maybe.--Asdfg12345 23:00, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Okay it is probably better if we continue the discussion on that page. Feel free to modify the section or whatever. We can discuss further the best way to approach this. I have some ideas.--Asdfg12345 00:17, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Removal of {{Fact}} tagged content

After just taking a look at the article, I noticed a whole lot of content, particularly in the nine commentaries section, that has been {{Fact}} tagged for a couple weeks. I propose that this content be given two more days before it is removed. This gives any editors still concerned with keeping it enough time (on top of the two weeks they've already had) to source it. Mcconn 10:37, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Before making edits in History section, please see other Epoch Times talk page

There is currently a discussion about edits in the History section. Please refer to it and make comments or post edit changes there, rather than on the main Epoch Times page. The special talk page is at: [23] --Tomananda 20:12, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Can a newspaper cutout be counted as reference?

Just wondering. I have a page of Epoch Times here, and there is a trivial article mentioning an egg laying rooster in a Chinese village. That author claimed that this symbolises the coming fall of the CCP.--PCPP 02:36, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Your question is too unclear for me to be able to ascertain what you are in fact inquiring about. __meco 09:17, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Reader's opinion should not be quoted as the paper's claim

I removed the quote in line 65 and the relevant link because it was quoted from a reader's opinion. There is an editorial comment right below the article saying that "this article represents only the author's opinions and descriptions".Withmany 09:24, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

tags

I have removed tags placed by Falun Gong-practitioner-editors who have not provided any justification for using them. --Samuel Luo 23:37, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Please take a look to this diff [24] here is visible that the justification is done in place, so when you removed the tags you removed the reasoning as well and now you complain that there is no justification for them? You know that most likely you will be banned, so now you rampantly just disrupt stuff? Anyway since you complained about it, let me put it also on the discussion page. --HappyInGeneral 12:07, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

{{fixpov}} added to the following section, because it's a selective definition, more information you can find on this talk page

According to the newspaper itself, The Epoch Times was founded in New York in May 2000, following the arrest of a small circle of journalists in China in 2000. As stated by Li Hongzhi, the founder of Falun Gong (also known as Falun Dafa), the Epoch Times "was established by Dafa disciples for validating the Fa." The term Dafa disciple refers to practitioners of Falun Dafa. The term Fa refers to Li’s “Great Law of the cosmos”

{{POVassertion|Talk:The_Epoch_Times/History_section_attempt}} was added for the following section, see Talk:The_Epoch_Times/History_section_attempt

In a 2006 speech, Li stated that the goal of his “Fa-rectification period Dafa disciples” while clarifying the truth is “to save people and eliminate the poisoning of people by those old elements and by the vile party's evil specters. The reason is, the old forces are to be weeded out during Fa-rectification, the vile party [CCP] and the evil specters will likewise be weeded out for sure, and all who have a hand in what they do will be weeded out. This is a law laid down in Fa-rectification, and it has to be done this way."

{{Failed verification|date=March 2007}} was added because in none of the sources provided can be found a statement such as "Great Law of the cosmos is judging all beings", even though they are presented in different quotes a connection (which is Original Reasearch) is implied suggesting that this is all that the Great Law of the cosmos is doing is judging beings, now this is grossly wrong.

The term Dafa disciple refers to practitioners of Falun Dafa. The term Fa refers to Li’s “Great Law of the cosmos” which “is judging all beings” in a process called Fa-rectification.

--HappyInGeneral 12:27, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

PS: If you would like any more clarification, please ask and we will gladly give it to you. --HappyInGeneral 12:30, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Justification for removing three tags in the first paragraph of the history section. 1. There can not be any POV when directly quoting Li; he does call his Fa “the Great Law of the cosmos.” 2. As reference 6 & 7 show Li does claim that his great law of the cosmos is judging humankind. 3. There is no Neutrality dispute when directly quoting Li. --Samuel Luo 00:05, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Samuel, even removing legitimate tags? You have got to be kidding. Do you realise how egregious your editing behaviour is? I am reverting your edit and I urge you to desist. Do you realise you are looking at an indefinite ban, for exactly this sort of behaviour? Please be rational. The section is question is highly disputed and does not even belong on the page until discussion is finished and an appropriate way of presenting the material is decided. I gave up on the revert war with Tomananda once I learned the rules and found out there are consequences for nasty editing behaviour. The tags are perfectly legitimate and you are stepping way over the mark in removing them.--Asdfg12345 00:12, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

You have added these tags to mulitple pages without giving any justification. Tagging material that you don't like as POV is not legitimate. I hope a admin can provide some advise here. --Samuel Luo 19:43, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Samuel, the justification is provided above, if you don't like it take it to mediation. We are not touching the content, so it would be civil and in the spirit of collaboration and attempt for consent to leave those tags until we worked them out through mediation. --HappyInGeneral 15:06, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

you are adding these tags according to your own pov. Let the admins add them when necessary. --Samuel Luo 15:51, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Better yet, show me an administrator who disagrees with them. You posted a question on why the tags are present, this was answered inline (in the tags you removed) and now even on this talk page, so I would think that your question was answered. And you might know by now that Wikipedia articles is not edited solely by Administrators, so your request is fundamentally flawed. Anyway we'll work out everything in mediation. --HappyInGeneral 16:28, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

show me any admin agrees to addding these tags. Both pro and anti Falun Gong editors have strong opinions thus I suggest that we refrain from adding tags ourselves. --Samuel Luo 04:24, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Actually the tags are here to show exactly what you are saying that there is no consensus. Hopefully a consensus will be reached during the mediation process. --HappyInGeneral 06:13, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

you are adding way tooo many tags to FG related articles without good reason. --Yueyuen 03:26, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

See above for reason, and other then that define what's good reason. --HappyInGeneral 04:46, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Speaking of removing things, I remember adding the finaincal link between Epoch Times and Falun Gong leadership, but the financial section seems to have disappeared.

Here are the non-profit declarations again:

Here's the money trail found in non-profit declarations (Form 990, Page 2, Part III c):

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/2004/760/692/2003-760692185-1-9.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

(These are but two examples of the hundreds of FLG non-profits in US.)

Moderator please add this to the main page, I stand by my research and welcome any corrections. Bobby fletcher 11/25, 14 May 2007 (PST)

Your point being? I think it's quite normal for any association to make some investments ... don't you think? --HappyInGeneral 00:12, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

These Falun Dafa associations are non-profit in themselves, of course. How would they earn money when everything related to Falun Dafa is free of charge? In fact, the money comes from people who have wanted to make donations to the Epoch Times from their personal salaries. Especially Western Falun Gong practitioners are generally well off and relatively highly educated. Because the Epoch Times is experiencing financial difficulties, many practitioners voluntarily want to support it by all means. Did you know that practically all Epoch Times employees work for free? They have their own day jobs and the newspaper to take care of. ✔ Olaf Stephanos ✍ 00:36, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Wikiproject: Propaganda?

"A WikiProject, or Wikiproject, is the organization of a group of participants in a wiki established in order to achieve specific editing goals, or to achieve goals relating to a specific field of knowledge." The article's weakest point is media organizations that charge each other as propaganda. The evidence usually doesn't exceed name calling but the affect can be dramatic with readers who are easily fooled. Moreover most readers can be fooled.

Good information is difficult to obtain. The public can use wikipedia to gain a basic understanding of a steam locomotive but when national strategies include the use of weaponized propaganda information is tightly limited. There is a need for a group "dedicated to achieve goals relating to understanding media and propaganda". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.221.42.186 (talk) 14:11, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

If you want to create a WikiProject, you would need to:

1. Register a user account.
2. Spend some time (e.g. months) getting familiar with Wikipedia editing. This step is optional, but advisable if you want to be taken seriously when proposing a new WikiProject.
3. Seek advice at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Council.
4. Then read Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Guide#Creating a WikiProject to learn how to make a formal proposal.

Best, --MarioGom (talk) 14:27, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

CBC editors notes

This is regarding this revert

@Liketheory: Hello.

In order for this content to be encyclopedically significant (WP:DUE), it should be contextualized by reliable, independent sources. Using one opinion column as an example introduces WP:OR into the article. Additionally, opinion columns should not typically be used for disputed factual claims without a specific reason, and even then it's rare. This source is arguably not reliable for this detail, and is also undue weight. If a reliable sources explains that this opinion column lead to the these notes, use that source. Otherwise, this is not directly supported by the cited source.

As for the editorial notes, the significance of this is also not established. This is common practice for breaking news, and is often seen as a good thing, since it indicates editorial oversight and fact checking is in place. It is not up to editors to tell readers which sources are significant, or what to make of them. We need to summarize reliable, independent sources without adding inadvertent editorializing. To put it another way, if in doubt, explain what sources directly say, not what you think they imply. Thanks. Grayfell (talk) 23:40, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

Edit semi-protected

Edit suggestion for "Notable Coverage" > "Misinformation on COVID-19":

Unsolicited "Special Editions" with the same title have now been sent to UK addresses as well in the month of May.

https://www.heraldseries.co.uk/news/18429293.epoch-times-conspiracy-news-sent-oxfordshire-councillors/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stevestevestevebobjane (talk • contribs) 17:19, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: "Special Editions" was not verified. Please provide another source if possible. Thank you. {{replyto|Can I Log In}}'s talk page! 19:31, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 June 2020

In the Notable Coverage section there is a spelling error. Change minisformation to misinformation 2601:645:4300:11B6:5436:4BE0:A255:BCDB (talk) 03:12, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

 Done. Thanks. Grayfell (talk) 03:30, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

Rollback?

Some good-faith edits to the article by a user on June 10 deleted info from RS, introduced grammatical errors and WP:OR, and reorganized the article without an explanation. Other editors have since fixed some of the new errors but there have been no substantive additions. Rollback? -- Llll5032 —Preceding undated comment added 20:24, June 12, 2020‎

Yes, rollback sounds good. I noticed that the edits also changed "COVID-19 misinformation" to "COVID-19". --Hob Gadling (talk) 13:30, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

I do not support Rollback.　 (1)I did not introduce "WP:OR" but tried to make article systematic and neat.　If you found there is anything wrong, would you please remind me to fix it? (2)about Covid-19, I placed the issue under "llegations and criticisms".(changed into "Reception" by another user) . (3) Besides, China's Communist Party conducted COVID-19 cover-up and misinformation campaign. I live in Taiwan Asia. I'd like to say that many Epochtimes's reports on Covid-19 issue were　also reported by many other media outlets including mainstream media. Because CCP covered up the virus truth and blocked info, so Taiwan media tried to dig out as much information as possible, including the leaks form China or discussions on internet, sometimes there was inaccurate or wrong info. Epochtimes published many exclusive reports that disclosed Covid-19 situation in China covered up by CCP.(4)and why Taiwan Government can do right ting earlier? because a CDC Officer surf internet and read a netizen's post info, then suspected CCP Regime covering the human-to-human infection epidemic. Wetrace (talk) 13:53, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

about misinfomation, I'd like to share my reading experience, for example, this case in Article.

"A story in The Epoch Times on February 17, 2020, shared a map from the internet that falsely alleged massive sulfur dioxide releases from crematoriums during the COVID-19 pandemic in China, speculating that 14,000 bodies may have been burned.[86][87] A fact check by AFP reported that the map was a NASA forecast taken out of context.[86]"

1. Epochtimes[25] indeed shared the map, while many Taiwan Media reported it too, I think it's because many people shared and discussed it on internet.
2. this Epochtimes’s report,
   1. quoted that many People discussed on interenet that the map “perhaps” meaning so many bodies burned.
   2. quoted the opinion(misinformation) by "Taiwan FactCheck center “ .
   3. ask opinions about the map from a professor of the best university in Taiwan.
   4. also reported that funeral parlours and crematoriums in Wuhan that had launched "24-hour service" and had been operating 24/7. as there were so many bodies to burn.
3. many other Taiwan media also reportd this map,like [26], [27],[28],[29]…
4. Many madia outside China reported this map, because media doubted the death toll in Wuhan. and then China Government's reply about the data.Wetrace (talk) 15:17, 13 June 2020 (UTC)— Wetrace (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Thank you for that explanation, Wetrace. I am editing some of my original note above because I see that your new paraphrases came from the articles cited, and I apologize for my initial error. Can you explain why your reorganization is more systemic and neat than the original? There was already an "assessments" section; the info you moved was recent history from the past few years. -- Llll5032 —Preceding undated comment added 16:41, June 13, 2020‎

Thank you Llll, I try to wrote my thoughts as follows:

1. ”Assessments”, I think this section can be used for (abstract) evaluations from scholars or organizations. And “Allegations and criticisms” section maybe more related to events , process or others. I think such sections more clear to readers.

1. The topics of ”Ad ban on Facebook”, “Removal of The BL on Facebook”, “ YouTube ads”, each issue range is not equal to “Trump administration” topic , some are wider and some not related to “Trump administration”. So the title “Trump administration” somehow confused, was not clear.
2. About the content of Covid-19 issue, so many details and debates. So I think it is more suitable and clear to be placed under the section ”Allegations and criticisms/Reception”.Wetrace (talk) 07:17, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for your response, Wetrace. Often sections like this are labeled Controversy or Controversies, so I edited it to Controversies (WP:BRD). Llll5032 (talk) 05:34, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

To Llll5032, Hello,about your this edit[30]「The Epoch Times is known for promoting far-right politicians in Europe,」 maybe misleading.

1. I suggest that We should follow WP:Neutral point of view#Attributing and specifying biased statements.

1. inside 4 source, 1st sourse Buzzfeed, used the word right-wing, not far-right. The 2nd and 4th not mention.Wetrace (talk) 06:10, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

"The German Edition of the Falun Gong-Affiliated ‘Epoch Times’ Aligns with the Far Right" and "The Obscure Newspaper Fueling the Far-Right in Europe" — ChinaFile and the New Republic, not Buzzfeed. It's a description, not a "best" or "worst" value judgement like the example you cited. Llll5032 (talk) 11:11, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

Hello, (1)Two media report that's German Edition, not Europe, and 2 media not mean"known in Europe".(2)I do not use "best or worst" values.Wetrace (talk) 11:23, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

Germany and France are in Europe. The WP example you linked to said that "John Doe is the best baseball player" should be attributed in-text. Llll5032 (talk) 12:08, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

Hello,Llll5032, Could a media's opinion represents all? I think you know what WP:Neutral point of view#Attributing and specifying biased statements means. It take a "most" example, but "most" is not only one applicable condition.Wetrace (talk) 03:17, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

From MOS:LEADCITE: "Material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, and direct quotations, should be supported by an inline citation." Look at ideological descriptions in other Wikipedia articles and you will see the same style. Llll5032 (talk) 07:07, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 June 2020

The April/May 2020 edition of Epoch Times was being distributed in the UK in June 2020 Mikeyfreed (talk) 11:35, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. — Newslinger talk 12:05, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

Discussion about Remove

Kindly stop misrepresenting their reports. Epoch Times did more than claiming that COVID19 originated in Wuhan. They made several unsubstantiated claims, including that the coronavirus is a Chinese made bioweapon.--PatCheng (talk) 08:24, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

Hello, PatCheng, Epochtimes's report did not say Covid-19 "a Chinese made bioweapon", but maybe possibilities like leaking from China laboratory. and indeed, many mainstream media international or of Taiwan , also reported several possibilities. Besides, I read some media reported that Frence expert or China ex-officer concerned about wheather ChineseCommunistParty use the P4-laboratory for what? for bioweapon? Many assumptions and doubts are because CCP's deny international and WHO expert a field investigation in china. Wetrace (talk) 08:36, 15 June 2020 (UTC)— Wetrace (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Just a reminder, PatCheng

1. your reason for romove[31] is WP:OR. But the quote is really from the report source(EDITOR's NOTE)[32], not OR
2. Why revove all this[33]?Wetrace (talk) 08:52, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

Oh, so you're saying that they can't "confirm" whether it's a possible bioweapon or escaped virus. Regardless of what you personally think, the claims fail WP:VERIFY. Furthermore, the sources cited are all opinion columnists which also fail WP:RS, and the article is about Epoch Times, not CBC's views on Epoch Times--PatCheng (talk) 08:56, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

To PatCheng, You misunderstood or twisted my words, I said Epochtimes's report did not say Covid-19 "a Chinese made bioweapon". Besides many mainstream media reported about Covid-19 and Wuhan laboratory, and if CCP have military biotech project.for example:

1. 2020-6-14 Canadian scientist sent deadly viruses to Wuhan lab months before RCMP asked to investigate:Amir Attaran, a law professor and epidemiologist at the University of Ottawa said "It is suspicious. It is alarming. It is potentially life-threatening," said "We have a researcher who was removed by the RCMP from the highest security laboratory that Canada has for reasons that government is unwilling to disclose. The intelligence remains secret. But what we know is that before she was removed, she sent one of the deadliest viruses on Earth, and multiple varieties of it to maximize the genetic diversity and maximize what experimenters in China could do with it, to a laboratory in China that does dangerous gain of function experiments. And that has links to the Chinese military."
2. 2020-06-04_Ex-head of MI6 Sir Richard Dearlove says coronavirus 'is man-made' and was 'released by accident' - after seeing 'important' scientific report
3. Taiwan'sCentral News Agency:2020-04-25_俄專家支持病毒人造論 稱中國科學家做了瘋狂事

1. Hong Kong's pro-Beijing Media report:2020-06-09_挪威研究稱新冠病毒部分人工製造 獲前英情報主管撐

1. more example can be listed, also many chinese-language media reported, even pro-Beijing media in Taiwan also reported some. Many expert keep the possibilities,also the USA and UK Government.Wetrace (talk) 17:10, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

I removed them because they're given undue weight upon one news article from CBC, the three opinion articles cited are from right-wing political columnists and are not not reliable sources, and the bio-engineering claims are still cited by other sources [34][35]. Epoch Times in fact did create a video where they shared misleading claims that COVID-19 came from a biolab [[36].--PatCheng (talk) 09:18, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

You removed a lot more than that, and I've raised the issue in your thread at RSN. Doug Weller talk 09:34, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

To PatChang:

"if COVID-19 came from a biolab". I saw so many expert keep the possibilities,also the USA Government. I also saw so many media reported it, even pro-beijing Media in Taiwan also reported. while I know Media controlled by CCP not.Wetrace (talk) 17:20, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

What the Taiwanese tabloid media speculate about COVID19 is irrelevant, especially considering the ongoing political disputes between the two governments. To suggest that Taiwanese media is automatically reliable fails WP:RS. WP's article Misinformation related to the COVID-19 pandemic already highlighted plenty of misinformation regarding China being circulated among Western media, including ones claiming that it was leaked from a lab [37], that cancelled cell phone subscriptions equates to covered up deaths (which was later retracted) [38], and discrepancies regarding number of urns [39]. These are simply speculation, and just because some of ET's claims are shared by tabloid media doesn't hide the fact they're inserting religious posturing into the mix to promote an agenda of overthrowing the CCP, including claiming that sharing the debunked video about the virus being engineered, and claiming denouncing the CCP would somehow cure COVID19.--PatCheng (talk) 10:37, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

To PatCheng. (1)You have not rely me. Among my examples, the media not"Taiwanese tabloid media", and also Taiwan "pro-beijing Media" and also Hong kong mainstream media reported that kind of news.And also many important scientists, also Governments have similar doubt about how virus came and spread. The core reason is CCP Regime cover the epidemic. Media and many Counrty tried to find the truth Wetrace (talk) 11:15, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

It's also worth noting that Wetrace is likely to be a single purpose account who is engaged in POV pushing at the Chinese Wikipedia.[40]--PatCheng (talk) 10:50, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

To Patcheng, your accusation is not proper and not true. And it's reasonable edit relative issue both in Chinese-Wiki and English-wiki.Wetrace (talk) 11:15, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

I don't care. Your conduct on Chinese WP demonstrated that you have a very low knowledge of WP:RS and WP:V. The low quality speculation you presented fail WP:RS. Full stop.--PatCheng (talk) 11:17, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

The fact that some people have SPECULATED that it might came from a lab is irrelevant, since it fails WP:RS. There are also plenty of sources that disputed the leakage claims.[41][42]. ET has a habit of completely twisting the words of others to suit its anti-PRC agenda, and is a deprecated source on WP for its fake news such as claiming Rothschilds are behind the German refugee crisis [43].--PatCheng (talk) 11:03, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

Isn't it only misinformation if it isn't true. Seems like a lot of evidence to support the notion that the virus was create in a Chinese lab https://www.forbes.com/sites/coronavirusfrontlines/2020/06/19/did-covid-19-come-from-a-lab-was-it-deliberate-bioterrorism-a-biodefense-expert-explores-the-clues/#4521e465356d — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.159.10.246 (talk) 13:14, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

See WP:FORBESCON. Username⁶⁸⁹² 13:19, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

Question : Why Deleted Chinese Communist Party-related? and other puzzling edits/ deletion

To @PatCheng:, Hello, some questions about your edits, would you please reply your reason ?

1. why PatCheng deleted[44] the core infomation of International Federation of Journalists’s article, and oringinal research to twist IFJ’s wording. for example:
   1. Content about Communist Party all deleted
      1. IFJ called for the international community to speak out against the “dirty war” campaign against Epoch Times.
      2. IFJ condemned Communist China government “Brutal Vendetta” against independent newspaper, IFJ accused CCP manipulated 2006 incident,
      3. "Since the end of 2004, Chinese Communist Party officials have hunted down the Epoch Times staff inside and outside mainland China, …
      4. Why deleted “systematically confiscating newspapers”, “threatening the families of staff members.”
   2. PatCheng change[45] its title “Attacked and Suppressed” to “Censorship” , you wrote edit reason that “NPOV headline”.———BUT You did not explain why it’s NPOV? The events of IFJ and RSF’s concern are attack and suppress concerning Chinese Communist Party.
2. Why PatCheng edit[46], not in accordance with source.
   1. 【Content of the source 】.“Lian also said The Epoch Times has an abundance of informants in China, some at high-levels. It gets many leaks from China, he said, and when it comes to big issues, Epoch’s predictions are always accurate.”
   2. 【After Patcheng deletion and Change its meaning 】 “it often receives high level leaks from informants inside mainland China” ( meaning different,This might be Oringinal Research.)
3. About Nine Commentaries and Quitting Chinese Communist Party movement.
   1. Why PatCheng deleted all content [47] of CS Monitor’s article? You wrote edit reason that “This is an opinion article from a contributor, not by CS Monitor”.———BUT even if it’s a opinion, why you not modify but choose to delete it all ?
   2. Why? You deleted[48] the content “Voice of America 2005 reported that it caused a movement of quitting from the Chinese Communist Party rise globally .” you wrote edit reason that “VOA article simply quoted the organizers”———BUT what you said seems not correct. Indeed (1)VOA’s report[49] used a title “quitting from the Chinese Communist Party rise globally” (2) VOA’s article said (not quoted) that”《大纪元时报》刊登了九篇批判中共的文章，这些文章透过网络和其他渠道传播到中国，推动了退党的活动。Epoch Times nine article criticizing CCP, spread into China via internet and other ways, push the Quitting Movement“
   3. Why this Change edit [50] ? you wrote edit reason that “More clarification.” However, it seems not.
      1. According to source’s content , It(Quitting CCP Movement) selected as the Top 3 Global events in 2011 by former economic policy advisor to the President of Russia,Andrey Illarionov and his research institute.
      2. PatCheng change into: It was selected as the one of the top global events in 2011 by Russian economist, Andrey Illarionov, citing the paper's claims that…

(1)Why one of “Top 3” changed to “one of Top “?

(2)Why “and his research institute” , “economic policy advisor to the President of Russia”be deleted?

(3)What’s reason that these all be move to the back?

(4)Why (Oringinal Research) add Andrey Illarionov “citing the paper's claims”——the source not say that.

Wetrace (talk) 12:48, 21 June 2020 (UTC)— Wetrace (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Helle, @PatCheng:, three days passed, Would you please reply question above? I Noted that you are still editing on June22.Wetrace (talk) 06:38, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

@PatCheng's account was suspended due to using multiple sock puppet accounts, please keep an eye out on malicious edits.

Snopes article

Snopes usually just debunks untruths, but this time they wrote an article exposing the closest connection yet to Falun Gong, and some of their shadier practices. The story is linked here. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 17:44, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

Snopes is not a reliable source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.37.22.110 (talk) 02:01, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources#Snopes —PaleoNeonate – 07:01, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

Why not? 2A00:23C3:E284:900:B949:98B1:98CC:1ED7 (talk) 09:42, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

Question: some edits and maybe Original Research

To @Llll5032:, Hello, I have some questions about some your edits . Would you please reply discussion? Thank you.

1. You rollback[51] my modification(according to the source content), and you wrote reason “MOS:LEADCITE”
   1. your version, “In Europe The Epoch Times is known for promoting far-right politicians”—Would you plsase point out Which content in sources say that? Or it seems a Original Research.——According No original research: “Articles may not contain any new analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to reach or imply a conclusion not clearly stated by the sources themselves.”….”【Synthesis of published material】Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. Similarly, do not combine different parts of one source to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by the source. “
2. You move [52] some to Assessments section. （【 Moved Content】 Hong Kong Economic Journal’s former editor-in-chief and Scholar Lian Yi-zheng wrote on New York Times that Epoch Times has often proved correct in its analysis of power plays in Beijing.Lian also said Epoch Times has an abundance of informants in China, some are even high-leveled.It gets large amount of leaks(leaked info from China) ,and when it comes to big issues, Epoch’s predictions are always accurate.） ----Why not? It's a supplement to EPOCH's China content.
   1. ——Let's compare the same section---- why several assessment or others(especially negative) in “Editorial_stance” Section ? Shall we moved them to other?
3. About this content ( “accusing World Journal of being a "megaphone for the evil Chinese Communist Party”)
   1. Question : Why this related to “Editorial_stance” ? ——That seems Original Research. According to the source, It's not a stance of EpochTimes itself.— (【inside Source】“When the World Journal quoted a Chinese-born academic insinuating links between Falun Gong protesters and the consulate fire, the Falun Gong community and its media backers were outraged. Members of Falun Gong demonstrated in front of the World Journal’s building, demanding the story be retracted.“The article reflected the reporter or the editorial department’s bias and thus caused the World Journal to become a megaphone for the evil Chinese Communist Party,” read an open letter presented to the World Journal by the local Falun Gong organization and printed on The Epoch Times’ website.”)
   2. You delete [53] the 2 report about “World Journal.” (【Removed content】RSF said "Beijing’s influence reaches especially far in the Chinese-language media outside China."World Journal has also toned down its coverage of China.)——you wrote reason “subtracted info that belongs in the World Journal's Wikipedia article, not the ET’s;PRC's influence is already mentioned in History section”)
   3. ——But, the 2 report also mention EpochTimes. Why not 2 reports’ view to compare with article.
4. You delete [54] this （【Deleted Content】 RSF's 2019 Report said Epoch Times is of the few independent Chinese-language media outlets in the United States.）, Your reason is “Relevant in the article, but needs more WP:CONSENSUS that this assessment ("one of the few") is crucial enough for the lead paragraph”
   1. I think this sentence is important info. Why should not be placed in lead?
   2. Let’s compare with the following content…why the following should be place in lead?

In Europe The Epoch Times is known for promoting far-right politicians, and in the United States it backs President Donald Trump; a 2019 report showed it to be the second-largest funder of pro-Trump Facebook advertising after the Trump campaign.[12][13][14][15] The group's news sites and YouTube channels have spread conspiracy theories such as QAnon and anti-vaccination propaganda.[7][16][17] The organization frequently promotes other Falun Gong extensions, such as its performing arts company, Shen Yun.[4]

Wetrace (talk) 18:23, 21 June 2020 (UTC)— Wetrace (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Hello Wetrace,

1. MOS:INTRO: "The lead section should briefly summarize the most important points covered in an article in such a way that it can stand on its own as a concise version of the article." Not all sources are cited in the lead paragraph (because of WP:OVERCITE), so you can also look in the "Editorial stance" section for more citations on Germany and France. Three RS are cited there. Two of them have "far right" in their headlines. Are they wrong? Find a WP:RS that says so.
2. "Editorial stance" describes the ET's own viewpoints and judgement. "Assessments" describe what others think of the ET. There is some overlap but the information should go where it fits best.
   1. WP:WIP
3. 1. I did not edit that.
   2. I think my edit summary explains this.
4. MOS:LEADREL: "Emphasis given to material should reflect its relative importance to the subject, according to published reliable sources." Multiple WP:RS have written about the ET on the topics in the lead paragraph. The reports you cited don't have the ET as their main focus.

Llll5032 (talk) 20:31, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

Hello @Llll5032: , Thanks for your reply. My opinion as follows:

1. About Q1, You’ve not substantially reply me. —— WP:No original research: 【Synthesis of published material】———your version, “In Europe The Epoch Times is known for promoting far-right politicians”—It seems a Original Research, you’ve not point out Which content in sources say that. .
2. About Q2, It seems you think that other contents also shall not be in “Editorial_stance” Section.
3. About Q3, So the source content about World Journal, not Editorial_stance. OK, Let’s remove it.
4. About Q4, I think maybe you misunderstood. These 2 important Reports are although not a monograph on EPOCHTIMES , but these are very important, neutral and authoritative Research related to Media issue. And Reports listed and comment these media.

(1)Hoover’s 2018 Report wroted by dozens of important china-studies scholars, on Chinese Communist Party’s comprehensive influence inisde US.

(2) Reporters without Borders’s 2019 Report title is “China's Pursuit of a New World Media Order”.

——These 2 Reports said EPOCHTIMES is one of few true independent Chinese-Language Media is US, not controlled by PRC/CCP Communist. —This is a important and authoritative statement according rigorous research.

Wetrace (talk) 07:15, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

Llll5032, new questions about your edit on 6/23.

1. one example[55], (1)Why you deleted  : advertisers and distributors have been regularly threatened not to support The Epoch Times in any way?Besides, IFEX's Source is good. ----That's not related your reason "copy edits".Wetrace (talk) 07:34, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

@Wetrace: You’ve rendered the name as a single word “Epochtimes” or some variation of that almost a dozen times. Is there a reason for this? Horse Eye Jack (talk) 07:26, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

Hello Horse Eye Jack. Hope I understood what your question. I konw it called "Epoch Times", I just think "EpochTimes" maybe more clear to read between lines. Because I Used to reading Chinese. I sometimes also write NYTimes/NewYorkTimes.Wetrace (talk) 07:34, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

Hello @Wetrace:, about your questions,

1. Two RS cited next to this statement support it, one verbatim in its headline (The Epoch Times#cite note-Allen-Ebrahimian-12, The Epoch Times#cite note-:3-13). More are referenced elsewhere in the article (The Epoch Times#cite note-:12-50, https://www.isdglobal.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/12/Make-Germany-Great-Again-ENG-061217.pdf). Why do you ask?
2. Do you agree that the "Editorial stance" section should be about the editorial stance?
3. OK (WP:RELEVANCE)
4. These long reports are relevant to the article, but refer to The Epoch Times only in passing (MOS:LEADREL, WP:DUE), and also say that China Digital Times and Vision Times in Chinese are independent, and refer to many independent American publications that write about China predominantly in English and sometimes in Chinese. Why is it so important to be in the lead?
5. WP:TERSE says, "Articles should use only necessary words. This does not mean using fewer words is always better; rather, when considering equivalent expressions, choose the more concise."

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Llll5032 (talk • contribs) 10:31, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

Hi,Llll5032, Thanks for your reply above. These days I’m too busy to editing wiki. I will keep discuessing when available.Wetrace (talk) 07:01, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 May 2020

I am physician working in Boston, MA, working in a COVID19 surge ward. I think the entire "COVID 19 misinformation campaign" section should be deleted. There is not a single legitimate source cited in that entire section. Only opinion news articles. I have not read everything that the Epoch Times has posted about coronavirus, and some of the things could certainly be considered conspiracy theories, but that hardly makes it a "COVID 19 misinformation campaign". In fact, if you read the Epoch Times COVID timeline, it is by my assessment, 100% accurate. China DID cover up the origins of the virus and China DID detain and question doctors for simply warning their colleagues about the virus. There is published data out there that suggests that China could have reduced infections by 95% if not for their intentional and unintentional delays. Anyone who contests that fact simply doesn't know what they are talking about. The news articles cited slam the Epoch Times for pushing the narrative that the virus could have been created in a lab as a misinformation campaign, while in the same breath noting that we have no idea where the virus came from, and, in fact, there are high-level national intelligence reports that note that this is a source of active investigation. Jdking182 (talk) 05:08, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template.

Wikipedia goes by reliable sources, and the sources cited in that section appear to be reliable. Further, Wikipedia strongly favors independent sources, which in this case means independent of The Epoch Times. Your individual experiences cannot be used as sources here, because Wikipedia doesn't publish original research. Please stick to reliable, independent sources, instead. Grayfell (talk) 05:26, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

If you're looking for consensus for deletion of this section, since you posted, there have been a few sources added specifically referring to the Epoch times, but it is presented in a very one-sided way without any validation on the opinion you've expressed, which is that there is no misinformation. At the very least, it is obvious this section is not written in a NPOV representing a widely held opposing POV. There is no healthy tension here. I vote not for deletion, but a scrub to represent the opinion you have supported with articles would be a very welcome addition. Shinerite (talk) 22:35, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. - FlightTime (open channel) 22:39, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

The Yan Report and ;Letterbox promotions

Epoch times have been heavily promoting the Yan report. I see it on their website and Facebook all the time and they have been sending pamphlets and newspapers to the public via post. Telling all that the virus was lab made by the CCP. I have never seen a media group so vested in promoting the Yan report and it was very convincing in that they claim a real scientist from China, became a whistleblower, and fled china, to tell the truth to the world about the virus being lab-made. Some scientists dispute that story however this is worthy of a Wikipedia entry since it's unprecedented for any private media group to actually deliver a singular and controversial and likely misinfo to other people letter boxes enmmasse. https://www.abc.net.au/news/science/2020-10-09/anti-beijing-group-with-links-to-steve-bannon-misinformation/12735638 49.180.129.245 (talk) 04:12, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

Useful New York Times article

[56] Doug Weller talk 19:11, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

New York Times publishes in-depth story about Epoch

I haven't read it yet, but I bet this will be a super useful post for improving this article: https://www.nytimes.com/2020/10/24/technology/epoch-times-influence-falun-gong.html -Pete Forsyth (talk) 18:00, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

Excellent find. Thanks for the link. Binksternet (talk) 18:42, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

It's a very biased article, with many factual errors. It seems to have been generated based on personal vendetta by the reporter. There are a number of factual errors, for example, Roose writes that “perhaps the most audacious experiment was a new right-wing politics site called America Daily.”

The Epoch Times has no connection with this media organization, and Roose provides not justification for connecting them, other than a single employee of Epoch Times went to work for America Daily after leaving Epoch Times.

Roose also writes in his article that The Epoch Times has “been one of the most prominent promoters of ‘Spygate,’ a baseless conspiracy theory involving claims that Obama administration officials illegally spied on Mr. Trump’s 2016 campaign.” This is an intentional misrepresentation of The Epoch Times’ reporting on the topic of the FBI’s 2016 Crossfire Hurricane probe. The Epoch Times has indeed been a leader in its reporting on the topic, which has been cited by other media—including the NY Times. Furthermore, the topic remains under investigation by U.S. Attorney John Durham. Squ1rr3l - Talk to me! 18:19, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

You're kidding, right? America Daily runs COVID-hoax right-wing pro-Trump anti-China articles and is published by Falun Gong–run Sound of Hope. America Daily reprints a lot of far-right articles from the John Birch Society organ The New American. It's about as obvious as it can get. Roose is doing good reporting. You did not provide any proof otherwise.

Regarding Durham's investigation, it's politically motivated. Top prosecutor Nora Dannehy quit the investigation becaus of interference from Barr.[57] Barr controls the investigation's reports, not Durham.[58] Durham has been working at it for two years and still has nothing against Biden.[59] Yesterday, CNN cited The New York Times to say that Durham has nothing.[60]

Being a "leader" in reporting on a trumped-up investigation is not something to brag about. Binksternet (talk) 19:28, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

Please read before commenting, your comment embarrasses yourself. The point is that the Epoch Times has no connection to America Daily, any more than Kevin Bacon. It's irrelevant. You're accepting that the connection exists, when it does not. Roose deleted the Tweets exposing his own pro-communist and anti-Epoch Times bias, but the Internet is forever [61] and [62]

Regardless of the results of the investigation, it's a valid investigation. Your sources are simply "he said-she said" Barr is the Attorney General of the United States. Nora Dannehy's comments are politically motivated comments from a disgruntled former employee. You're criticizing Epoch Times for covering information about the investigation by citing other newspapers covering information about the investigation. Durham's investigation has resulted in one indictment and the agent plead guilty [63] The Durham investigation was not about Biden, he was not a target. Barr has mentioned several times that neither Biden nor Trump are targets of the probe. His only involvement in the scandal was to suggest using the Logan Act to go after General Flynn [64] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Squ1rr3l (talk • contribs) 12:40, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

Squ1rr3l, the critique in America Daily is in practice a ringing endorsement of the NYT. Guy (help! - typo?) 12:42, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

I read the content of that article. That simply cannot tell the difference between anti-CCP and anti-China. There is nothing wrong with anti-China, but factually The Epoch Times is supporting traditional China (and also traditional values of many cultures) and insisting China should be united rather than anti-China. They always have a kind of illusion that democracy could work under a united China. Their stance is not anti-China. That article at NY Times is simply crazy and completely unreliable. --Kittyhawk2 (talk) 03:26, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

I cannot place your comment in the same world we all live in. The Falun Gong has made no effort to unite China, not through The Epoch Times or anywhere else. The Falun Gong believe that aliens gave us aircraft and computers... how is that traditional? Perhaps your view is because the situation near you in Hong Kong isn't like the USA where the Epoch Times has jumped on the Trump Train, and has pushed Spygate and COVID-19 hoaxes. Binksternet (talk) 04:03, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

Nearly 3 years later the article from NYT is still not there. Disputing content is not the same as saying the NYT is not a reliable source. I'm going to put this article back in unless someone can show me why a news outlet deemed reliable should be excluded just because of accusation POV (and IMO plenty of irony? Just asking a question.)

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/10/24/technology/epoch-times-influence-falun-gong.html Bobby fletcher (talk) 07:46, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

Circulation

The infobox currently states that The Epoch Times had a circulation of 1,314,375 in 2012, but that the figure was unaudited. The "Awards" section also claims that The Epoch Times received an award in 2012 for newspapers with a circulation under 50,000, and another award in 2013 for newspapers with a circulation of less than 100,000. This doesn't look consistent. Since the 1,314,375 figure is uncited, I think it should be removed unless there are more details on this claim. — Newslinger talk 00:36, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

Anything that lacks a reference in this article should definitely be removed immediately. Any aged reference placed on material presented as contemporary should also be removed without a second thought. :bloodofox: (talk) 05:12, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

I found the original edit that added this exact figure in 2014: Special:Diff/596245047. The source is the publication's own claim on its marketing site for advertising sales, now offline. However, even the claimed US-only figure of 435,100 copies exceeds the 50,000 and 100,000 limits on the awards. Narrowing it down even further, The Epoch Times still claimed to have circulated 105,100 English-language US-only copies in 2012. I've checked the timeline, but have yet to find any date on which the publication claimed a circulation under 100,000, no matter how the number is sliced.

Since there are conflicts between the primary sources cited in this article, I've removed the claimed circulation of 1,314,375 in Special:Diff/987460475. — Newslinger talk 05:33, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for checking! :bloodofox: (talk) 19:07, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 November 2020

The wikipedia article on The Epoch Times is extremely left leaning and serves to discredit/undermine the publication. The sources referenced in footnotes 1 - 12 are all left leaning sources that have an inherent bias against any non-left leaning media. I would request that the introductory paragraph is edited to remove inflammatory language around promotion of conspiracy theories and "far right ideology". The Epoch Times is not a far right newspaper just because NBC says so. {ip} 14:53, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Seagull123 Φ 16:15, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 November 2020

Epoch Tines is not a far right media outlet it's conservative.Stop spreading this disinformation.Wikipedia is supposed to be neutral.Please learn the difference between conservative and far right Patriotjohn74 (talk) 10:07, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

•  Not done. You have not provided any argument against the extensive list of solid and reliable publications describing The Epoch Times as far right, and you have not provided sources that say "conservative". Binksternet (talk) 15:27, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 14 November 2020

Please replace the tag from (pp-small-yes) to (pp-move-indef) in order to stat that this article was highly visible page so i needs to be move protected. If any editors or administrators decline to it, i want to request it at RFPP in order to get the article move protected by admin only. 110.137.162.247 (talk) 07:53, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

This article has not seen any disruptive moves, why would it be move-protected? – Thjarkur (talk) 09:28, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 20 November 2020

The Epoch Times is a right wing media company, but it does not fall under the common definition of far-right. The points of view expressed in its articles are far from what is defined as "far-right politics" in this Wiki article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Far-right_politics. I suggest removing the mention of "far-right" and replacing it with simply "right". VanCoover (talk) 01:44, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

•  Not done. We don't change the assessments in published sources to fit our notions of precision. The published assessments stand on their own merits. If you wanted to change the article from far-right to simply right wing, you would have to show that a greater weight of published sources use the term right than the term far-right. Even then, we would acknowledge the sources that say far-right. Binksternet (talk) 02:19, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 28 November 2020

Change "far-right newspaper" to "newspaper." Labeling this publication as "Far-right" is not impartial because it does not consider legitimate differences in viewing the political spectrum, and the term "Far-right" often carries a negative connotation. As an encyclopedia, Wikipedia should be as free as possible from biased language.

Change "Pro-Trump Conspiracy Theories and Misinformation" to "Controversial Pro-Trump Political Stances." The original heading is not impartial because it uses biased language. In addition, calling the newspaper's claims "debunked" is biased because what constitutes "debunked" varied based on personal opinion.

Change "Covid-19 Misinformation" to "Covid-19 Coverage." Labeling the newspaper's coverage as "misinformation" instead of giving readers the opportunity to make up their own minds is biased against freedom of press. FakeNewsPress2020 (talk) 15:47, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

 Not done; Please provide reliable sources in support of your changes. Zoozaz1 talk 16:57, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 2 December 2020

Please remove "far-right" from the leading sentence describing Epoch Times. While one may disagree with the angle they approach news items from, they are not "far" to the right of what would be generally understood as "right" or conservative ideas in American politics. In other words, if you obtained a random sample of Americans who identified as right-wing and asked them if they agreed with the angle that the ET takes in investigating and reporting, the overwhelming consensus would be that ET is representative of their viewpoints -- thus right, but not far right. 174.131.88.166 (talk) 02:04, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Hello, 174.131.88.166. Per WP:DUE, we go by what the preponderance of reliable sources (WP:RS) say. If hypothetically we did our own random-sample survey of Americans, it would be considered original research (WP:OR), which is not allowed in Wikipedia articles. Llll5032 (talk) 02:22, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Wow, never in my life would know Epoch Times did so much depictable stuff. Since CCP is a real issue in my country and many chinese-speaking communities, their wiki page in chinese still looks alright. Who knows they would be the one that helps CCP to cause chaos in the world? Puetsua (talk) 06:10, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 3 December 2020

For: According to sociologist Yuezhi Zhao, "While mainstream newspapers typically treat Web versions as an extension of the already-existing print version, The Epoch Times website serves as the master for all its worldwide papers." Add link to Yuezhi Zhao's name.

Also, is it necessary to have ECP until November 2021? Swil999 (talk) 06:04, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit extended-protected}} template. This person's name is already linked in the article. – Jonesey95 (talk) 14:25, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

The person's name is not linked in that section, which given the length of the article would not be obvious that the individual has a page on WP unless the reader read the whole article. Doesn't the requirement to establish consensus only apply to edits that are likely to be controversial? How is a link controversial? Swil999 (talk) 06:08, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

Linking to Yuezhi Zhao one time in the article body is sufficient. I added an authorlink in the referenced paper. Binksternet (talk) 08:46, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 10 December 2020

PLEASE CHANGE THE WIKI TEXT FROM: The Epoch Times is a far-right[12] international multi-language newspaper and media company TO: The Epoch Times is a right-of-centre[12] international multi-language newspaper and media company

MY JUSTIFICATION: It is incorrect to describe The Epoch Times (ET) as a "far right" organisation. Read their articles and you will see this description is inaccurate. While ET does have include more articles of interest to Republican voters and is less dismissive of President Trump's actions and statements than the Mainstream Media (MSM) - which now insist on including their opinions when reporting the news - this does NOT make the ET a "far right" news site.

In the current election controversy Republicans are requesting a "free and fair election" and this is NOT a "far right" ideal. The ET reports such requests from Republicans and reports on State Hearings without giving an opinion. Republicans are usually described as "right of centre" and I request that you change the Wiki text to say this as it is a more accurate description.

The ET often has news items that might embarrass or question the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) actions, so it is interesting that the main attribution behind the description of "far right" comes from a journalist who spent 4 years in China. Is she acting for the CCP and trying to make the ET seem more extreme than their articles show them to be?

There is also an attribution stating the ET is linked to a German "far right" group. Can you please let me know who this group is, as I have never seen an ET article about any such group or a similar group, and the ET reports on European and World news appear balanced, factual and open, not "far right" in their attitude.

Thank you for your consideration of my request above.. Peterg52 (talk) 00:30, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

To editor Peterg52:  Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Sources already in this article refer to The Epoch Times as "far-right". If you would rather see terms like "right-of-centre", then sources must be produced that use that term. Thank you for your input! P.I. Ellsworth  ed. ^put'r there 01:11, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

Note that the mainstream media have taken the unusual step of declaring outright falsehood when it is known; they are not "including their opinions". Binksternet (talk) 01:39, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

Printed in Hong Kong?

Saw one of their advertisements which looked highly fake! It claims their Hong Kong (printing facility) does it even exist? (I can find no record of it or them selling news papers in Hong Kong!) 4 "communist agents" came in when they where working (not afterhours) and set fire to a small part instead of burning down the whole place for some reason! Is this claim BS or did it really happen? Should be in the article (they did not say when it happened .......)--Cynthia BrownSmyth (talk) 02:56, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 20 December 2020

The Epoch Media Group's news sites and YouTube channels have spread conspiracy theories such as QAnon and anti-vaccination propaganda.- “This has to go, The Epoch Times are not spreading conspiracy theories nor are they far right in which one could compare them with the German Nazi far right!” Unbelievable how Wikipedia can state such nonsense!!! 101.100.129.224 (talk) 09:36, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. These statements are well sourced. If you wish for it to be changed then please identify sources which support that view and establish a consensus on this talkpage before using the edit request template. Jack Frost (talk) 12:05, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

I'd like to know which part they are anti-vaccination. Though I understand they're extremely pro-Trump, I don't think they are anti-vax. It seems NBC news article doesn't give a clear link to specific Epoch article but only accuse The Epoch Times anti-vax for typical far-right stereotype. Chinese version of The Epoch times never claim that too, that will be criticized in Taiwan if they dare claim that. Puetsua (talk) 05:50, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 18 January 2021

The first line on the page describing Epoch Times calls it a right-wing paper. Citations used described right-wing as fascist, Nazi, etc. The term is incorrect for what is essentially a conservative paper dedicated to reporting the facts. It avoids opinion reporting which proliferates so many papers these days. The appropriate description of this paper is middle-of-the-road to conservative. If you read the citations for calling it right-wing, you will see how biased they are. Epoch Times is gaining readers everyday, including me and I am hardly right-wing. The term misrepresents the paper to people seeking to find out about it. Please revise this. The term Nazi or fascist is too easy to throw about these days. People who use citations like that to justify calling a paper right-wing are wrong, and misleading. A.J.Converse (talk) 03:34, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Wow, you're distorting things so hard, I almost feel the need to ask if you work for them.

They're a propaganda outlet for a cult that favors conspiracy theories because the movement needs people to buy into delusions. Ian.thomson (talk) 12:52, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Umm User:Ian.thomson, I think the more polite way of putting it would be somthing along the lines of: "The Epoch Times is discribed by (a lot of) relible sources to be a far-right news outlet. Feel free to discuss it, but you might want to glance through the earlier conversations on this talk page first." Prehaps a FAQ is in order? DarthFlappy 15:10, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 16 January 2021

Remove source 91 "Viral video promotes the unsupported hypothesis that SARS-CoV-2 is a bioengineered virus released from a Wuhan research laboratory" in COVID-19 coverage and misinformation

A recent news about the SARS-CoV-2 virus from Wuhan Lab seems to be debatable and it's not entirely a baseless fake news or a conspiracy theory. https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9153885/Mike-Pompeo-reveals-intel-implicating-Wuhan-lab-origins-COVID-19-pandemic.html Puetsua (talk) 07:47, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Puetsua, The Daily Mail is a deprecated source (see WP:DAILYMAIL) — we will need a non-deprecated source to support this to change the article. Llll5032 (talk) 10:08, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Oops, okay. Here I found a few other sources: Fox News, The Telegraph, SCMP. Puetsua (talk) 07:20, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

Puetsua, to affect this article, the reliable source should mention the Epoch Times video; otherwise we risk a WP:SYNTH problem: ("Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources"). Can you find a source that does this? Alternatively, if Health Feedback retracts its detailed criticisms of the Epoch Times video[65] (which it has not), that would also be a reason to change this article. Llll5032 (talk) 08:30, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

I think Puetsua was suggesting that Health Feedback's criticism of The ET's video may not be legitimate, since multiple other RSes also draw suspicions to the Wuhan P4 Lab. If I've interpreted correctly, then their point is unrelated to WP:SYNTH, but to indicate the unneutral stance of this wiki article. Thomas Meng (talk) 17:37, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

Thomas Meng and Puetsua, if you think the new articles show that the ET wasn't wrong, you could contact Health Feedback to ask if they will retract some of their criticisms. Llll5032 (talk) 17:49, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

At least I can claim that source is outdated? There are tons of sources could accuse ET for COVID misinformation on internet, but not this one anymore. Please consider remove it. Puetsua (talk) 11:26, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Date of publication isn't a usual reason to omit a source. What makes a reliable source "reliable" (see WP:GREL) is "a reputation for fact-checking, accuracy, and error-correction, often in the form of a strong editorial team." So if Health Feedback thinks the new information shows that ET wasn't wrong, it should be willing to clarify its article to reflect the new information, and afterward we can make adjustments to the ET article here. Llll5032 (talk) 19:26, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Okay, I will do that then. Puetsua (talk) 02:57, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 21 January 2021

Since Trump is no longer the President of the United States, I suggest changing "Backs President Donald Trump in the U.S" to" Backs Ex-President Donald Trump in the U.S". wanqi!！Huang!（留言） 04:48, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

• Perhaps you will be satisfied by "backed President Trump", using past tense in the verb. Your suggestion gave the impression that the newspaper was still backing Trump after he left office, which may not be the case, and certainly is not being reported on the same day he left office. It will take some time to see whether they still back Trump. Binksternet (talk) 06:16, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

Nonsense article

I am a professional historian and a centre-left voter. I am a card carrying member of the Canada's left wing NDP. And even I see the problems with this article. There is no need to call this organization "far-right." It is not a political party. It's only done to slime and immediately destroy their reputation. If anyone is far right it is the emalgam of corporate, political and military power, which is precisely what the current government of China is - petty, tyrannical and easily wounded, it goes after anyone who expresses a position against it. In Canada, various polls show Canadian people have 85% positive view of Chinese people, but 4% positive view of the Chinese Communist Party. That's quite the achievement given that Anglophone Canadians have 45% positive views of Francophones. The attack on the Falun Gong practitioners - as was said once by a mythical Pontius Pilate against Jesus: I find no fault in them. I have examined the allegations of the Chinese government against them and they are all false or mischaracterizations. Of course religion is irrational. But who says humans are rational. A government which governs by the consent of the governed has to provide space for the individual to be irrational, to pray to his imaginary gods and be free to develop his spiritual dimension and worship that isn't controlled by the party commissariat. The CPC with its economic wars on everyone that says anything against it like Canada and Australia, with its petty persecution of its own people in Hong Kong, with the organ harvesting and the cooperation with international terrorist States is quickly turning the good will toward Chinese people into bad will toward the Chinese government. Historiaantiqua (talk) 17:58, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

You are right that China is "petty, tyrannical and easily wounded, it goes after anyone who expresses a position against it.” but that statement also describes FG... They’re similar organizations in so many ways, thats one of the reasons the CCP is so threatened by them. China being bad doesn't make the groups they oppress good, thats not how it works. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:25, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

China is not bad. Because China doesn't exist. Countries are non objective realities. Chinese people have enormous potential to add to our common human family. And I don't believe only the Western model is right for everyone, nor do I think they ought to bring democracy in if they believe it will destabilize their nation. But the attempt to control the reception of their image abroad is counter-productive. It's not necessary. We simply say and publish critical things about everyone, that's the British parliamentary model - always criticizing those in power. China insists that it is above criticism, not just in China, but abroad. And that spreads into their antagonism toward Epoch. Fine, publish things against them too then. But don't send goons to light their factory on fire and engage in violence. That's all I'm saying. Historiaantiqua (talk) 11:42, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 21 January 2021 (2)

Either remove "Far right" or tag CNN with the "Far left". They are virtually the same distance from the center. 2603:8001:B103:7F00:138:433B:B945:5D3D (talk) 21:01, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

• I instead changed it to mention that it focuses on criticism of the Communist Party of China. Félix An (talk) 21:08, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

Actually, I need some help. Should I say that Epoch is "anti-Communist", or "anti-Communist Party of China"? Félix An (talk) 21:13, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

Nevermind, looks like it should be Not Done, because apparently there was consensus to use far-right to describe Epoch. Félix An (talk) 21:36, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

"Miss Information Campaign"

This section is patently false I have read the article regarding the CCP Virus/COVID-19 in question from the Epoch Times, and the claims made on this page are completely false. Wikipedia is engaged in misinformation by continuing to host this false information as facts.

Please review this section and read the articles that are talked about as they are not cited which makes the information on the page opinion and not worthy therefore of being on wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dylan abel (talk • contribs) 19:18, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia articles should mainly cite reliable, independent sources, so an article on Epich Times will use sources about Epoch Times more than the Epoch Times itself. The misinformation campaign section has eight independent sources, which appear to be reliable. You will need to propose a specific issue for this to be actionable. Grayfell (talk) 20:04, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

Only they are not reliable because a lot of what was claimed was false about what was reported by the Epoch Time was later found true (like the Chinese lies about covid). Is wikipedia run by a bunch of wumaos? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2406:3003:2073:D74:8427:934D:2590:76B8 (talk) 18:14, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

The Epoch Times spreaded many unscientific ideas regarding COVID, so they are not a reliable source. Technically, paid editing (the "Wumaos") are not allowed on Wikipedia, but if such opinionated material gets added, it usually is swiftly removed. Also, it's not very respectful to generalize and assume that all the people who edit these articles are Wumaos. Félix An (talk) 23:19, 23 January 2021 (UTC)