Talk:The Epoch Times/Archive 5

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 ← Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5

Don't remove good sources and associated text

I restored the fact that the newspaper has been described as the mouthpiece of the Falun Gong, supported by the following sources:

  • Groot, Gerry; Stafford, Glen (2012). "China and South Australia". In John Spoehr, Purnendra Jain (ed.). The Engaging State: South Australia's Engagement with the Asia-Pacific Region. Wakefield Press. p. 103. ISBN 9781743051573. In related vein, another paper with wide distribution but published elsewhere is Epoch Times (Dajiyuan shibao), the qigong meditation religious group Falun gong mouth-piece, which runs a strong anti-communist line.
  • Thornton, Patricia M. (2008). "Manufacturing Dissent in Transnational China". In Kevin J. O'Brien (ed.). Popular Protest in China. Harvard Contemporary China. Vol. 15. Harvard University Press. pp. 199–200. ISBN 9780674041585.
  • Tong, Clement (2015). "Western Apocalyptic Narratives in the International Arena". In Jean-Guy A. Goulet, Liam D. Murphy, Anastasia Panagakos (ed.). Religious Diversity Today: Experiencing Religion in the Contemporary World. Vol. 3. ABC-CLIO. p. 71. ISBN 9781440833328.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: editors list (link)
  • James Jiann Hua To (2014). Qiaowu: Extra-Territorial Policies for the Overseas Chinese. Brill. p. 97. ISBN 9789004272286.

I also restored the fact that the newspaper's output has been described as anticommunist, slanted against the CPC. The sources include the Groot/Stafford piece cited above, and the following:

Please don't whitewash the article again and remove these very reliable sources and the summary of the descriptions they give. Binksternet (talk) 16:00, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

thanks for discussing, Binkersnet. Please don't accuse other editors of attempting to whitewash the page, when all we are engaging in is a very normal discussion about content on wikipedia, and the relative emphasis to which various viewpoints should be accorded. I am not calling on you to stop "defaming the publication" or similar language, so there is no need for you to say that I'm trying to whitewash the sources.
I'm interested in what other readers think. The above sources, while reliable, all discuss the relationship between FLG and Epoch in passing. Clearly it is all factual that 1) epoch is connected with FLG, and 2) runs an anti-CPC line. And indeed, all those points are already made in the article. The second sentence, in fact, establishes this. nor have i attempted to exclude these sources from the article.
The question is about neutrality and due weight. the effect of the way the information is now presented is to attack the credibility of the publication by dismissing it as no more than an anti-CPC propaganda mouthpiece for FLG. and yet we have other reliable sources attesting to the fact that it is precisely because of the newspaper's falun gong ties that it is to be trusted on matters of chinese politics — and these sources do so not in passing, but as a point of argument. we also see numerous awards that the publication has received, and so on.
thus, should the lead be used as the place in the article where these various views are hashed out - the 'propaganda/mouthpiece' argument aired, and then the 'connected with FLG but still credible' argument aired? What i've said all along is that both perspectives exist in the sources. the solution in that case is to describe the dispute, but not engage in it. moreover, introductions to articles should outline the content of the article, but save the bones of contention for the actual article body (WP:LEDE).
the most sensible solution i can propose to this is a section in the article - long overdue, come to think of it - that explicitly addresses the relationship between epoch times and falun gong based on the reliable sources we have. it's a little strange in fact that there is no section. this would allow for the lead to remain neutral and not host to paragraphs of contending viewpoints, and would allow both the connection between epoch and flg, as well as the effect of this connection on both its reporting and perceptions of its reporting, to be aired in full. what does everyone think of this proposal?Happy monsoon day 16:52, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
btw, I just updated your added paragraph to reflect the fact that the sources do not describe epoch as biased against the CPC but merely as anti-CPC. this may or may not be biased. that would depend on one's opinion of the CPC. that one is anti-nazi, for instance, does not mean that one is biased against nazis. Or choose your villain - misappropriation of public funds. the same applies. Happy monsoon day 17:00, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
University of Toronto Research Fellow Jason Q. Ng says that the Epoch Times is "heavily biased" in its news coverage of mainland China, and thus its reportage should be "viewed skeptically." He doesn't mention Nazis in his assessment. Binksternet (talk) 22:26, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
I would invite you to please address the substance of my argument. The equivalent of what you were doing would be me adding the line "Epoch Times performs valuable reporting" Would that be appropriate for an introduction to an encyclopedia article? Frankly, it would be weird to just pick out a remark from a source and stick it in the lead. Or ought we quote the Society of Professional Journalists who says good things about Epoch, and cite a sentence from them in the lead? That kind of tit-for-tat is not how an encyclopedia should be written. I welcome the views of other editors. Happy monsoon day 22:42, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
Precisely there's the question about neutrality when you've been trying to present the newspaper misleadingly as a respectable mainstream media. The anti-communist and pro-FG stance are the main characteristics of the newspaper, there's nothing "undue weight" about them. These are the significant facts and should be stated in the lead, and certainly we're not going to hide these facts somewhere in the article just to protect the newspaper's reputation. STSC (talk) 09:54, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
You misinterpret and simplify what I am saying. My entire point is that there is not such a straightforward dichotomy between the newspaper's political angle, on the one hand, and it being credible (or not) on the other hand. There are even reliable sources who highlight its political/religious angle in order to argue for its credibility. So please do not say I am seeking to hide this. The point is the weight to which they should accorded, and where in the article this information should appear. i have proposed a section which addresses those issues - I should assume that there are no objections, then? It is not acceptable to turn the lead into a battleground for defining whether the newspaper is credible or not - the fact is that its credibility is precisely what is in dispute. And so as encyclopedists our job is to describe that dispute, not either act as boosters, or attackers, in the lead. Happy monsoon day 15:45, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
STSC and Binksternet, please check WP: NPOV "Explanation of the neutral point of view" section. I believe you two mistakenly took opinions as facts. Actually, for disputable and popular views, all the existing different opinions from reliable sources should be reflected in the page. Marvin 2009 (talk) 17:42, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
Assessments from topic scholars are not disputable nor are they "popular". Scholars define the topic. Binksternet (talk) 18:53, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

and yet the main issue has not been addressed: leads are for introductions to the subject, not for the hashing out of detailed controversies. the flg connection and the differing views on it obviously should be mentioned, but the lead is not for arguing one point or another. you can simply keep piling on the comments, if you like - but you will be left in the awkward position of other editors simply adding their favored views on the credibility of the publication to the lead, as a kind of arms race. is that what introductions of articles are for?Happy monsoon day 22:20, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

Binksternet's words sound heavily biased. one scholar said the newspaper is heavily biased. That is only this scholar's opionion, not all the scholar's consensus. The fact that the newspaper got multiple awards show there are others who do not think it is biased. Another example, I saw a scholar put epoch's paper on his or her website http://www.lukejchang.com/papers/EpochTimes.pdf, which also indicates the scholar does not echo with that Toronto scholar. On the contrary, this scholar liked the epoch epaper. There are many scholars and celebrities who believe the newspaper is a reliable media. Btw, the word 'report' could have a broad meaning. A scholar's paper can be considered as a kind of research report. Marvin 2009 (talk) 11:36, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
i removed the reference to awards from the lead - it's not appropriate to note specific awards in the first few lines. I understand why Marvin put the information there - in order to balance the material that Binksternet had put there. The lead is still in fact unbalanced, given that it calls the newspaper a mouthpiece, a point which is precisely in dispute. It is more appropriate that the entire FLG issue should be addressed properly in the article itself. Happy monsoon day 15:00, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
Hi Binksternet, I briefly look through the Toronto scholar's book "Blocked on Weibo" via Google Book. For the free version, some pages are hided. I could not find you favored judgement the auther made to the newspaper - 'heavily biased'. Could you please copy the original words and its context here? I am just very curious about it. In the book, I saw the author learned the organ harvesting issue from Harry Wu and the US start department. As a result, he was quite suspicious with the epoch times report. Regarding organ harvesting from Falun Gong practitioners, there are a lot new developments after 2006, which show the United States, European Parliament, Canadian Parliament and the US congress consider these organ harvesting reports credible. Here is one example - https://www.congress.gov/114/bills/hres343/BILLS-114hres343ih.pdf. As an human right lawyer analyzed, Harry Wu started to deny organ harvesting from FG practitioners before he even completed his investigation. Please check the detailed rebuttal to Harry Wu from - http://organharvestinvestigation.net/report0701/report20070131.htm#_Toc158023109 The US state department visited the hospital a few weeks after the epoch time first publicized the crime, so it was very possible during the few weeks, the proof of the crime was covered. It seems that the Toronto scholar was misguided. The author of the Harvard Contemporary China seemed to be misguided by Harry Wu as well. Marvin 2009 (talk) 17:40, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
You are making the mistake of trying to figure out why a reliable source might be wrong. We don't do that; instead, the reliable sources are what we summarize to create the encyclopedia article. Even when you are trying to figure out why Jason Q. Ng might be wrong, you make the mistaken assumption that he was talking about organ harvesting. He said that readers should be skeptical of any of the newspaper's coverage of "mainland China", which is a far larger category than the specific issue of organ harvesting. Binksternet (talk) 01:44, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for your reply. Your explanation helped me undestand this matter better, Since I could not find the scholar's related word in the free version google book. I also notice the author did not think the Quitting CCP (Chinese Communist Party) number on the epoch times was real, as he argued the total CCP number is 0.08 billion, how could be true that the epoch times said 0.1 billion already quit? It seems that the author had a common misunderstanding about the Quitting CCP movement, which actually includes quitting from CCP and its afflilated 'Communist youth league' and the 'Communist Young Pioneer'. while CCP has around 0.08 billion memeber, the other two organizations have much more members. Most Chinese had to join such organizations when they attended elementary schools, middle schools, high schools and universities. The membership population for these two could be 1 billion Chinese. Epoch Times first disclosed SARS in China in the beginning of 2003 and saved numerous lives. That is one reason for a few awards the paper received in 2005. The editors of the newspaper sometimes could be making mistakes, like everybody else. it is not case to this author. It seems that because of the few important events, like organ harvesting, quitting CCP, etc, the author was misguided by others, he negated everything the report covered, which shows he lost the calmness a scholar should have and went too far. I think for any scholar who is in favour of the newspaper or strongly disagree with the newspaper, we as Wikipedia editors need not admire, but just report his or her different opionion on the page rationally. That is my view. Thanks again for having the opportunity to discuss with you. Marvin 2009 (talk) 13:40, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
Again, you are trying to figure out how to reduce the reliability of a reliable source, a university research fellow. It doesn't matter how many of his facts you dispute—his assessment of the newspaper still stands. He says the newspaper's coverage of mainland China should be viewed skeptically, since they are biased against the CPC as well as biased in favor of the Falun Gong. Binksternet (talk) 02:27, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for letting me know Janson Ng's words. I read through the book on https://blockedonweibo.tumblr.com/post/12147746685/contribute but could not find them. Maybe these words are from a previous or later version of the book? I think Jason NG seems to be willing to change the content of his article. Maybe his current view on epoch times has already been different.
Here is on example. For Ultrsurf, on the google book version, Jason Ng said Tor developer concluded Ultrasurf secretively monitors users' browsing activities. In fact, what Tor developer said is: - it is possible possible to monitor the content of Ultrasurf sessions using other 3rd party software. please note: not concluding, not Ultrasurf monitoring users' browsing. Please check the Tor report in detail - https://media.torproject.org/misc/2012-04-16-ultrasurf-analysis.pdf This shows Jason Ng is not strict in his wording in his research at all. Ultrasuft and Tor, both are very good tools for breaking through CCP firewall, but from different developer and were competing for a funding from a same source. These factors could play roles in the description 'it is possible' as shown in Ultrasurt developer's response - http://ultrasurf.us/Ultrasurf-response-to-Tor-definitive-review.pdf. As a neutral scholar should have checked Ultrasurt's response and should not make stories. In another version of the book https://blockedonweibo.tumblr.com/post/12147746685/contribute, Jason Ng did not talk about the Tor's critique to Ultrasurt - maybe it is an older or a newer version? I might check with Jason Ng to get his response regarding the Tor story in his google book. Marvin 2009 (talk) 03:25, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
Why do you insist on going down this road? Jason Q. Ng's statement about the Epoch Times stands. I have no idea why you are going off on a wild goose chase. It doesn't work to diminish Ng. Binksternet (talk) 04:30, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
I provided traceable proof on Janso Ng's mistakes and will also let Jason Ng know I have found. The fact has been listed here. I do not blindly admire any authority's opinion, not like you. Let alone, for me, research fellow is barely an scholar authority. I respect facts. I did not find his statement regarding Epochtimes at all (Only your words here). You dare not to check the details and only attack me by labeling 'diminish'. Marvin 2009 (talk) 04:59, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
It's fine for you personally to investigate Jason Q. Ng's work, but it doesn't make any difference here on Wikipedia. Please feel free to do whatever you want in your personal life. Binksternet (talk) 05:30, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
Again, from the google book link you provided in the page https://books.google.ca/books?id=kHARBAAAQBAJ&pg=PA127&redir_esc=y, i could not find 'heavily biased' or other claims you mentioned. So my question is whether you actually can read these words from this link. Another google book link https://books.google.ca/books?id=qqjAjRN_F8QC&printsec=frontcover&dq=block+on+weibo&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjR_rnFmdDLAhXFtRQKHQ84Bv4Q6wEIHzAA#v=onepage&q=ultrusurf&f=false Page 127 (that is the page your link indicates) is about 'leave the political party' i.e. 'tuidang'. while the author had a misunderstanding (as i explained, it is not just quitting from CCP, but is from 3 organizations), he did not write those claims on page 127. Could you please do me a favor - providing me a proof that the author actually said so? I am curious about this, as i could not find such claims on multiple source of the same book. Thanks. Marvin 2009 (talk) 11:27, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
This is what I'm seeing. Jason Q. Ng writes in footnote 23 on page 127 the following: "Not coincidentally, most of these reports from the Epoch Times and New Tang Dynasty Television, both of which are media outlets financed by the supporters of the Falun Gong (see Sujiataun, page 132), the persecuted religious sect in China. Though the Epoch Times and NTD both perform valuable reporting, the stories chosen and the coverage provided on mainland China issues are heavily biased against the Communist Party and thus should be viewed skeptically." Does that clarify? Binksternet (talk) 12:36, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

and yet the key issue still has not been addressed: due weight. you are only digging up sources that cast the newspaper in a negative light. indeed, these are important sources. but there are other strong sources that say it does very worthy reporting - these sources (the Society of Professional Journalists, for instance) have been deleted. put simply, the article should not take sides, and even less should the introduction give only one version of the story. the introduction should be neutral, and the details of the dispute over the reliability or bias of the newspaper hashed out in detail in the article body. it's good that the article is actually already moving in this direction, with the most egregiously biased edits to the introduction removed by other, new editors.Happy monsoon day 14:31, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

To user Marvin 2009 - your indiscriminate reverts

This is absolutely unacceptable you reverted everything in one go causing many errors in the article. I have stated my reasons in my edit summaries, you'll have to state your reasons for reverting each of these edits by me and other editors. STSC (talk) 18:44, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

it has been a quite long time, at many pages related to critics on Chinese Communist Party, including this page, the truth based reliable sources tended to be washed away by one small bite after another bite. In the end, only communist brainwashing lies occupy Wikipedia. I saw CCP crime info was removed on many Wikipedia English pages, while the corresponding Chinese pages appear to be neutral.
Last November, i saw one editor left a warning on your talk page discussing about this matter. I fully agreed with his or her point. Today I could not find it in your corresponding talk page archive. Obviously, it was deleted by you. But that message actually could help you. Can you explain why you delete that warning? Are you always intentionally defying Wikipedia rule and covering your disruptive strategy pinpointed by other Wikipedia users? Is this the same reason that today you deleted my warning I added after you left a warning to me?
As for today's edits.
First the newspaper obtained awards, which is clearly shown in the award list. I explained to you in edit summary a few times. But you kept reverting my edits - one small bite after another.
Secondly, your statement was not correct, I could not revert all of your today's disruptive edits, because i could not catch all of those small poisonous bites. For example, your switching 'notable coverage' to 'controversial' label was not restored by me. To be honest, i could not recall there is a time you had one constructive edit, not promoting communist agenda.
Thirdly, it is absurd you left me a warning again. Each warning you left to me should be a warning to yourself.
Finally, if there are errors, you or any one are always welcome to correct. I logged in on a movable tool. There could be some areas that I missed out.
I hope i won't see those small/intentional poisonous/disruptive bites on multiple pages again. Thanks. Marvin 2009 (talk) 21:03, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
From what you have said, you obviously now admit you have a political motive in your edits. You're reminded the WP:NOTADVOCATE, WP:CIVIL, WP:AGF and WP:NPA policies on Wikipedia, and stop persistently and indiscriminately reverting to other editors. STSC (talk) 02:59, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
I am aware of WP:NOTADVOCATE, WP:CIVIL, WP:AGF and WP:NPA. I have no political agenda and was just not happy to see Wikipedia pages deviating from WP:NPOV because of you guys. My reverting of your edits was following WP:NOTADVOCATE. As for WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL,, you should remember a few months ago, at one point, i even thanked you for your correction in one edit after listening to my advice. My today's words do not mean to attack, but hope you realize it is time for you to follow WP:NOTADVOCATE and WP:NPOV.Marvin 2009 (talk) 03:34, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
You should count yourself lucky as I don't have the time to follow up this issue through the Wiki channels. You have been blocked before and sooner or later you'll face another block again if you continue with your indiscriminate reverts. STSC (talk) 07:55, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
As i said before, last time, you reported me to the noticeboard, but you were the person who actually revered 4 times in one day. I had only 3 times. The 1st time you claimed was a not a revert. I did not have time to explain those detail, and did not leave you a formal warning. That is the reason why you were not banned at that time. You were lucky at that time and wont be so all the time. You did not answer above question, why did you the messages on your talk page, including warnings. You do not know it is not allowed to delete other users' messages and warnings on your talk page?Marvin 2009 (talk) 11:36, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
in short, simply do not use the revert function and we'll be fine. make edits one by one with an explanation, like everyone else. that is best practice. never do a big revert to a version from months ago and wipe out lots of work. just avoid doing that.Happy monsoon day 14:31, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

saved before I could leave a summary

The page suddenly saved before I could leave a summary. I undid three recent edits by the mysterious newcomer KM Dennis, who seems to know a great deal about Wikipedia process despite being a completely new account. I don't think the changes were particularly neutral - though I don't think it matters to move the material about awards out of the lead. But the news that Epoch tried to hide its affiliation seems rather misleading as a summary of the article, doesn't it?

The piece says "As it has grown, The Epoch Times has tried to carve a place for itself in the mainstream media while distinguishing itself from Falun Gong".

the part about David Ownby saying it was said up by FLG people with their money was removed. Why?

And the first edit was simply reinserting the accusations of being a mouthpiece to the lead - nothing to do with balance. It's more balanced, and in keeping with WP:LEDE to provide a neutral introduction to the topic and then in the body of the article get into the detailed controversies. There are sources arguing both that Epoch is and that it isn't a FLG mouthpiece, though none dispute it was founded by people who do FLG. In short, the overall tenor of these edits is not neutral and it seems odd that a totally new person is here using wikipedia language, editing this page in this manner, after someone else was just banned. that's all I'll say on that. Happy monsoon day 13:55, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Actually, the title of the Washington Post article cited is "Paper Denies Representing Falun Gong", so in fact the sentence is actually a very good summary of the article. HappyMonsoonDay complains about the sentence, but does not offer any constructive edits, instead grabbing an excuse to remove the entire reference. Notice that he has no criticism to say about the WSJ article but does not hesitate to also remove concrete statements referring to FLG people who work at the newspaper as cited in the WSJ. Why?

In fact, I was just restoring the lead to its previous point. This talk page shows that the lead has been argued over many times now, arguments which you have engaged in with Binksternet, Sinceouch2422, STSC and others. But you do nothing when Marvin completely removes a crucial point mentioned there. Where was your complaint for neutrality then? It seems odd that HappyMonsoonDay with such a long history of controversial edits on this page and others all about FLG should selectively make changes and then claim neutrality. K M Dennis (talk) 06:20, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

First, To be clear, I did not remove that viewpoint. I only moved it to the top paragraph of a relevant section, where different views can be compared.
Secondly, the article http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/02/05/AR2007020500185_pf.html has already been referred in the page. In the article, there is no such a meaning - 'although it has attempted to hide this association from public view', which is the line in Dennis' edit . The title of the article is clear by saying "Paper Denies Representing Falun Gong". The whole article did not say 'it has attempted to hide this association'. The article said: "The Epoch Times has tried to carve a place for itself in the mainstream media while distinguishing itself from Falun Gong," "Falun Gong is a broad, loosely based movement that combines parts of Buddhism, Taoism and the ideas of its founder, Li Hongzhi, with meditation and simple exercises. It lacks a central hierarchy, so to say it "owns" something can be technically inaccurate. But many Epoch Times staffers, including Gregory, are part of the movement.". Your edit is not strictly consistent with [[WP:OR].
Thirdly, to remove the award info has no any ground. 14:00, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
People here must stop removing the mouthpiece and anti-communist bit from the lead section. Per WP:LEAD, we put that information in the article body and we summarize it in the lead section. Anybody who removes it from the lead section is not editing neutrally. Please don't whitewash the article. Binksternet (talk) 14:32, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
This issue seems perhaps a little clapped out at this point, but I think the second paragraph which delves into the whether-or-not-and-just-how-much-Falun should be moved to an appropriate section in the article. The lead is now dominated by considerations of representational issues, rather than concrete questions. My two cents, anyway. Cleopatran Apocalypse (talk) 21:22, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on Epoch Times. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:44, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on Epoch Times. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:55, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

Carries a lot of fringe material

A bit like the UK's Daily Mail, in fact. Pinching from Rationalwiki for ease, although it's easy to find many more:

  • Headline: "Space Aliens Live Quietly Among Us, Say Some Scientists and Officials"[1]
  • Headline: "Expert in Chinese Petroglyphs Supports Theory Ancient Chinese Made It to America"[2]
  • Headline: "Woman Has Near-Death Experience, Sees 'Hell,' and Comes Back a Better Person"[3]
  • Headline: "Supernormal Abilities Developed Through Meditation: Dr. Dean Radin Discusses"[4]
  • Headline: "5 Best UFO Sightings This Week: March 7-14 (+Photos +Videos)"[5]
  • Headline: "Nervous-System Damage From the Sky: 'Chemtrails' rain aluminum nanoparticles on man, beast, and land."[6]
  • Headline: "3-Year-Old Remembers Past Life as Snake? Gives Verified Details of Encounter With Hunter"[7]

Doug Weller talk 18:40, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

The Epoch Times is more or less the official mouthpiece of Falun Gong. Considering that FG itself is more or less fringey, and the paper clearly supports it, I don't think it should be surprising that ET runs articles which are consistent with and support those fringe beliefs. I can't see any reason for the article not to mention it, although obviously sourcing would be nice. John Carter (talk) 20:00, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Space Aliens Live Quietly Among Us, Say Some Scientists and Officials by Tara MacIsaac (January 30, 2014 AT 3:10 PM Last Updated: April 25, 2014 5:07 pm) Epoch Times.
  2. ^ Expert in Chinese Petroglyphs Supports Theory Ancient Chinese Made It to America by Tara MacIsaac (June 30, 2016 AT 5:39 PM) Epoch Times.
  3. ^ Woman Has Near-Death Experience, Sees 'Hell,' and Comes Back a Better Person by Tara MacIsaac (April 10, 2016 AT 11:58 AM Last Updated: April 13, 2016 2:22 pm) Epoch Times.
  4. ^ Supernormal Abilities Developed Through Meditation: Dr. Dean Radin Discusses by Tara MacIsaac (September 29, 2016 AT 10:16 AM) Epoch Times.
  5. ^ 5 Best UFO Sightings This Week: March 7-14 (+Photos +Videos) by Tara MacIsaac (March 14, 2014 AT 5:29 PM Last Updated: April 25, 2014 5:11 pm) Epoch Times.
  6. ^ Nervous-System Damage From the Sky: 'Chemtrails' rain aluminum nanoparticles on man, beast, and land. by Louise McCoy (October 18, 2012 AT 4:07 PM Last Updated: October 1, 2015 12:04 pm) Epoch Times.
  7. ^ 3-Year-Old Remembers Past Life as Snake? Gives Verified Details of Encounter With Hunter by Tara MacIsaac (August 3, 2015 AT 3:54 PM Last Updated: March 28, 2016 11:25 am) Epoch Times.

NOT far right!

Why is no one correcting this, despite it being pointed out numerous times. It’s a conservative news outlet. It’s not fascist! 161.199.198.81 (talk) 15:39, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

It doesn't say "fascist", it says "far right", which is well sourced. It's not going to be removed until the preponderance of reliable sources describe it differently. 331dot (talk) 15:41, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
It's currently spamming a series of 'polls' on Youtube, all aimed at challenging the idea of equality and diversity in the UK. Even the Conservatives wouldn't challenge equality and diversity in general, Epoch Times is, that puts them significantly to the right of a Conservative Party that has itself lurched rightwards, so far right is clearly true in the UK context. Equally support for AfD policies would put them clearly on the far right in a German context. 86.14.138.8 (talk) 19:04, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

Epoch times isn't not a far right media group. The fact that it list it as such is liberal propaganda.

liberals propaganda at work listing a new source as far right when in fact it isn't. 50.27.25.12 (talk) 00:24, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

The claim that Epoch Times promotes far right ideologies is thoroughly and reliably sourced, and this has already been discussed above. General Ization Talk 00:30, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 October 2023

Please i want to edit The Epoch Times page Dominikmitch (talk) 10:57, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: this is not the right page to request additional user rights. You may reopen this request with the specific changes to be made and someone may add them for you, or if you have an account, you can wait until you are autoconfirmed and edit the page yourself.  BelowTheSun  (T•C) 12:28, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

33 vs 35?

In the introduction it says that ET is active in 35 countries, in "distribution" it says 33. Should be the same number, shouldn't it? 79.117.99.108 (talk) 19:59, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

Crypto?

In "Chris Kitze, a former NBC executive and creator of the fake news website Before It's News who also manages a cryptocurrency hedge fund, joined the paper's board as vice president in 2017." What has got "who also manages a cryptocurrency hedge fund," to do with ET? 79.117.99.108 (talk) 20:09, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

The source felt it was pertinent, and so do I. It is one more factor that shows his character. Binksternet (talk) 22:12, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
what kind of character is it managing a crypto hedge fund? 79.116.105.217 (talk) 10:34, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

German AFD

one of the sources in the introduction states: "...and frequent interviews with politicians from the emerging right-wing populist party Alternative for Germany, or AfD". Just to inform you, the AFD is at current polls at 23% all over Germany, making it the second strongest party. It grew recently 3% as Germany is facing a new height of anti-semitism as thousands of arab immigrants are cheering to the brutal murders of jewish people. The AFD has been warning of this situation for years and the ET reported on that, where as the mainstream media welcomed the incoming migrants. 79.116.105.217 (talk) 10:45, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. — Newslinger talk 21:16, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

How the conspiracy-fueled Epoch Times went mainstream and made millions”

[1] Oct. 13, 2023, 2:00 PM BST By Brandy Zadrozny Doug Weller talk 19:11, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

plus Added by 33prefeudalmath in Special:Diff/1180046423. — Newslinger talk 21:16, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

Not associated with Falun Gong just has a CEO who practices?

CEO practices Falun Gong and fled persecution in China. Also definitely not a far right or radical newspaper. Who is editing this and why the hell is it locked? This is beyond incendiary. Edit: I just read the top thread and MrOllie is wrong on so many levels. Politicizing Wikipedia is abhorrent, not to mention your articles don't say what you claim they do. Further, each edition of ET is separate from each other. The Canadian edition does a rather good job at staying centrist or just slightly right of centre. I don't need to link anything because all MrOllie has to do is look at other editions to double check his erroneous assertion. Axlengland (talk) 04:39, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia is built on WP:SECONDARY sources which describe The Epoch Times as one of the media arms of Falun Gong. Your observation about the CEO doesn't change anything.
Secondary sources describe The Epoch Times as far-right because the newspaper promotes false claims, pseudoscience and reactionary political positions.
If you want to have any leverage in this discussion, you must show published sources proving your point. Binksternet (talk) 05:31, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
Published sources are heavily biased and the only sources that have been linked so far are what I would consider "far left". I guess I can just edit the CNN wiki with the descriptors "far left" "propaganda" and "shills" because who the hell needs journalistic integrity anymore. Axlengland (talk) 06:43, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
There are no reliable sources that describe Fortune magazine, Foreign Policy magazine, or NBC News as "far left". You have created your own personal bubble by throwing out "published sources" as "biased". Here on Wikipedia, we follow reliable published sources. Binksternet (talk) 19:41, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

New poll: Epoch Times voted centrist

I would like to bring to your attention, our editor overlords, a new poll released by AllSides, How people across all bias groups rate media outlets.

The Epoch Times was rated, by the majority of respondents(64.26%), to be Centrist. The data group then goes on to state "While The Epoch Times’ writing is largely Center, we determined it warrants a Lean Right rating because of a slight right-wing lean in story choice, as a significant percentage of stories show conservatives in a more positive light and the left in a more negative light."

As far as I'm concerned, and frankly you should be as well, data doesn't lie. I will continue to post "legitimate" sources debunking the supercilious "far-right" propaganda claims until the time our revered editors of this page decide they cannot hide their obvious bias.

This isn't even about the Epoch Times anymore, it's about de-politicising Wikipedia. Axlengland (talk) 17:41, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

Despite what you may have read elsewhere, facts aren't decided by polling. MrOllie (talk) 18:13, 29 November 2023 (UTC)
You are being obstinate. This is a legitimate source not in accordance with your claim, and so now it's not fact?
You did this previously with OtherChoices on this talk page, and I find it appalling you can call yourself an admin.
Why would you ignore multiple requests to have the "far right" label removed, when it is so clearly used pejoratively and to denigrate the work of the many, many quality journalists at the Epoch Times? Axlengland (talk) 19:14, 29 November 2023 (UTC)
Personal attacks won't change the facts either. MrOllie (talk) 20:32, 29 November 2023 (UTC)
You've been given sources that are fact, however. Whatever happened to Consensus?
Perhaps I haven't been editing as long as you, but I think I can differentiate between objective and subjective.
This page is a subjective mess of opinion, and not fact. It is deeply disturbing that you won't listen to other editors and continue to value your beliefs over objectivity. Axlengland (talk) 16:02, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
The consensus on Wikipedia is that user-generated content is generally unreliable as a source. That is why Wikipedia articles do not cite Amazon marketplace star ratings or Rate Your Music scores for factual claims; the same applies to AllSides web surveys. — Newslinger talk 14:23, 27 December 2023 (UTC)
Other Choices's argument was debunked at Talk:The Epoch Times/Archive 3 § False statement in first paragraph. — Newslinger talk 14:36, 27 December 2023 (UTC)
Allsides is not a reliable source. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:04, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

Not far-right

Epoch Times is absolutely not "far-right", as so many people point out. Please, stop this idiotic politicization of Wikipedia! It is abhorrent to see, and profoundly unserious. 2A02:AA1:162F:8B96:A916:E464:438C:3D0E (talk) 13:43, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

See the FAQ section, this has been discussed many times before. Isi96 (talk) 23:55, 1 April 2023 (UTC)
How is it not far-right? 2600:6C67:4B3F:397:B8FC:A6EE:B45A:3DA0 (talk) 18:22, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
Far right would be characterized as being a totalitarian or authoritarian ethno/nationalistic collectivism. Epoch times does not promote collectivism or authoritarianism of any kind. 2600:8801:1000:A:6424:8FF:2D65:CB6 (talk) 17:48, 4 July 2023 (UTC)
Without accepting or rejecting your claim that Epoch Times "does not promote collectivism or authoritarianism," we can reject your premise that this is a requirement of an ideology being far-right by noting the existence of far-right "libertarian" ideologies. Brusquedandelion (talk) 02:09, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
far right is a pejorative and not how the organization would characterize their work.
Epoch times is most accurately characterized as a news organization that provides articles tailored to people who oppose leftism and collectivism or people who value individualism and liberty over statism.
To characterize anything as far right requires an underlying pro-collectivist ideology. Opposition to far left policies is not intrinsically far right. Therefor epoch times is not far right.
Wikipedia, to have any semblance of neutrality, should characterize how the person, organization or group “identifies” itself and isolate pejorative language to the criticism section of an entry. 2600:8801:1000:A:6424:8FF:2D65:CB6 (talk) 18:00, 4 July 2023 (UTC)
Please refer to the FAQ. Simonm223 (talk) 18:02, 4 July 2023 (UTC)
We follow what the reliable sources say (see the many, many cites in the article), not your personal opinion about what far-right might mean. MrOllie (talk) 18:03, 4 July 2023 (UTC)
But what if the passing use of the phrase "far right" in reliable sources conflicts with Wikipedia's own article on what Far Right means? Here is an example, from a reliable source, of real-life "far right" violent, anti-democratic bigotry: https://www.thenation.com/article/politics/neo-nazis-far-right-ukraine/
Other Choices (talk) 23:52, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
We follow what the reliable sources say. Wikipedia articles aren't required to be (and usually aren't supposed to be) consistent with each other - this is because Wikipedia isn't used as a source for itself, and because we don't engage in synthesis of sources. The definition of the term at Far Right does not affect the use of the term on other articles at all. MrOllie (talk) 23:55, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
That leads to confusion, because readers will naturally assume that Wikipedia strives to be internally consistent. Perhaps a third opinion is in order.
Another issue with the article is the sheer number of sources that say "far right" in passing with no discussion. That doesn't seem helpful. Is the phrase "far right" being commonly misused as a bigoted smear against an ethnic Chinese publication? If so, does Wikipedia have a policy for such a situation?Other Choices (talk) 01:00, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
This comes up often enough that this talk page has a FAQ section about it. If you look in the talk page archives you will find many more than 3 opinions supporting 'far right' as a descriptor. As to your hypothetical about bigoted smears, it's not really worth discussing since there is no evidence of that happening. MrOllie (talk) 01:09, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
The sources cited include high-quality academic publications. Also, as previously mentioned, The Epoch Times has promoted the white supremacist Great Replacement conspiracy theory, so the far-right descriptor is well-justified. Isi96 (talk) 01:01, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
The sources should be trimmed, as I did, but it was reverted. The "great replacement" conspiracy theory is not in and of itself white supremacist, although white supremacists are naturally attracted to it. Other Choices (talk) 07:04, 1 September 2023 (UTC)
Sources can be correct or incorrect for each statement made. There is no such thing as a source that can be relied upon. Wikipedia relies on a politically influenced hocus-pocus, a magical incantation used to disguise double dealing under the assumption that the body public is bereft of sagacity. The net effect is to spew really bad propaganda and cater to the sublimely gullible, as if the rest wouldn't notice. This article is garbage. 216.197.221.222 (talk) 13:47, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
There is no such thing as a source that can be relied upon If you believe that, you should not be on Wikipedia, since it is based on reliable sources, and going to continue doing so. Bye. --Hob Gadling (talk) 13:58, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
The paper is known for promoting the French far-right politician Jean-Marie Le Pen, the Alternative for Germany party and the Pegida movement, and pushing far-right conspiracy theories like the Great Replacement: [2][3]. The descriptor is justified. Isi96 (talk) 02:38, 5 July 2023 (UTC)
All of your examples falsely conflate "far right" with anti-immigrant (and nothing else). "Far right" generally means anti-democratic. Other Choices (talk) 06:59, 1 September 2023 (UTC)
In addition, the two reliable sources that actually say anything (as opposed to the passing label "right wing" falsely conflate a German newspaper with the English-language Epoch Times. These two publications are different.
I understand that an excption to a Wikipedia guideline must preserve the underlying rule. In this particular case, perhaps a slavish adherence to reliable sources perpetuates a rather blatant factual error (conflating the two different publications). Are there any reliable sources that discuss or describe the English-language Epoch Times as promoting the views of far-right ideologues? I suspect that there aren't, but I don't mind standing corrected. Other Choices (talk) 09:37, 1 September 2023 (UTC)
Here is a reliable source that makes a sharp distinction between the English-language Epoch Times and the far-right German Epoch Times:
https://www.chinafile.com/reporting-opinion/media/german-edition-of-falun-gong-affiliated-epoch-times-aligns-far-right Other Choices (talk) 09:45, 1 September 2023 (UTC)
The above link is a reliable source that clearly states that the German (not the American) version of "The Epoch Times" is far right:
"The German Edition of the Falun Gong-Affiliated ‘Epoch Times’ Aligns with the Far Right"
"American urbanites may recognize the Epoch Times from its quietly ubiquitous presence at corner newsstands in many U.S. cities. A newspaper closely affiliated with Falun Gong, a group whose reclusive leader, Li Hongzhi, resides in the United States, the Epoch Times U.S. edition isn’t easy to place on the U.S. political spectrum. Its editorial slant exists primarily to promote the views of the Falun Gong and its leadership’s staunch opposition to the Chinese Communist Party (C.C.P.). The newspaper’s coverage of unrelated U.S. and international issues is otherwise banal.
"But the German-language edition of the newspaper, which went web-only in 2012, has become a favored platform for far-right nativism, attracting readers who oppose immigration and support groups such as the far-right populist party Alternative for Germany (AfD) and anti-immigrant protest group Pegida. As such, Epoch Times Deutschland has become known as a member of the far-right media scene..." Other Choices (talk) 15:15, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
It's out of date. When it was written the US edition had only just started the post-2016 turn toward the far right noted in more recent sources. MrOllie (talk) 15:44, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
Could you back that up? Other Choices (talk) 15:02, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
More up to date sources noting the shift are already cited in the article, and the chinafile clearly dates its articles. MrOllie (talk) 15:07, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
You appear to be making this up. Could you please provide a quote from a reliable source that describes a shift in the American Epoch Times to the far right.
Also, I think your phrase "U.S. edition" might be inaccurate. My impression was that the the various "editions" are actually autonomous publications. Other Choices (talk) 15:52, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
No, you can read our Wikipedia article and check the sources yourself, I don't need to satisfy the arbitrary whims of folks who are accusing me of 'making this up'. MrOllie (talk) 15:58, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
I already did that. I checked the sources for myself, and they don't say what you claim. This seems to be heading for arbitration. Your attitude comes across as overbearing and dismissive, while refusing to back up your false statement.
p.s. Here is the business data for the European Epoch Times:
https://www.dnb.com/business-directory/company-profiles.epoch_times_europe_gmbh.4a0a9c426cd856a0038c3bae82428e59.html
And for all the various "Epoch Times" in different countries. Each one has a different "key principal": https://www.dnb.com/site-search-results.html#AllSearch=Epoch%20times&CompanyProfilesPageNumber=1&CompanyProfilesSearch=Epoch%20times&ContactProfilesPageNumber=1&DAndBMarketplacePageNumber=1&DAndBMarketplaceSearch=Epoch%20times&IndustryPageNumber=1&SiteContentPageNumber=1&SiteContentSearch=Epoch%20times&tab=All Other Choices (talk) 20:49, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
I'm not going to discuss this any further with someone who is calling me a liar. Go ahead and file for arbitration, though I highly doubt they would take the case. MrOllie (talk) 21:21, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
That's not the way to do Wikipedia. You know that you don't have a source to back up your false statement. And the article has false statements, too. I'm going to use that Dun and Bradstreet source to make some changes to the first paragraph. Other Choices (talk) 10:47, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
Note to reader: the Dun & Bradstreet argument was refuted at Talk:The Epoch Times/Archive 3 § False statement in first paragraph. — Newslinger talk 14:40, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

"Far right" generally means anti-democratic.

This just isn't true. Brusquedandelion (talk) 02:11, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 December 2023

I object to the opening line of the Epoch Times being a "The Epoch Times is a far-right[1] international multi-language newspaper". I object to the term "far-right" and the circular reasoning link.

No reference was provided to support this claim rather a link to a "Far Right" wikipedia page was provided and included in that link was "radically conservative, ultra-nationalist, and authoritarian".

A "Far Right" paper can't then be international, multi-lingual, and complain endlessly about authoritarian regimes like the one in China.

Rather Epoch times is simply a "Right Wing" paper. Real non circular independant references are:

Weak: https://adfontesmedia.com/interactive-media-bias-chart/ Better: https://www.allsides.com/news-source/epoch-times-media-bias

Please. Such entries just undermine the neutral objectivity of the entire platform. Ijeffsc (talk) 00:34, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

please hover your mouse over reference #1 and examine the many external sources that support "far right" soibangla (talk) 00:54, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
 Not done: (edit conflict) The references are provided. The references are in the numbered bracket which looks like this: [1] There are currently 21 sources attached to the term "far-right". Neither adfontes nor allsides are reliable sources. Grayfell (talk) 00:57, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
The statement at issue here is:
"The Epoch Times is a far-right international multi-language newspaper"
Based on the definition provided in that link to “far-right” then: the paper must support these terms and ideologies:
radically conservative, ultra-nationalist, authoritarian, nativist, fascism, Nazism, Falangism, neo-fascism, neo-Nazism, Third Position, alt-right, racial supremacism, chauvinist, xenophobic, theocratic, racist, homophobic, transphobic, reactionary
I can’t see the logic in this statement since international conflicts with nationalist, and nativist for example and multi-language conflicts with xenophobic and racist.
Further not a single one of the 21 sources supports or even discussed these factors let alone indicates the paper supports even a simple majority of them.
The statement is self contradictory and false by simple reasoning and logic. Ijeffsc (talk) 15:35, 31 December 2023 (UTC)
Once again, we will not be litigating the definition of "far right" on this page. It's quite sufficient that reliable sources use the term to describe ET. Binksternet (talk) 16:23, 31 December 2023 (UTC)
and yet you wrote below that the link to "far-right" in the prose is there for reader guidance ergo the references need to be consistent with this definition and I submit they are not nor is there any way to verify they are since the references are not about the topic at hand.
Therefore the statement is unsupported not matter how many (a kind of bandwagon logical fallacy). Ijeffsc (talk) 00:11, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
And for that matter, being an "international, multi-language" newspaper just means it covers stories from around the world in multiple languages, it can still have a far-right perspective in its reporting. Harryhenry1 (talk) 03:06, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
Note that AllSides has a business partnership with The Epoch Times, which makes AllSides non-independent with regard to The Epoch Times: "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." — Newslinger talk 01:18, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
All the sources listed AFAICT mention Epoch Times as being Far Right in passing but without the definition provided in the link with that statement in this article. There are no sources suggesting the Epoch Times supports authoritarianism for example.
Also none of the articles is about the Epoch Time per say AFAICT they are general left or left leaning publications that often throw that term around. The publishers may be "generally reliable" per Wikipedia but that doesn't mean these particular articles support or refute the "far-right" statement.
Your quote regarding Allsides is out of context. It is part of an overall transparency statement they make listing several news agencies and connections they have with various institutions. That only strengthens refuting the sources listed.
I refer you to Platt's logic regarding the scientific method. Pilling up many examples to support a hypothesis (in this case "The Epoch Times is Far Right" is weak inference. Strong inference is reliable (wikipedia or other definition) tests of this assertion designed to test or disprove the assertion.
https://bio.research.ucsc.edu/~barrylab/classes/bio183w/PlattSci1964_Strong_Inference.pdf
I suggest other wording. For example: "The Epoch Times is a right/right leaning publication... that has published articles that like any news organization have variable reliability." This would require a different set of references that demonstrated when Epoch times got it right or wrong however.
This kind of statement holds true for any media organization however I think we could some references that note that statements of facts can be less reliable in some organizations than in others. False narratives through innuendo and omissions or out of context quotes (nudge) are nearly universal AFAICT. Ijeffsc (talk) 15:02, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
You are in the wrong place. This page is for suggestions to improve the article "The Epoch Times", based on reliable sources. The determination which sources are reliable is done somewhere else: Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources/Perennial sources. But with that poor reasoning, you do not have a chance. Fact is, what you call "left" in the US is called "center" or "center-right" in other countries that do not have as many lying shit right-wing nutcase politicians. Can you please stop it? --Hob Gadling (talk) 15:32, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
Also, reliability is determined based on reliability, not on left-right spectra. --Hob Gadling (talk) 15:34, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
I suggest you are using inappropriate language.
However there are at least two parts to "reliable sources". In the link you provide which I have at least scanned there are at best "generally reliable" sources. That doesn't mean that a given article from any source is particularly good, correct, or reliable.
AFAICT non of the sources listed to support "far-right" actually define nor explain their rational for using such a term. They simply use it in passing so they do not support it's use in this article. Furthermore the Wikipedia definition of far-right doesn't match the subject in this article.
I agree however that left and right are ill defined terms. As noted by others in this talk modifier words like Radical, Far, Extreme applied to left or right are pejoratives and don't have a place here. Ijeffsc (talk) 17:23, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
We don't require our reliable sources to explain themselves. But certainly NBC News gave adequate context for its assessment "...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) 17:58, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
The quote from AllSides is not "out of context". That AllSides disclosed its business partnership with The Epoch Times does not negate the fact that the business partnership exists and renders AllSides non-independent with regard to The Epoch Times. Your suggestion to disregard multiple independent reliable sources, including high-quality academic sources, in favor of an assessment from a company who has a business partnership with The Epoch Times is not compliant with the WP:BESTSOURCES policy. — Newslinger talk 17:02, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
@Newslinger
You have not addressed the issue of the wikipedia definition of far-right wing being unsupported by the sources listed.
Yes out of context is correct since unless one carefully follows the link and reads the whole page a very different impression is given. Also you are using misleading language. AFAIK there is no "business relationship" per the allsides site but there is a transparent relationship to allow readers to judge articles for themselves. "Business relationship" implies some financial remuneration. AFAICT there is no financial relationship between these two entities.
Please try to put your personal biases aside and be objective. Ijeffsc (talk) 17:16, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
The entire page consists of AllSides disclosing "the relationships AllSides has with different media outlets and organizations". A business "partnership" (the word used by AllSides to describe its relationship with The Epoch Times) does not need to involve a monetary transfer to constitute a conflict of interest that makes the involved entities non-independent. The fact that the partnership is publicly disclosed (what AllSides describes as "transparent") does not justify pretending that it does not exist.
Your initial suggestion that The Epoch Times is not far-right because it tends to "complain endlessly about authoritarian regimes like the one in China" is not logically sound, since there are many far-right media outlets (e.g. Breitbart News) that take anti-China stances. As noted in this article, The Epoch Times takes favorable stances on far-right politicians and political parties, particularly in Europe.
The bottom line is that much stronger sources are needed than AllSides (a company with a self-described business partnership with The Epoch Times) to support the claims you are making. — Newslinger talk 17:44, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
It remains that based on the definition provided by wikipedia in the link in the contested statement does not match Epoch times.
The statement is factually incorrect unless there is some source that demonstrates Epoch Times is "radically conservative, ultra-nationalist, and authoritarian". Ijeffsc (talk) 21:14, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
Your statement "Your initial suggestion that The Epoch Times is not far-right because it tends to "complain endlessly about authoritarian regimes like the one in China" is not logically sound, since there are many far-right media outlets (e.g. Breitbart News) that take anti-China stances." is a logical fallacy - a straw man. Breitbart is not in this discussion as I think you stated earlier neither is the NYT's.
If you take time to read carefully I'm using a significant part of the Wikipedia definition of "far-right" and saying the epoch time is not "radically conservative, ultra-nationalist, and authoritarian". That seems to be the core definition. Ijeffsc (talk) 21:26, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
The mistake here is in the attempt to litigate the far-right label. Wikipedia's purpose is to summarize the reliable sources, which are definitely using the label and also descriptive terms meaning the same thing (extreme right, etc.) The sources have already examined the evidence to arrive at their conclusion. We will not be doing that here. Binksternet (talk) 21:41, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
This is not a logical argument. As noted above by more than just me the terms left and right are ill defined. So in order to use them and the modifier words like "far" one has to have a common definition.
Can any of the authors if this factually incorrect statement show that a) the sources are using a common definition and b) that they were in fact actually evaluating the Epoch Times according to that definition.
If not then the statement is not supported by these sources. Ijeffsc (talk) 22:57, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
We follow the reliable sources, we do not require them to show their work or follow arbitrary 'common definitions' that we come up with. MrOllie (talk) 23:07, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
So you are saying that factually incorrect statements using pejorative terms are perfectly OK? Sorry I find that very difficult to believe nor do I expect such an experience with Wikipedia.
That just sounds like ideology clutching at straws having been caught in a falsehood. Ijeffsc (talk) 23:13, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
I am saying that we rely on sourcing to determine what is factually incorrect or correct, we do not substitute our own judgment for theirs. MrOllie (talk) 23:15, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
(EC) Wikipedia is not logical in that way, we don't aim for internal consistency we aim for consistency with reliable sources. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 23:08, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
Wikipedia doesn't use itself as a source, so the definition on Wikipedia's far-right article is allowed to be inconsistent with other articles. What is important is that this article cite its sources properly, and it does do so - the label is one of the most well-cited statements on Wikipedia. MrOllie (talk) 22:03, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
What is important is that when you have a statement of fact that that statement is supported by the references given.
Simply using the same term without definition does not support this statement (i.e. Far Right). The papers cited are not discussing the Epoch Times per say they are discussing other topics and only mention. No definition other than the Wikipedia definition, which is acceptable to me, has been otherwise provided.
Citing nonsense correctly does not make for logical support of such a statement of fact.
OTOH some of these references discuss accuracy of articles. A challenging topic but I think Epoch Times could be fairly criticized in that regard as can just about every news organization.
So again "Far Right" is not supported properly and is in fact from a more objective perspective a false statement if one accepts the Wikipedia Definition.
Offer a different definition and demonstrate the papers using the term are using the same one and there is a logical conclusion. Otherwise you are in ideological and not logical territory. Ijeffsc (talk) 23:08, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
We don't do logical support, we don't make arguments we just summarize them. If you think that a given source is nonsense the way to address that is to directly challenge the source (the best way to do so is to provide another reliable source). There is no "Wikipedia Definition" of anything, we don't define we just summarize. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 23:13, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
And if you would bother to read above I did just that. However the only available sources are allsides which refutes the statement but also has a methodology for actually rating news organizations.
@Newslinger claims they are in conflict of interest (my paraphrasing) however and has I think misrepresented the relationship between Epoch Times and Allsides as a business relationship. Since there is no indication of a financial relationship, so far I don't accept the term business relationship nor to I accept conflict of interest. Ijeffsc (talk) 23:17, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
However the only available sources are allsides And the 21 sources currently cited in the article. MrOllie (talk) 23:22, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
Actually there are only 4 sources I counted that are articles about the Epoch Times. The rest only mention the Epoch Times in passing.
Of these 4 sources (but check my count) two are duplicate prose referring to the Epoch Times as "Far-Right".
The statement is not supported period.
However check my counts. Ijeffsc (talk) 23:33, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
I see no policy-based grounds to rule out any of the presently cited sources. MrOllie (talk) 23:35, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
Agreed. If the only available source is an unreliable outlet like Allsides, then this is nothing at all. Most of these media bias outlets purport to provide a methodology of some sort, but that is basically meaningless. Allsides is unreliable in general, and also specifically biased for The Epoch Times due to their relationship with that outlet, and yes, that is very clearly describing a friendly business relationship. In that link, Allsides is bragging about how Epoch republishes their content! Both sites have provided monetarily valuable services to each other. Grayfell (talk) 23:42, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
The fact remains that the statement is false. If you are falling back to arguing "policy" to support a non-factual statement then you have lost. When caught using a definition you then dismiss the definition or wish to change it.
Here's from the Wikipedia Mission:
Wikipedia's purpose is to benefit readers by acting as a widely accessible and free encyclopedia; a comprehensive written compendium that contains information on all branches of knowledge. The goal of a Wikipedia article is to present a neutrally written summary of existing mainstream knowledge in a fair and accurate manner with a straightforward, "just-the-facts style". Articles should have an encyclopedic style with a formal tone instead of essay-like, argumentative, promotional or opinionated writing.
I see nothing here saying false statement backed up by off hand remarks in documents that meet some arbitrary policy while ignoring organizations that actually attempt to evaluate and provide data is in that mission statement.
Folks you have failed in your mission.
A better solution would be to cite a variety of sources evaluations of the paper and represent those. Again I could only find 3 + 1 duplicate in those references.
Another variation would be to remove the definition of far right and note that it is an ill defined term. Ijeffsc (talk) 23:57, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
It isn't a false statement, and it is well supported by the existing citations. We're not going to rule out sources based on criteria you make up on the spot, nor are we going to accept that a well-sourced statement is 'false' simply because you assert that it is. MrOllie (talk) 00:03, 31 December 2023 (UTC)
The statement including the wikipedia link is falsified by the definition provided combined with the text in the article. I've already articulated this above. The author logically falsified their own statements by including a definition which was later refuted.
I had heard that Wikipedia was undergoing culture wars and here it is in spades.
I've withdrawn financial support as of now. I mourn the loss of such a great resource but I'll remain engaged.
I'll once again encourage you folks to return to objectivity as best you can.
Be well. Ijeffsc (talk) 00:13, 31 December 2023 (UTC)
They are remaining objective, it's just clear you're pushing your own biased views by moving the goalposts as much as possible. Harryhenry1 (talk) 04:36, 31 December 2023 (UTC)
On the question of available sources. What I mean here is:
There are only a handful of media rating organizations that do quantifiable ratings of news outlets to determine bias and or reliability. Bias is easier to get at than reliability because we have no absolute gold standard of truth.
This looking like a major credibility issue for Wikipedia because on such articles the most rigorous source Ad Fontes Media is deprecated.
I'm not talking about the Ad Fontes info graphic but rather their published detail data and interactive chart. The later is publicly available.
Since I find Ad Fontes to be somewhat left leaning in terms of bias it is quite concerning that it is not considered a reliable source. I'd also submit that quantitative methods trump qualitative methods and arguments. That's for another forum though. Ijeffsc (talk) 23:34, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
When you say that "Breitbart is not in this discussion", you are missing the point. Your initial comment asserted that The Epoch Times's anti-China stance prevents The Epoch Times from being far-right, which is an argument based on a false premise, since taking anti-China stances and being far-right are not mutually exclusive. Breitbart News, a far-right publication that tends to take anti-China stances, serves as a counterexample that refutes your argument.
Neutrality on Wikipedia entails "representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic", and 22 21 cited reliable sources agree that The Epoch Times is a far-right publication. That you personally disagree with the cited sources, and that you believe that AllSides (a company with an active business "partnership" with The Epoch Times, despite your request for us to overlook it) should reign over all 22 21 of the independent reliable sources listed in Special:Permalink/1192394892#cite_note-far-right-1, does not justify censoring the far-right descriptor from the article; such a change would not be compliant with the neutrality policy (see WP:DUE and WP:BESTSOURCES).
If you read past the first sentence of the Far-right politics article, you would understand that contemporary definitions of far-right politics encompass a more diverse set of ideologies than what you are claiming, including the radical right – see Radical right (United States) and Radical right (Europe) for the relevant articles – and as the present article explains, The Epoch Times has supported far-right parties and politicians that behave in a way that is consistent with the descriptions in the article Far-right politics.
Whether you donate to the Wikimedia Foundation is your prerogative. Either way, the article is not going to be whitewashed to fit your opinion because the arguments you have presented do not meet the requirements established in Wikipedia's policies. — Newslinger talk 08:27, 31 December 2023 (UTC) Corrected count 04:14, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
@Newslinger you wrote above:
"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"
Then you use a similar argument to the one you claim to have refuted by introducing Breitbart. That's a sign of ideological locked in thinking in my books. In addition to your misrepresenting or misunderstanding my statement.
I did not say "Your initial comment asserted that The Epoch Times's anti-China stance prevents The Epoch Times from being far-right". Rather I provided that as one of several examples where the provided definition of "far right" in the form of a link is simply unsupported by any of the references.
Again:
In Wikipedia vernacular, not only does a source have to be "reliable" but it has to directly support the information presented in the article. . The references violate this direct support condition. The articles that are on topic for the Epoch Times by a majority (2/3) do not support this term "far right"
Clearly there are a group of ideologically motivated editors clinging to this opening phrase. I'm reasonably certain that if minds would open up a bit we can rephrase things to start moving this thing towards a neutral tone. Ijeffsc (talk) 00:24, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
As far as I can see, every single one of the twenty-one citations for this statement directly describe this outlet as far-right. Getting pedantic over whether or not this supports the term is non-productive. Euphemistically avoiding what reliable sources say in plain terms is not "a more neutral tone". Grayfell (talk) 00:50, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
Your original argument in Special:Diff/1192553522 claimed: "A 'Far Right' paper can't then be international, multi-lingual, and complain endlessly about authoritarian regimes like the one in China." Your argument is incorrect because:
  1. Being published in multiple countries and languages has absolutely no bearing on the political orientation of a news outlet.
  2. There are many far-right news outlets, such as Breitbart News, that complain about China.
My previous comment "This article is about The Epoch Times, not The New York Times" was in response to Martyrw's unevidenced claim in Special:Diff/1191922992, which stated "If ET is far-right then NY Times is far-left, but of course they're painted as mainstream." The Wikipedia article about The Epoch Times does not describe the political orientation of The New York Times at all; if Martyrw wants to propose a change to how the The New York Times is described on Wikipedia, then they should of course go to Talk:The New York Times to propose that change and provide reliable sources that support their claim. On the other hand, I am not proposing any changes to how Breitbart News is described on Wikipedia in my responses to your comments here, so there is no reason for me to avoid explaining on this page how the existence of Breitbart News invalidates your defense of The Epoch Times.
Wikipedia:Verifiability#cite_note-directly_supports-2 states, "A source 'directly supports' a given piece of material if the information is present explicitly in the source so that using this source to support the material is not a violation of Wikipedia:No original research." Every single one of the 21 independent reliable sources in Special:Permalink/1192394892#cite_note-far-right-1 explicitly states that The Epoch Times is "far-right", so these sources do indeed directly support the far-right descriptor. — Newslinger talk 03:49, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
Two points:
1)
@Newslinger you are a master of the straw man argument and out of context quotes. I'll paraphrase again:
The opening statement reads to some of us "The Epoch Times is a fascist international multi-language newspaper and media company affiliated with the Falun Gong new religious movement."
You can substitute the underlined word for any of the terms provided in the link to far right. Do you believe this statement or any other of the combinations of the 16 terms noted above?
Do you really believe that the references provided show that the Epoch Times is a fascist newspaper?
2)
Another question. If a referenced article from a reliable source is actually about the Epoch Times do you not think this is stronger reference than one that is about a different topic but mentions the Epoch Times?
This gets to how we interpret the word "direct". There are gradations though. For example there might be a section in a reference where significant prose are devoted to an analysis of the Epoch times.
Otherwise one could say something like "Epoch times is often referred to as a "far-right" paper but it is unclear what definition is being used in these cases". That is a perfectly factual and correct statement AFAICT. Ijeffsc (talk) 13:44, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
Your comment is strange, because you are invoking a straw man argument while accusing others of doing the same thing, and seemingly not realizing it. Nobody in this discussion is claiming that The Epoch Times is a fascist newspaper, yet that is the straw man argument that you are attacking to push for the removal of the far-right descriptor.
Fascism is a subset of far-right politics. It is incorrect to claim that all far-right entities are fascist because fascist entities only constitute a portion of far-right entities. Let me use an example to illustrate. Dogs are a subset of animals. Grumpy Cat is an animal. However, it would be incorrect to claim that saying "Grumpy Cat is an animal" is equivalent to calling Grumpy Cat a dog, because not all animals are dogs. Likewise, it is incorrect to claim that the article describing The Epoch Times as a far-right publication is equivalent to the article calling The Epoch Times fascist, because not all far-right publications are fascist. — Newslinger talk 03:21, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
Well. That's not really what I wrote. You took an example and suggest that is my main thrust. It is not.
I said: "
The opening statement reads to some of us "The Epoch Times is a fascist international multi-language newspaper and media company affiliated with the Falun Gong new religious movement."
You can substitute the underlined word for any of the terms provided in the link to far right. Do you believe this statement or any other of the combinations of the 16 terms noted above?
Do you really believe that the references provided show that the Epoch Times is a fascist newspaper?
"
The 16 or so terms in that definition are:
radically conservative, ultra-nationalist, authoritarian, nativist, fascism, Nazism, Falangism, neo-fascism, neo-Nazism, Third Position, alt-right, racial supremacism, chauvinist, xenophobic, theocratic, racist, homophobic, transphobic, reactionary
So which term or terms adequately describe the Epoch Times here? Ijeffsc (talk) 13:19, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
The opening statement reads to some of us "The Epoch Times is a fascist We can only control what the article says, not what folks with poor reading comprehension might think it says. Do you really believe that the references provided show that the Epoch Times is a fascist newspaper?. No. That's why the article does not say that. The 16 or so terms in that definition are: Once again, it doesn't matter what your definition is, only that the reliable sources consistently call it 'far-right'. MrOllie (talk) 13:33, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
I'm sorry but this is simply not true *and* it's not my definition. The definitions of the words in a statement of fact matter. The definition of "far right" is provided in the link. If that definition doesn't match the meaning intended then the statement contradicts itself.
In other words if you or someone can't paraphrase that opening statement using one of the definitions or terms provided then the statement is just false.
@MrOllie I have suggested alternative wording above. What is your reaction to that? Are you so uncompromising?
The objective here should be to drive to some consensus or compromise. Ijeffsc (talk) 16:27, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
I've gone ahead and indeffed Ijeffsc as NOTHERE. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:54, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

Who locked this page and why?

Clearly this is a rather hotly contested page. I have further rebuttals to the irrational (i.e. logical fallacies) and inconsistent responses from some of the editors but I have more reading to do on Wikipedia policy, "reliable sources", to do.

In the mean time I'd like to know the rationale and who locked the page. Or perhaps pointers on uncovering such information and understanding the conflict better.

@Other Choices and @Axlengland may wish to weigh in.

@Newslinger and @mrollie I would encourage you to read about logical fallacies and in particular the straw man argument although others this conflict have used these techniques to misrepresent my statements.

There are a number of wording changes I could imagine might satisfy everyone but it would require some level of open minded classical liberal thinking. Ijeffsc (talk) 16:28, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

It was protected for Persistent disruptive editing, which is frankly being rather polite about the problems on this article. If you want to propose wording changes you may do so here, on the talk page. If they gather consensus support I or another editor who have an account which can edit the article will implement them on your behalf. MrOllie (talk) 16:40, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
Callanecc protected it indefinitely beginning January 24, 2023,[4] because of a swarm of new editors changing the well-established "far right" label to something else.
None of your arguments have landed on fertile soil here. I don't expect anything positive will result from further argument. Binksternet (talk) 16:51, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
OK thanks @Binksternet and @MrOllie.
I tend to agree that for now no progress can be made since one swarm of editors is at odd with another swarm of editors. I need more information and need to ask more questions. Also for @Newslinger I think.
Two more questions if you will for the three of you:
What is the purpose, value or meaning of the link to the "far right" wikipedia page?
Could one or more of you paraphrase what you think that first sentence means? Paraphrase does not mean repeating the same words or saying "it means what it means" which is a circular sort of logic. Ijeffsc (talk) 17:02, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
The wikilink to Far-right politics is a normal and usual thing for Wikipedia pages that introduce a topic with descriptors in the first sentence. Reader unfamiliar with the term can click and learn what it is.
I'm not going to paraphrase the first sentence because that is the same path of WP:No original research you have been trying to follow here, challenging the findings of the many sources describing ET as far right. You want to argue the meaning of far right in the context of ET, but this page is not here for that. The sources using the label are authoritative. Binksternet (talk) 18:54, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
@Binksternet wrote:
"Reader unfamiliar with the term can click and learn what it is."
well close enough. I'd paraphrase that
"the link provides a working definition of far-right for to aid the reader who might be unfamiliar with the term"
Is that correct? Ijeffsc (talk) 23:42, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
Much emphasis has been put on the "21 sources". So if I find 21 sources from say the perennial sources that contradict "far right" what would be your reaction?
In Wikipedia vernacular, not only does a source have to be "reliable" but it has to directly support the information presented in the article. . The references violate this direct support condition. The articles that are on topic for the Epoch Times by a majority (2/3) do not support this term "far right". Ijeffsc (talk) 00:00, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
Repeating yourself across multiple sections is not helpful, and gives the impression that you're attempting to bludgeon the process. If you insist on dragging this out, please respond to what other people are actually saying, not merely what you assume they are saying. Grayfell (talk) 00:56, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
I'd appreciate the same as well as a few clarifying questions instead of a rather constant stream of straw man arguments.
I'd like an answer to the question also. "So if I find 21 sources from say the perennial sources that contradict "far right" what would be your reaction?"
A more open version of the question would be "what would change minds here on that opening statement?". If the answer is "nothing" then we know we have an ideological group of editors unmotivated by truth or rational dialogue. Ijeffsc (talk) 13:25, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
Like most hypothetical questions, the answer is 'it depends'. If you look at the perennial sources list, you will note that many of them have are listed there because they have been determined to be unreliable. If you find us 21 articles from the Daily Mail obviously no one will care. If you found 21 instances of the BBC calling them left-wing, we'd have a very different conversation. MrOllie (talk) 13:32, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
Read carefully @MrOllie I mentioned sources from the perennial sourceslist. I should have added the word "reliable" to that question however. Hopefully that is clear. Ijeffsc (talk) 13:53, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
You should read my own reply, as well as the perennial sources list carefully. MrOllie (talk) 13:55, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
Ijeffsc, if you know of generally reliable sources that contradict any article text, you should absolutely bring them here for discussion. I'm not sure if you're asking hypothetically, or if you're trying to get guarantees before doing so, but neither would be as helpful as just bringing out the sources as you find them. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 14:02, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
if I find 21 sources from say the perennial sources that contradict "far right" what would be your reaction?" The answer also depends on what you mean by "contradict". If the contradiction consists of the sources saying "ET is not far-right", you get one answer, and if the contradiction is a concoction in the style of "the Wikipedia article says that far-right means X, but the Wikipedia article on X says X means Y, and the source Z says that ET is not Y", then you get a totally different answer because it would be WP:OR.
How about you actually, really, give us one single such source. Then nobody needs to speculate which hypothetical case you might mean exactly, and less time is wasted. --Hob Gadling (talk) 14:13, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
@Hob Gadling @Firefangledfeathers
I suppose that is fair enough. If it isn't clear there are a large number of editors objecting to this article. I'm just a bit more persistent.  :-)
The NYT's will refer to the Epoch Times as "Right wing" sometimes and "Far right" other times. A lot depends on one's definition of these terms which is the crux of the issue. Given the ideological bent of the editors in control of this article though I'm not sure it's worth the effort to produce such references.
Please see my recent reply to @Newslinger above also relating to this statement.
Another question. Does it not trouble you that even though a large number of editors have disputed the accuracy of this article that there has been absolutely stubborn resistance to those in control to any wording changes to improve the article? Ijeffsc (talk) 13:36, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
Does it not trouble you No. It is very usual that a huge number of people are clearly wrong about something (a high percentage of US citizens are Creationists; Holocaust denial is very popular in Arab countries; climate change denialists had a lot of success worldwide). The large number of editors means absolutely nothing if their reasoning is crap. See WP:!VOTE. --Hob Gadling (talk) 14:08, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
Holocaust denial is very popular in Arab countries Please don't shoehorn random racist, Orientalist talking points into your comments. It does not in any way help improve the level of the discourse. Brusquedandelion (talk) 10:35, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
That example of popular stupid ideas has nothing to do with race; it is religion and culture, just like the Creationist Americans. Leave me alone with that sort of arrant nonsense. --Hob Gadling (talk) 13:07, 7 February 2024 (UTC)
That doesn't really answer the question you were asked... The far right is within the right wing so there's no contradiction there... You would need a source which said that they were left wing or something like that. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:38, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
So if I find 21 sources from say the perennial sources that contradict "far right" what would be your reaction? Why threaten? Why not do it? Come on, what's stopping you? Those who actually have evidence in favor of a view, and are truly interested in Wikipedia's goal of building a fair and truthful encyclopedia, do not threaten to provide evidence, they simply bring it to the table. On the other hand, those interested in pushing the agenda of a far-right, homophobic, misogynistic, disinformation-pushing, QAnon-peddling cult known to actively try and distort Wikipedia articles to be more favorable to them- these are precisely the sorts of people who will resort to such time-wasting demagoguery. Brusquedandelion (talk) 11:02, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
Thank you for educating us about these "logical fallacies." I am quite sure no one besides you in this thread is familiar with the "strawman." It truly speaks to your scholarly zeal that you- singularly you, amongst all those party to this discussion- have mastered this arcane topic, equipping you with the eminently utilitarian ability to dismiss any and all criticisms of your beliefs as strawmen. Brusquedandelion (talk) 11:09, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

"Far-Right" Sources

The citations for the "far-right" claim should be trimmed down to one per type, per Wikipedia:Citation overkill guidelines. The current number of sources serves little purpose other than (intentionally, one suspects) providing a wiki-procedural barrier to contradicting material. 104.232.117.132 (talk) 03:29, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

The current lead has one citation-bundle which includes many additional citations. This is not citation overkill. This has been extensively discussed before, and any "contradicting material" would need to be discussed on this talk page, so if this is a barrier, it isn't necessarily an inappropriate barrier. Grayfell (talk) 04:14, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
Given the results, the quality of that extensive discussion has obviously been poor.
Take [5] as an example:
1. article is about a different topic entirely, phrasing in question shows up in a "Newsworthy" bin at the bottom
2. offhand remark, provides no sources or evidence for why the "far-right" label applies
3. refers to The Epoch Times as a website, sloppy phrasing for a media organization with a non-web presence
Bundling doesn't absolve all citation overkill sins. Without additional information to warrant its inclusion, it's bloat. 104.232.117.132 (talk) 08:01, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
Epoch has a substantial web presence.
The Fortune source does support its description. It doesn't, strictly speaking, have to in order to be a reliable source, but in this case, it does anyway. The Fortune article provides a link to a NBC News source which connects Epoch to a "troll operation" among other things. Fortune is summarizing a source in succinct language, which is convenient for us, since that is also Wikipedia's goal.
So calling this a "sin" is neither accurate nor persuasive. Grayfell (talk) 08:22, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
That NBC News source describes the Epoch Times as a "conservative media outlet". The term "far-right" does not appear in the article. 104.232.117.132 (talk) 09:11, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
This NBC News source says that the Epoch Times is "a megaphone for the U.S.’s most extreme right-wing stories." Binksternet (talk) 14:20, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
That article also very clearly refers to TET as "one of the country's most successful and influential conservative news organizations". 104.232.117.132 (talk) 15:53, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
What is the contradiction? Far-right is contained within conservative, every far-right group is also a conservative group. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:39, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
You've made a basic logical error here, and I'll take it as a token of good faith if you can identify it on your own. 104.232.117.132 (talk) 16:52, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
Mocking derision is not generally seen as good faith. If you think there is an error say it, no need to be a jerk about it. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:56, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
I'm not mocking anyone. Eye's Back made a basic logical error which renders their comment inapplicable to the conversation. In the interest of all of our time and effort, and with the goal of preventing this from turning into the thunderdome, I think it would be good if they identified said error instead of me making it clear to them. I'd rather not belabor this tangent further for the same reason. 104.232.117.132 (talk) 17:01, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
(And you are Horse Eye's Back, excuse me--the "Horse" got cut off and I was confused for a second)
Well, since you've asked--the question is not whether TET is conservative, it's whether it's its far-right. Your comment would apply if TET had been identified as far-right, and there was a need to determine if it was conservative. 104.232.117.132 (talk) 17:05, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
"a megaphone for the U.S.’s most extreme right-wing stories" clearly supports "far-right", and is not contradicted by the quote you posted here. MrOllie (talk) 17:24, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
How clearly it supports the application of that label is for the source to decide and communicate. 104.232.117.132 (talk) 17:27, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
Then perhaps I don't understand your point, how does the characterization as conservative refute the characterization as far-right? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:25, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
I'm not here to refute or prove anything. The relevant parts of the Fortune piece are a footnote, on an unrelated topic, referencing another piece of journalism, without any other supporting structure for the label it applies. It's not a high-quality reference.
A reasonable approach would be to go to the source it references, as Grayfell did, but the specific characterization doesn't appear there.
We could attribute the application of the label "far-right" in this case to Aaron Pressman, but it seems questionable that he even wrote the segment in question, given that it comes after his sign off. 104.232.117.132 (talk) 18:18, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
Then what are you here to do? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:32, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
I didn't have a plan. 21 sources reeks, and the barrel of weasels I found protecting them on the talk page didn't lessen the smell. My disdain for that is untempered, but turns out I came to bury The Epoch Times, not to praise it. 104.232.117.132 (talk) 18:39, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
Perhaps try doing neither, undue denigration is as problematic as undue promotion. You might also get more out of this if you were less aggressive and insulting, see WP:NPA. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:10, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
Please keep article talk pages clear of interpersonal comments and suggestions. 204.131.217.130 (talk) 01:27, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
I agree with Grayfell. WP:Citation overkill is not a guideline but an essay. I like the essay a lot, and I trust it's advice to bundle citations, which this article does. I don't think this is a situation where less than four sources will be sufficient, and if a bundle is needed, quantity is not a major issue. The Forbes source explicitly support the content, so it can stay. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 15:20, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
If four is sufficient, is it simple to agree that twenty one is too many? What purpose do the extra sources serve? 104.232.117.132 (talk) 16:01, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
They demonstrate that the article hasn't cherry picked a few outliers to cite, which has proved necessary given the history of this talk page. MrOllie (talk) 16:04, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
By what method can we the assess the aggregate quality of such a relatively large number of sources? 104.232.117.132 (talk) 16:29, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
As an aside, here's an example of a much better source: [6]https://www.businessinsider.com/gop-candidate-larry-elder-paid-millions-by-far-right-newspaper-2023-8
1. Epoch Times is a main subject of the article
2. Reporting on factual occurrences
3. Unambiguous wording
Business insider is yellow on the reliable sources matrix, but this is a straightforward article by a named journalist in a major publishing organization. 104.232.117.132 (talk) 16:44, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
We'll stick to the sourcing policies we have rather than ones you make up on the spot, thanks. MrOllie (talk) 17:22, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
Let's take a step back, take a deep breath, and be a little nicer shall we?
1. What sourcing policies would you apply in this case that contradict the ones stated above?
2. I'll ask again--by what method can we the assess the aggregate quality of such a relatively large number of sources? 104.232.117.132 (talk) 17:36, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
On further review: given that this isn't the first time you dropped the "made up on the spot" line, I have a suspicion that you didn't read the BI piece, didn't see that it confirmed your pre-existing bias, and would have reacted differently if you had.
For you, and other editors, I'd like to highlight this as an example of the low quality of discussion typical to this talk page.
MrOllie is free to say the above speculation is wildly off base and explain why he responded in the way he did. 104.232.117.132 (talk) 17:37, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
I have a suspicion that filling this talk page up with personal attacks isn't going to help you make changes to the article. MrOllie (talk) 17:52, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
Please keep article talk pages clear of interpersonal suggestions. ClifV (talk) 18:11, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
Good advice, I hope that 104.232.117.132 takes it. MrOllie (talk) 18:53, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
I would be fine with adding the BI source. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 17:32, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
Maybe you can mention that to MrOllie? But I digress.
My overall question is not "how can we add more citations", but "how can the overall quality of the citation be condensed and improved". The sources should provide a structured conclusion that supports the usage of the term in question (definitely possible in this case), rather than ~15 people repeating the same line (not a big number, in the scheme of things). 104.232.117.132 (talk) 17:59, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
Look at me, carrying so much water despite being treated with such disdain: The dark side of entertainment? How viral entertaining media build an attention base for the far-right politics of The Epoch Times
"Using indexes from Ad Fontes,2 we can see from Figure 1 that The Epoch Times is classified as a typical far-right news outlet"
"We retrieved the entire Facebook newsfeed of The Epoch Times... to identify posts related to far-right ideologies and China issues, we employed topic modeling. Meanwhile, we characterized viral entertaining videos by manually checking video sources (for details, see below)"
Sage Journals, Oct. 27 2023. This one source could carry the citation by itself, and would be far less of a magnet for criticism than the current garbage pile. 104.232.117.132 (talk) 18:32, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
At a glance, that's a great find. Can look into it more and add later today. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 20:03, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
Ad Fontes is not credible and should not be taken seriously. Their methodology is basically pseudoscience. See WP:ADFONTES. Since it's come up recently, I will also mention that Allsides has its own issues specifically with Epoch. Grayfell (talk) 21:05, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
Sorry, I should have specified that I was referring to the New Media and Society journal article. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 21:28, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
Sure, got it. That study looks promising, and it cites multiple sources which may be relevant to this discussion.
For Ad Fontes, a similar example came up at Talk:Ad Fontes Media#New proposed section: "Use in Academic Research" a few weeks ago. In that case, academics conducting a study needed a way to measure left/right position for multiple outlets. From that source: Multiple teams raised concerns about the reliability of [AllSides] and about making our findings dependent on the validity of a single underlying dataset. We have therefore obtained a license for a second media bias dataset (Ad Fontes Media). We present both sets of results in our paper with no normative judgment on the validity of either of these underlying sources of data.[7]
I think what is happening is that academics need something to cite for ideology, and getting a license for these opaque, commercial services is sometimes viewed as better than nothing. Sometimes, though, that's still not good enough so they have to use several and hope they somehow balance out. I understand why they might do this, but 'better than nothing' isn't a ringing endorsement. Grayfell (talk) 22:06, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
I don't know what discussions happened previously that put Ad Fontes on the naughty list, but in this case it's used in reproducible research (paired with machine analysis of text) in a reputable, peer-reviewed journal. What's the basis for editor discretion contradicting the conclusions it supports?
Better than nothing isn't a ringing endorsement, but it's certainly better than the original-research-in-a-hat-and-trench-coat of "here are a bunch of links to people saying the same thing, ergo the term is an accurate assessment of the nature of the subject". To call the former pseudoscience while accepting the latter as good sourcing raises questions about uneven standards for reliability. 204.131.217.130 (talk) 01:01, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
The study also A. presents a short rundown on what constitutes far-right ideas, B. identifies and groups the entirety of TET's Facebook output in a specific timeframe with topic modeling in respect to said rundown, and C. measures audience engagement in response to said Facebook posts, all independent of the information received from Ad Fontes.
If defining and measuring the entirety of the political output of a media organization doesn't lend credibility to a researcher's assessment of the political alignment of that organization, what does? 204.131.217.130 (talk) 01:10, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
I added the new journal article. There's much more to be added than "far-right", so anyone with time and interest should mine it for more useful info. I didn't want to worsen the length of the bundle so I removed a Daily Beast piece. In case it's useful for something else—though it only briefly mentions Epoch—the citation info is:
Sommer, Will (October 19, 2019). "Bannon Teams Up With Chinese Group That Thinks Trump Will Bring on End-Times". The Daily Beast. Archived from the original on January 7, 2021. Retrieved November 6, 2020. New Tang Dynasty is part of the Epoch Media Group, a collection of far-right media outlets linked to Falun Gong. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 02:10, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
I would also recommend (at least) removing the Fortune piece, and a further review of all the sources cited with the aim of proving usage.
Even if the plural of anecdote were data--it isn't--the synthesis of data ("many people use the term") to support a conclusion ("the term is an accurate descriptor of the subject") is original research. It's research when presented in a journal paper, it's research when Ad Fontes does it, and it's inappropriate for a wiki citation.
The presence of this strategy in the cited sources and the defense of it in the talk page is a weakness of the article and likely contributor to the "extensive discussion" people appear to be so weary of. 104.232.117.132 (talk) 17:48, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
I agree in general that a shorter bundle would be better, but I can't agree with your arguments. Citing multiple sources that explicitly support content is not original research. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 17:52, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
MrOllie stated that the number of citations "demonstrate that the article hasn't cherry picked a few outliers to cite". Would you agree with that statement? If not, can you give an alternative reason for the number of sources? ClifV (talk) 18:01, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
I wouldn't give any reason for the number of sources. I would prefer fewer sources. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 18:06, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
I respect your agnostic mindset, and agree with moving forward on whittling down the unnecessary citations. ClifV (talk) 18:17, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request 28 February 2024 (2)

A separate topic from above, this concerns the actual the wording of the article. On further review of the available sources, I propose the following changes:

1. Removal of "far-right" from the leader, result: "The Epoch Times is an international multi-language newspaper and media company affiliated..."

2. Addition of a descriptor to the beginning of the second paragraph, result: "Described alternately as conservative, right-wing, or far-right, The Epoch Times opposes the Chinese Communist Party, platforms..."

The following sources (of which I believe most/all are already linked on the page) describe TET as conservative or right-wing in various contexts:

How The Epoch Times Created a Giant Influence Machine, 2021: "Today, The Epoch Times and its affiliates are a force in right-wing media"

Epoch Media Casts Wider Net to Spread Its Message Online, 2021: "[The Epoch Times] has tens of millions of social media followers and has become a true rival of successful conservative outlets like The Daily Caller and Breitbart News."

Facebook Bans Ads From The Epoch Times, 2019: "Facebook has banned advertising from The Epoch Times, the Falun Gong-related publication and conservative news outlet"

Facebook bans ads from the Epoch Times for violating transparency policies with pro-Trump ads, 2019: "The Epoch Times, a conservative publication that has become a key promoter of President Trump and been criticized for spreading conspiracy theories, has been barred from advertising on Facebook."

NewsGuard, 2020: "The Epoch Times, a conservative newspaper"

How the conspiracy-fueled Epoch Times went mainstream and made millions, 2023: "Today, The Epoch Times is one of the country’s most successful and influential conservative news organizations"

Facebook bans ads from The Epoch Times after huge pro-Trump buy, 2019: "Facebook has banned The Epoch Times, a conservative news outlet that spent more money on pro-Trump Facebook advertisements than any group other than the Trump campaign"

The Hedge Fund Man Behind Pro-Trump Media’s New War on China, 2020: "A tax document not intended for public disclosure reveals that a branch of the Epoch Media Group — a conservative media empire"

The above examples include multiple leads from major publications in articles where The Epoch Times is the main subject. This contrasts significantly from many of the sources where "far-right" is used to describe the organization, where it is generally mentioned once in passing.

Some sources describe TET as far-right, some as conservative, some as right-wing. Given that those terms are not interchangeable, the page should reflect what the sources say, not focus on one to the exclusion of the others. ClifV (talk) 23:44, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

 Not done. You have assumed that "conservative" is somehow contradictory to "far-right", which is false. Far right positions can also be considered conservative which is a broad catchall term. Binksternet (talk) 02:18, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
> You have assumed that "conservative" is somehow contradictory to "far-right"
No I didn't, I said sources described used different words to describe the subject. The page should reflect what the sources say. ClifV (talk) 02:58, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
We can still write 'The sky is blue' even if the source says 'The sky is azure.' MrOllie (talk) 03:04, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
Probably best to do so here. ClifV (talk) 03:25, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:The_Epoch_Times/Archive_5&oldid=1226096607"