Talk:The Epoch Times: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{Talk page header}} |
|||
{{RFMF|Falun Gong|13:47, 8 August 2006 (UTC)}} |
|||
{{FAQ|collapsed=no}} |
|||
{{controversial}} |
{{controversial}} |
||
{{WikiProject banner shell|collapsed=yes|class=B| |
|||
{{WikiProject Religion|importance=Low |NRM=yes |NRMImp=mid |FalunGong=yes}} |
|||
{{WikiProject Newspapers |importance=Low}} |
|||
{{WikiProject Journalism |importance=Low}} |
|||
{{WikiProject China |importance=low}} |
|||
{{WikiProject United States |importance=Low |AsianAmericans=yes}} |
|||
{{WikiProject New York City |importance=Low}} |
|||
{{WikiProject Conservatism |importance=Low}} |
|||
}} |
|||
{{Contentious topics/talk notice|fg}} |
|||
{{Contentious topics/talk notice|ap|brief}} |
|||
{{Annual readership}} |
|||
{{Blank and redirect notice|Weidong Guan|<span class="bday dtstart updated">2024-06-05</span>|talk=no}} |
|||
{{User:MiszaBot/config |
|||
|algo = old(90d) |
|||
|archive = Talk:The Epoch Times/Archive %(counter)d |
|||
|counter = 5 |
|||
|maxarchivesize = 250K |
|||
|archiveheader = {{tan}} |
|||
|minthreadstoarchive = 1 |
|||
|minthreadsleft = 4 |
|||
}} |
|||
== ET is conservative, not 'far-right' == |
|||
==Employing Falun Gong people?== |
|||
Is there any truth in the allegations that ''The Epoch Times'' employs a disproportionate number of Falun Gong practitioners? [http://www.thestandard.com.hk/stdn/std/Metro/GE12Ak01.html] That might warrant an mention, if true... |
|||
First hyperlink shows neo-nazis marching. This is a highly misleading entry. If ET is far-right then NY Times is far-left, but of course they're painted as mainstream. ET is conservative, you could even say 'ultra conservative,' but what you've posted is a lie. Neither is it authoritarian--quite the opposite, if you've ever bothered to read its articles. Taking sides with the Chinese Communist Party, which actually is authoritarian, makes me wonder who runs this site and who they're placating to. This and other skewed articles is why I've quit contributing to Wikipedia, although I used to every year. [[User:Martyrw|Martyrw]] ([[User talk:Martyrw|talk]]) 16:35, 26 December 2023 (UTC) |
|||
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. |
|||
:Did you see the two dozen references saying that the Epoch Times is far right? It's because of the outright falsehoods and conspiracy theories they peddle. They got even crazier in 2020: [https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/epoch-times-falun-gong-growth-rcna111373 "...by 2020, it became a megaphone for the U.S.’s most extreme right-wing stories."] [[User:Binksternet|Binksternet]] ([[User talk:Binksternet|talk]]) 20:00, 26 December 2023 (UTC) |
|||
: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? |
|||
::That's a subjective response. I can cite just as many references stating how the NY Times gives falsehoods and is far left. Wikipedia should rise to a level of objectivity not catering to preferred opinions. I've followed ET for several years, and although I don't even come close to agreeing with everything they publish, the ET simply isn't 'far right' -- certainly not by Wikipedia's definition of far right, and they should at least be consistent with their own definitions. The stance W takes on stuff like this alienates them from maybe 30-50% of the US population by labeling and name-calling, contributing to the ongoing polarization in this country. [[User:Martyrw|Martyrw]] ([[User talk:Martyrw|talk]]) 21:59, 26 December 2023 (UTC) |
|||
:::Your 30 percent of the US population voted for Trump, who is a charlatan. These people are Fox zombies—not worth the trouble. Nobody has a solution for convincing this bloc of people who don't care about facts or logic. The polarization in the US has deepened because of Trump, Fox and Epoch Times, not because Wikipedia is skeptical and rigorously factual. In fact, the polarization started in 1994 with Newt Gringrich.[https://www.press.uchicago.edu/ucp/books/book/chicago/U/bo27527354.html][https://web.archive.org/web/20181122012735/https://global.oup.com/academic/product/the-gingrich-senators-9780199307456?cc=is&lang=en&] The polarization has been driven by right-wing elements, especially the [[Christian right]]. This campaign has also eroded education in the US, making people more prone to believe nonsense such as what they read in the Epoch Times or see on Fox. [[User:Binksternet|Binksternet]] ([[User talk:Binksternet|talk]]) 22:24, 26 December 2023 (UTC) |
|||
::Yet you believe all the quotes from far left sources. Just like the writer of this hit piece on ET. [[User:Chrshale|Chrshale]] ([[User talk:Chrshale|talk]]) 14:34, 12 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::. I would point out that 2 dozen left-leaning journalists from other news organizations, who are generally in lock-step when it comes to spinning narratives, might be seen to have a vested interest in labeling ET as "far-right." That is a clear conflict of interest, and should call their characterization immediately into question for the average reasonable person, but no analysis was done here in that regard; like so many, the author has accepted their labeling without question or critique. |
|||
::. Bit of a dodge, that: "I didn't call them far right; 'reliable sources' called them far-right (and never mind that the only 'reliable sources' allowed to be cited on Wikipedia are all left-leaning)." |
|||
::. The exact same thing is happening in the political spectrum: people of one party accept without question their party's characterizations of those in the other party, and no one questions if they might have self-serving motives for doing so. |
|||
::. Imagine two competing ambulance-chasing lawyers put out a series of ads, each one attacking the other with name-calling and half-truths. Why would you believe either one of them implicitly? Why wouldn't you investigate for yourself and make up your own mind? |
|||
::. I understand, of course; NBC, CBS, NYT, WaPo, and their ilk can't have their regular viewers and readers popping over there and getting a perspective that may differ significantly from the "sacred narrative." |
|||
::. But I expected more from Wikipedia. Looks like Larry Sanger is right despite my initial skepticism, and Wikipedia really has become just another mouthpiece for establishment orthodoxy narratives, rather than "a collaborative encyclopedia of opinion." There are some legitimate news sources that you can no longer cite on Wikipedia. |
|||
::. To paraphrase The Onion, it appears that Wikipedia is now dedicated to the free exchange of idea. [[User:Ylandrum|Ylandrum]] ([[User talk:Ylandrum|talk]]) 13:01, 7 August 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::::Wikipedia exists to summarize the literature on a topic. When we observe a consensus in the literature, we relay that fact to the reader. We don't try to conduct "analysis" to investigate why they are in agreement. |
|||
::::Your ambulance-chaser analogy is an example of both-sidesism, a form of [[false balance]] in which two parties are depicted as equally bad when one is orders of magnitude worse. [[User:Binksternet|Binksternet]] ([[User talk:Binksternet|talk]]) 15:13, 7 August 2024 (UTC) |
|||
: This article is about ''The Epoch Times'', not ''The New York Times''; if you have constructive changes to propose to the Wikipedia article about ''[[The New York Times]]'' that are supported by [[WP:RS|reliable sources]], feel free to suggest them at [[Talk:The New York Times]]. As mentioned in the FAQ at the top of this page, the ''far-right'' descriptor for ''The Epoch Times'' is amply and reliably sourced; see {{slink|Special:Permalink/1183093559#cite_note-far-right-1}} for the current list. Your suggestion that the article is {{!xt|"Taking sides with the Chinese Communist Party"}} because you do not like the fact that reliable sources describe ''The Epoch Times'' as ''far-right'' is a [[false dilemma]]; there are more than two "sides" in geopolitics, and moreover, this article reflects content published in reliable sources – it does not "take sides". This article does not mention [[authoritarianism]], so it is unclear why your comment implies that the article is describing ''The Epoch Times'' as such. — '''''[[User:Newslinger|<span style="color:#536267;">Newslinger</span>]]''' <small>[[User talk:Newslinger#top|<span style="color:#708090;">talk</span>]]</small>'' 03:08, 27 December 2023 (UTC) |
|||
::Article calls TET "far-right" and links the to the WP article that describes far-right as authoritarian.[[Special:Contributions/216.195.49.33|216.195.49.33]] ([[User talk:216.195.49.33|talk]]) 13:27, 10 September 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:How much is Falun Gong paying y'all to keep opening the same complaint on this talk page over and over again? [[User:Brusquedandelion|Brusquedandelion]] ([[User talk:Brusquedandelion|talk]]) 11:11, 23 January 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:Well said. This entire entry is a hit piece and reads like it was written either by Beijing or the NYT. Take your pick. [[User:Chrshale|Chrshale]] ([[User talk:Chrshale|talk]]) 14:31, 12 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::Ah yes, known collaborators the Beijing government and the [[New York Times]]. Please provide us with reliable sources that dispute referring to this... publication... as not far-right. Please note that far-right publications are conservative so sources calling it conservative don't actually conflict sources calling it far-right. [[User:Simonm223|Simonm223]] ([[User talk:Simonm223|talk]]) 14:34, 12 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:The Epoch Times has a different political position depending on the region. In the United States, it is a Trumpist far-right media, but in Hong Kong, it is a pro-democracy camp, or radical liberal. In China, the pro-Chinese Communist Party is a far-right stance. [[User:ProKMT|ProKMT]] ([[User talk:ProKMT|talk]]) 10:27, 30 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::You got any reliable sources we can use? [[User:Polygnotus|Polygnotus]] ([[User talk:Polygnotus|talk]]) 10:45, 30 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:::I doubt it. [[User:Simonm223|Simonm223]] ([[User talk:Simonm223|talk]]) 10:57, 30 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::::Same, but it is important to emphasize that, because Wikipedia is based on reliable sources, it is pointless to complain here. Email or call reliable sources and complain there, make sure they write what you want them to. Wikipedia will follow the reliable sources. [[User:Polygnotus|Polygnotus]] ([[User talk:Polygnotus|talk]]) 11:01, 30 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:::::In the United States, the Epoch Times speaks for far-right populism, but in Hong Kong, it speaks for 民主派. (see [[List of newspapers in Hong Kong#Daily newspaper]]). [[Pro-democracy camp (Hong Kong)]] is never far-right. [[User:ProKMT|ProKMT]] ([[User talk:ProKMT|talk]]) 11:59, 30 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::::::Nonsense. Also Wikipedia is not a [[WP:RS]]. [[User:Simonm223|Simonm223]] ([[User talk:Simonm223|talk]]) 12:08, 30 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::::::Per [[WP:TRUTH]] we '''need''' reliable sources to report something before we can decide to include it on Wikipedia. You can contact them by phone or email. Please let us know when a [[WP:RS|reliable source]] reports on this (e.g. the BBC, The Guardian et cetera). Thank you, [[User:Polygnotus|Polygnotus]] ([[User talk:Polygnotus|talk]]) 12:22, 30 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::It is interesting to see how the Chinese edition of The Epoch Times is discussed in the 2019 Andrew Junker's book ''[https://www.google.com/books/edition/Becoming_Activists_in_Global_China/ZpiHDwAAQBAJ?hl=en&gbpv=0 Becoming Activists in Global China],'' at page 186: "The Chinese edition of The Epoch Times, which is often free and easily available in many major cities, stands out among overseas Chinese-language newspapers for its commitment to publishing watchdog, critical news from mainland China. For example, it claims to have been the first media source to report the SARS cover-up in China in 2003. Over the years, the incentives of being supported through advertising and increasing readership have pushed the newspaper toward greater professionalization and to increasingly orient itself toward the needs and interests of its widest readership. {{Tq|Simply by increasing the plurality of voices in the diaspora Chinese-language public sphere, The Epoch Times is playing a progressive role, even though the community’s pariah status limits its impact.}} It is also conceivable that an organization like The Epoch Times could evolve into a more mainstream publication while retaining its critical independence and moral watchdog mission." Thank you. [[User:Path2space|Path2space]] ([[User talk:Path2space|talk]]) 23:46, 30 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:::That is certainly not sufficient to change the lede though Junker's book might be due brief mention in the body of the article if it is not already there. [[User:Simonm223|Simonm223]] ([[User talk:Simonm223|talk]]) 00:29, 1 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::::BTW, that source appears out of date compared to later research and reeks of early 2010s Western scholarship on Falun which frames it entirely on its conflict with the CCP. It was written before the big expose on Epoch's connection with far-right sources in 2019, and there are zero results in the book about its Trump connections. As for the claim of "professionalization", this is contradicted by Roose's 2020 NYT source which noted that ET's attempts to establish itself as a respectable source changed after Trump's election, in order to chase the conspiracy theorists' money. <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/120.18.157.7|120.18.157.7]] ([[User talk:120.18.157.7#top|talk]]) 00:27, 6 May 2024 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:Xsign --> |
|||
:Agreed, it’s not far-right at all, especially when the Wikipedia entry for “far-right” features Nazis. Supporting Donald Trump does not make a person or publication a Nazi. Wikipedia, you are ridiculous. [[Special:Contributions/2601:8C:C302:FE50:9115:7F94:CDFC:FDBD|2601:8C:C302:FE50:9115:7F94:CDFC:FDBD]] ([[User talk:2601:8C:C302:FE50:9115:7F94:CDFC:FDBD|talk]]) 16:09, 1 September 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::We go by what reliable sources say. –[[User:Novem Linguae|<span style="color:blue">'''Novem Linguae'''</span>]] <small>([[User talk:Novem Linguae|talk]])</small> 16:13, 1 September 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:::According to [https://www.allsides.com/news-source/epoch-times-media-bias allsides.com], TET leans right, not far right. They rate it with "high confidence" based on independent review, editorial reviews, community feedback, and blind surveys making it vastly more credible than the opinions of individual journalists. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources#AllSides WP:RSP] agrees: "the high-confidence ratings are generally reliable". [[Special:Contributions/216.195.49.33|216.195.49.33]] ([[User talk:216.195.49.33|talk]]) 13:30, 3 October 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::::Allsides cannot be considered a reliable source with regard to Epoch Times, because the two organizations have entered into a business agreement: {{xt|[https://www.allsides.com/blog/full-transparency-allsides-relationships-media-outlets-and-what-means "We have entered into an agreement with the Epoch Times in which AllSides readers who click on Epoch Times content from our website will not hit ET’s paywall. The Epoch Times also recently published our writeup about our latest Blind Bias Survey and may publish op-eds from us in the future. We are hoping to replicate this partnership with other news outlets so that our users can more often access content or try new publishers without encountering paywalls."]}} |
|||
::::NBC News wrote about ET: [https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/epoch-times-falun-gong-growth-rcna111373 "...by 2020, it became a megaphone for the U.S.’s most extreme right-wing stories."] NBC News described ET as pivoting to support Trump with "right-wing slant and conspiracy theories." And the 2020 timing of this was very revealing: during the period NBC News was describing ''The Epoch Times'' as shifting further to the right, AllSides was re-evaluating its stance on ET which was "right" (all-the-way right or far right) from August 2019 to August 2020. After getting swarmed by 7,000 online comments, AllSides changed its rating in August 2020 to "lean right", softening their stance on ET. Astonishingly, they ignored the warning signs from mainstream news outlets, and instead they embraced the 7,000 Falun Gong supporters who were rallied. AllSides was clearly prioritizing their business arrangement with ET over actual facts about ET. In cases like this one, AllSides plummets in reliability per [[WP:CONTEXTMATTERS]]. [[User:Binksternet|Binksternet]] ([[User talk:Binksternet|talk]]) 13:51, 3 October 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:::::If context mattered you wouldn't be quoting assertions from liberal competitors of TET as authoritative. Blind surveys don't care about business deals. [[Special:Contributions/216.195.49.33|216.195.49.33]] ([[User talk:216.195.49.33|talk]]) 03:56, 4 October 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::::::NBC News is mainstream, and they are perfectly reliable as a source. See [[Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources]]. Allsides did not really run blind polls. Instead, they bent under the human wave of 7,000 Falun Gong shock troops. Allsides will never be a good source for Falun Gong topics. [[User:Binksternet|Binksternet]] ([[User talk:Binksternet|talk]]) 04:06, 4 October 2024 (UTC) |
|||
== Semi-protected edit request on 23 July 2024 == |
|||
:: 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". [[User:Mlewan|Mlewan]] 08:18, 22 April 2006 (UTC) |
|||
{{edit semi-protected|The Epoch Times|answered=yes}} |
|||
::: 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. |
|||
It is not a far right newspaper. This is wrong!!! [[Special:Contributions/89.200.37.72|89.200.37.72]] ([[User talk:89.200.37.72|talk]]) 15:29, 23 July 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:See the FAQ at the top of the page. - [[User:MrOllie|MrOllie]] ([[User talk:MrOllie|talk]]) 16:23, 23 July 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:I agree with this comment. The Epoch times is right of center, however it presents less covered views including of Kennedy Jr. The sources used to justify the far right position are viewed by the majority of citizens as untrustworthy and publications that gloss over facts in favor of sensationalism or progressivism. I believe Wikipedia is teetering on the edge of becoming a far, far left source. [[Special:Contributions/69.129.43.21|69.129.43.21]] ([[User talk:69.129.43.21|talk]]) 15:48, 15 August 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::You should look at the FAQ at the top of the page as well. [[User:MrOllie|MrOllie]] ([[User talk:MrOllie|talk]]) 15:51, 15 August 2024 (UTC) |
|||
== Semi-protected edit request on 20 September 2024 == |
|||
:::: 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. |
|||
{{edit semi-protected|The Epoch Times|answered=yes}} |
|||
::::: 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. --[[User:Playing fair|Playing fair]] 13:33, 3 December 2006 (UTC) |
|||
Epoch times is not a "FAR RIGHT" NEWs source but is more center->center-right. Please state your source that posted this erroneous error and correct as soon as possible. Thank you. [[Special:Contributions/141.255.129.134|141.255.129.134]] ([[User talk:141.255.129.134|talk]]) 13:26, 20 September 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:See the FAQ at the top of the page. - [[User:MrOllie|MrOllie]] ([[User talk:MrOllie|talk]]) 13:53, 20 September 2024 (UTC) |
|||
== RE: allegations regarding Falun Gong and Epoch Times == |
|||
== Semi-protected edit request on 22 October 2024 == |
|||
==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!) |
|||
{{edit semi-protected|The Epoch Times|answered=yes}} |
|||
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. |
|||
Epoch Times is clearly not far right. Leans right in what they choose to cover, but their style of reporting is very old school unbiased, avoiding connotation loaded words in their articles. [[Special:Contributions/2603:9001:9301:389B:9CAD:6EAF:5D45:75A5|2603:9001:9301:389B:9CAD:6EAF:5D45:75A5]] ([[User talk:2603:9001:9301:389B:9CAD:6EAF:5D45:75A5|talk]]) 17:16, 22 October 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:{{not done}} We do not conduct our own analysis of what's "far-right". The cited sources call it far-right, so Wikipedia reflects that. [[User:Thebiguglyalien|<span style="color:#324717">The</span><span style="color:#45631f">big</span><span style="color:#547826">ugly</span><span style="color:#68942f">alien</span>]] ([[User talk:Thebiguglyalien|<span style="color:sienna">talk</span>]]) 17:14, 26 October 2024 (UTC) |
|||
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. |
|||
== 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. <small>—The preceding [[Wikipedia:Sign your posts on talk pages|unsigned]] comment was added by [[Special:Contributions/66.75.247.239|66.75.247.239]] ([[User talk:66.75.247.239|talk]]) 19:46, 7 December 2006 (UTC).</small><!-- HagermanBot Auto-Unsigned --> |
|||
== 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.--[[User:Yiliu60|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.html[[User:Daimond|Daimond]] 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.[[User:Daimond|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. --[[User:Masterofzen|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". [[User:Pseudotriton|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 [http://news.xinhuanet.com/ziliao/2002-11/18/content_633225_2.htm]. |
|||
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. --[[User:PatCheng|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"? [[User:AxelBoldt|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.--[[User:Skyfiler|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.--[[User:PatCheng|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.--[[User:Skyfiler|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? [[User:Pseudotriton|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.<small>—The preceding [[Wikipedia:Sign your posts on talk pages|unsigned]] comment was added by [[User:HappyInGeneral|HappyInGeneral]] ([[User talk:HappyInGeneral|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/HappyInGeneral|contribs]]) {{{2|}}}.</small> |
|||
::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. - [[User:XX55XX|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.'''[[User:Blnguyen|Blnguyen]]''' | [[User talk: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. [[User:Calwatch|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. [[User:Ruthfulbarbarity|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. [[User:CovenantD|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. --[[User:Asdfg12345|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. --[[User:Tomananda|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) [http://faluncanada.net/library/english/jw/jw041011_e.html] |
|||
:'''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.”''' [http://www.falundafa.org/book/eng/jjyz2_28.htm] --[[User:Tomananda|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. [[User:Mcconn|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. --[[User:Tomananda|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. --[[User:Playing fair|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. --[[User:Tomananda|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 [[User:Daimond|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. --[[User:Playing fair|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.[[User:Daimond|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. --[[User:HappyInGeneral|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." [http://clearwisdom.net/emh/articles/2006/1/22/SF_2005_Lecture_QA.html] |
|||
:::: 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? --[[User:Playing fair|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. [[User:66.75.247.239|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? --[[User:Yueyuen|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? --[[User:Playing fair|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. [[User:Daimond|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.[[User:66.75.247.239|66.75.247.239]] 00:31, 19 January 2007 (UTC) |
|||
Latest revision as of 17:14, 26 October 2024
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the The Epoch Times article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5Auto-archiving period: 3 months  |
Q1: Should this article describe The Epoch Times as far-right?
A1: Yes, the "far-right" descriptor is amply and reliably sourced. |
 | The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information. |
 | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 | The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to Falun Gong, which has been designated as a contentious topic. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page. |
| The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people, which is a contentious topic. Please consult the procedures and edit carefully. |
 | The Weidong Guan article was blanked and that title now redirects to The Epoch Times. The contents of the former article are available in the redirect's history. |
ET is conservative, not 'far-right'
[edit]First hyperlink shows neo-nazis marching. This is a highly misleading entry. If ET is far-right then NY Times is far-left, but of course they're painted as mainstream. ET is conservative, you could even say 'ultra conservative,' but what you've posted is a lie. Neither is it authoritarian--quite the opposite, if you've ever bothered to read its articles. Taking sides with the Chinese Communist Party, which actually is authoritarian, makes me wonder who runs this site and who they're placating to. This and other skewed articles is why I've quit contributing to Wikipedia, although I used to every year. Martyrw (talk) 16:35, 26 December 2023 (UTC)
- Did you see the two dozen references saying that the Epoch Times is far right? It's because of the outright falsehoods and conspiracy theories they peddle. They got even crazier in 2020: "...by 2020, it became a megaphone for the U.S.’s most extreme right-wing stories." Binksternet (talk) 20:00, 26 December 2023 (UTC)
- That's a subjective response. I can cite just as many references stating how the NY Times gives falsehoods and is far left. Wikipedia should rise to a level of objectivity not catering to preferred opinions. I've followed ET for several years, and although I don't even come close to agreeing with everything they publish, the ET simply isn't 'far right' -- certainly not by Wikipedia's definition of far right, and they should at least be consistent with their own definitions. The stance W takes on stuff like this alienates them from maybe 30-50% of the US population by labeling and name-calling, contributing to the ongoing polarization in this country. Martyrw (talk) 21:59, 26 December 2023 (UTC)
- Your 30 percent of the US population voted for Trump, who is a charlatan. These people are Fox zombies—not worth the trouble. Nobody has a solution for convincing this bloc of people who don't care about facts or logic. The polarization in the US has deepened because of Trump, Fox and Epoch Times, not because Wikipedia is skeptical and rigorously factual. In fact, the polarization started in 1994 with Newt Gringrich.[1][2] The polarization has been driven by right-wing elements, especially the Christian right. This campaign has also eroded education in the US, making people more prone to believe nonsense such as what they read in the Epoch Times or see on Fox. Binksternet (talk) 22:24, 26 December 2023 (UTC)
- Yet you believe all the quotes from far left sources. Just like the writer of this hit piece on ET. Chrshale (talk) 14:34, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
- . I would point out that 2 dozen left-leaning journalists from other news organizations, who are generally in lock-step when it comes to spinning narratives, might be seen to have a vested interest in labeling ET as "far-right." That is a clear conflict of interest, and should call their characterization immediately into question for the average reasonable person, but no analysis was done here in that regard; like so many, the author has accepted their labeling without question or critique.
- . Bit of a dodge, that: "I didn't call them far right; 'reliable sources' called them far-right (and never mind that the only 'reliable sources' allowed to be cited on Wikipedia are all left-leaning)."
- . The exact same thing is happening in the political spectrum: people of one party accept without question their party's characterizations of those in the other party, and no one questions if they might have self-serving motives for doing so.
- . Imagine two competing ambulance-chasing lawyers put out a series of ads, each one attacking the other with name-calling and half-truths. Why would you believe either one of them implicitly? Why wouldn't you investigate for yourself and make up your own mind?
- . I understand, of course; NBC, CBS, NYT, WaPo, and their ilk can't have their regular viewers and readers popping over there and getting a perspective that may differ significantly from the "sacred narrative."
- . But I expected more from Wikipedia. Looks like Larry Sanger is right despite my initial skepticism, and Wikipedia really has become just another mouthpiece for establishment orthodoxy narratives, rather than "a collaborative encyclopedia of opinion." There are some legitimate news sources that you can no longer cite on Wikipedia.
- . To paraphrase The Onion, it appears that Wikipedia is now dedicated to the free exchange of idea. Ylandrum (talk) 13:01, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
- Wikipedia exists to summarize the literature on a topic. When we observe a consensus in the literature, we relay that fact to the reader. We don't try to conduct "analysis" to investigate why they are in agreement.
- Your ambulance-chaser analogy is an example of both-sidesism, a form of false balance in which two parties are depicted as equally bad when one is orders of magnitude worse. Binksternet (talk) 15:13, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
- That's a subjective response. I can cite just as many references stating how the NY Times gives falsehoods and is far left. Wikipedia should rise to a level of objectivity not catering to preferred opinions. I've followed ET for several years, and although I don't even come close to agreeing with everything they publish, the ET simply isn't 'far right' -- certainly not by Wikipedia's definition of far right, and they should at least be consistent with their own definitions. The stance W takes on stuff like this alienates them from maybe 30-50% of the US population by labeling and name-calling, contributing to the ongoing polarization in this country. Martyrw (talk) 21:59, 26 December 2023 (UTC)
- This article is about The Epoch Times, not The New York Times; if you have constructive changes to propose to the Wikipedia article about The New York Times that are supported by reliable sources, feel free to suggest them at Talk:The New York Times. As mentioned in the FAQ at the top of this page, the far-right descriptor for The Epoch Times is amply and reliably sourced; see Special:Permalink/1183093559 § cite note-far-right-1 for the current list. Your suggestion that the article is "Taking sides with the Chinese Communist Party" because you do not like the fact that reliable sources describe The Epoch Times as far-right is a false dilemma; there are more than two "sides" in geopolitics, and moreover, this article reflects content published in reliable sources – it does not "take sides". This article does not mention authoritarianism, so it is unclear why your comment implies that the article is describing The Epoch Times as such. — Newslinger talk 03:08, 27 December 2023 (UTC)
- Article calls TET "far-right" and links the to the WP article that describes far-right as authoritarian.216.195.49.33 (talk) 13:27, 10 September 2024 (UTC)
- How much is Falun Gong paying y'all to keep opening the same complaint on this talk page over and over again? Brusquedandelion (talk) 11:11, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
- Well said. This entire entry is a hit piece and reads like it was written either by Beijing or the NYT. Take your pick. Chrshale (talk) 14:31, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
- Ah yes, known collaborators the Beijing government and the New York Times. Please provide us with reliable sources that dispute referring to this... publication... as not far-right. Please note that far-right publications are conservative so sources calling it conservative don't actually conflict sources calling it far-right. Simonm223 (talk) 14:34, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
- The Epoch Times has a different political position depending on the region. In the United States, it is a Trumpist far-right media, but in Hong Kong, it is a pro-democracy camp, or radical liberal. In China, the pro-Chinese Communist Party is a far-right stance. ProKMT (talk) 10:27, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
- You got any reliable sources we can use? Polygnotus (talk) 10:45, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
- I doubt it. Simonm223 (talk) 10:57, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
- Same, but it is important to emphasize that, because Wikipedia is based on reliable sources, it is pointless to complain here. Email or call reliable sources and complain there, make sure they write what you want them to. Wikipedia will follow the reliable sources. Polygnotus (talk) 11:01, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
- In the United States, the Epoch Times speaks for far-right populism, but in Hong Kong, it speaks for 民主派. (see List of newspapers in Hong Kong#Daily newspaper). Pro-democracy camp (Hong Kong) is never far-right. ProKMT (talk) 11:59, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
- Nonsense. Also Wikipedia is not a WP:RS. Simonm223 (talk) 12:08, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
- Per WP:TRUTH we need reliable sources to report something before we can decide to include it on Wikipedia. You can contact them by phone or email. Please let us know when a reliable source reports on this (e.g. the BBC, The Guardian et cetera). Thank you, Polygnotus (talk) 12:22, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
- In the United States, the Epoch Times speaks for far-right populism, but in Hong Kong, it speaks for 民主派. (see List of newspapers in Hong Kong#Daily newspaper). Pro-democracy camp (Hong Kong) is never far-right. ProKMT (talk) 11:59, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
- Same, but it is important to emphasize that, because Wikipedia is based on reliable sources, it is pointless to complain here. Email or call reliable sources and complain there, make sure they write what you want them to. Wikipedia will follow the reliable sources. Polygnotus (talk) 11:01, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
- I doubt it. Simonm223 (talk) 10:57, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
- It is interesting to see how the Chinese edition of The Epoch Times is discussed in the 2019 Andrew Junker's book Becoming Activists in Global China, at page 186: "The Chinese edition of The Epoch Times, which is often free and easily available in many major cities, stands out among overseas Chinese-language newspapers for its commitment to publishing watchdog, critical news from mainland China. For example, it claims to have been the first media source to report the SARS cover-up in China in 2003. Over the years, the incentives of being supported through advertising and increasing readership have pushed the newspaper toward greater professionalization and to increasingly orient itself toward the needs and interests of its widest readership.
Simply by increasing the plurality of voices in the diaspora Chinese-language public sphere, The Epoch Times is playing a progressive role, even though the community’s pariah status limits its impact.
It is also conceivable that an organization like The Epoch Times could evolve into a more mainstream publication while retaining its critical independence and moral watchdog mission." Thank you. Path2space (talk) 23:46, 30 April 2024 (UTC)- That is certainly not sufficient to change the lede though Junker's book might be due brief mention in the body of the article if it is not already there. Simonm223 (talk) 00:29, 1 May 2024 (UTC)
- BTW, that source appears out of date compared to later research and reeks of early 2010s Western scholarship on Falun which frames it entirely on its conflict with the CCP. It was written before the big expose on Epoch's connection with far-right sources in 2019, and there are zero results in the book about its Trump connections. As for the claim of "professionalization", this is contradicted by Roose's 2020 NYT source which noted that ET's attempts to establish itself as a respectable source changed after Trump's election, in order to chase the conspiracy theorists' money. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 120.18.157.7 (talk) 00:27, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
- That is certainly not sufficient to change the lede though Junker's book might be due brief mention in the body of the article if it is not already there. Simonm223 (talk) 00:29, 1 May 2024 (UTC)
- You got any reliable sources we can use? Polygnotus (talk) 10:45, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
- Agreed, it’s not far-right at all, especially when the Wikipedia entry for “far-right” features Nazis. Supporting Donald Trump does not make a person or publication a Nazi. Wikipedia, you are ridiculous. 2601:8C:C302:FE50:9115:7F94:CDFC:FDBD (talk) 16:09, 1 September 2024 (UTC)
- We go by what reliable sources say. –Novem Linguae (talk) 16:13, 1 September 2024 (UTC)
- According to allsides.com, TET leans right, not far right. They rate it with "high confidence" based on independent review, editorial reviews, community feedback, and blind surveys making it vastly more credible than the opinions of individual journalists. WP:RSP agrees: "the high-confidence ratings are generally reliable". 216.195.49.33 (talk) 13:30, 3 October 2024 (UTC)
- Allsides cannot be considered a reliable source with regard to Epoch Times, because the two organizations have entered into a business agreement: "We have entered into an agreement with the Epoch Times in which AllSides readers who click on Epoch Times content from our website will not hit ET’s paywall. The Epoch Times also recently published our writeup about our latest Blind Bias Survey and may publish op-eds from us in the future. We are hoping to replicate this partnership with other news outlets so that our users can more often access content or try new publishers without encountering paywalls."
- NBC News wrote about ET: "...by 2020, it became a megaphone for the U.S.’s most extreme right-wing stories." NBC News described ET as pivoting to support Trump with "right-wing slant and conspiracy theories." And the 2020 timing of this was very revealing: during the period NBC News was describing The Epoch Times as shifting further to the right, AllSides was re-evaluating its stance on ET which was "right" (all-the-way right or far right) from August 2019 to August 2020. After getting swarmed by 7,000 online comments, AllSides changed its rating in August 2020 to "lean right", softening their stance on ET. Astonishingly, they ignored the warning signs from mainstream news outlets, and instead they embraced the 7,000 Falun Gong supporters who were rallied. AllSides was clearly prioritizing their business arrangement with ET over actual facts about ET. In cases like this one, AllSides plummets in reliability per WP:CONTEXTMATTERS. Binksternet (talk) 13:51, 3 October 2024 (UTC)
- If context mattered you wouldn't be quoting assertions from liberal competitors of TET as authoritative. Blind surveys don't care about business deals. 216.195.49.33 (talk) 03:56, 4 October 2024 (UTC)
- NBC News is mainstream, and they are perfectly reliable as a source. See Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources. Allsides did not really run blind polls. Instead, they bent under the human wave of 7,000 Falun Gong shock troops. Allsides will never be a good source for Falun Gong topics. Binksternet (talk) 04:06, 4 October 2024 (UTC)
- If context mattered you wouldn't be quoting assertions from liberal competitors of TET as authoritative. Blind surveys don't care about business deals. 216.195.49.33 (talk) 03:56, 4 October 2024 (UTC)
- According to allsides.com, TET leans right, not far right. They rate it with "high confidence" based on independent review, editorial reviews, community feedback, and blind surveys making it vastly more credible than the opinions of individual journalists. WP:RSP agrees: "the high-confidence ratings are generally reliable". 216.195.49.33 (talk) 13:30, 3 October 2024 (UTC)
- We go by what reliable sources say. –Novem Linguae (talk) 16:13, 1 September 2024 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 23 July 2024
[edit] | This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
It is not a far right newspaper. This is wrong!!! 89.200.37.72 (talk) 15:29, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
- See the FAQ at the top of the page. - MrOllie (talk) 16:23, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
- I agree with this comment. The Epoch times is right of center, however it presents less covered views including of Kennedy Jr. The sources used to justify the far right position are viewed by the majority of citizens as untrustworthy and publications that gloss over facts in favor of sensationalism or progressivism. I believe Wikipedia is teetering on the edge of becoming a far, far left source. 69.129.43.21 (talk) 15:48, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
- You should look at the FAQ at the top of the page as well. MrOllie (talk) 15:51, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 20 September 2024
[edit] | This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Epoch times is not a "FAR RIGHT" NEWs source but is more center->center-right. Please state your source that posted this erroneous error and correct as soon as possible. Thank you. 141.255.129.134 (talk) 13:26, 20 September 2024 (UTC)
- See the FAQ at the top of the page. - MrOllie (talk) 13:53, 20 September 2024 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 22 October 2024
[edit] | This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Epoch Times is clearly not far right. Leans right in what they choose to cover, but their style of reporting is very old school unbiased, avoiding connotation loaded words in their articles. 2603:9001:9301:389B:9CAD:6EAF:5D45:75A5 (talk) 17:16, 22 October 2024 (UTC)
Not done We do not conduct our own analysis of what's "far-right". The cited sources call it far-right, so Wikipedia reflects that. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 17:14, 26 October 2024 (UTC)
Categories:
- Wikipedia controversial topics
- B-Class Religion articles
- Low-importance Religion articles
- B-Class New religious movements articles
- Mid-importance New religious movements articles
- New religious movements articles
- WikiProject Religion articles
- B-Class Newspapers articles
- Low-importance Newspapers articles
- B-Class Journalism articles
- Low-importance Journalism articles
- WikiProject Journalism articles
- B-Class China-related articles
- Low-importance China-related articles
- B-Class China-related articles of Low-importance
- WikiProject China articles
- B-Class United States articles
- Low-importance United States articles
- B-Class United States articles of Low-importance
- B-Class Asian Americans articles
- Unknown-importance Asian Americans articles
- WikiProject Asian Americans articles
- WikiProject United States articles
- B-Class New York City articles
- Low-importance New York City articles
- WikiProject New York City articles
- B-Class Conservatism articles
- Low-importance Conservatism articles
- WikiProject Conservatism articles