Talk:The Epoch Times/Archive 1

message: The Epoch Times from what I can tell is largely put together by Falun Gong practitioners at present, who as I understand were instrumental in its founding.  However, contributions to the paper do not consist solely of practitioners' contributions, nor is it by any means intended to be that way.  I don't think the large practitioner contribution is something that people who work on the paper generally deny when asked.  It just isn't necessarily something that they shout to the rooftops because the paper is not intended to be judged by the spiritual inclinations of its writers; it is intended to be judged by its content.  If you need my source, it is my own experience helping with the paper.
:It says, "The paper rarely publishes letters and opinions that do not suit its cause, such as pro-communist and anti-Falun Gong comments, which the paper deems unnecessary. The Times argues that most, if not all government-censored Chinese news sources already contain opinions in agreement with Chinese governmental policies."
:Where is the news in this paper? Why do they need to masquerade as a newspaper if their objective is to cast Falun Gong in a sympathetic light by propagandizing "the other side," whatever that is...
:It says "The Epoch Times is a conservative Chinese newspaper, " It's not a newspaper and it's not conservative (conservative in what?) It's an anti-CCP pamphlet with a mix of editorialized news and shrill opinions, printed in a newspaper form factor and left out in Chinatowns everywhere for free and picked up by people for entertainment or to wrap fish.
::Even if there are more articles about Falun Gong in the paper than in others, its mission is not to cast Falun Gong in a sympathetic light.  If you want to see the paper's goal, go to http://english.epochtimes.com/aboutus.html.
:::Yeah, whatever. They didn't start out as the English version. Their reputation precedes them.
::::Actually, not necessarily. As a non-Chinese speaker, I am not aware of Chinese-language media unless I am told about it specifically, and I was aware of and learned about the English version before the Chinese version.  I therefore was not able to judge the paper based on its Chinese-language reputation, because I did not have access to information about it except through following up on English-language Epoch Times connections.
Here are some non-profit declarations showing the money trail between Falun Gong and Epoch Times(Form 990, Page 2, Part III c):
Southern USA Falun Dafa Association. $10,350 were given to Epoch Times in 2002, $22,700 in 2003, $14,750 in 2004:
http://www.guidestar.org/FinDocuments/2002/760/692/2002-760692185-1-9.pdf
http://www.guidestar.org/FinDocuments/2004/760/692/2003-760692185-1-9.pdf
http://www.guidestar.org/FinDocuments/2004/760/692/2004-760692185-1-9.pdf
Falun Dafa Association of New England. $57,609 were spent on computer and print media, $97,755 in 2003, $116,823 in 2004:
http://www.guidestar.org/FinDocuments/2002/043/576/2002-043576893-1-9.pdf
http://www.guidestar.org/FinDocuments/2003/043/576/2003-043576893-1-Z.pdf
http://www.guidestar.org/FinDocuments/2004/043/576/2004-043576893-02038ba1-9.pdf
(These are but two examples of the hundreds of FLG non-profits in US.)
:Thanks for posting these.
:In the first group, the second page seems to have been moved.
:This first set also looks more valuable than the second for tracing a trail between Falun Gong and the Epoch Times.  Falun Dafa practitioners in general do seem to produce a lot of flyers, CDs, etc. meant to inform about Falun Dafa.  These include things like introductory flyers, and the "False Fire" CDs produced a few years ago to counter negative media coverage after the self-immolation incident in Tiannamen Square.  I imagine the associations would also have some use for computers to help them update Falun Dafa-related websites and such.  So there's no real proof in the second group that any portion of the "computer and print media" went directly or indirectly to the Epoch Times.
::In the first group, would at least some of this have been given for various event advertisements?  It would make sense to me that advertisements are not for free, since the Epoch Times is not owned by Falun Gong (or officially affiliated on the same level like the other Epoch media are), and the Epoch Times might be one likely place to advertise information about practice sites and workshops. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.75.247.239 (talk) 19:46, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  RE: allegations regarding Falun Gong and Epoch Times 

message: A previous version of this article stated that with regards to the Epoch Times' penchant for negative reporting on China, "It should be noted that although a concentration of these articles may be published in the Epoch Times, many of these negative reports can also be found in neutral overseas Chinese newspapers."  Does anyone know if other overseas Chinese papers do carry these articles?  A lot of US papers do carry some of them.  Should something about this be added back in?
:That depends on how you define "neutral newspaper". It is a fact that most papers in almost any language take one stance or another to some degree. In the US, for example, NY Times and LA Times are left leaning newspapers, while NY Post and Wall Street Journal are conservative. In my opinion, there are hardly any newspapers that are neutral. So to answer the question, you can find plenty of these negative-China stories in anti-PRC overseas Chinese papers, such as those Taiwan affilaited ones like the World Journal and International Daily News. However, I would hardly call these papers "neutral". Pseudotriton 06:07, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Criticism 

message: :has caused over 5.2 million CCP members to resign. The number is somewhat disputed, as anyone regardless of Chinese citizenship or CCP membership can sign more than once.
Can sign what more than once? Or should it read "can resign more than once"? AxelBoldt 22:29, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  CCP members resigning 

message: I have protected the page from editing as there has been an extremely aggressive edit war with no discussion whatsoever. Please use the talk page.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 01:19, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Are the disputed parties progressing towards resolution? I have seen no discussion at all in the past ten days. If there is no objection, I will request unprotection. Calwatch 23:32, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Page is protected 

message: "Its arbitrary judgements pertaining to the Communist Party of China have often proved to be the most notorious forms of anti-China propagandas."
I'm removing this sentence. from the first paragraph. I think it should be obvious why. It is already stated that critics find the paper biased. The terms "arbitrary", "notorious", "anti-China" are clearly highly debatable and don't belong here. Perhaps it could go elsewhere with a citation?
Blatent POV pushing by an anon IP. It's gone. CovenantD 14:30, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Opinion line in first paragraph removed 

message: The introduction is to explain what The Epoch Times is in an objective manner, not to launch straight into criticizm - which seems to be the case right now. 
As was mentioned by Asdfg12345 above: 
;"When people ask, who is George W. Bush? The standard response woud be, The President of the United States. Not, the greedy capitalist who cheated his way to the top and is now waging false wars for his countrys interest... etc.etc., some other things. That's just an example, it's nothing. The point is that in normal ways of talking and understanding things, the way something is most briefly defined is through the most surface method, the most obvious thing about a subject, or the mainstream thing about the subject, or what that subject itself says. It is to try to reduce the matter of one specific opinion."
This is a relevant point for this part of the article too. For instance, if you check out one of the links in this article to the Wikipedia explaination of the Communist Party of China then you will note that the article does not launch straight into critisizm toward the government and any critisizm is quite lightly worded... considering. Oddly, unless I missed something while skimming through, there doesnt seem to be any mention of their atrocious human rights record (which is an undisputed fact to anyone who has been brought up outside of China) except a solitary link to the Tiananmen Massacre at the bottom of the page. This just goes to show that this is an encyclopedia - not an avenue to vent one's own interpretation of what the newspaper is and its background.
So I have incorporated some information from the ET website and am adjusting the introduction to the following:
:The Epoch Times (Simplified Chinese: 大纪元; Traditional Chinese: 大紀元; Pinyin: Dàjìyuán) is a privately owned and independent, general-interest newspaper. The founding Chinese-language Epoch Times started publishing in response to the growing need for uncensored coverage of events in China. It has been in continuous publication since May 2000. Headquartered in New York, the newspaper has local bureaus and a wide network of local reporters throughout the world. Currently distributed free-of-charge in roughly 30 countries worldwide, The Epoch Times maintains editions in ten languages in print, and 17 languages on the web. 
:Subjects covered include international and national news, business, science and technology, arts and entertainment, life, health, sports and travel, although varying in different countries. 
:The newspaper claims to have a special strength in its coverage of China and human rights issues, and frequently contains articles with strongly opinionated views on the Communist Party of China (CPC), mainland Chinese society, and groups against the CPC, especially Falun Gong. While the paper claims an independent stance, it has been criticized as being biased with links to Falun Gong and having an anti-Communist stance.
I feel that these short paragraph summarize the content of the rest of the article that follows. What does everyone think? --Playing fair 15:21, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think this introduction introduces things more completely than the other one that was previously (and that is now) there.  I have read the notes others have written in the article history section and the rest of this discussion, and think this introduction still contains the points I would have thought they are concerned about.  (Actually, I think it takes note of all the views expressed in the other introduction period.)  But evidently I am wrong about others' concerns.  Those who disagree with this introduction, it might be helpful if you could explain more completely why your introduction is better instead of just changing it back again.  66.75.247.239 06:15, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't totally disagree with your version of introduction, Why don't you introduce it here for discussion before deleting the old version?  --Yueyuen 08:10, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thats fine, but nothing was deleted. Check out the history, I edited the most recent version by adding content, not deleting. Then my second attempt was to make the same changes with a previous version that still had the quote in the history. Oh, I also corrected the date of the introduction of the 17th language. If there is something that I missed then why not just add in the missing info rather than enter into a revert war? --Playing fair 09:48, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

text: I found it unfair to reader for delete conection betwen falungong and epoch time certainly some people try to hide some fact about the conection( very clear). The conection are important to see the way the epoch time behave and atitude so many people would not miss interpertion they way or confuse by the action, like they way epoch time and falum gong cloberation crime do to our comunity. it would clear they position why they involved falun gong crime activity. Daimond 15:46, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm sorry if I don't understand what relationship this comment has to this section. This section is to discuss two different intro's, neither of which exclude the link to Falun Gong. I think you have strong feelings about this, but personally, I also haven't seen any evidence of the collaboration in criminal activity, or that Falun Gong practitioners generally organize or commit crimes period.
The page is now unprotected again, and I haven't seen any discussion explaining why Playing Fair's is less complete, so I've changed it back.66.75.247.239 00:31, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Introduction 

message: In addition, I find the fact that almost all "references" on the page link to the Epoch Times itself to be disturbing and highly biased. I will work towards fixing this obvious shortcoming by promoting NPOV. For now the tag has been placed on the article. Please do not remove it arbitrarily without discussion first. Thank you. Colipon+(T) 04:23, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  References & justification for NPOV tag 

message: The relentless blanking of material which reports what Li Hongzhi actually says to his disciples about salvation and the Fa-rectification has got to stop.  Most recent case in point: an anyonymous editor has just deleted the Li Honzhi quote from this sentence:
:The term Dafa refers to Li’s “Great Law of the cosmos” which offers salvation to those beings who are worthy, while “the dregs of humanity and degenerate world that are left behind will be weeded out” in a process he calls “Fa-rectification.”.
His/her justification for this deletion is that it makes the Falun Gong look bad.  Since this particular quote from Li Hongzhi is relevant to the subject and well sourced, I see no justification for deleting it simply because "it makes Falun Gong look bad."  Li has made many statements of this sort on the Fa-rectification and has frequently talked about "weeding out" beings in his Fa-rectification process.  This material is essential for an understanding of the Falun Gong and what motivates practioners to work to destroy the CCP.  Li tells his practitioners that only they can detect the moral principles of the cosmos--Truthfullness, Benevolence and Forebearance--and that if they live up to their requirements as "Fa-rectification Dafa disciples" they can look forward to salvation and becomming gods with Li's help.  Li has made the concept of "Fa-rectification" the central event in his Falun Gong theology.  It is the essential motivating force for practitioners and they look forward to its completion soon.  Certain categories of people are being "weeded out" during this Fa-recifiction process.  According to Li, this is a cosmic event which he himself initiated, the gods no longer caring about human beings because we have all become too corrupt.  I have written one very short and simple sentence relying on a direct quote from Li which sums up this point.  If that sentence makes Falun Gong look bad, don't blame me, blame Li Hongzhi.  --Tomananda 21:23, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Does Li Hongzhi make the Falun Gong look bad ? 

message: See  Paper denies representing Falun Gong By NAHAL TOOSI, Associated Press Writer.
:"The Epoch Times began as a Web site based in an Atlanta suburb after its founders grew alarmed about what was happening to fellow Falun Gong members in China, Gregory said." (Stephen Gregory, chairman of the board for English-language editions.)
This differs from what the Wikipedia article says. BlankVerse 10:36, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  History, part II 

message: 1. fixed typo from newpaper to newspaper 
2. here:
: As stated by Li Hongzhi, the founder of Falun Gong (also known as Falun Dafa), the Epoch Times "was established by Dafa disciples for validating the Fa."  The term Dafa disciple refers to practitioners of Falun Gong. The term Dafa refers to Li’s “Great Law of the cosmos” which offers salvation to those beings who can meet his requirements, while “the dregs of humanity and degenerate world that are left behind will be weeded out” in a process he calls “Fa-rectification.”.
:: Here first you explain what the term Dafa stands for here: “The term Dafa disciple refers to practitioners of Falun Gong.”
:: Then you explain the term Dafa again here? “The term Dafa refers to Li’s “Great Law of the cosmos”... “.
::: I think this is a mistake and typo slipped in, because the word Dafa would be a duplicate, however explaining the word Fa which is not in the dictionary and which you might have wanted to explain, makes sense. So in the second sentence word Dafa changed with word Fa. So I fixed this and now the sentence reads: “The term Fa refers to Li’s “Great Law of the cosmos” ... “
3. I changed
:: “The term Fa refers to Li’s “Great Law of the cosmos” which offers salvation to those beings who can meet his requirements, while “the dregs of humanity and degenerate world that are left behind will be weeded out” in a process he calls “Fa-rectification.”.”
: to
:: The term Fa refers to Li’s “Great Law of the cosmos”.
: Because the term Fa here is representing “Great Law of the cosmos”, which would be somewhat literal translation, however I doubt that you can explain the “Great Law of the cosmos”, here in just a few words. 
4+5. Original sentence:
:: “Because of this, the paper has over the years been accused by the Chinese government as well as concerned people outside of China of being a propaganda mouthpiece of Falun Gong.”
: changed to 
:: “Because of this, the paper has over the years been accused by the Chinese government as well as some people outside of China of being a propaganda mouthpiece of Falun Gong.”
: Because the word concerned is POV, at best there where some people, also added Citation needed, because I would like to know who they are.
6. fixed typo: criticise to criticize. Also changed statement:
:: “It is dismissive of positive developments in mainland China such as economic growth.”
: to
:: “It is critical of positive developments in mainland China such as economic growth, by presenting the human and environmental costs of this growth, and pointing out how the CPC members used a unique totalitarian and capitalist system to shift the wealth to themselves.”
: because, it is not dismissive, but critical to the way the economic growth was achieved. 
7. Original statement:
:: “At their Chinese language renunciation website , it was stated that "the evils of the Communist Cult will be punished by God at Judgment Day", "The CPC will be destroyed in 2005", and called on members of the CPC to burn Communist memorabilia. ”
: changed to
:: “At their Chinese language renunciation website , it was stated that "the evils of the Communist Cult will be punished by God at Judgment Day".”
: Because I looked at  and it seems (according to my limited Chinese knowledge) that is talking about a prophecy which was made in the past and according to it the CCP rain would end at 2005. It did not declare that the CCP will end in 2005. So please leave this quote out until you find an English version of it, which is verifiable by English readers. Thank You.
PS: please comment here each point you wish to revert. Thank You.--HappyInGeneral 12:45, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Asdfg, The fact that Dafa means "the great law of the cosmos" is definitional, so we agree on that. However, there is no justification for deleting what is equally important, a reference to Fa-rectification.  Li has spoken clearly about the role of Dafa in judging all beings (that's a direct quote) and also in providing salvation.  These concepts of salvation and judgment are not unique to Li.  I am not insisting on one particular Li quote over another (there are many which would fit just as well in the disputed sentence), but rather your refusal to allow the subject itself to be referenced here.  --Tomananda 18:48, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

text: There is no need to define "Dafa" at all on this page. That's what the Falun Gong page is for. If people are really that curious they can click on it and go to the Falun Dafa page. It's enough to say that a "Dafa disciple" is a person who practices Falun Dafa. This article isn't about Falun Dafa, it's about the Epoch Times. Mcconn 03:19, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Your argument is not convincing.  Dafa can be mentioned briefly on this page just as compassion, tolerance and truthfulness are mentioned on many pages.--Pirate101 06:51, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Dafa is mentioned briefly, in the sentence: "The term Dafa disciple refers to practitioners of Falun Dafa." --HappyInGeneral 13:13, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Changes on 2006-02-05 explained 

message: I saw too late that the editor I reverted had struck through his controversial statements on the Talk:Falun Gong page. Since he has done so, my characterization of his editing status (which I have since reverted) is no longer accurate, IMO. --Fire Star 火星 17:55, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rolling back my own edits 

message: Actually, let me append one thing (you may like this part, Tomananda): I will not make that revert again for the rest of this month. There should be obvious reasons for this. One of them is to try and demonstrate in an open and dignified way that I want my edits to be in good faith, that I do not want to engage in edit wars, that I believe in the principles of wikipedia, and also that I believe that in the end this behaviour, which I now see is at least WP:TE and quite probably also WP:DE, will be otherwise dealt with appropriately. It is also to demonstrate that consensus is opposed to this edit and this type of behaviour in general. That's all for now. Let me draw Armed's attention to this. As I mentioned I have quite some other things to do, so I will not check this page again until I do it all, then we will see what should be done. You win, Tomananda. --Asdfg12345 11:55, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Roll back own edit, express committment to wikipedia policies and principles 

message: Li says the Dafa is the "Great law of the cosmos" but if I report this in Wikipedia I am "playing tricks"  and Asdfg will flag that statement as "dubious"?   Give me a break!  I am not violating any Wikipedia policies by reporting the words of your Master.  If I can't report your Master's words (complete with appropriate citations), then you can't either.  Should I start blanking your Li quotes now?  The problem is not in my editing, Asdfg, it is in your refusal to accept any honest reporting about what Li calls the teachings "at the higher levels."   You acknowledge above that the Fa-rectification does have a direct relationship to the mission of the Epoch Times.  I thank you for that acknowledgment.  But what you don't do is allow me to report on that (using your master's own words) or, alternatively, provide your own edits.  You make excuses, saying you will get to this eventually.  
Other Falun Gong practitioners made similar excuses on the Falun Gong talk page many months ago.  Please understand that I have great sympathy for you.  The Master has created quite a predicament by having you believe certain things, but then demanding that you not talk about those things with "ordinary people."   By my way of thinking, that makes you brainwashed...or at least incapabable of thinking independently about the higher teachings of Master Li.  If you could think independently, I'm sure you would be able to construct a simple sentence about the Dafa judging all beings (actually that's what Li himself says) and then adding something about Fa-rectification and how it relates to the mission of the Epoch times, or for that matter your own mission as one of Li's "Fa-rectification Dafa disciples."  That is what Li calls his disciples these days, isn't it?  Or do you think I'm making up those words too?  Or playing tricks?
Asdfg, this issue has been at the core of the editor debates since the very beginning.  If you go back and check the discussion pages in March, 2006 (almost a year ago), you'll see much discussion about the need to report on all the teachings of Master Li.  You'll see, for example, that it took many months of heated debate and endless reverts to get agreement on the section on homosexuality.  You'll also see that it consists of a compiliation of direct quotes from Master Li, all of which are fully cited from Falun Gong's own web pages.   Back then is when I first introduced some edits on Li's Fa-rectification and then, as now, it elicited a series of attacks against me and my intentions.  In effect, nothing I have ever reported (I say reported instead of "written" because I always use Li's own words) has ever been accepted by the FG practitioners.  At the same time, no FG practitioner has ever written (or reported) in a simple and concise way about the judgment of the Dafa and the elimination of beings who are not worthy.  Again, those are Li's words, not mine.  Yes, it's true that more recently Li has changed his focus on this subject.  Now, instead of talking about the elimination of degenerates during the Fa-rectification, Li tends to direct all his attention to the "evil and wicked Chinese Communist Party" and anyone who dares to resist his Fa-rectification or think badly about it.  
Asdfg, many reputable cult experts in the United States consider these kinds of manipulative techniques a form of brainwashing, or "undue influence." Real psychological damage can be  done to an individual when he is made to give up his ability to reason independently. And I know from direct personal experience that Li Hongzhi has damaged more than one family in the United States, leading to divorces and other kinds of break-ups, all in the name of his "Dafa."
As an editor on the Falun Gong pages, my objective is not to take a stand on the Chinese Communist Party (sorry about that!). I believe I have acted in good faith all along, exercising restraint and flexibility in the editing process, yet also suffering an enormous amount of personal attacks.  I put up with the attacks against me (didn't you recently characterize me as "inarticulate" when writing about the FG?) and Samuel puts up with all the legal threats from the Falun Gong, because we both
recognize there is a story to be told about the Falun Gong which the Western media has yet to fullly understand or articulate.   That story...let's call it "the dark side of Falun Gong"...can be told in Wikipedia simply by allowing an honest reporting of what Li teaches, plus reporting the opinions of academics and other critics of the Falun Gong.  That's what I have done from the very beginning and its what I will continue to do.   --Tomananda 18:32, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmmm, quite an amount of attacks. In a nutshell you want to have many readers for a site about "the dark side of Falun Gong" and for this you feel the need to reinterpret what Fa-Rectification is, right? Well if that is what you really want to do then go ahead and do it, but keep in mind the Wikipedia policies and keep your hands of the Original Research. Now about context, do you really think that The Epoch Times page is the right place to do it? Or is this because the Falun Gong page is protected and you are just too anxious to get your edits on this in? --HappyInGeneral 15:55, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

text: How can you possibly say I am "reinterpretting" Fa-rectification when all I am doing is quoting your Master?  The quote has direct bearing on understanding the history of the Epoch Times, since it explains what the motivation is for the Falun Gong practitioners who run it.  Do you disagree with Li Hongzhi?  Do you think it is inaccurate to say that it is the goal of Falun Gong practitioners to save people?  Or to work towards the destruction of the evil and wicked Chinese Communist Party?   Would you be willing to say that all you need to do is culitvate your xinxing (moral character)in order to be a Falun Gong practitioner?   Do you think of yourself as a "Fa-rectification period Dafa disciple"?   If so, what do those words mean to you?   --Tomananda 17:59, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Actually I'm talking about the Wikipedia rules here, if I tell you in detail with some short quotes what all the things you stated above mean to me, it would be quite different from what you are advocating, because I would introduce the school principles into them, but even so it still would be Original Research. Wikipedia is here to report not to make judgments, if you want to do just that I can suggest your own web site, IRC channels, etc... see WP:NOT#SOAP --HappyInGeneral 08:11, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You're avoiding the point, which is that my introducing a relevant quote from your Master which speaks to what the mission of "Fa-rectification period Dafa disciples" is--and that includes those disciples who run the Epoch Times--does not constitute original research.  Yes, if you were to expound on what this all means to you personally, that would constitute original research.  The questions I asked were more rhetorical in nature, meaning that I know as well as you do that you cannot just stay at home and study Zhuan Falun, do the exercises and cultivate your xinxing in order to be considered a Falun Gong practitioner by Master Li.  The requirment now is that you and all Falun Gong practitioners must work to destroy the Chinese Communist Party, according to Li.   He gives that message repeatedly and it is critical to an understanding of the history of the Epoch Times. --Tomananda 17:26, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  See bellow about quoting out of context. --HappyInGeneral 11:41, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I searched in the two references you provided but none of the text like: “Great Law of the cosmos” and "is judging all beings" can be found in them. --HappyInGeneral 14:51, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Li says the Dafa is the "Great law of the cosmos" 

message: After just taking a look at the article, I noticed a whole lot of content, particularly in the nine commentaries section, that has been  tagged for a couple weeks. I propose that this content be given two more days before it is removed. This gives any editors still concerned with keeping it enough time (on top of the two weeks they've already had) to source it. Mcconn 10:37, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removal of {{Tl|Fact}} tagged content 

message: There is currently a discussion about edits in the History section.  Please refer to it and make comments or post edit changes there, rather than on the main Epoch Times page.  The special talk page is at:    --Tomananda 20:12, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Before making edits in History section, please see other Epoch Times talk page 

message: Just wondering. I have a page of Epoch Times here, and there is a trivial article mentioning an egg laying rooster in a Chinese village. That author claimed that this symbolises the coming fall of the CCP.--PCPP 02:36, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Your question is too unclear for me to be able to ascertain what you are in fact inquiring about. __meco 09:17, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Can a newspaper cutout be counted as reference? 

message: I removed the quote in line 65 and the relevant link because it was quoted from a reader's opinion.  There is an editorial comment right below the article saying that "this article represents only the author's opinions and descriptions".Withmany 09:24, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reader's opinion should not be quoted as the paper's claim 

message: This is regarding this revert
 Hello. 
In order for this content to be encyclopedically significant (WP:DUE), it should be contextualized by reliable, independent sources. Using one opinion column as an example introduces WP:OR into the article. Additionally, opinion columns should not typically be used for disputed factual claims without a specific reason, and even then it's rare. This source is arguably not reliable for this detail, and is also undue weight. If a reliable sources explains that this opinion column lead to the these notes, use that source. Otherwise, this is not directly supported by the cited source. 
As for the editorial notes, the significance of this is also not established. This is common practice for breaking news, and is often seen as a good thing, since it indicates editorial oversight and fact checking is in place. It is not up to editors to tell readers which sources are significant, or what to make of them. We need to summarize reliable, independent sources without adding inadvertent editorializing. To put it another way, if in doubt, explain what sources directly say, not what you think they imply. Thanks. Grayfell (talk) 23:40, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  CBC editors notes 

message: Edit suggestion for "Notable Coverage" > "Misinformation on COVID-19":
Unsolicited "Special Editions" with the same title have now been sent to UK addresses as well in the month of May.
https://www.heraldseries.co.uk/news/18429293.epoch-times-conspiracy-news-sent-oxfordshire-councillors/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stevestevestevebobjane (talk • contribs) 17:19, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Not done: "Special Editions" was not verified. Please provide another source if possible. Thank you.  's talk page! 19:31, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit semi-protected 

message: In the Notable Coverage section there is a spelling error. 
Change minisformation to misinformation 2601:645:4300:11B6:5436:4BE0:A255:BCDB (talk) 03:12, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. Thanks. Grayfell (talk) 03:30, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 10 June 2020 

message: The April/May 2020 edition of Epoch Times was being distributed in the UK in June 2020 Mikeyfreed (talk) 11:35, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. — Newslinger talk 12:05, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 20 June 2020 

message: To , Hello, some questions about your edits, would you please reply your reason ?
#why PatCheng deleted the core infomation of International Federation of Journalists’s article, and oringinal research to twist IFJ’s wording. for example:
##Content  about Communist Party all deleted
###IFJ called for the international community to speak out against the “dirty war” campaign against Epoch Times.
###IFJ condemned Communist China government “Brutal Vendetta” against independent newspaper, IFJ accused CCP manipulated 2006 incident,
###"Since the end of 2004, Chinese Communist Party officials have hunted down the Epoch Times staff inside and outside mainland China, …
###Why deleted “systematically confiscating newspapers”, “threatening the families of staff members.”
##PatCheng change its title “Attacked and Suppressed” to “Censorship” ,  you wrote edit reason that “NPOV headline”.———BUT You did not explain why it’s NPOV?   The events of IFJ and RSF’s concern are attack and suppress concerning Chinese Communist Party.
#Why PatCheng edit, not in accordance with source.
##【Content of the source 】.“Lian also said The Epoch Times has an abundance of informants in China, some at high-levels. It gets many leaks from China, he said, and when it comes to big issues, Epoch’s predictions are always accurate.”
##【After Patcheng deletion and Change its meaning 】 “it often receives high level leaks from informants inside mainland China” ( meaning different,This might be Oringinal Research.)
#About Nine Commentaries and Quitting Chinese Communist Party movement.
##Why PatCheng deleted all content  of CS Monitor’s article? You wrote edit reason that “This is an opinion article from a contributor, not by CS Monitor”.———BUT even if it’s a opinion, why you not modify but choose to delete it all ?
##Why? You deleted the content “Voice of America 2005 reported that it caused a movement of quitting from the Chinese Communist Party rise globally .”   you wrote edit reason that “VOA article simply quoted the organizers”———BUT what you said seems not correct.  Indeed (1)VOA’s report used a title “quitting from the Chinese Communist Party rise globally” (2) VOA’s article said (not quoted) that”《大纪元时报》刊登了九篇批判中共的文章，这些文章透过网络和其他渠道传播到中国，推动了退党的活动。Epoch Times nine article criticizing CCP, spread into China via internet and other ways, push the Quitting Movement“
##Why this Change edit  ?  you wrote edit reason that “More clarification.” However, it seems not.
###According to source’s content , It(Quitting CCP Movement) selected as the Top 3 Global events in 2011 by former economic policy advisor to the President of Russia,Andrey Illarionov and his research institute.
###PatCheng change into: It was selected as the one of the top global events in 2011 by Russian economist, Andrey Illarionov, citing the paper's claims that…
:::(1)Why  one of “Top 3” changed to “one of Top “?
:::(2)Why “and his research institute” , “economic policy advisor to the President of Russia”be deleted?
:::(3)What’s reason that these all be move to the back?
:::(4)Why (Oringinal Research) add Andrey Illarionov  “citing the paper's claims”——the source not say that.
::Wetrace (talk) 12:48, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Helle, , three days passed, Would you please reply question above? I Noted that you are still editing on June22.Wetrace (talk) 06:38, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Question : Why Deleted Chinese Communist Party-related? and other puzzling edits/ deletion 

message: Snopes usually just debunks untruths, but this time they wrote an article exposing the closest connection yet to Falun Gong, and some of their shadier practices.
The story is linked here. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 17:44, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Snopes is not a reliable source.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.37.22.110 (talk) 02:01, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources#Snopes —PaleoNeonate – 07:01, 15 December 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Snopes article 

message: :Epoch times have been heavily promoting the Yan report. I see it on their website and Facebook all the time and they have been sending pamphlets and newspapers to the public via post. Telling all that the virus was lab made by the CCP. I have never seen a media group so vested in promoting the Yan report and it was very convincing in that they claim a real scientist from China, became a whistleblower, and fled china, to tell the truth to the world about the virus being lab-made. Some scientists dispute that story however this is worthy of a Wikipedia entry since it's unprecedented for any private media group to actually deliver a singular and controversial and likely misinfo to other people letter boxes enmmasse. https://www.abc.net.au/news/science/2020-10-09/anti-beijing-group-with-links-to-steve-bannon-misinformation/12735638 49.180.129.245 (talk) 04:12, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Yan Report and ;Letterbox promotions 

message: Doug Weller talk 19:11, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Useful New York Times article 

message: The infobox currently states that The Epoch Times had a circulation of 1,314,375 in 2012, but that the figure was unaudited. The "Awards" section also claims that The Epoch Times received an award in 2012 for newspapers with a circulation under 50,000, and another award in 2013 for newspapers with a circulation of less than 100,000. This doesn't look consistent. Since the 1,314,375 figure is uncited, I think it should be removed unless there are more details on this claim. — Newslinger talk 00:36, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Anything that lacks a reference in this article should definitely be removed immediately. Any aged reference placed on material presented as contemporary should also be removed without a second thought. :bloodofox: (talk) 05:12, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:  I found the original edit that added this exact figure in 2014: Special:Diff/596245047. The source is the publication's own claim on its marketing site for advertising sales, now offline. However, even the claimed US-only figure of 435,100 copies exceeds the 50,000 and 100,000 limits on the awards. Narrowing it down even further, The Epoch Times still claimed to have circulated 105,100 English-language US-only copies in 2012. I've checked the timeline, but have yet to find any date on which the publication claimed a circulation under 100,000, no matter how the number is sliced.Since there are conflicts between the primary sources cited in this article, I've removed the claimed circulation of 1,314,375 in Special:Diff/987460475. — Newslinger talk 05:33, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for checking! :bloodofox: (talk) 19:07, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Circulation 

message: The wikipedia article on The Epoch Times is extremely left leaning and serves to discredit/undermine the publication.  The sources referenced in footnotes 1 - 12 are all left leaning sources that have an inherent bias against any non-left leaning media.  I would request that the introductory paragraph is edited to remove inflammatory language around promotion of conspiracy theories and "far right ideology".  The Epoch Times is not a far right newspaper just because NBC says so. {ip} 14:53, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate.  Seagull123  Φ  16:15, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 10 November 2020 

message: Epoch Tines is not a far right media outlet it's conservative.Stop spreading this disinformation.Wikipedia is supposed to be neutral.Please learn the difference between conservative and far right Patriotjohn74 (talk) 10:07, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 11 November 2020 

message: Please replace the tag from (pp-small-yes) to (pp-move-indef) in order to stat that this article was highly visible page so i needs to be move protected. If any editors or administrators decline to it, i want to request it at RFPP in order to get the article move protected by admin only. 110.137.162.247 (talk) 07:53, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: This article has not seen any disruptive moves, why would it be move-protected? – Thjarkur (talk) 09:28, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 14 November 2020 

message: The Epoch Times is a right wing media company, but it does not fall under the common definition of far-right. The points of view expressed in its articles are far from what is defined as "far-right politics" in this Wiki article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Far-right_politics.
I suggest removing the mention of "far-right" and replacing it with simply "right". VanCoover (talk) 01:44, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 20 November 2020 

message: Change "far-right newspaper" to "newspaper." Labeling this publication as "Far-right" is not impartial because it does not consider legitimate differences in viewing the political spectrum, and the term "Far-right" often carries a negative connotation. As an encyclopedia, Wikipedia should be as free as possible from biased language.
Change "Pro-Trump Conspiracy Theories and Misinformation" to "Controversial Pro-Trump Political Stances." The original heading is not impartial because it uses biased language. In addition, calling the newspaper's claims "debunked" is biased because what constitutes "debunked" varied based on personal opinion.
Change "Covid-19 Misinformation" to "Covid-19 Coverage." Labeling the newspaper's coverage as "misinformation" instead of giving readers the opportunity to make up their own minds is biased against freedom of press. FakeNewsPress2020 (talk) 15:47, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: ; Please provide reliable sources in support of your changes. Zoozaz1 talk 16:57, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 28 November 2020 

message: Please remove "far-right" from the leading sentence describing Epoch Times. While one may disagree with the angle they approach news items from, they are not "far" to the right of what would be generally understood as "right" or conservative ideas in American politics. In other words, if you obtained a random sample of Americans who identified as right-wing and asked them if they agreed with the angle that the ET takes in investigating and reporting, the overwhelming consensus would be that ET is representative of their viewpoints -- thus right, but not far right. 174.131.88.166 (talk) 02:04, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Hello, 174.131.88.166. Per WP:DUE, we go by what the preponderance of reliable sources (WP:RS) say. If hypothetically we did our own random-sample survey of Americans, it would be considered original research (WP:OR), which is not allowed in Wikipedia articles. Llll5032 (talk) 02:22, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

text: Wow, never in my life would know Epoch Times did so much depictable stuff. Since CCP is a real issue in my country and many chinese-speaking communities, their wiki page in chinese still looks alright. Who knows they would be the one that helps CCP to cause chaos in the world? Puetsua (talk) 06:10, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 2 December 2020 

message: For: According to sociologist Yuezhi Zhao, "While mainstream newspapers typically treat Web versions as an extension of the already-existing print version, The Epoch Times website serves as the master for all its worldwide papers." Add link to Yuezhi Zhao's name.
Also, is it necessary to have ECP until November 2021? Swil999 (talk) 06:04, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the  template. This person's name is already linked in the article.  – Jonesey95 (talk) 14:25, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

text: Linking to Yuezhi Zhao one time in the article body is sufficient. I added an authorlink in the referenced paper. Binksternet (talk) 08:46, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 3 December 2020 

message: PLEASE CHANGE THE WIKI TEXT FROM:   
The Epoch Times is a far-right[12] international multi-language newspaper and media company
TO: 
The Epoch Times is a right-of-centre[12] international multi-language newspaper and media company
MY JUSTIFICATION: 
It is incorrect to describe The Epoch Times (ET) as a "far right" organisation.  Read their articles and you will see this description is inaccurate. While ET does have include more articles of interest to Republican voters and is less dismissive of President Trump's actions and statements than the Mainstream Media (MSM) - which now insist on including their opinions when reporting the news - this does NOT make the ET a "far right" news site. 
In the current election controversy Republicans are requesting a "free and fair election" and this is NOT a "far right" ideal. The ET reports such requests from Republicans and reports on State Hearings without giving an opinion.  Republicans are usually described as "right of centre" and I request that you change the Wiki text to say this as it is a more accurate description.
The ET often has news items that might embarrass or question the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) actions, so it is interesting that the main attribution behind the description of "far right" comes from a journalist who spent 4 years in China. Is she acting for the CCP and trying to make the ET seem more extreme than their articles show them to be?
There is also an attribution stating the ET is linked to a German "far right" group.  Can you please let me know who this group is, as I have never seen an ET article about any such group or a similar group, and the ET reports on European and World news appear balanced, factual and open, not "far right" in their attitude.
Thank you for your consideration of my request above.. Peterg52 (talk) 00:30, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Sources already in this article refer to The Epoch Times as "far-right". If you would rather see terms like "right-of-centre", then sources must be produced that use that term. Thank you for your input! P.I. Ellsworth  ed. put'r there 01:11, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

text: Note that the mainstream media have taken the unusual step of declaring outright falsehood when it is known; they are not "including their opinions". Binksternet (talk) 01:39, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 10 December 2020 

message: Saw one of their advertisements which looked highly fake! It claims their Hong Kong (printing facility) does it even exist? (I can find no record of it or them selling news papers in Hong Kong!)  4 "communist agents" came in when they where working (not afterhours) and set fire to a small part instead of burning down the whole place for some reason! Is this claim BS or did it really happen? Should be in the article (they did not say when it happened .......)--Cynthia BrownSmyth (talk) 02:56, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Printed in Hong Kong? 

message: The Epoch Media Group's news sites and YouTube channels have spread conspiracy theories such as QAnon and anti-vaccination propaganda.- “This has to go, The Epoch Times are not spreading conspiracy theories nor are they far right in which one could compare them with the German Nazi far right!” 
Unbelievable how Wikipedia can state such nonsense!!! 101.100.129.224 (talk) 09:36, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. These statements are well sourced. If you wish for it to be changed then please identify sources which support that view and establish a consensus on this talkpage before using the edit request template. Jack Frost (talk) 12:05, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'd like to know which part they are anti-vaccination. Though I understand they're extremely pro-Trump, I don't think they are anti-vax. It seems NBC news article doesn't give a clear link to specific Epoch article but only accuse The Epoch Times anti-vax for typical far-right stereotype. Chinese version of The Epoch times never claim that too, that will be criticized in Taiwan if they dare claim that. Puetsua (talk) 05:50, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 20 December 2020 

message: Remove source 91 "Viral video promotes the unsupported hypothesis that SARS-CoV-2 is a bioengineered virus released from a Wuhan research laboratory" in COVID-19 coverage and misinformation
A recent news about the SARS-CoV-2 virus from Wuhan Lab seems to be debatable and it's not entirely a baseless fake news or a conspiracy theory.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9153885/Mike-Pompeo-reveals-intel-implicating-Wuhan-lab-origins-COVID-19-pandemic.html Puetsua (talk) 07:47, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Puetsua, The Daily Mail is a deprecated source (see WP:DAILYMAIL) — we will need a non-deprecated source to support this to change the article. Llll5032 (talk) 10:08, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:  Oops, okay. Here I found a few other sources: Fox News, The Telegraph, SCMP. Puetsua (talk) 07:20, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Puetsua, to affect this article, the reliable source should mention the Epoch Times video; otherwise we risk a WP:SYNTH problem: ("Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources"). Can you find a source that does this? Alternatively, if Health Feedback retracts its detailed criticisms of the Epoch Times video (which it has not), that would also be a reason to change this article. Llll5032 (talk) 08:30, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: I think Puetsua was suggesting that Health Feedback's criticism of The ET's video may not be legitimate, since multiple other RSes also draw suspicions to the Wuhan P4 Lab. If I've interpreted  correctly, then their point is unrelated to WP:SYNTH, but to indicate the unneutral stance of this wiki article. Thomas Meng (talk) 17:37, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Thomas Meng and Puetsua, if you think the new articles show that the ET wasn't wrong, you could contact Health Feedback to ask if they will retract some of their criticisms. Llll5032 (talk) 17:49, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: At least I can claim that source is outdated? There are tons of sources could accuse ET for COVID misinformation on internet, but not this one anymore. Please consider remove it. Puetsua (talk) 11:26, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Date of publication isn't a usual reason to omit a source. What makes a reliable source "reliable" (see WP:GREL) is "a reputation for fact-checking, accuracy, and error-correction, often in the form of a strong editorial team." So if Health Feedback thinks the new information shows that ET wasn't wrong, it should be willing to clarify its article to reflect the new information, and afterward we can make adjustments to the ET article here. Llll5032 (talk) 19:26, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:  Okay, I will do that then. Puetsua (talk) 02:57, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 16 January 2021 

message: Since Trump is no longer the President of the United States, I suggest changing "Backs President Donald Trump in the U.S" to" Backs Ex-President Donald Trump in the U.S". wanqi!！Huang!（留言） 04:48, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 21 January 2021 

message: I am a professional historian and a centre-left voter. I am a card carrying member of the Canada's left wing NDP.  And even I see the problems with this article.  There is no need to call this organization "far-right." It is not a political party.  It's only done to slime and immediately destroy their reputation. If anyone is far right it is the emalgam of corporate, political and military power, which is precisely what the current government of China is - petty, tyrannical and easily wounded, it goes after anyone who expresses a position against it.  In Canada, various polls show Canadian people have 85% positive view of Chinese people, but 4% positive view of the Chinese Communist Party.  That's quite the achievement given that Anglophone Canadians have 45% positive views of Francophones.   The attack on the Falun Gong practitioners - as was said once by a mythical Pontius Pilate against Jesus: I find no fault in them.  I have examined the allegations of the Chinese government against them and they are all false or mischaracterizations. Of course religion is irrational. But who says humans are rational.  A government which governs by the consent of the governed has to provide space for the individual to be irrational, to pray to his imaginary gods and be free to develop his spiritual dimension and worship that isn't controlled by the party commissariat.  The CPC with its economic wars on everyone that says anything against it like Canada and Australia, with its petty persecution of its own people in Hong Kong, with the organ harvesting and the cooperation with international terrorist States is quickly turning the good will toward Chinese people into bad will toward the Chinese government. Historiaantiqua (talk) 17:58, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: You are right that China is "petty, tyrannical and easily wounded, it goes after anyone who expresses a position against it.” but that statement also describes FG... They’re similar organizations in so many ways, thats one of the reasons the CCP is so threatened by them. China being bad doesn't make the groups they oppress good, thats not how it works. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:25, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nonsense article 

message: Either remove "Far right" or tag CNN with the "Far left". They are virtually the same distance from the center. 2603:8001:B103:7F00:138:433B:B945:5D3D (talk) 21:01, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, I need some help. Should I say that Epoch is "anti-Communist", or "anti-Communist Party of China"? Félix An (talk) 21:13, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 21 January 2021 (2) 

message: This section is patently false I have read the article regarding the CCP Virus/COVID-19 in question from the Epoch Times, and the claims made on this page are completely false. Wikipedia is engaged in misinformation by continuing to host this false information as facts. 
Please review this section and read the articles that are talked about as they are not cited which makes the information on the page opinion and not worthy therefore of being on wikipedia.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dylan abel (talk • contribs) 19:18, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia articles should mainly cite reliable, independent sources, so an article on Epich Times will use sources about Epoch Times more than the Epoch Times itself. The misinformation campaign section has eight independent sources, which appear to be reliable. You will need to propose a specific issue for this to be actionable. Grayfell (talk) 20:04, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

text: The Epoch Times spreaded many unscientific ideas regarding COVID, so they are not a reliable source. Technically, paid editing (the "Wumaos") are not allowed on Wikipedia, but if such opinionated material gets added, it usually is swiftly removed. Also, it's not very respectful to generalize and assume that all the people who edit these articles are Wumaos. Félix An (talk) 23:19, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Miss Information Campaign"