Talk:The Epoch Times

NBC investigative piece on epoch times

This could have useful information for this page. Takes a deep dive into how their Falun Gong philosophy has motivated the paper to take a more explicitly pro-Trump editorial stance recently. Could help expand our descriptions of their English language news coverage. GeauxDevils (talk) 17:26, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

NBC should be taken with a grain of salt as with all other mainstream medias. Creepercast888 (talk) 11:25, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

As per NBC News Fails CRC Fact Check: The Epoch Times Is No Pro-Trump Dark Money Operation, NBC's accusations against Epochtimes are false. Scarlett 04:13, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

You mean the Capital Research Center, the libertarian think tank? The one that once claimed ACORN paid its volunteers in crack cocaine? That one? That's a big fat "no", then. --Calton | Talk 05:35, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

The article largely relied on the NBC’s report on The Epoch Times (ET), but NBC is not an RS on the subject of ET because of WP:COI and WP:REPUTABLE “Articles should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. “

1 Being obsessed with the conspiracy theory that Trump works for Russia, in recent years NBC was caught for reporting fake news many times in this regard. Here are 2 examples: A, B

The Epoch Times (ET) has been reporting Spygate events where the pro-Hillary US Intelligence Community (IC) set up traps to spy and to destroy their enemy Trump and his supporters. Recently many other media echoed ET’s Spygate report.Here is one recent Yahoo news

NBC and ET have been reporting two competing theories and therefore being competitors to each other, so it is clear that NBC is not a third party on the subject of ET. To cite NBC for introducing ET is against WP:COI and WP:REPUTABLE.

2 NBC Universe has a joint venture in Beijing with CCP

CCP riots in Hong Kong tried to burn down ET’s printing house. NBC’s economic ties with CCP made its report on ET appear not following WP:COI.Scarlett 02:09, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

Scarlett if you are so sure about this, take it to WP:RSN. But I don't think you'll like the response. But please, either drop this or go to RSN. Doug Weller talk 10:06, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

Who's editing this article?

The "Reception" section reads like it was written by the government of China. There is no mention at all of the quality of the performance. Every statement is written in the context of Shen Yun as propaganda. I attended one performance, and it has artistic merit worth reviewing. Upon leaving the performance, I was approached by an ethnic Chinese reporter and cameraman. They were visibly disappointed when I said I enjoyed the performance, and immediately left to sample someone else's opinion. They were clearly seeking a negative review. The "Reception" section mirrors this one-sided approach. Digger1234 (talk) 16:07, 19 April 2020 (UTC) Digger1234 09:05, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

Just today, it appears someone without an account (editing from an IP address) changed the phrasing of the first paragraph so that instead of referring to Qanon and the anti-vaccination movement as "conspiracy theories," the article now reads "The group's news sites and YouTube channels are known for telling truthes such as QAnon and anti-vaccination stories." My guess is that someone involved with the newspaper or Falun Gong made that edit, but regardless, it's flagrantly biased, and flagrantly biased towards some belief systems that are absolutely gonzo. I'm going to reverse the edit, but I doubt it's the only example of pro-ET bias in the article, or the last one we'll see. Flyest nihilist (talk) 17:47, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

Well, they are creating and concealing several dozen Facebook pages. I would be very, very surprised if Wikipedia isn't being used as a covert battleground for not only these guys but several other groups that typically can be found under rocks. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 17:42, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

Citing NBC word for word as fact is not very appropriate. Should be more along the lines of "...Accused by NBC News of..." Creepercast888 (talk) 11:27, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia considers NBC reliable. Binksternet (talk) 15:27, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

I can't find that NBC is a reliable source on Wiki Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources. Besides that, reliable doesn't mean "no error". As long as a source has biased or inaccurate points, we should avoid being influenced by that. LoftusCH (talk) 01:13, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

RSP is not exhaustive. NBC News has a positive reputation for accuracy and fact-checking. It is not a flawless reputation, but it is enough that the outlet is considered generally reliable. We would need a specific, policy-based reason to claim this has inaccurate points. Saying a source is biased is too broad to be helpful. Calling a source biased doesn't make it biased, and it's not always clear if being biased matters. Grayfell (talk) 00:35, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Snopes article

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

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

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

Controversies/bias

By main stream media (and some popular political scientist -- see above), the Epoch Times is seen as a journalistic arm of the Falun Gong. The Falun Gong, however, have regularly been treated poorly by the Chinese Communist Party. It is known to have suffered many human rights abuses and, in response, to have held passive meditations and sit-ins (see Amnesty International reports here https://faluninfo.net/amnesty-international/ or United Nations report here: http://www.falunhr.org/reports/2010/2010UN-Reports.pdf). Understandably then, Falun Gong followers have been less sympathetic or forgiving of China's human rights abuses than the international community. This is their bias; it is based on real persecution. That being said, it is a bias that counters otherwise friendly-bias in coverage on and relations between China and the U.S. and China and Europe in terms of trade (see example here: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2018/08/07/why-republicans-dont-push-back-on-trumps-china-tariffs-in-one-map/). While China remains a major human rights violator, much of the main stream media supports continued friendly trade relations with them. This is a bias as well. The Epoch Times counters that bias. -- Written by a Ph.D. in Political Science — Preceding unsigned comment added by Albgd4 (talk • contribs) 15:24, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

The bias is not because of religious issues, but because of its problematic relationship to factuality. Any source which "has become known for its support of U.S. President Donald Trump and favorable coverage of far-right politicians in Europe; a 2019 report showed it to be the second-largest funder of pro-Trump Facebook advertising after the Trump campaign." has to deny facts and push conspiracy theories to hold such positions. -- Valjean (talk) 15:39, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

Good points, Valjean. It's important to remember that the newspaper was observed to be counterfactual long before Trump was elected. The Epoch Times would be more respected by impartial observers if they printed the truth instead of their viewpoint. It doesn't matter how much they have suffered at the hands of the Communists. Binksternet (talk) 15:50, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

It is statements such as these (from all sides) that are practically the definition of bias and hinders the finding of truth:

"Any source which "has become known for its support of U.S. President Donald Trump and favorable coverage of far-right politicians in Europe...has to deny facts and push conspiracy theories to hold such positions."

This is no way to find or promote truth, regardless of being painted extreme left, extreme right, or anything above it or below. Godsfunambulator (talk) 21:24, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

You may find Wikipedia:Verifiability, not truth to be a helpful read. As talk pages are not intended to be general discussion forums, let's also try to focus on the article content, instead of our personal opinions on The Epoch Times or the Falun Gong. — Newslinger talk 01:51, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

Absolutely agree with it. We should focus more on whether the content of Wikipedia is reliable, rather than expose personal opinion on it. There are different newspaper and other media founded by different groups, among which are groups with special missions and belief. It doesn't matter what their background is, but the reliability that really matters.LoftusCH (talk) 00:29, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Wikiproject: Propaganda?

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

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

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

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

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

Semi-protected edit request on 14 May 2020

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

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

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

"Miss Information Campaign"

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

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

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

The article reads like an opinion piece, not an encyclopedia entry

The article should be rewritten, it contains personal opinions of its writers which is not what encyclopedias are for. JanBielawski (talk) 21:47, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

You will need to be much, much more specific than that. Grayfell (talk) 23:42, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

CBC editors notes

This is regarding this revert

@Liketheory: Hello.

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

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

==

==

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

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

https://www.heraldseries.co.uk/news/18429293.epoch-times-conspiracy-news-sent-oxfordshire-councillors/