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)

References

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)

What views were not conclusions of the authors? I don't assign very much weight to quotes that come from spokespersons of Epoch Times. It doesn't matter much that the Epoch Times complains about being called a mouthpiece, or not being considered a standard newspaper. Ownby's ultimate opinion is that the newspaper is a political tool. Binksternet (talk) 19:08, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

The English Epoch chair's words was reported by the Washington Post. Maybe you do not agree with these words, but it is deserved to be quoted in the article. The post mentioned saying Falun Gong "owns" something can be technically inaccurate. "But many Epoch Times staffers, including Gregory, are part of the movement." The post listed various views, but did not draw specific conclusion, like you did. The similar approach was used Ownby and other source. Ownby may have his view, but he listed different views as well. If you explain who said an opinion, that would be good enough. Please try not to add a view to the article as if it is a your conclusion, which is not consistent with NPOV policy. Marvin 2009 (talk) 03:20, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

I discussed a bit Harry Wu in 2006 before. STSC kept deleting the key info "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." Based on such key information, Harry Wu's 2006 statement was simply not true at all, but Harry's words even tricked some scholars. Ownby used to be very supportive to Falun Gong. As he described in his book, when Harry Wu started to attack FG, Ownby thought such an organ authority Harry Wu had more credibility than the FG practitioners who ran the Epochtimes. Plus as Ownby acknowledged himself, the communist party Jiang Zemin's cult label was never totally cleared in some people minds. As for the professor user Binksternet referred, he obviously also blindly trusted Harry Wu as well. After accepting the fake words from Harry Wu, these scholars changed their views to FG and to epochtimes, but they still listed other different views. I think the article could also list various different views from reliable sources and let the readers draw their conclusions. Marvin 2009 (talk) 03:43, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Marvin 2009. you appear to be mis-applying the guideline of WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV. Of course we would want to attribute biased statements to those who made them. But when the statements are matter-of-fact standard prose published by scholars in academic books, we are not talking about biased statements. Scholarly sources define the issues, they don't make biased statements. There is no need to attribute any of the scholars who say that the Epoch Times is a mouthpiece of the Falun Gong, or that the Epoch Times is an anti-communist newspaper. What we are looking at here is scholarly consensus, not biased statements. Binksternet (talk) 05:32, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

The problem we have here is not a matter of accurately and fairly representing the views of scholars on the newspaper and its relation to Falun Gong. The problem is with the aggressive and biased attempt to only reflect one point of view that is in line with your biases with the obvious end to deliberately discredit the newspaper, ignoring all views that do not fit this narrative. Wikipedia has been around for a long time, and there are many controversial articles on it. The way controversy is dealt with is the wp:npov policy, where the many viewpoints on a topic are explored in an objective tone. NPOV precludes attempts to block out other views, and demands that all relevant views be presented neutrally, with due weight. I have deliberately not made a wp:point by, say, finding a stack of positive things and jamming them all in the lead. But the lead, and the whole article, should remain neutral.

The disputes over the newspaper should be properly described. We do not engage in them. Dredging up old material that makes it seem as though they pretend they have no ties to Falun Gong when it has been superseded by what appear to be the paper's own declared association (go pick up an edition in New York City; they have a reference on the inside of every page) appears to be another example of this. Happy monsoon day 05:48, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

I don't really understand why you guys are having this dispute. What Happy monsoon day is saying makes perfect sense. We adhere to WP:NPOV, particularly because a variety of Wikipedia-worthy opinions about the Epoch Times exists out there (Society of Professional Journalists has praised it, etc.) According to policy, the direct "Wikipedia voice" can only be used to make uncontroversial statements. See WP:NPOV: Assert facts, not opinions. As the article says, a simple formulation is to assert facts, including facts about opinions, but don't assert opinions themselves.

This discussion is not about one party trying to cover up sourced information and the other party seeking to include it. It's about wanting to use the direct voice to make an assertion of a certain point of view in the first sentence of the lead. The Wikipedia policies are intended to stop these kinds of arguments from happening. TheSoundAndTheFury (talk) 07:34, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

To user Marvin 2009, you're reminded not to persistently remove any description about 'anti-communist' and 'associated with FG' which are notable facts on Epoch Times. STSC (talk) 05:21, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

I did not remove, and only put it a right place based on previous discussions here. I added back two contents from reliable sources:

First one: In the February 2007 interview with The Associated Press' Nahal Toosi, the English Epoch Times chair Stephen Gregory said: "It's not a Falun Gong newspaper. Falun Gong is a question of an individual's belief. The paper's not owned by Falun Gong, it doesn't speak for Falun Gong, it doesn't represent Falun Gong. It does cover the persecution of Falun Gong in China."Nahal believed to say Falun Gong "owns" Epochtimes can be technically inaccurate, while many Epoch Times staffers, including Gregory, are Falun Gong practitionrs.

Second one: In 2008, David Ownby, director of the Center for East Asian Studies at the Université de Montréal and the author of Falun Gong and the Future of China said the newspaper is set up by Falun Gong practitioners with their own money.

Why do you guys keep deleting them without any explanation?

The unreliable blog source has been noted quite a few times. The link was finally deleted by Sinceouch2422. But the content "Tax records show..." from the blog was still there. I removed it.Marvin 2009 (talk) 11:30, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Those descriptions are significant information which should be also mentioned in the lead but you have removed them regardless. STSC (talk) 13:07, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

That is your double standard opinion again. You deleted European parliament, Canadian Parliament and USA parliament information from a sub section in the article many times. In the discussion, regarding anti communist, I explained a few times such debatable views should not necessarily be put in the beginning. Nobody responded, so I moved it to the right place. Marvin 2009 (talk) 14:41, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Regarding the 'organ harvesting' section, you'd better read carefully the edit history on 26 November. The lead section is a summary of significant information of the topic so the 'anti-communist' description should be included even it is mentioned elsewhere in the article. STSC (talk) 16:08, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

That record was clear. You kept deleting User Wetrace's many times ( defying 3RR) and User Aaabbb11's work [Revision as of 03:50, 29 November 2015], but these two users' edits actually consistent with what you proposed on talk page. I noticed this is one of your tricks fooling around in this page and other FG related pages. Whether the anti-communism label is Significant or not should be based on consensus here. But there is not such consensus so far.Marvin 2009 (talk) 16:43, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Not at all, there're different versions as I compromised with user Werrace later and shortened the content. He did not make any further edit after my discussion with him. STSC (talk) 16:49, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

After you said on talk page[Revision as of 12:37, 28 November 2015], you did many such edits [Revision as of 17:08, 28 November 2015]. Your edits were exactly contradict to what you proposed on talk page. Marvin 2009 (talk) 17:41, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

That was only one of the suggestions, and I decided to input a better version with the UN's response which is more neutral than the others. STSC (talk) 17:54, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Why is it that nobody commented on my reference to the policy? How is it irrelevant to what you are discussing now? TheSoundAndTheFury (talk) 19:17, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

For Pete's sake, 'anti-communist' and 'associated with Falun Gong' are just plain notable facts and characteristics of Epoch Times as supported by reliable sources, nothing sinister about them at all. We may also point out some newspapers as "pro-communist" or "associated with socialist movement", etc. in the same normal manner. STSC (talk) 03:12, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Look, the question here is about formulating the first sentence of the lead, not about whether we should make use of these sources or not. Even the People's Daily article begins: "The People's Daily is a daily newspaper in China." This applies to every other newspaper article on Wikipedia that I'm aware of. Secondly, the Epoch Times has been characterized as a newspaper whose stance is in opposition to the CCP (not simply "anti-Communist", because this could be misconstrued to mean a very different political ideology). All of this can and should be mentioned in its proper place. TheSoundAndTheFury (talk) 02:22, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

The introduction is a summary of notable characteristics of the newspaper which are 'anti-communist' and 'pro-Falun Gong'. If you're anti Chinese communist, you're anti-communist; you would not go on and love the North Korean communist. STSC (talk) 20:00, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

the article has a section called editorial stance, which summarizes different views researchers have regarding this topic. There is no ground that we have to put some views in the line of the article. Marvin 2009 (talk) 22:31, 30 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)

Yes, the first duty is to give the reader an informative page. I see from scholarly sources that the Epoch Times is considered a mouthpiece of the Falun Gong, that it is a political tool, that it is politically biased, that its news articles are constructed for political ends, and that it is being used in an attempt to bring legitimacy to the Falun Gong movement. The result is that the Epoch Times is not primarily a newspaper for news in the sense of The New York Times. Instead it is primarily a political tool. This information serves the reader well as it is the consensus of academics who have commented on the issue. Binksternet (talk) 19:04, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Hey Binksternet, that is based on your own view and your interpretation of the views in some sources. There are different views from other sources and sometimes the same sources. So your own view, or one view from some sources, should not be considered as absolute conclusions. Plus, the debatable argument can be introduced later, not necessary in the beginning of the article. Please check my other replies above. Thanks. Marvin 2009 (talk) 05:01, 5 December 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)

Please do not add unreliable blog sources to wikipedia any more and do not delete Ownby's words I added. Marvin 2009 (talk) 05:01, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Binksternet, it doesn't quite work like that. You cannot assemble a bunch of negative sources and say that is the extent of the newspaper. The point is that there is a dispute and controversy on precisely those points. Our point is to make sure that dispute is recorded in the article, not to engage in it ourselves as you are doing. In particular, the way you are militarizing and stacking the lead is particularly tendentious. If I now go and find every nice thing anyone has ever said about the newspaper, we'd probably have an equally long list. Above, I already demonstrated how Society of Professional Journalists - a much stronger source than any other so far, actually, since it is an evaluation from a professional media association, from the world of newspapers - looks upon epoch very well. Should all that be added to the lead?

You're also using quite out of date information to concoct a false narrative about the newspaper - as though it somehow hides its Falun Gong ties. This is incredibly tendentious and biased. Rather than objectively explaining the dispute, you are making the page aggressively reflect your own opinions. You also stand by while legitimately sourced information about attacks on the newspaper are deleted.

By the way, to your comment. Some scholarly sources consider Epoch a FLG "mouthpiece" - so we can say that some scholarly sources think that. We can also explain how the newspaper itself understands and explains its relation to Falun Gong. why not actually explore and explain that controversy? Who said it was a "political tool"? Who said that it is politically biased? (Note, if we say that on the page, then we show how others think it's not biased, e.g. SPJ.) Show me your sources saying its news articles are constructed for political ends? Please. I just went to theepochtimes.com and couldn't find one - but please find one for us. Ming Xia appears to say that it's part of an attempt to bring legitimacy to FLG - but who said it's being used for that purpose, rather than the people running it attempting to achieve that goal?? And finally, you make your own conclusion, a false dichotomy we may call it, where because of its Falun Gong association it is therefore a "political tool" and not primarily a newspaper. To be very clear, you have no source saying it. It's your own thoughts and conclusion. And it's this conclusion that you are aggressively seeking to have represented on the page. I urge you to play by WP:NPOV.

Clear thinking demands separating the issues you have conflated and only seek to represent one side of. I advocate for properly spelling the dispute out on the page, not ramming a conclusion into the lead. Happy monsoon day 05:38, 5 December 2015 (UTC)Happy monsoon day 05:38, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

such http://www.religionnewsblog.com/ info is not reliable sources, but since a few days, it was added to the articles many times. i am going to prevent this damage again. Marvin 2009 (talk) 06:08, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

First, I am not putting anything outdated into the article. Other editors are constructing the narrative about how the newspaper hides its connections, per Ownby. I should think that we could use Ownby along with some notional 2015 sources to to say that hiding the Falun Gong connection was the case in the recent past (per Ownby) but not any more (per some 2015 source). So that's not an accusation you should be leveling at me.

I did not assemble "a bunch of negative sources" on purpose. The sources showed up on their own in my neutral searches. In fact, I had no idea what the newspaper was about until July 2014 when I got curious and started looking at published descriptions. Personally I have no opinion about the paper, and no opinion about politics in China. These things do not touch my life. The only thing I'm doing here is trying to keep this Wikipedia article from becoming an advertisement or brochure for promoting the newspaper. I'm trying to prevent the article from saying the newspaper is widely respected (it is not) or impartial (it is not). The paper has won awards for certain news stories, that much is true, but when scholars talk about the newspapers whole output they describe it as biased, political and even sneaky, adding its own slant or spin to what would otherwise be normal news items.

The reason I'm participating so strongly here is because I saw someone trying to whitewash the article back in July 2014. The article should make it very clear to the reader that the scholarly consensus is not complimentary of this newspaper. Binksternet (talk) 06:21, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

As i said earlier scholars and medias tended to list different views, provide their thoughts and let the readers draw their own conclusions, while you provided your way of interpretation (based on your form bias) as a absolute conclusion, which is against WP:NPOV.Marvin 2009 (talk) 06:35, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

In addition, please check Sowing Confusion. According to this westernstandard.ca report - Embarrassed by reports of live organ harvesting, CCP sympathizers launch a high-tech disinformation campaign. Which is exactly the opposite with what you said. Marvin 2009 (talk) 06:44, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Questions on added information

Binksternet please clarify some edits.

The article referring to the roles of Gail Rachlin and Xu was published in 2007. Do they have any current association with the newspaper? That is 8 years ago. Please check.

[4] - why delete the remarks of the spokesperson?Happy monsoon day 06:05, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

1: I don't know what you are talking about with regard to Rachlin snd Xu. Perhaps you are mixing me up with another editor.

2: The above diff shows me removing a portion of a primary source statement, the portion which was directly contradicted by third party sources. Third party sources say that the Epoch Times is a political tool of the Falun Gong movement, which makes Stephen Gregory's statement untrue. Wikipedia greatly prefers WP:SECONDARY sources. Primary sources do not trump secondary sources. Binksternet (talk) 06:30, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Wait. Since when do we decide that a source is just untrue and we delete it? You mean that someone speaking on behalf of the newspaper has no place is an article about the newspaper? Please re-read the Wikipedia rule on primary sources. They are perfectly permissible under these circumstances. We're not going to have Gregory talking about who shot JFK, but as far as he's the spokesperson for his own newspaper, he's a perfectly acceptable source.

The problem here seems to be going about this in too 'hard' a manner, if I may put it that way. Gregory says it doesn't speak for Falun Gong. Some scholars think it does. If you pinned him down he'd probably acknowledge why people might think that - but the point is that the newspaper is run by adherents of Falun Gong, and isn't institutionally tied to Falun Gong. So he doesn't hold out Epoch as representing FLG. There is minghui or some other falun gong org for that. This is the nuance that gets lost when the only goal is to make a point. Happy monsoon day 06:45, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

You are right. Falundafa.org has Mr. Li's books and exercises teaching videos. Epochtimes does not have anything like this, so it is definitely not qualified to represent FG. Marvin 2009 (talk) 07:01, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

As a primary source, Stephen Gregory's statement would be admissible only it were about an incontrovertible fact, which obviously is not the case here. --Elnon (talk) 19:56, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Can you please point to the policy which explains that interpretation of primary sources? Clearly what we are dealing with here are not plain facts, like you get in science, where you can explain the outcome of the combination of two hydrogen molecules and one oxygen molecule. You have a case where there are different statements and interpretations of the newspaper's role as purveyor of Falun Gong's viewpoint, or of its institutional relationship to Falun Gong. Both Gregory's statement and those of the scholars could in fact be true.

In any case, it is obvious that on a matter in which there are various views, all significant views be noted. The views of the party at the center of the dispute are obviously relevant. We should in fact do one better and find some more recent statements or clarifications by the newspaper. They don't seem to deny that Falun gong practitioners founded and mostly staff the paper - but they deny "representing Falun Gong" or officially speaking for the whole of Falun Gong. Technically this may be so, since Falun Gong has actual mouthpieces like Minghui etc. As such the media they founded can clearly be read to represent the views of Falun Gong practitioners, but are not the institutional voice. I suspect that this nuance is lost when politics comes into it. Happy monsoon day 00:07, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

"Tax records show..."

Such content was added by Sinceouch2422 from the blog www.religionnewsblog.com. Since blog is not considered a reliable source in Wikipedia, I deleted quite a few times and advised Sinceouch2422 not to add such blog info. Sinceouch2422 added it back, and most recently he deleted the blog link, but the content was kept and was said to be from the Washington Post. In fact, the provided post report has not such info. I suggest Sinceouch2422 stop damaging the article. Marvin 2009 (talk) 04:04, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

You purposely did not mention the real source, which is here: http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB108190438992282143 Sinceouch2422 (talk) 05:18, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Recent edits and reverts

I was enjoying the respite for the last two weeks, until this edit [5]. here are the problems going on right now: the page has reached an uneasy truce on how to handle the falun gong connection with the newspaper - those involved evidently agreed that it should be in the lead, but not so aggressively jammed into the first sentence, and that the reader does not need to be whacked over the head with "hey, did you know it's run by falun gong? falun gong, you know? falun gong falun gong falun gong" all in the first and second and third sentences.

it's enough to simply present it professionally, not draw conclusions about its significance immediately, and then explain the various ways in which these falun gong ties are understood by third parties later in the article (i.e. ensuring we accord with wp:NPOV. that is roughly what we achieved, and the stability on the page for nearly two weeks is a testament to this. but the edit in question ignored all of that (see the extensive discussion above), and made a whole series of other highly disputed changes, including in the body of the article, none of which are even explained or discussed, and many of which have been defended above.

Not to mention, it is actually quite difficult to pick through such a lengthy number of different edits all made simultaneously with no regard to the discussion process. Please, Sinceouch, if you wish to engage with this, then please begin an actual discussion about what you think on the discussion above on the lead and the various sections in the article you wish to change. it is too hard to figure out the rationale for all your deletions and additions, none of which are defended or explained, many of which consensus has been reached about above. Also, the edit summary is not accurate at all. Happy monsoon day 14:52, 17 December 2015 (UTC)