Talk:The Epoch Times

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 [1] 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)

I agree absolutely it should be removed. STSC (talk) 11:53, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

the topic has been extensively covered by the newspaper, they have won awards for it, they were among the first covering it, they have been criticized for it - it's a topic that the paper has 'owned' for nearly a decade. no idea why you would seek to remove such content. if this kind of completely biased editing keeps going on we'll need to get some kind of broader editorial consensus, because the behavior so far is extremely inappropriate and uncivil. it is the standard wikipedia practice to gain consensus before doing significant changes.

the changes i made a week ago - a large variety of them - were proposed, and none disagreed. now you have reverted them and have not engaged in any discussion. you're also seeking to delete a key component of the newspaper's reportage. why? (in fact, I think that content should be reduced slightly, but obviously it's a prominent aspect of the newspaper's coverage.)Happy monsoon day 23:41, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

this discussion itself is proof that your changes from before did not have consensus, never had any consensus, and should now be reverted. so don't make any attempt to put them in again until you achieve it. as for organ harvesting, newspapers do not "own" topics, and unless you have evidence that epoch times has a specific mission to cover organ harvesting, there is no reason to put it here. if you are making claims that the topic is somehow "special" to epoch times, then show us the evidence here first. Sinceouch2422 (talk) 05:19, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

Frankly I think the other version reads better. More impartial sounding. When you have to say three times in the introduction that the paper has some Falun Gong connection, it's overkill.

overstating is much better than omitting it, which was what the other version did. a rewording sounds reasonable. Sinceouch2422 (talk) 05:39, 28 November 2015 (UTC)