Talk:The Epoch Times

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)

@STSC MOS:LEAD: para2 "The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview. It should define the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points, including any prominent controversies."

Looks like you are good at chopping stuff out and claiming it as quote. More disruptive behaviour. Aaabbb11 (talk) 13:06, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Don't pick and choose what to put in the lead

There're two notable facts about Epoch Times: -

• Pro-Falun Gong
• Anti-communist

Don't just mention the awards and hide this relevant information from the lead; Wikipedia is neutral and must not be hijacked for any propaganda purpose. STSC (talk) 00:27, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

@STSC As a very long term editor you should know better than to add unsourced info. Guess I should give you another warning for disruptive behaviour. Your heading is not a good choice in my opinion. Aaabbb11 (talk) 10:43, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

You obviously do not know about the MOS guideline on the lead; maybe your Falun Gong friends on Wiki should teach you one thing or two. You even have the cheek to mention "disruptive behaviour" soon after you were blocked, I think it's about time you should get a topic ban. STSC (talk) 18:07, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

@STSC The fact that you think FG is anti-communist clearly demonstrates you know very little about FG. And you don't seem to be interested in changing what you have written on the ET article when you are presented with the facts. FG didn't have a problem with the communist party of China before the persecution of FG began. So you are distorting information on wiki. So it is you who should get a topic ban my friend. Aaabbb11 (talk) 12:52, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

The source[1] says "Meanwhile, The Epoch Times, a pro-Falun Gong paper that brands the Chinese Communist Party as evil..." It discusses several cases of pro- and anti-Communist efforts outside of China, with the Epoch Times listed as an anti-Communist example. Binksternet (talk) 16:55, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Reporters and newspapers print what they believe is correct. However FG didn't have problem with the Communist Party of China before the persecution of FG began in 1999 and Communist Party members were doing FG. So FG practitioners are against the Persecution of FG rather the Government of China. The Communist Party of China would like people to think that FG are against the Government of China but that is incorrect. Aaabbb11 (talk) 16:30, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

"Associated with" is vague

Epoch Times is newspaper with strong focus on human rights issues which is staffed by FG practitioners. FG is spiritual practice. "Associated with" is vague & should not be used. Aaabbb11 (talk) 15:15, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

@ 02:45, 1 May 2015‎ RadCfin stated in edit summary "Falun Gong was removed from the first line as "associated with" is a vague construction that lends itself to misinterpretation, and a good description is in history".

@ 18:28, 30 June 2015‎ Happymonsoonday1 stated in edit summary "actually the article already does say that the newspaper was founded by flg peeps. "associated with" is vague. just explain it properly - doesn't need to be in very first sentence guys". Aaabbb11 (talk) 15:29, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

You should quote reliable sources to make your argument rather than point to the opinions of other editors.

You should also be very much aware that the Epoch Times has been trying to distance itself from the Falun Gong.[2][3][4] We at Wikipedia are rightfully cynical about this attempt to increase its mainstream credibility.

Third party observers have stated their views:

• Ming Xia, a political science professor at the College of Staten Island, says the newspaper is "a strategy for the Falun Gong to expand its outreach to the non-followers and non-believers". She describes the paper as a communication arm of the Falun Gong.
• Huffington Post says that the paper is pro-Falun Gong and anti-Communist, despite its claims to have no "official affiliation" to Falun Gong. The paper posts communications from the Falun Gong.
• David Ownby, Associate Professor of History University of Montreal, says the paper was founded by Falun Gong practitioners, that most or all of its publishers are Falun Gong practitioners, and that the reporters and workers are mostly Falun Gong practitioners.[5] Ownby says that the paper's refusal to give "straight answers" about its connections "feeds suspicion" that the paper is financed and controlled by the Falun Gong, which is opposite of the impression they are trying to give.[6] Ownby says that if the Falun Gong practitioners working for and managing the paper stopped doing so then the paper would cease to exist.
• Of course the Chinese government has a sharply anti-Falun Gong view. The Chinese Embassy to USA says that Epoch Times is a "mouthpiece" of the Falun Gong along with the Minghui website.[7]
• Bloomberg says that the paper is linked to Falun Gong.[8]
• The Wall Street Journal says that Epoch Times is one of "two new weapons" used by the Falun Gong against the Chinese government, the other being New Tang Dynasty Television.[9]
• Forbes magazine says that Epoch Times is "Falun Gong-affiliated".[10]
• SFist says that three media organizations were established by the Falun Gong to promote their causes: The Epoch Times for print, New Tang Dynasty Television for video, and Sound of Hope for radio.[11]
• Professor Heather Kavan of Massey University in New Zealand says that the Falun Gong are "heavily involved" in the Epoch Times.[12]
• David Ownby says that the newspaper "has clear if unidentified links with Falun Gong."[13]
• Author Lao Cheng-Wu says that the Epoch Times newspaper was originally the Epoch Times Weekly, a free-of-charge propaganda sheet which was published by the Falun Dafa Research Society, controlled by Falun Gong founder Li Hongzhi in Taiwan, before it was "restructured" to become the international newspaper that we know today.[14]
• Professor Yuezhi Zhao of Simon Fraser University in Canada writes that the Epoch Times has "an indisputable ideological and organizational affinity with Falun Gong", and that it is produced and distributed by Falun Gong members, or at least by those who are sympathetic to Falun Gong.[15] Zhao writes that, despite the newspaper's claim to neutrality, its coverage of China is not neutral, having a deeply Falun Gong-oriented stance. Zhao says that the Falun Gong is using the Epoch Times as a political arm to build an anti-Communist alliance of the various Chinese democracy movements outside of China.[16]
• Professor Kevin J. O'Brien of the University of California at Berkeley writes that spokespersons of the Epoch Times have said the newspaper is not affiliated with the Falun Gong, but all the evidence demonstrates otherwise, that the newspaper's articles show a strong connection to the Falun Gong.[17]

So I don't think your proposal has merit, to weaken the first paragraph by pushing the Falun Gong connection downward, and to use weaker wording. Binksternet (talk) 16:43, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

@Binksternet. Thank you very much for all the info. Suggest we state that ET is mainly or mostly staffed by FG practitioners. Aaabbb11 (talk) 20:42, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

I have a feeling Binksternet's impressive research into ET's FG affiliation as exposed by a large number of academic scholars and journalistic sources has settled the matter once and for all. --Elnon (talk) 21:28, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

@Elnon. When this article was created in 2005 Falun Gong was mentioned. So the fact that ET is staffed by FG is old news. Don't know when the obsession with having FG in the first sentence began but might check it out. Aaabbb11 (talk) 08:51, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

No need to exert yourself in that direction: My "obsession" is for accuracy and proper weight. Falun Gong must be in the first sentence for accuracy and proper weight. Binksternet (talk) 15:14, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

@Binksternet I think it would be worth comparing what is used for NYT.

"The New York Times (NYT) is an American daily newspaper, founded and continuously published in New York City since September 18, 1851, by the New York Times Company. It has won 117 Pulitzer Prizes, more than any other news organization."

The important thing is that "associated with" is not clarifying the link between FG and ET. FG is a spiritual practice, while many of the people who work there are FG practitioners. Don't see why we can't say that many of the people working at ET are FG practitioners. Aaabbb11 (talk) 16:29, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

You are setting up a false equivalence. Under no circumstances is the Epoch Times the equal of the New York Times. Thus there is no reason to compare the two articles. Binksternet (talk) 17:27, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

I agree. If you want accurate info about what is happening in China you should read ET not NYT. FG articles are often hotly contested. Anything to do with the CCP on wiki is liable to get distorted. Is NYT the most well known newspaper? Aaabbb11 (talk) 17:40, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

I propose this

Epoch Times is a multi-language, international media started in 2000 by Falun Gong practitioners. It has won awards for its reporting of human rights and other issues. Aaabbb11 (talk) 18:56, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

References

No, you are trying to weaken the connection. Binksternet (talk) 02:53, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

Epoch Times is a multi-language, international media staffed mostly by Falun Gong practitioners. It has won awards for its reporting of human rights and other issues. Aaabbb11 (talk) 08:46, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

References

I propose this

Epoch Times is an anti-communist pro-Falun Gong international newspaper. It has been given a number of awards by the West partly due to its anti-communist stance. STSC (talk) 06:37, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

@STSC I hope you aren't adding original research like that to articles. Aaabbb11 (talk) 10:31, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Oh? I can understand a Falun Gong fanatic would try to hide these facts from Wikipedia. STSC (talk) 11:21, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Don't think a member of mensa would write your second sentence. Aaabbb11 (talk) 13:01, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

I see no original research in STSC's proposal since his description of Epoch Times is taken almost verbatim from the Huffington Post mentioned above ("the adamantly anti-Communist Party and pro-Falun Gong newspaper, The Epoch Times"). --Elnon (talk) 03:11, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

@Elnon Where did the second sentence come from? Aaabbb11 (talk) 07:06, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

It appears that we have the consensus on the "anti-communist" bit. I would compromise on the second sentence of my proposal and change it to "partly due to..." Is it better? An award was given for the Epoch Times "The Nine Commentaries on the Communist Party" series [18]; this information supports my second sentence. STSC (talk) 10:20, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

@STSC

1. There is no consensus on anti communist being in first sentence. Falun Gong are against the CCP's persecution of FG.

2. Your reference gives no indication why ET won the award. So your second sentence still seems to be original research.

3. If you look at the heading, what we are debating is whether "Associated with" is vague, so you are off topic. I suggest you start a new topic, with an appropriate heading. Aaabbb11 (talk) 11:01, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Anti-communist

is a distortion of this reference http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/02/13/chinese-press-abroad_n_4729474.html in my opinion. The word communist appears in that article 14 times. 13 times it is followed by the word party, as in Communist Party of China.

On List of communist parties there are many communist parties, so I think this needs to be clarified. Aaabbb11 (talk) 20:54, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

There's 'Falun Gong' section in the 'Anti-communism' article, so in broader sense, the Epoch Times is anti-communist. STSC (talk) 23:20, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

First sentence of Anti-communism#Falun_Gong is "Falun Gong practitioners are against the Communist Party of China's persecution of Falun Gong". Sadly, you don't seem willing to acknowledge the difference between anti-communist and against the persecution of FG by one communist party. Aaabbb11 (talk) 00:33, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

So, Falun Gong is quite OK with the communists in North Korea? Why 'Falun Gong' is put in the 'Anti-communism' article then? Should it be removed from that article? STSC (talk) 00:52, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Because the Communist Party of China claims that FG are against the Government of China it is good to have the true position stated on Anti-communism. If you want to know if FG have an opinion about North Korea I suggest you contact one of their contact people. There is contact info for about 70 countries on falundafa.org Aaabbb11 (talk) 16:47, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

The source is crystal clear that Epoch Times is against Chinese communism. Binksternet (talk) 07:33, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Reporters and newspapers print what they believe is correct. However FG didn't have problem with the Communist Party of China before the persecution of FG began in 1999 and Communist Party members were doing FG. So FG practitioners are against the Persecution of FG rather the Government of China. The Communist Party of China would like people to think that FG are against the Government of China but that is incorrect. (repeated from above) Aaabbb11 (talk) 16:30, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

I don't give a monkey about your beloved FG, just show us a source that says Epoch Times is not anti-communist. STSC (talk) 02:38, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Please read what Binksternet said. There is a difference between between being anti-communist and opposing what the CCP is doing. Seems that you just want to put a label on FG in the first sentence. But sadly your label is WRONG. Aaabbb11 (talk) 14:56, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

I said the source supports the "anti-communist" label. The source is not alone, either; for instance, there's Professor Wanning Sun of Western Australia who called the Epoch Times "a globally circulated pro-Falun Gong, anti-Communist Chinese-language newspaper." We also have Professors Robert S. Ellwood and Mark Csikszentmihalyi who wrote that the Epoch Times is "an anticommunist newspaper connected with the Falun Gong organization." Professor Kirk A. Denton writes in a footnote that "An article in the anticommunist, Falun Gong Epoch Times claims..." Professors Gerry Groot and Glen Stafford of the University of Adelaide write that the Epoch Times is a mouthpiece of Falun Gong, and that the newspaper "runs a strong anti-communist line."

So we're done here. The Epoch Times is certainly anti-communist, against the CCP. Binksternet (talk) 16:58, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

This issue is spelt out clearly in the first sentence of Anti-communism#Falun Gong. The issue was raised on Talk:Anti-communism#Falun Gong are against the Communist Party of China.27s persecution of Falun Gong on 7 July, and so far I am the only person to comment. Maybe issues concerning the first sentence need to go to arbitration. Aaabbb11 (talk) 14:30, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

I'm not going to stop you from filing a case with the Arbitration Committee, but I can tell you from past experience that they will not make a decision about article content, especially in this dispute where perfectly good and very reliable sources say that the newspaper is anti-communist. There are no sources saying the newspaper is not anti-communist, so your position is unsupported. ArbCom will most likely decline your case. Binksternet (talk) 17:56, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Actually, you would be taking it to WP:AE if you are seeking to have the existing sanctions imposed, not the committee itself, but I also agree that all that would be done is a review of the conduct of the editors involved. That is all that they can do there. They cannot address matters of content. And from what I can see over at Google books, it looks to me like there are sufficient independent RS which specifically call the Epoch Times "anti-communist" for the description to at least be included in the article. John Carter (talk) 18:03, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Anti-scientifc

I'm wondering if their seeming [19] anti-scientific viewpoint should be mentioned here? Jerod Lycett (talk) 21:32, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

staffed mostly by Falun Gong practitioners

There was no objection in the Talk:The Epoch Times#.22Associated_with.22 is vague discussion above to "staffed mostly by Falun Gong practitioners". I am not aware of any source that says ET is associated with Falun Gong. I think "staffed mostly by Falun Gong practitioners" should be used in the first sentence rather than associated with FG. Aaabbb11 (talk) 18:49, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

No. Binksternet (talk) 20:14, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

I think if you disagree with something you should be able to explain why. A number of people have pointed out that "associated with" is vague. Wiki should aspire to be written in clear English rather than vague statements. Aaabbb11 (talk)

"Associated with" represents the sources, which are also vague. Binksternet (talk) 15:24, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

source http://www.usembassy.it/pdf/other/RL33437.pdf is dead. Aaabbb11 (talk) 16:42, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

There are multiple archives of that document at the Wayback Machine. It says "The Epoch Times, a U.S.-based newspaper affiliated with Falun Gong..." Binksternet (talk) 16:16, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

The document states

1. In addition, Falun Gong followers are affiliated with several mass media outlets.

2. The Epoch Times, a U.S.-based newspaper affiliated with Falun Gong, first reported...

3. In addition, FLG followers are affiliated with several mass media outlets, including Internet sites. These include The Epoch Times...

It is not clear in the second instance (which is being used in the article) whether ET is affiliated with Falun Gong the spiritual practice or Falun Gong practitioners. Aaabbb11 (talk) 18:17, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

It doesn't really matter. We say "associated with" or "affiliated with" in a vague manner just like our sources. No need to fish for specifics where there are none. Binksternet (talk) 21:53, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Its FG followers who are affiliated with ET not Falun Gong the spiritual practice as per the reference. Big mistake in first sentence. Aaabbb11 (talk) 11:47, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

the lead as it stands now is still rather biased. we might as well say "The Epoch Times is an anti-communist, multi-language, online, print, international media organisation associated with Falun Gong which reports on a range of topics, including China, human rights, science, technology, politics...." etc. etc. "Associated with" basically means nothing. I suggest simplifying and clarifying by just stating what the newspaper is without trying to put it in a box, and then later explain that it was founded by FLG people. Attempting to cram all this in the lead is rather awkward and unbalanced.Happy monsoon day 22:51, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

seems this is coming up again here https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Epoch_Times&curid=1988214&diff=690450343&oldid=690449056 ; i would indeed like to know why this statement *must absolutely be in the very first sentence no matter what*. it really seems to be over the top. basically we could just add 10 ways of describing it in the first sentence, then? the fact is that it is a newspaper. i see it in nyc. i suggest that the (obvious) falun gong affiliation be noted in the lead, but the article starts to look biased if it tries to both characterize the political and religious slant in the first sentence. what do others think?

Changes

just an invitation for actual discussion if there are any issues with my changes, which were supposed to add some perspective and balance (and basic professionalism) in some ways. there was a combination of boosterism ("insightful reporting") and unsourced claims "political arm of FLG" which I couldn't find in ownby's work. the article should read professionally and neutrally, and not be some cheap attempt either to discredit the publication out of hand, or make it seem like it's the best thing since sliced bread.Happy monsoon day 16:42, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

I don't think we should take you seriously when you don't even use a capital letter to start a sentence. STSC (talk) 17:22, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

i really don't mind how you take me. happy to discuss content & scholarship anytime and not interested in sniping.thx.Happy monsoon day 05:02, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

it is a requirement and expectation that editors explain and justify their changes to the article.

Sinceouche's edits reverted from a consensus (by default, since no objections) version of the article for several weeks, introducing errors of naming (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Epoch_Times&diff=692559421&oldid=692559339, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Epoch_Times&diff=692559442&oldid=692559421), ill-explained content deletions (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Epoch_Times&diff=692560563&oldid=692560448), errors of fact (Ownby does not call Epoch Times the political arm of Falun Gong, but says "one could think" it so - I suggest we discuss how to present his more complex depiction). and finally, Epoch Times is clearly not only a newspaper - it has a website, it has video production (however rudimentary), and it has websites in X many languages. it seems to include a series of newspaper editions, too. All these complexities are elided in such rough and unexplained deletions. the changes should be discussed on their merits. i welcome that discussion nowHappy monsoon day 04:23, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

organ harvesting

this topic was one thing covered by this newspaper, but there is no special reason why it should be featured in the page. Epoch times has written about thousands of topics. Sinceouch2422 (talk) 11:35, 27 November 2015 (UTC)