Talk:The Epoch Times: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

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.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5: 3 months

view · edit

Frequently asked questions

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.

Religion: Falun Gong / New religious movements Low‑importance

	Religion portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, a project to improve Wikipedia's articles on Religion-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.ReligionWikipedia:WikiProject ReligionTemplate:WikiProject ReligionReligion
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is within the scope of Falun Gong work group, a work group which is currently considered to be inactive.
	This article is supported by New religious movements work group (assessed as Mid-importance).

Newspapers Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Newspapers, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Newspapers on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.NewspapersWikipedia:WikiProject NewspapersTemplate:WikiProject NewspapersNewspapers
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Journalism Low‑importance

	Journalism portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Journalism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of journalism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.JournalismWikipedia:WikiProject JournalismTemplate:WikiProject JournalismJournalism
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

China Low‑importance

	China portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject China, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of China related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChinaWikipedia:WikiProject ChinaTemplate:WikiProject ChinaChina-related
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

United States: Asian Americans Low‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Asian Americans.

New York City Low‑importance

	New York City portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject New York City, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of New York City-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.New York CityWikipedia:WikiProject New York CityTemplate:WikiProject New York CityNew York City
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Conservatism Low‑importance

	Conservatism portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Conservatism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of conservatism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ConservatismWikipedia:WikiProject ConservatismTemplate:WikiProject ConservatismConservatism
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

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.

ET is conservative, not 'far-right'

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

. 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

You got any reliable sources we can use? Polygnotus (talk) 10:45, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt it. Simonm223 (talk) 10:57, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Nonsense. Also Wikipedia is not a WP:RS. Simonm223 (talk) 12:08, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

We go by what reliable sources say. –Novem Linguae (talk) 16:13, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 23 July 2024

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)[reply]

See the FAQ at the top of the page. - MrOllie (talk) 16:23, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

You should look at the FAQ at the top of the page as well. MrOllie (talk) 15:51, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 20 September 2024

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)[reply]

See the FAQ at the top of the page. - MrOllie (talk) 13:53, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 22 October 2024

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)[reply]

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)[reply]