Talk:The Epoch Times

message: First hyperlink shows neo-nazis marching.  This is a highly misleading entry.  If ET is far-right then NY Times is far-left, but of course they're painted as mainstream.  ET is conservative, you could even say 'ultra conservative,' but what you've posted is a lie.  Neither is it authoritarian--quite the opposite, if you've ever bothered to read its articles. Taking sides with the Chinese Communist Party, which actually is authoritarian, makes me wonder who runs this site and who they're placating to.  This and other skewed articles is why I've quit contributing to Wikipedia, although I used to every year. Martyrw (talk) 16:35, 26 December 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Did you see the two dozen references saying that the Epoch Times is far right? It's because of the outright falsehoods and conspiracy theories they peddle. They got even crazier in 2020: "...by 2020, it became a megaphone for the U.S.’s most extreme right-wing stories." Binksternet (talk) 20:00, 26 December 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: That's a subjective response.  I can cite just as many references stating how the NY Times gives falsehoods and is far left.  Wikipedia should rise to a level of objectivity not catering to preferred opinions.  I've followed ET for several years, and although I don't even come close to agreeing with everything they publish, the ET simply isn't 'far right' -- certainly not by Wikipedia's definition of far right, and they should at least be consistent with their own definitions.  The stance W takes on stuff like this alienates them from maybe 30-50% of the US population by labeling and name-calling, contributing to the ongoing polarization in this country. Martyrw (talk) 21:59, 26 December 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Your 30 percent of the US population voted for Trump, who is a charlatan. These people are Fox zombies—not worth the trouble. Nobody has a solution for convincing this bloc of people who don't care about facts or logic. The polarization in the US has deepened because of Trump, Fox and Epoch Times, not because Wikipedia is skeptical and rigorously factual. In fact, the polarization started in 1994 with Newt Gringrich. The polarization has been driven by right-wing elements, especially the Christian right. This campaign has also eroded education in the US, making people more prone to believe nonsense such as what they read in the Epoch Times or see on Fox. Binksternet (talk) 22:24, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

text: Yet you believe all the quotes from far left sources. Just like the writer of this hit piece on ET. Chrshale (talk) 14:34, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

text: This article is about The Epoch Times, not The New York Times; if you have constructive changes to propose to the Wikipedia article about The New York Times that are supported by reliable sources, feel free to suggest them at Talk:The New York Times. As mentioned in the FAQ at the top of this page, the far-right descriptor for The Epoch Times is amply and reliably sourced; see  for the current list. Your suggestion that the article is  because you do not like the fact that reliable sources describe The Epoch Times as far-right is a false dilemma; there are more than two "sides" in geopolitics, and moreover, this article reflects content published in reliable sources – it does not "take sides". This article does not mention authoritarianism, so it is unclear why your comment implies that the article is describing The Epoch Times as such. — Newslinger talk 03:08, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

text: How much is Falun Gong paying y'all to keep opening the same complaint on this talk page over and over again? Brusquedandelion (talk) 11:11, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

text: Well said. This entire entry is a hit piece and reads like it was written either by Beijing or the NYT. Take your pick. Chrshale (talk) 14:31, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah yes, known collaborators the Beijing government and the New York Times. Please provide us with reliable sources that dispute referring to this... publication... as not far-right. Please note that far-right publications are conservative so sources calling it conservative don't actually conflict sources calling it far-right. Simonm223 (talk) 14:34, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

text: The Epoch Times has a different political position depending on the region. In the United States, it is a Trumpist far-right media, but in Hong Kong, it is a pro-democracy camp, or radical liberal. In China, the pro-Chinese Communist Party is a far-right stance. ProKMT (talk) 10:27, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: You got any reliable sources we can use? Polygnotus (talk) 10:45, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: I doubt it. Simonm223 (talk) 10:57, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Same, but it is important to emphasize that, because Wikipedia is based on reliable sources, it is pointless to complain here. Email or call reliable sources and complain there, make sure they write what you want them to. Wikipedia will follow the reliable sources. Polygnotus (talk) 11:01, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: In the United States, the Epoch Times speaks for far-right populism, but in Hong Kong, it speaks for 民主派. (see List of newspapers in Hong Kong#Daily newspaper). Pro-democracy camp (Hong Kong) is never far-right. ProKMT (talk) 11:59, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Nonsense. Also Wikipedia is not a WP:RS. Simonm223 (talk) 12:08, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

text: Per WP:TRUTH we need reliable sources to report something before we can decide to include it on Wikipedia. You can contact them by phone or email. Please let us know when a reliable source reports on this (e.g. the BBC, The Guardian et cetera). Thank you, Polygnotus (talk) 12:22, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

text: It is interesting to see how the Chinese edition of The Epoch Times is discussed in the 2019 Andrew Junker's book Becoming Activists in Global China, at page 186: "The Chinese edition of The Epoch Times, which is often free and easily available in many major cities, stands out among overseas Chinese-language newspapers for its commitment to publishing watchdog, critical news from mainland China. For example, it claims to have been the ﬁrst media source to report the SARS cover-up in China in 2003. Over the years, the incentives of being supported through advertising and increasing readership have pushed the newspaper toward greater professionalization and to increasingly orient itself toward the needs and interests of its widest readership.  It is also conceivable that an organization like The Epoch Times could evolve into a more mainstream publication while retaining its critical independence and moral watchdog mission." Thank you. Path2space (talk) 23:46, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: That is certainly not sufficient to change the lede though Junker's book might be due brief mention in the body of the article if it is not already there. Simonm223 (talk) 00:29, 1 May 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: BTW, that source appears out of date compared to later research and reeks of early 2010s Western scholarship on Falun which frames it entirely on its conflict with the CCP. It was written before the big expose on Epoch's connection with far-right sources in 2019, and there are zero results in the book about its Trump connections. As for the claim of "professionalization", this is contradicted by Roose's 2020 NYT source which noted that ET's attempts to establish itself as a respectable source changed after Trump's election, in order to chase the conspiracy theorists' money. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 120.18.157.7 (talk) 00:27, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  ET is conservative, not 'far-right' 

message: Based on the previous discussion of trimming sources and input from the protected edit request, I'd like to re-present the following sources as candidates for removal:
[16]https://fortune.com/2020/08/07/this-moon-landing-video-is-fake/: newsletter summarizes another article which does not apply the label "far-right"; additionally, Fortune magazine not listed as a perennial source for politics, reliability unknown
[7]https://doi.org/10.1515%2Ffjsb-2020-0040: specific to German publication and should be attributed as such
[9]http://www.chinafile.com/reporting-opinion/media/german-edition-of-falun-gong-affiliated-epoch-times-aligns-far-right: specific to German publication
[11]https://newrepublic.com/article/155076/obscure-newspaper-fueling-far-right-europe: does not apply far-right label to TET, also specific to German publication
[12]https://foreignpolicy.com/2020/11/02/guo-wengui-steve-bannon-hunter-biden-conspiracies-disinformation/: wording--"Many of the most potent claims have roots with anti-CCP and far-right actors, including the Falun Gong-backed Epoch Times"--open to interpretation whether TET is anti-CCP, far-right, or both.
[15] https://www.theverge.com/2020/5/12/21254184/how-plandemic-went-viral-facebook-youtube: The Verge is not what you would call a political heavy-hitter-- "There is broad consensus that The Verge is a reliable source for use in articles relating to technology, science, and automobiles"
Oddly similar wording between [4]https://www.degruyter.com/document/doi/10.1515/9781503630611-003/html  and [10]https://www.nytimes.com/2020/05/09/technology/plandemic-judy-mikovitz-coronavirus-disinformation.html: "she has become a darling of far-right publications like The Epoch Times and The Gateway Pundit" vs. "she became the darling of far-right publications like The Epoch Times and Gateway Pundit". Recommend keeping one or the other. ClifV (talk) 20:54, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: You have some fundamental misunderstandings of sourcing policy on display here. Lack of mention at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources does not mean 'reliability unknown' - read the whole page there for details, particularly the section 'What if my source is not here?'. I am also not convinced that hair-splitting different languages editions would invalidate sources, or that 'similar wording' is some sort of problem to be corrected. MrOllie (talk) 12:31, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Further Discussion of Far-Right Label Source Removal Candidates 

message: In regards to previous protected edit request and associated list of sources--
First, some established points:
* Reliable sources are cited on the page that describe The Epoch Times as both conservative or far-right
* Far-right is a subclass of conservative; that an entity is labeled as conservative does not preclude it from also being far-right
Second, some points on which I'd like to establish consensus:
# Given that far-right is a subclass of conservative, the application of the conservative label does not automatically imply the applicability of far-right
# The sources applying the label are knowledgeable and authoritative in their selection, with the result that "conservative" and "far-right" are not interchangeable when citing a source that applies the former but declines to specify the latter
ClifV (talk) 05:30, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Consensus doesn't exist in a vacuum. All sources are judged in context, and you've already made it clear that your goal is to undermine consensus to call this outlet far-right. Wikipedia isn't a platform for PR or advocacy, and similarly (as I suspect you have already been told) Wikipedia isn't for righting great wrongs. These transparent debate-class tactics are not persuasive, to put it mildly. Grayfell (talk) 06:20, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't feel like doing all the sock striking, but FYI: ClifV was blocked as sock of Ijeffsc. The IPs are almost certainly the same person, and Bbb23 has asked to be pinged if they return to editing. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 17:19, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Political Alignment Labeling Edit Request Followup