Talk:The Epoch Times

§Fundings?

I realize it's rather rhetorical to ask where funding for free weekly newspaper comes from. And if you didn't know, for most of them, funding comes from ads and so on; for others there is a parent company, usually a much larger media corporation. However, for an international newspaper covering most non third world countries; with a circulation rivaling those of the New York times; and one that is clearly politically motivated with its consistent PRC bashing on its every issue, this funding issue deserves a critical look. Thoughts?

In the talk section's archive 1 and 2, a search (ctrl+f) for "funding" yields interesting documents with quite revealing information. Nothing comes of it since as discussion goes nowhere and presence of a "funding issue" section in the article either by itself or within the "criticism" section.

Also I'd just like to point out there won't be a neutral position for this topic, and if there seems to be one, it's not or it's already biased, as all information on this topic lean heavily in one direction or another. If this article as with all articles relating to FLG, whenever a seemingly neutral description is given without a just as expensive opposing view presented, the article is biased and needs to be augmented.

So, funding. Sources, issues, criticism, etc. Thoughts? Gw2005 (talk) 04:07, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

• From the versions I have read/seen, there are usually a handful of small classified; larger ads are principally those announcing group (ie Falun Gong) meetings, so it seems likely to me that revenues from advertising are not the principal source. But as it is a private organisation, I wonder how far this investigation will get. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 02:38, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

fyi here in nyc it has ads. see http://epoch-archive.com/a1/en/edition.php?dir=us/nyc/2012/05-May/30Happy monsoon day (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 21:50, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

There are public records of Falun Gong associations providing funds to Epoch Times, found in non-profit declarations (Guidestar is a clearing house for non-profit disclosures):

Southern USA Falun Dafa Association. $10,350 were given to Epoch Times in 2002, $22,700 in 2003, $14,750 in 2004:

http://www.guidestar.org/FinDocuments/2002/760/692/2002-760692185-1-9.pdf

http://www.guidestar.org/FinDocuments/2003/760/692/2003-760692185-1-9.pdf

http://www.guidestar.org/FinDocuments/2004/760/692/2004-760692185-1-9.pdf

Falun Dafa Association of New England. $57,609 were spent on computer and print media, $97,755 in 2003, $116,823 in 2004:

http://www.guidestar.org/FinDocuments/2002/043/576/2002-043576893-1-9.pdf

http://www.guidestar.org/FinDocuments/2003/043/576/2003-043576893-1-Z.pdf

http://www.guidestar.org/FinDocuments/2004/043/576/2004-043576893-02038ba1-9.pdf

This fact was originally in the wiki, but were removed by Falun Gong disciples who came here to push POV Bobby fletcher (talk) 22:40, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

You wouldn't be able to find out who removed the material, would you? John Carter (talk) 23:06, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Not really clear by looking through the archives, but this material was originally presented (by this same editor, it would seem) as far back as 2007 or 2008. Other editors seemed to have difficulty interpreting this information or its utility, as it is a primary source. The documents appear to indicate that the Falun Dafa Associations purchased advertisements in the Epoch Times to promote the practice, as well as from some other media entities. Homunculus (duihua) 01:33, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

isnt that relevant because it indicates a connection between flg and epoch times?Happy monsoon day 15:54, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

It does a bit more than "indicate" a connection, it rather clearly demonstrates a connection, so, yes, it is relevant. Regarding the apparent OR regarding the motivations of the editors involved, if it were removed while the content was under discretionary sanctions, then I think it might potentially be worth bringing before AE or some other form of administrative attention. John Carter (talk) 18:20, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

A little bit of ancient history - this information is not new, just it has been habitually blanked by people who used to circle the wagon (and why I stopped editing years ago). If you look at the oldest talk archive, it was already proposed, added and blanked repeatedly.

Bobby fletcher (talk) 23:18, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

well first of all lets agree on something before adding it to the page because its a pretty controversial issue as far as i know and we have to make sure its solid of course. but about what you mentinoed mr carter you seem to know something on this: what connection do you think it demonstrates and how? also is it fine to use primary sources like this?Happy monsoon day 01:05, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

It is perfectly acceptable to use primary sources if they are the best available. In fact, in several articles relating to religion, like Jesus, we regularly use primary sources, like Biblical texts, specifically for that reason - that they are, basically, all we have available. But non-profit disclosures like these sources are almost certainly legal documents, and thus perfectly acceptable. One could of course go to WP:RSN to verify if one saw fit to do so. However, the documents can be used to indicate that the specific entities involved gave money in the amounts indicated for the specific purposes indicated. To go further, like saying "They fund The Epoch Times," is an ill-definied statement not supported by the facts, but specifically repeating the facts as indicated in the official records, or a non-controversial summing like "Group X is on record of donating Amount Y to The Epoch Times as per Document Z," is perfectly acceptable. John Carter (talk) 01:18, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

as i understand we're talking about the purchase of advertising space for promoting flg arent we? maybe we should have a section on all epoch times advertisers, or something about who else flg clubs bought advertising on?Happy monsoon day 01:25, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, you do mention that in the third posting in this thread, which I overlooked. I was more directly thinking of the fourth posting in this thread, below yours, dealing with the information from Guidestar. Yes, we definitely could include information to the effect of "[FG group] paid [sum] to The Epoch Times for advertising," based on your evidence. But we also could definitely use the information from Guidestar about how the Southern USA Falun Dafa Association gave them roughly ten thousand dollars. If Guidestar or some other reliable source indicates that the money was given for cost of advertising, that would reasonably be included as well. However, if we don't have sources saying that, then all we can go with is the information we do have. John Carter (talk) 01:37, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

I would look at the matter from a different angle i.e. let an expert in finance/media calculate what that whole operation (including translators) would cost if everything is paid. Then deduct a percentage for voluntary input. See what figure comes up and assess what relations it bears to the ads. Ask the question if there is a funding gap, and could that be met by Falun Gong practitioners (how much per head), outside or from within China? I am not suggesting they are a front, but Brian Crozier's Conflict Studies publications were a front, as he describes himself in his memoirs 'Free Agent'. At the end of the day, when I get something for free, I always assume that somebody goes to the trouble and expense because he/she has an agenda. The above analysis could be done by a student group of business studies and journalism.

144.136.192.4 (talk) 04:52, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

§Christian Science Monitor?

The Christian Science Monitor is comparable insofar as being being a religious publication that is not primarily a religion-origin periodical. Would it be sufficient to "See also" one to the other? Can anyone think of a category name for such periocicals? The Watchtower magazine could conceivably qualify in such a category, too, whatever one might think of their Witnessing. --Pawyilee (talk) 04:17, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

I think the CS monitor and the Watchtower are fundamentally different. The most explicitly religious thing about the monitor, in my opinion, is its name. I've read it for years and it's essentially a secular news source, with the exception of isolated articles about CS. I personally consider it to be one of the most objective news sources out there, closer to Wikipedia's idea of NPOV than well-respected publications like the NY Times (in my opinion). The Watchtower, on the other hand, is an explicitly religious magazine, and it doesn't really claim to be anything else. I see the Epoch Times as somewhere in between the monitor and the watchtower, but probably close to the monitor. However, I think it is more influenced by its association with Falun Gong, and I do think there's an important difference in that the CS Monitor actively acknowledges its relationship to Christian Science, whereas the Epoch Times seems to keep the relationship to Falun Gong hidden, in spite of certain things (like anti-PRC bias) being pretty obvious.

As to the suggestion, I wouldn't support adding either of these publications under "see also" because I'd worry that comparing it to the monitor might come across as making an implicit claim of greater objectivity than is warranted, whereas comparing it to the Watchtower would also break NPOV in making an implied claim of direct religious association. Cazort (talk) 02:57, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

§Politics versus religion

Despite Augustine's declaring in the City of God after Christianity's designation as the official religion of the Roman Empire, that its message is spiritual rather than political, religion has always be entangled with earthly politics.

In 1943, [Abbot Low] Moffat [(1901–1996)] resigned his [New York State] Assembly seat and took a position with the United States Department of State. He served as the head of the Division of Southeast Asian Affairs from 1944-1947 and in 1946 met with Vietnamese nationalist leader Ho Chi Minh. His reports to his superiors cautioned against Washington's inflexible opposition against nationalist movements in Vietnam and other colonies. Convinced that American statesmen had erred grievously in making anti-communism the cornerstone of postwar foreign policy, he later asserted that it seemed as if the world had been plunged "right back in[to] the wars of religion." In subsequent years, he was openly critical of American involvement in Vietnam.

Political Science of Religion is one of the youngest disciplines of Political Science. It was established in the last decades of the twentieth century.

—05:22, 21 June 2013 (UTC)Pawyilee (talk)

§Accuracy in Media

Note that Accuracy in Media is not a "non-profit watchdog" as the passage said, but according to its own article, a politically conservative activist organization with a dubious reputation, including promoting conspiracy theories on Vince Foster and the UN. Also, the claim that "some people support ET for xxx and some oppose ET for yyy" are unsourced, weasel words.--137.111.13.200 (talk) 11:31, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

§Taking off the sharp edge

fyi to any editors: i tried to take the sharp edge off some of the characterizations and descriptions of the epoch times that were present in the article, to make it a little more neutral and objective in tone. content is content - we just present it without a bunch of adjectives and gotchas. Happy monsoon day 02:04, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

...And I just reverted your softening of the connection to Falun Gong because you were not neutral. Don't take that information out of the article as it is critical to the understanding of the new organization. Binksternet (talk) 02:42, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

at no point did i take the information out but it's simply ridiculous to put it in the opening sentence. let's open the article on the new york times by stating that it was founded by jews then shall we? Happy monsoon day 18:59, 21 December 2014 (UTC) here is the issue: factual information must be presented neutrally and sensibly. it is completely weird to repeat, multiple times, again and again (you see what i did there?) basic, factual information about the religious affiliation of the newspaper. that information should simply be conveyed in a neutral and appropriate tone in the appropriate places. it makes no sense to insert it in similar ways again and again - unless our attempt is to make a political point. and no, I don't think that is the purpose of this encyclopedia.Happy monsoon day 19:02, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

a final point: you will need to dispute each edit I have made explicitly and precisely with reference to relevant policies. you will please provide the diff of the edit that you dispute, and raise your concern or reasoning. at no time are you allowed to simply do a blanket revert of defensible and sensible edits i am making in an attempt to bring the article in line with NPOV policies. first order of business: making the lede neutral, since this is a newspaper, first and foremost. secondly, removing biased language like heavily which is not justified by the sources. you will need to demonstrate exactly why 'Falun gong' should be in the first sentence, and you will need to show in every instance why the word heavily belongs in the parts in which it was placed. no blanket reverts. these articles are probably under some kind of restrictions, so be sure to carefully document your thinking and editing. bw.Happy monsoon day 19:07, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

You have failed to adhere to WP:NPOV by removing the valid assessment by third party observers. Both the Congressional Research Service and David Ownby write prominently about the Falun Gong foundation of the newspaper. We must tell this to the reader in the first sentence because it is so important. Your wish to whitewash the article cannot be honored. Binksternet (talk) 19:22, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

that is untrue. i did not at all attempt to remove the information - I merely saw that it was put in an appropriate location in the article. where in the npov policy does it say that falun gong should go in the first sentence? it is not actually an assessment - it's just basic factual information. it is a matter on which reasonable people can disagree. I will not make further edits until i hear the opinion of other people, but it seems to me that you are being highly unreasonable. Your reverts even put back a spelling error, and inserted more weasel words (like 'heavily'). care to answer to that? Blanket reverts are rather frowned upon. any lurkers care to weigh in on whether putting falun gong in the first sentence is appropriate? Let's here it. Happy monsoon day 02:17, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

According to MOS:LEAD: "The lead should summarize the most important points, including any prominent controversies". STSC (talk) 03:09, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

§Neutrality of article

§Links have been deleted

The 10 July 2014‎ version of the article [1] had links to ET websites, similar to Al Jazeera's article, but they were deleted a day later. There seems to be no reason why this article shouldn't have links like Al Jazeera. This seems to be bias against this article.Aaabbb11 (talk) 04:35, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

§Epoch Times related links

I count 29 of the current 71 references are to Epoch Times pages and 2 others to nine commentaries. So the claim that "This article may rely excessively on sources too closely associated with the subject, preventing the article from being verifiable and neutral" appears unfounded now.Aaabbb11 (talk) 06:38, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

It's at least 29 references too many. Secondary sources should be used instead. --Elnon (talk) 19:17, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

@Elnon: If you go to BBC on wiki, click on edit, bbc.co.uk is listed 121 times. When Epoch Times is breaking a story like organ harvesting in March 2006, its appropriate there are links. ET is a multinational media company. It unlikely that other organisations are going to provide up to date detailed documentation about it.Aaabbb11 (talk) 02:00, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

As a single-subject editor - since your first appearance in Wikipedia on November 30, 2014, all your edits have been in Falun Gong-related pages -, you do not seem to be at a loss for good reasons not only for making use of ET as a primary source but also removing content that may cast your "multinational media company" in a poor light as here, here, here and here. I am not sure these edits of yours plus your reverting some of Binksternet's edits entitle you to remove the "multiple issues" tag. --Elnon (talk) 23:50, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

@Elnon: 1. The link between ET and FG is mentioned at the top of the 1st and 2nd sections and elsewhere. Repetition lowers the quality of articles especially if its in the same section.

2. People get arrested if the CCP finds out they have been giving information. Like Cao Dong [2]. If there isn't a live link available maybe its a trivial issue.

3. Do you think that ET needs a link to China Daily? How come there is no link to ET on China Daily?

4. The place for an in depth discussion about Wang Wenyi is probably on her page where there seems to be plenty of info. Simple issue - she shouted and ET apologized.

5. Those 4 edits were before neutrality was raised as an issue. Person who raised issues about this article doesn't seem interested. After issues raised I put links to CCP pages on this article and deleted links to ET pages and this comment "When The Epoch Times began printing its scathing “Nine Commentaries” on the CCP, printers in Hong Kong could not print them fast enough to satisfy eager readers." [3] etc. So 18 edits later its a different article to what it was when someone raised issues.

6. In the case of awards the ET link maybe the only one available, where possible there is an independent link. For big issue like Organ Harvesting there are plenty of non ET links.Aaabbb11 (talk) 02:54, 22 January 2015 (UTC)