Talk:The Epoch Times

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is part of WikiProject China, a project to improve all China-related articles. If you would like to help improve this and other China-related articles, please join the project. All interested editors are welcome.

???

This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.

[edit] tags

I have removed tags placed by Falun Gong-practitioner-editors who have not provided any justification for using them. --Samuel Luo 23:37, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Please take a look to this diff [1] here is visible that the justification is done in place, so when you removed the tags you removed the reasoning as well and now you complain that there is no justification for them? You know that most likely you will be banned, so now you rampantly just disrupt stuff? Anyway since you complained about it, let me put it also on the discussion page. --HappyInGeneral 12:07, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

{{fixpov}} added to the following section, because it's a selective definition, more information you can find on this talk page

According to the newspaper itself, The Epoch Times was founded in New York in May 2000, following the arrest of a small circle of journalists in China in 2000.^[1] 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."^[2] The term Dafa disciple refers to practitioners of Falun Dafa. The term Fa refers to Li’s “Great Law of the cosmos”

{{POVassertion|Talk:The_Epoch_Times/History_section_attempt}} was added for the following section, see Talk:The_Epoch_Times/History_section_attempt

In a 2006 speech, Li stated that the goal of his “Fa-rectification period Dafa disciples” while clarifying the truth is “to save people and eliminate the poisoning of people by those old elements and by the vile party's evil specters. The reason is, the old forces are to be weeded out during Fa-rectification, the vile party [CCP] and the evil specters will likewise be weeded out for sure, and all who have a hand in what they do will be weeded out. This is a law laid down in Fa-rectification, and it has to be done this way."

{{Failed verification|date=March 2007}} was added because in none of the sources provided can be found a statement such as "Great Law of the cosmos is judging all beings", even though they are presented in different quotes a connection (which is Original Reasearch) is implied suggesting that this is all that the Great Law of the cosmos is doing is judging beings, now this is grossly wrong.

The term Dafa disciple refers to practitioners of Falun Dafa. The term Fa refers to Li’s “Great Law of the cosmos”^{[neutrality disputed]}^[3] which “is judging all beings” in a process called Fa-rectification.^{[not in citation given]}^[4]^[5]

--HappyInGeneral 12:27, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

PS: If you would like any more clarification, please ask and we will gladly give it to you. --HappyInGeneral 12:30, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Justification for removing three tags in the first paragraph of the history section. 1. There can not be any POV when directly quoting Li; he does call his Fa “the Great Law of the cosmos.” 2. As reference 6 & 7 show Li does claim that his great law of the cosmos is judging humankind. 3. There is no Neutrality dispute when directly quoting Li. --Samuel Luo 00:05, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Samuel, even removing legitimate tags? You have got to be kidding. Do you realise how egregious your editing behaviour is? I am reverting your edit and I urge you to desist. Do you realise you are looking at an indefinite ban, for exactly this sort of behaviour? Please be rational. The section is question is highly disputed and does not even belong on the page until discussion is finished and an appropriate way of presenting the material is decided. I gave up on the revert war with Tomananda once I learned the rules and found out there are consequences for nasty editing behaviour. The tags are perfectly legitimate and you are stepping way over the mark in removing them.--Asdfg12345 00:12, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

You have added these tags to mulitple pages without giving any justification. Tagging material that you don't like as POV is not legitimate. I hope a admin can provide some advise here. --Samuel Luo 19:43, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Samuel, the justification is provided above, if you don't like it take it to mediation. We are not touching the content, so it would be civil and in the spirit of collaboration and attempt for consent to leave those tags until we worked them out through mediation. --HappyInGeneral 15:06, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

you are adding these tags according to your own pov. Let the admins add them when necessary. --Samuel Luo 15:51, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Better yet, show me an administrator who disagrees with them. You posted a question on why the tags are present, this was answered inline (in the tags you removed) and now even on this talk page, so I would think that your question was answered. And you might know by now that Wikipedia articles is not edited solely by Administrators, so your request is fundamentally flawed. Anyway we'll work out everything in mediation. --HappyInGeneral 16:28, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

show me any admin agrees to addding these tags. Both pro and anti Falun Gong editors have strong opinions thus I suggest that we refrain from adding tags ourselves. --Samuel Luo 04:24, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Actually the tags are here to show exactly what you are saying that there is no consensus. Hopefully a consensus will be reached during the mediation process. --HappyInGeneral 06:13, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

you are adding way tooo many tags to FG related articles without good reason. --Yueyuen 03:26, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

See above for reason, and other then that define what's good reason. --HappyInGeneral 04:46, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Speaking of removing things, I remember adding the finaincal link between Epoch Times and Falun Gong leadership, but the financial section seems to have disappeared.

Here are the non-profit declarations again:

Here's the money trail found in non-profit declarations (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.)

Moderator please add this to the main page, I stand by my research and welcome any corrections. Bobby fletcher 11/25, 14 May 2007 (PST)

Your point being? I think it's quite normal for any association to make some investments ... don't you think? --HappyInGeneral 00:12, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

These Falun Dafa associations are non-profit in themselves, of course. How would they earn money when everything related to Falun Dafa is free of charge? In fact, the money comes from people who have wanted to make donations to the Epoch Times from their personal salaries. Especially Western Falun Gong practitioners are generally well off and relatively highly educated. Because the Epoch Times is experiencing financial difficulties, many practitioners voluntarily want to support it by all means. Did you know that practically all Epoch Times employees work for free? They have their own day jobs and the newspaper to take care of. ✔ Olaf Stephanos ✍ 00:36, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Mediation update

The Mediation Committee is currently discussing whether or not it is possible for mediation of Falun Gong articles to continue. We appreciate your patience and any input you have to offer here. For the Mediation Committee, Martinp23 20:06, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] History section and the next step

I'm taking the initiative to continue progress on this section. The discussion can be found on a separate page here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:The_Epoch_Times/History_section_attempt, where Tomananda and I were in the process of thrashing out the issues. I have adopted much of the content there and put in this formulation. If there are problems or ideas about how to make it even better we should discuss. The last questions to Tomananda have not really be contested. He was being accused of putting his bias into this edit. He has been found guilty of biased editing. There is a lot of discussion with reference to policy on the above page, and I stopped the revert war with him in favor of alternative methods of dispute resolution. I would invite anyone else to engage in the same process. If the current formulation is not agreeable, perhaps we could remove the contested part altogether until something is decided. The old stuff was only there because of Tomananda's aggressive re-insertions, not because of its legitimacy. Anyway, I have altered it in accordance with the discussion, and invite any prospective editors to carefully read the discussion and if there is a problem to discuss it civilly.--Asdfg12345 23:42, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Criticism in Israel

The text below it's not sourced, this is basically only Original Research like this. See WP:OR. "

Members of the Israeli peace movement have criticised the Hebrew edition of The Epoch Times for taking increasingly outspoken positions similar to those of the nationlaist right-wing, in opposition to peace with the Palestinians and with Syria involving territorial concessions. According to Israeli peacniks such as Uri Avnery, taking such positions might alienate a large part of the Israeli public and prevent it from taking seriously what the paper has to say about human rights in China^[6].

" --HappyInGeneral 13:58, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Jia Jia??

He is Secretary General of the Shanxi Provincial Expert Association of Science and Technology, not Secretary General of the Science and Technology Association of Shanxi Province. The latter is an official organization of the government, while the former is totally not.

I just wonder who made this careless mistake. 24.107.1.70 07:49, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Copyright violation by Epoch Times

I have noticed that for a while Epoch Times has been lifting "stories" regarding the Second Sino-Japanese War from English and Chinese versions of Wikipedia, and elsewhere for their publication without giving us credit. -- Миборовский 06:03, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Epoch Times received funding from Falun Gong Associations

Here's the money trail between Epoch Times and Falun Gong. I have found in non-profit declarations at least 2-3 Falun Gong groups giving money to Epoch Times:

(These are but two examples of the hundreds of FLG non-profits in US.)

-- bobby fletcher 14:37, 26 August 2007 (PST)

Interesting. Maybe it's time that this evidence be used to show that the Epoch Times is indeed funded by the Falun Gong, thus showing it is NOT neutral. I wonder where Falun Gong got all its funding from, lol... Jsw663 10:45, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Actually if you read the actual documents you will see that the Falun Dafa association gave time to Epoch Times, like any other news paper to "promote the Falun Dafa budism". Well yes, as far as these documents goes you can say that they did buy ads :) Anyway ... it's clear that practitioners help Epoch Times, but not as much financially using the association as you imply it here :) --HappyInGeneral 12:30, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Happy, ther cited dollar figures above came from the non-profit disclosure. They are money given to Epoch Times, not time.

[edit] For those who do not learn from history...

And i allways thought it was jews who are manipulating the media and steal our money. But i guess now that China is the superpower we have to help them get rid of their enemies - new enemies. But luckily we can still use the same prejudges to get rid of them. And what better way to do so than to dehumanize all that anti-communist scum!

--Hoerth 10:39, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ad hominem attacks

I learned recently that my name (Jan Jekielek) was mentioned in reference to ad hominem attacks on this page, and Charles Liu aka Bobby fletcher's questionable blog was used as a reference. I am referring to the following line in the text, where I moments ago added a reference that can be substantiated:

Some Epoch Times journalists has been accused of using ad hominem attacks in response to criticism. Epoch Times journalists Jana Shearer[2], Lorraine Kabacinski and Jan Jekielek has accused Falun Gong critics and bloggers of being "Chinese spies" [3]

Newly added reference: Western Standard (Alberta, April 9, 2007) Sowing Confusion; Embarrassed by reports of live organ harvesting, China’s sympathizers launch a high-tech disinformation campaign

The article I reference above mentions Jana Shearer as accusing Charles Liu aka Bobby fletcher "of being an agent for the Chinese government." I cannot speak as to Lorraine Kabacinski's comments, but I can say that I have not accused Charles Liu of being a spy. I did, however, mention in a blog posting that his behaviour of spreading disinformation was consistent with what a PRC agent would do. I am thus removing the references to Lorraine Kabacinski and myself from the citation, as it itself would appear to construe an ad hominem attack, without support. Charles Liu's blog hardly provides a reputable reference. It would also be fitting to modify the statement to express that Jana Shearer accused exactly no more than one person this way. I look forward to feedback from the admins of this page on this issue -- please take a look at the section, as I am new to writing wikipedia entries. I am not sure, but perhaps it makes more sense to remove the paragraph entirely.

--Longtrekhome 16:15, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't care much for this article or this subject, but I have serious doubts that Bobby Fletcher and his blog are reliable sources. Just my 2p.... Ohconfucius (talk) 09:42, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Reliability of Epoch Times disputed

A. Epoch Times association with Falun Gong is a documented fact:

1) Per Thomas Lum's CRS report "China and Falun Gong" (section CRS-7, page 10):

"FLG followers are affiliated withseveral mass media outlets, including Internet sites; the Epoch Times"

2) Funding from various Falun Gong Associations to Epoch Times can be found in non-profit disclosures: (example Southern USA Falun Dafa Association, 02-06 Form 990, part III):

http://www.guidestar.org/FinDocuments/2002/760/692/2002-760692185-1-9.pdf

http://www.guidestar.org/FinDocuments/2003/760/692/2003-760692185-1-9.pdf

http://www.guidestar.org/FinDocuments/2004/760/692/2004-760692185-1-9.pdf

http://www.guidestar.org/FinDocuments/2005/760/692/2005-760692185-024eee8e-9.pdf

http://www.guidestar.org/FinDocuments/2006/760/692/2006-760692185-031af764-9.pdf

There are further evidence of Epoch Times financial connection with various Falun Gong Associations on www.guidestar.org, a clearinghouse of non-profit information.

B. There are also evidence of editorial inaccuracy and dishonesty:

1) My personal encounters with Epoch Times reporters who resort to personal attack and character assissination in attempt to silence its critics. Specifically I have documented these encounters between myself, as well as other bloggers, and Epoch Times reporters.

2) Many of the supposed evidence of atrocities presented by Epoch Times failed physician review. Specifically Dr. Ramana reviewed the photos had found many of them to be medical in nature and are not evidence of torture. For example the photo used to make the sexual torture claim here is in reality photo of a woman suffering from advanced breast cancer:

http://en.epochtimes.com/news/5-10-21/33602.html

Epoch Times has been made aware of this, but refuses to correct or retract this story.

3)Here's a news report from New America Media, where a Duke University media project director had questioned Epoch Times' reliablility:

http://news.newamericamedia.org/news/view_article.html?article_id=6ce9872ebb88b3aaa3ff48b6c1ffc19a

"It[Epoch Times] is not viewed as an independent objective news media,"

"The Epoch Times' credibility is damaged as media professionals,"

Bobby fletcher (talk) 02:18, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I am no expert on this paper, but I suggest that someone simply creates a section called "Credibility" where we cover the paper's funding and any stories that were untrue. HOWEVER, we must be very careful of what sources we use! 134.84.96.142 (talk) 05:11, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

"Controversy" might just be changed to "Commentary" and include a survey of the responses published in other media about this paper. There are a couple of features floating around which could be used--an AP at least, and one or two others. Then there's already stuff in there. The notorious Charles Liu has also posted some useful info, it would appear, above.--Asdfg12345 05:15, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I created the new section. Anyone who has more evidence either way is welcome to add it. Bobby, I did not include your financial info because it regards local F.G. groups and is most likely advertising. I also did not include your breast cancer allegation because there was no source for it being fake. 134.84.96.142 (talk) 03:30, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

In addition to receiving financial support from various Falun Dafa Associations, Falun Gong media have also received funding from faction of US Congress that's considered Blue Team China hawks.

Most notably The Friends of Falun Gong, a quasi-government organization created by Congressman Tom Lanto's wife, Annette Lantos, and Ambassador Mark Palmer, one of the co-founders of NED:

http://www.guidestar.org/FinDocuments/2001/134/145/2001-134145670-1-9.pdf (page 4, list of directors)

FoF's non-profit filings over the years show that millions were given to various Falun Gong media outlets:

http://www.guidestar.org/FinDocuments/2005/134/145/2005-134145670-028e40ed-9.pdf

http://www.guidestar.org/FinDocuments/2004/134/145/2004-134145670-01d39938-9.pdf

http://www.guidestar.org/FinDocuments/2003/134/145/2003-134145670-1-9.pdf

http://www.guidestar.org/FinDocuments/2002/134/145/2002-134145670-1-9.pdf

Bobby fletcher (talk) 17:43, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Bobby, I don't see anything there that relates to Epoch Times. 134.84.96.142 (talk) 21:05, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

142, Statement 3 of the 2003 return stated "media advertising". If NTDTV and Sound of Hope have received funding(ref 2005), what's the chance Epoch Times didn't? It's pretty obvious this is kinda like "Charlie Wilson's War" - millions are pumped into Falun Gong media unofficially thru this quasi-government organization.

Bobby fletcher (talk) 08:58, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Supposing your hypothesis is correct, we still can't include it in the article until there is a credible source that explicitly states it. 134.84.96.142 (talk) 04:47, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Stay tuned, I'll keep on searching the public records. Bobby fletcher (talk) 04:56, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

The best source to see the tie between Falungong and The Epoch Times is The Epoch Times itself. Just grab a copy and read yourself. The paper take every possible opportunities to smear Chinese government, some may hold truth, but many are made up or exzagerated. I did feel sorry for Falungong at first after Chinese government outcast them. However the more I read about falungong (specially in the epoch times) my sympathy is gone, Epoch time has become a propaganda paper, it seems Falungong's primary goal is no longer teach about Falungong, it is rather to have revenge on Chinese government. Foxhunt99 (talk) 15:09, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

:) in a way it's very true what you say regarding that everybody should make up his own mind :) --HappyInGeneral (talk) 20:40, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Intro

I think the FLG connection should really be front and center in the intro. This is not an independent newspaper with a vague and difficult-to-prove FLG connection, it is the movement's mouthpiece. Alexwoods (talk) 16:10, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Do you feel that the second paragraph fair enough? --HappyInGeneral (talk) 20:43, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Advice from Doug Copp: The final verification of Epoch Times' pseudoscience

I believe I have finally found an article from Epoch Times [4] that is so outrageous that it undermines all of Epoch Times' claims to be an independent source. By using Doug Copp as a definititive source as a guide for surivival in an earthquake, Epoch Times may be responsible for causing the death of numerous earthquake victims. I have seen Doug Copp, and every reliable mainstream source says that he is a charlatan willing to put his own personal profit above the lives of innocent people. [5] [6] [7] [8] EgraS (talk) 22:02, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

It's ridiculous to suggest Epoch Times "may be responsible for causing the death of numerous earthquake victim." This guy's theories may be disputed but I don't think it matters so much, people disagree about everything. Either way it has nothing to do with improving the article, we shouldn't discuss it here.--Asdfg12345 22:42, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

I find it comparable to seeing a news source publish something regarding the claims of white supremists to be factual. This is certainly important. EgraS (talk) 23:13, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

That does not sound like an accurate example, according to my understanding. I can only suggest again that you read WP:V and WP:OR. If you can find a reliable source that criticises Epoch Times for including this guys comments then we can put that in the article, but that's it. If you read those pages it should be clear what I mean.--Asdfg12345 23:27, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Since I have made a personal commitment to only revert once per day, I am unable to undo your edit. But it was a mistake from you. I urge you to read the above core content policies and reassess your edit in that light. The point is that there is no reliable source which says "The Epoch times frequently uses pseudoscience to bolster its claims" -- you need a source for that, or the rest is inadmissible. There is a section in the original research page about this: Wikipedia:No_original_research#Synthesis_of_published_material_serving_to_advance_a_position, please read this part carefully. It would be a gesture of goodwill if you, after reading the relevant policy and realising your honest mistake, undid the edit yourself.--Asdfg12345 23:33, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Fine, lets take it to the talk page. I will revert my own edits and only add it once there is input. EgraS (talk) 23:54, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Claims of Pseudoscience

I believe that it should be added in the appropiate section, seeing that ET has criticized the PRC for not heeding calls to earthquake prediction even though it is widely acknowledged to be something that can't be predicted. It also published this article as fact [9], using sources from Doug Copp, who has been widely criticized by every mainstream disaster relief organization.[10] [11] [12] [13] EgraS (talk) 23:59, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Can you please let me know whether you have read the original research and verifiability policies, linked above, and specifically, the policy about no syntheses?--Asdfg12345 00:04, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Personally I feel the Epoch Times's primary objectives is not to make balanced reports, but to portray the PRC in the worst possible light, and that somehow the PRC's various media controls justify its own biases. However, you really need more sources for the claim that "The Epoch Times frequently uses pseudoscience to bolster its claims", as I doubt the Epoch Times even know who Doug Copp is, they'll publish anything that is critical of the PRC.--PCPP (talk) 07:48, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

I think Epoch Times has a strong editorial stance against the CCP, and want people to show that is just a nasty gang of scoundrels. That's pretty clear, isn't it? One of the chapters of the nine ping is called "how the chinese communist party is an evil cult". That's a special editorial translated from Chinese though, obviously not following journalistic conventions. I think the english Epoch Times otherwise follows journalistic conventions in its reporting. It does not report positive things about the CCP, from my observations, it shows the bad things of that regime. And it is the CCP that it is against, not China. Be sure not to confuse the two. --Asdfg12345 14:55, 30 May 2008 (UTC)