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)

no dispute that the paper is anti-CCP, and in general anti-communist in its stance. question is why that should be the forth word, and not be explained later. I await elucidation. (Separate from the other disputes down the page.) Happy monsoon day 21:14, 3 December 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?

I think you are not portraying the newspaper in accordance with published sources. I think you are selecting favorable sources and ignoring unfavorable ones. The newspaper is widely seen in the context of its anti-communist, anti-PRC, pro-Falun Gong stance. Few people think of it as a pure newspaper. Binksternet (talk) 16:56, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Not at all. I am simply trying to bring a sense of balance and perspective to the first sentence of the article. First and foremost, Epoch Times is a media company. As a media company, it has a founding story and a background. All that should be explained. What I am not trying to do is prematurely sway reader impressions of the legitimacy (or not) of that story before they even know what it is. Since when does a newspaper get characterized as "anti-communist" based on a story in HuffPo before the reader even learns that it's a newspaper? It's just bizarre. I repeat: please find me a precedent on the entire encyclopedia for this kind of treatment.

You may even note that I advocate going 'one further' than you, so to speak. I propose to accurately state that it was founded by Falun Gong after the practice was persecuted. "Associated with" is simply vague. Epoch Times clearly has its anti-CCP, pro-FLG stance and coverage. But whatever else it is, it is a media organisation. This, to me, is simply common sense. Happy monsoon day 02:37, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

You say "First and foremost, Epoch Times is a media company". I say first and foremost the Epoch Times is the mouth of the Falun Gong. I say that because WP:SECONDARY sources present the newspaper as a biased political organ. Binksternet (talk) 03:27, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

I think we have come to the nub of the matter. You see Epoch Times as "the mouth of the Falun Gong" and a "biased political organ", and you demand to have that viewpoint represented in the first sentence. Why isn't the Christian Science Monitor characterized that way in the first sentence of that article? To be very clear, there is no attempt by anyone here to suggest that Epoch Times was not founded by Falun Gong practitioners, nor that secondary sources have raised questions about its neutrality. All that should be set forth in the article per Wikipedia content policy. We're talking about the technical question of how an opening sentence of an article should be made.

The first thing that anyone is new to a topic wants to know is: What is this thing? Is it an idea? A plant? An animal? A person? A process? What category of thing? In this case, we are dealing with a media organization. The first sentence should describe that thing, and it shouldn't overload the reader in doing so. Please see WP:LEAD for a refresher:

"Try to not overload the first sentence by describing everything notable about the subject. Instead use the first sentence to introduce the topic, and then spread the relevant information out over the entire lead."

Indeed, Epoch Times is notable for its Falun Gong founding story - but the first sentence is to explain what the topic actually is. It's a newspaper. All I am saying is that the first sentence should simply announce that - this is a newspaper. The second sentence should describe the founding of that newspaper and the political and religious links it has. Even Christian Science Monitor is constructed that way - and it makes sense - so why insist on treating this company differently? Happy monsoon day 15:34, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

One brief comment from someone with an interest on the sociological aspects of Falun Gong. Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view#Impartial_tone requires us to describe disputes instead of engaging in them. "A neutral characterization of disputes requires presenting viewpoints with a consistently impartial tone; otherwise articles end up as partisan commentaries even while presenting all relevant points of view." I have to say that I agree with Happy monsoon day. His argument seems fair, since nobody's really trying to hide the paper's background. But it's still, first and foremost, a newspaper, and the vast majority of the articles have nothing to do with Falun Gong. Sure, they seem pretty anti-totalitarian and pro-democracy, but that applies to a large number of other media outlets in the U.S. as well. They don't sympathize with Nazism or fascism. Regardless, I wouldn't use the word "anti-totalitarian" in the first sentence of the lead.

Moreover, I don't see them as being confessional or religious per se. Their Falun Gong coverage is almost exclusively about the persecution, which is really a non-confessional human rights issue. I don't see them promoting and advertising Falun Gong as a qigong practice on a regular basis. And I know the paper is a vehicle for all kinds of Chinese dissidence. I've seen them covering Tibetans, Uyghurs, persecuted Christians, lawyers and democracy activists etc. -- in fact, more so than other newspapers.

But to be honest, sometimes the article quality seems a bit uneven. They've written interesting stuff about Chinese politics and some other topics, but the occasional New Agey clickbaits are just not for me... TheSoundAndTheFury (talk) 04:54, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

i agree with that. i pick up the newspaper here in nyc and while it has an uneven quality, it's certainly not some raving religious rag. not as familiar with online version. anyway, about the use of sources for the basic fact of saying that it's a newspaper please see wp:primary " A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge." Also, the policy on that used to be that primary sources could be used to make basic, non-controversial statements about themselves. This is kind of obvious and commonsensical. viz New_York_City_Fire_Department.

of course, we are not going to quote epoch times saying epoch times is the Best Newspaper in New York City, but we can certainly use them as a source for the fact that they are a newspaper that publishes a daily edition in New York.Happy monsoon day 14:57, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

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)

Your version does not have the consensus whatsoever. A newspaper can be published in print edition and electronic edition, and can have it's websites. STSC (talk) 06:13, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia greatly prefers WP:SECONDARY sources. The changes made by Happy monsoon day to the first paragraph are based on primary sources published by Epoch Times. Such sweeping changes cannot be made using primary sources. Binksternet (talk) 16:51, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

poppycock. we're not talking about simply what one source says. Any of us could find a single source that said anything we wanted. The point is how to craft a properly readable and informative lead that does not sway the reader in any particular direction. I'm afraid that the effect of the version you propose -- forget the fact that it's "long established" - what does that even mean anyway?? let's just discuss things on their merits -- is to unclarify the matter of the newspaper's founding. And I challenge you to provide any proper introduction to a media organisation which first states its presumed political and religious affiliation rather than the fact of what it is - i.e. a media company. In this world we might as well say "Falun Gong started the Epoch Times as its mouthpiece in 2000." I get the feeling that some users would prefer that??Happy monsoon day 02:12, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

We are not worried about other media organizations here. This article is about the mouthpiece of the Falun Gong, the newspaper called Epoch Times. The paper cannot escape its reputation in the media: it's a newspaper with a very strong bias against Chinese communism. Binksternet (talk) 03:30, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Please stop misrepresenting me. I am not suggesting that it try to 'escape' its 'reputation'. I am saying that the place for discussing that is the second sentence, not the first. You have not explained your obsession with reversing that common sense approach. And you will find sources saying that the newspaper is critical of the CCP - but it's your opinion (and, surely, that of some secondary sources, but not all) that that criticism spills into bias. Happy monsoon day 15:36, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

I am saying that the newspaper is not treated by the reader as a regular newspaper, which is why its connection is described in the first sentence. Regarding the poor reputation of the newspaper, academics describe it as bent on attacking the CCP without regard to truth. For instance, UC Berkeley Professor of Asian Studies Kevin O'Brien says the newspaper tried to drum up greater attention for its 2006 organ harvesting news series by having one of its reporters heckle Hu Jintao. Later, the newspaper engaged in a smear campaign against Harry Wu who revealed Falun Gong harassment. (See Popular Protest in China, Kevin J. O'Brien, Harvard University Press, pp. 199–200.) The Huffington Post piece describes the Epoch Times as having "unrelenting" criticism of the CCP, rather than balanced reporting, and it says "these news organizations all framed events in a manner beneficial to their various benefactors," which confirms bias.[2] The web magazine "Doubtful News" lists the Epoch Times along with the UK Daily Mail and Russia's RT as a source that a reader should not trust.[3] So I'm comfortable with my position that, in the first sentence, the newspaper should be described as anti-communist and associated with the Falun Gong. Binksternet (talk) 21:57, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Fascinating. Can you substantiate the claim that it's not treated by readers as a regular newspaper? I am in New York and pick it up from time to time. I see the angle - but it's a newspaper. I just checked those references. Would you be able actually provide the direct quotes from the sources you are claiming say the things you say they say? Because I just checked them, and I do not see that at all. The O'Brien text, for example (he is the book editor; not the chapter author, who you actually want to quote) - can you show me where it says that the newspaper sent a reporter to heckle Hu Jintao in order to drum up interest in its organ harvesting reports? Where does HuffPo say that it is not balanced reporting? (Well, I know it doesn't - but the question is not how relenting or unrelenting the Epoch Times' criticism of the CCP is, honestly). Incidentally, HuffPo is described by your own doubtfulnews.com as being in the same category as epoch times: "that includes the ever-popular Huffington Post which is mostly blogs, not good journalism.". Seems ironic to cite them here.

Buzzfeed is probably a good example for comparing epoch times. It has some dubious content, and it has some very solid content (see awards etc.) You are trying to dismiss it as a legitimate news source entirely, and to use that as a reason for putting in the lead that it's anti-communist and "associated with Falun Gong." This would further my claim that the effect of doing this is to immediately dismiss the legitimacy of the entity as a news source. You are agreeing with my characterization of this - and defending it by saying "ah yes, but look, other people also say it's not a legitimate news source."

To begin with, they're different questions. The Falun Gong link and its reliability are not the same thing, though of course there could be a causal relationship between the two. That is irrelevant for our purposes. I say again: the matter is a technical one: in which way to we explore and explain the relationship between Epoch Times and Falun Gong. I am saying we do so in the second sentence. You insist that it be in the very first sentence with part of that definition even before the reader knows it's a media company! So, while your notes are interesting, they have little to do with answering the question of why it must be that we define Epoch Times as "associated with Falun Gong" in the first sentence, rather than simply explain the background of its founding, its religious and political proclivities, elsewhere in the lead? (for the current purposes I would propose the second sentence.)

Finally, just to balance this, I went around and found what the Society of Professional Journalists said about the newspaper when they gave it an award for its reporting on organ harvesting in China. You can watch the video http://www.theepochtimes.com/n3/122833-epoch-times-reporter-honored-for-reporting-on-organ-harvesting/. The money quote is: “To refute those who insist that the web has debased quality journalism, take one look at the Epoch Times... This series of stories delves deep into a topic ignored by other media outlets but handles it just as deftly as its bigger brethren.... Robertson's [the journalist] reporting revealed pertinent, new information about these crimes in China, while holding institutions in the west accountable for their witting, or unwitting, complicity."

This is years after earlier evaluations of the newspaper, and is from an impeccable source when it comes to evaluating the credentials of a newspaper. Institutions can change and evolve over time. Why must it be that if the newspaper was unprofessional in 2005, they are also unprofessional in 2015? Thus, there are two main issues: A) Some impeccable sources say it is a legitimate media outlet (while there are also some who say it focuses too much on criticising the CCP - but that is not the same as saying those criticisms make it illegitimate, as you're trying to do - i.e. original synthesis). B) The question has little to do with how we, as responsible editors, ought to frame the first sentence of an article about a media org. Happy monsoon day 00:01, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

The O'Brien book has a few mentions of Epoch Times. In the Introduction written by Kevin J. O'Brien and Rachel E. Stern, the Epoch Times is represented as a mouthpiece of the Falun Gong rather than as an independent newspaper. On page 17, they say, "Movement media outlets, for example Falun Gong's Epoch Times, organize popular action [back in China] from afar... the Epoch Times sought to orchestrate a mass resignation from the Chinese Communist Party (CCP)." Later in the book, Patricia M. Thornton, Oxford University Associate Professor in the Politics of China, is the author of a chapter titled "Manufacturing Dissent in Transnational China." Thornton says on page 183 that the Falun Gong uses Epoch Times as a "strategy of legitimation", publishing "seemingly objective news" which is instead combining political advocacy with its news items. On page 200, Thornton says that "Falun Gong-related media outlets, including Secret China and Epoch Times, began a coordinated smear campaign against Harry Wu, publishing accusations that he was a 'butcher,' a 'Chinese Communist senior-level spy,' and had 'betrayed his conscience and the conscience of the Chinese people' in order to secure his own release from a Chinese prison in 1995." This characterization of Epoch Times as a politically active newspaper, bent on achieving political goals in China, confirms its status as a mouthpiece of the Falun Gong rather than a standard newspaper. First and foremost, the newspaper exists to promote the cause of Falun Gong, which is in opposition to the CCP. Binksternet (talk) 19:37, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

@User:Binksternet, Please note there is a rebuttal from international human rights lawyer David Matas: "Harry Wu's July 2006 article showed his views in his March 21 letter were formed before completing his investigation, so Harry Wu's views were not based on his full investigation. Further, Harry Wu characterized the volume of organ harvesting Annie described as "technically impossible", but in fact it is technically possible, according to medical expert." Plus, in 2006 famous Chinese Writer & Poet Li Hong (original name Zhang Jianhong) carefully analyzed and questioned Harry Wu's statements one by one in his article "What Does Wu Hongda Want to Do?". Harry Wu (Chinese name Wu Hongda) could not answer to Zhang's comments. Zhang was put into CCP's prison in the same year(http://www.ifjc.org/node/2165) and persecuted to death in 2010. It seemed some people even did not read Harry Wu's funny articles in this regard and already accepted them because Harry Wu seemed to an authority in the organ area. If they had chance to read Harry Wu's related articles, Poet Li Hong's article "What Does Wu Hongda Want to Do?" and Lawyer David Matas' rebuttal to Harry Wu, they might have different thoughts. Marvin 2009 (talk) 02:41, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

That seems to be a bit off topic; but anyway, the comments above by sound and fury make the point i was trying to make: our tone must be neutral and professional. even if this was widely seen as an illegitimate mouthpiece for a quirky religious group (in fact, that is not the case as far as I can tell - it has won significant awards and accolades for its work, and seems to keep its religious messaging to a subtle level), we would not craft a lead that immediately, by the use of the language in it, gave the impression that the authors of that lead thought the publication should be discredited. the lead would still be neutral, and in a neutral tone it would explain how there are no media professionals who take it seriously.

That is not the case here, but I am making the extreme example to make a point. There are evidently a variety of views of the quality and legitimacy of the publication, and there is no attempt to suggest it's not founded by Falun Gong practitioners.

honestly I suspect that there is just too much bad blood on this page because of idiotic things like someone in Vietnam tactically trying to remove remarks about Falun Gong. Perhaps some FLG adherent there who thinks they're helping out, and doesn't realize their cause would be better served by an upfront explanation of what they're up to. well anyway. Happy monsoon day 14:49, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Agree. Let me give another example. It can be easily argued that The Watchtower is a mouthpiece for Jehovah's Witnesses. I don't think anyone would dispute that, even the JW organization themselves. However, since Epoch Times is not a religious or confessional newspaper and a variety of opinions exist in published sources about its characterisation, we simply have to follow WP:NPOV and use neutral language. Otherwise there seems to be an element of discrediting the paper simply because the founders profess to a certain faith. On many occasions, I've seen them explaining that the paper was founded because mainstream media didn't pay attention to a lot of substantial issues in China, including the persecution of their faith and other problems. That's hardly a religious starting point. Just because B&H Photo Video is founded and run by Satmar Hasidic Jews, do you call them part of the International Jewry and throw in a couple of references to The Protocols of the Elders of Zion? You could do that, but only the crackpots would take you seriously.

Of course, we can describe the disputes with proper references – that's what Wikipedia is all about. TheSoundAndTheFury (talk) 01:05, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

User:Binksternet, you're going to have to actually deal with the detailed and extensive arguments that have been presented against your attempts to prematurely stomp on the credibility of the publication before the reader has even been introduced to it. you are making a classic violation of NPOV by the edits you have recently engaged in. if we really wanted to step outside the tone of balanced description of notable disputes like you are, it would be easy to very quickly militarize the lead with all the various praises and criticisms that have been said of the newspaper. Is that what we should be doing? "The newspaper is a Falun Gong-associated newspaper founded by Falun Gong people who run a Falun Gong mouthpiece." Puh-lease.

Clearly that is just getting silly. We describe issues, we do not engage in attempts to either boost or discredit the topics we write about. The ways in which epoch is understood to represent (or not) Falun Gong perspectives should indeed be explored in the article, but you're again going too far with your approach, totally violating basic wikipedia content protocols. you'll need to explain how your edits are actually neutral. If I were to respond in turn, it would not be hard to find a bunch of praise for the paper that had nothing to do with Falun Gong and ram that into the lead. That would be completely inappropriate so I won't. I ask you to also using the article to make a WP:POINT.Happy monsoon day 21:11, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Re David Ownby's quotation as mentioned above ("Ownby does not call Epoch Times the political arm of FG, but says "one could think" it so"), he actually says (in Falun Gong and the Future of China, Oxford University Press, USA, 2008, page 223): "Ultimately, one might think of the Epoch Times as a political arm of Falun Gong, and in denying that the newspaper is Falun Gong-financed and –run, practitioners get to preserve the psychologically reassuring fiction that the movement itself and individual practitioners remain apolitical. This comes very close to dishonesty (or at least a Clintonian sleight of hand) and discredits to some degree the integrity of practitioners and the movement – in addition to working at cross-purposes with goals they hope to achieve."

He also writes (page 222): "neither practitioners in general nor those who work for the Epoch Times like to call it a « Falun Gong newspaper, » even though it was founded by Falun Gong practitioners, most if not all of its publishers are Falun Gong practitioners, many of its journalists are Falun Gong practitioners, and at least part of its staff is made up of volunteer workers, many of whom are Falun Gong practitioners." --Elnon (talk) 10:21, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

I have no problem referring Ownby or any other reliable sources in the article. However, even in these sources, certain views were not conclusions of the authors and sometimes other different views could be also found in the same sources. We`d better strictly follow WP:NPOV policy and should not promote certain views as if they are conclusions. This could mislead the readers. Some edits from User:Binksternet need to be improved. Marvin 2009 (talk) 13:02, 4 December 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)

erm, no. The previous version mentioned Falun Gong 26 times, including in the introduction. That is not omitting it.

It's important event about Epochtimes. I do not know the proper reason to delete it. please keep it. The event and news is keep going.Wetrace (talk) 12:15, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

It may be mentioned under 'Notable coverage' section as far as Epoch Times is concerned; any other details about organ harvesting is off-topic here. STSC (talk) 12:22, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

It's important. In the beginning, CCP accused EpothTimes making a lie, hence,the investigation and the following really matters about EpothTimes's reputation. The paragraph could be refined but not delete, I'll try to make it better. Thanks for your discussion and opinion.Wetrace (talk) 12:25, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

Shall we just include this to address your concern: The Chinese government has consistently denied the allegations. The parliaments of Canada and the European Union, Taiwan, as well as the Foreign Affairs Subcommittee of the U.S. House of Representatives, have adopted resolutions condemning organ harvesting from Falun Gong prisoners of conscience. United Nations Special Rapporteurs reiterated their requests for "the Chinese government to fully explain the allegation of taking vital organs from Falun Gong practitioners". STSC (talk) 12:36, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

Your suggestion seems feasible. Would you please give me more time to deal with it? I have a job to do. After I finnish my job, I'll refine it. I agree the paragraph needs refine.Wetrace (talk) 12:43, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

I think just the United Nation response should be enough, and there's already a further information wikilink. STSC (talk) 03:13, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

After user Wetrace agreed with you by summarizing as "The parliaments of Canada and the European Union, Taiwan, as well as the Foreign Affairs Subcommittee of the U.S. House of Representatives, have adopted resolutions condemning organ harvesting from Falun Gong prisoners of conscience.", now you changed your position and kept launching an edit war. Marvin 2009 (talk) 03:20, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Oh Marvin, we were in the process of discussing the content; you're welcome to join. I gave my reasons for my edit, you just give us yours. STSC (talk) 03:36, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

You launched the edit war by keeping deleting the line: "The parliaments of Canada and the European Union, Taiwan, as well as the Foreign Affairs Subcommittee of the U.S. House of Representatives, have adopted resolutions condemning organ harvesting from Falun Gong prisoners of conscience." at least different users added. Actually you are the user who should be warned or blocked. But instead, you kept warning me at my talk page. As i said before my edits were to prevent your damages to the article. Marvin 2009 (talk) 03:56, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

This article is about a newspaper, not organ harvesting. Just a response from international organization like United Nation is good enough to get mentioned. That's all it needs. STSC (talk) 04:17, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

I agree. The subsection dealing with the allegations of organ harvesting is given too much prominence if not simply off topic . --Elnon (talk) 10:07, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

now we have 3 users who are in favour of keeping this line and do not think it is off topic, while two think it is off topic. Before we reach a consensus, this should not be removed. Right? Marvin 2009 (talk) 14:37, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Me, Sinceouch2422, Elnon, and Wetrace want to remove or shorten the section, and just you and AAAbbb11 want to keep all the off-topic materials. There're 4 against 2, beat you! STSC (talk) 17:43, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Aaabbb11 and I canceled your deleting to Wetrace's work. So Wetrace is not on your side at all. Another user happy monsoon day persuaded you not to delete as well. So it is 4 vs 3, please do not delete important contents. Marvin 2009 (talk) 17:56, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Wetrace later agreed to a shorter version, and MonsoonDay only opposed the deletion. You still have not given your reason for including all other detail which is not related to the newspaper. STSC (talk) 18:34, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

I haven't exactly followed the track of this conversation, but just for the record, it seems clear that the epoch times was out in front reporting on organ harvesting in 2006 when it was still a very fringe topic. it is much less fringe now, and they've reported it all along, gaining awards and citations. if you want to know the latest on the chinese transplant system, that's what you read. there were some recent New York Times articles about how the promise to not use executed prisoners anymore was actually BS. Guess what, Epoch had that story at the start of the year. So... it is clear that this is a notable part of their reporting and focus when it comes to China. That should be appropriate reflected in the article. I don't know about the specifics for now, but i just wanted to register my opinion 'for the record'. Note, that doesn't mean I support having five extraneous paragraphs about organ harvesting this and that. the information should be relevant to ET in one way or another, not just a change to 'educate' the reader on the topic. Happy monsoon day 00:27, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

User STSC is playing tricks again. Even you deleted your word later, the record is still on wikipedia. You first said to user Wetrace "Shall we just include this to address your concern: The Chinese government has consistently denied the allegations. The parliaments of Canada and the European Union, Taiwan, as well as the Foreign Affairs Subcommittee of the U.S. House of Representatives, have adopted resolutions condemning organ harvesting from Falun Gong prisoners of conscience." Then, Wetrace edited such a line. After that STSC simply deleted the line. STSC launched many edit wars by similar tricks. Such behavior is close to that was discussed in [Sowing Confusion]. It is clear 4 users vs. 3 users are against STSC's 'off topic' opinion, but STSC added the off topic label again anyway. It should be removed. Marvin 2009 (talk) 05:08, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Marvin, I'm tired of you being so unreasonable on this. The 'off-topic' tag is there to stay as long as you don't remove the off-topic details not related to the newspaper. Believe me, the readers are not stupid and they would be turned off by it. STSC (talk) 05:49, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Your adding 'off topic' tag was not following the discussion on this talk page at all and seems to be only based on your bias. It is without any consensus and definitely should be removed. Have you checked [Sowing Confusion]? I do not think your trick will work in Wikipedia. Marvin 2009 (talk) 13:08, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Political stance

Besides, the paragraph "Political stance" now is so trivial, even a long quotation. What's the point?Wetrace (talk) 12:47, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

I just noticed this part as well and fully agree with you. In fact, on page 232 of sourced book "Falun Gong and the Future of China'", Mr. Ownby said Epoch Times was set up by Falun Gong practitioners with their own money. The whole copied paragraph served for the same conclusion. So I simply replaced it with Ownby's conclusion. If any one has a different opinion, please let me know here. In addition, such a conclusion has nothing to do with the section title - "Political stance". Hope you guys can put it in a suitable place. Thanks. Marvin 2009 (talk) 03:19, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

User:Sinceouch2422 - what is your previous wikipedia account? i just noticed that you first came onto this page with some quite aggressive editing, and now you have adopted a hostile tone and continue making quite tendentious edits. we can at this point conclude that there is no 'consensus' anymore, so we can stop using that to discuss the matter. i'll come up with a different lead later. obviously the word 'own' is a slang term meaning that it's a topic that this organization has spent a great deal of their time and social capital on. they have won awards for it and been closely associated with it. that's the evidence, plain as day. it's a small newspaper and they're not known for much, but apart from their nine commentaries, their organ harvesting work seems to be their other main focus. Happy monsoon day 04:01, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

can we also get clear on something: this is a newspaper started by falun gong. it has an indelible association with the practice/discipline/religion/whatever. no doubt the vast majority of staff probably are of the creed. but we are trying to write an encyclopedic article. look at the opening lines of the New York Times page. whatever its background, epoch times is a newspaper first and foremost. please find me a single media organization in the entire 'pedia in which the first few words claims to define the political orientation of the media before even explaining what it is, and then defines the religious creed of the founders of it! you guys are really trying to go too far.

let's explain the falun gong roots of the organization, by all means. but for goodness sake, let's act like professional encyclopedists whose first duty is to produce a readable and informative page for the readers, not to run our agendas. i just fixed the naming of the publication and added in deleted information about CCP interference. wanton deletions will lead me to seek third party sanctions if at all possible. this is just getting silly.Happy monsoon day 04:27, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

actually no. Ownby's passage says that the Epoch Times is trying to hide the source of their finances from him and not willing to reveal anything about how their organization works. Sinceouch2422 (talk) 18:56, 4 December 2015 (UTC)