Talk:The Epoch Times

ET is conservative, not 'far-right'

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)

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)

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)

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.[1][2] 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)

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)

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 Special:Permalink/1183093559 § cite note-far-right-1 for the current list. Your suggestion that the article is "Taking sides with the Chinese Communist Party" 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

You got any reliable sources we can use? Polygnotus (talk) 10:45, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

I doubt it. Simonm223 (talk) 10:57, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

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)

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)

Nonsense. Also Wikipedia is not a WP:RS. Simonm223 (talk) 12:08, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

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)

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. Simply by increasing the plurality of voices in the diaspora Chinese-language public sphere, The Epoch Times is playing a progressive role, even though the community’s pariah status limits its impact. 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)

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)

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)

Who locked this page and why?

Clearly this is a rather hotly contested page. I have further rebuttals to the irrational (i.e. logical fallacies) and inconsistent responses from some of the editors but I have more reading to do on Wikipedia policy, "reliable sources", to do.

In the mean time I'd like to know the rationale and who locked the page. Or perhaps pointers on uncovering such information and understanding the conflict better.

@Other Choices and @Axlengland may wish to weigh in.

@Newslinger and @mrollie I would encourage you to read about logical fallacies and in particular the straw man argument although others this conflict have used these techniques to misrepresent my statements.

There are a number of wording changes I could imagine might satisfy everyone but it would require some level of open minded classical liberal thinking. Ijeffsc (talk) 16:28, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

It was protected for Persistent disruptive editing, which is frankly being rather polite about the problems on this article. If you want to propose wording changes you may do so here, on the talk page. If they gather consensus support I or another editor who have an account which can edit the article will implement them on your behalf. MrOllie (talk) 16:40, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

Callanecc protected it indefinitely beginning January 24, 2023,[3] because of a swarm of new editors changing the well-established "far right" label to something else.

None of your arguments have landed on fertile soil here. I don't expect anything positive will result from further argument. Binksternet (talk) 16:51, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

OK thanks @Binksternet and @MrOllie.

I tend to agree that for now no progress can be made since one swarm of editors is at odd with another swarm of editors. I need more information and need to ask more questions. Also for @Newslinger I think.

Two more questions if you will for the three of you:

What is the purpose, value or meaning of the link to the "far right" wikipedia page?

Could one or more of you paraphrase what you think that first sentence means? Paraphrase does not mean repeating the same words or saying "it means what it means" which is a circular sort of logic. Ijeffsc (talk) 17:02, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

The wikilink to Far-right politics is a normal and usual thing for Wikipedia pages that introduce a topic with descriptors in the first sentence. Reader unfamiliar with the term can click and learn what it is.

I'm not going to paraphrase the first sentence because that is the same path of WP:No original research you have been trying to follow here, challenging the findings of the many sources describing ET as far right. You want to argue the meaning of far right in the context of ET, but this page is not here for that. The sources using the label are authoritative. Binksternet (talk) 18:54, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

@Binksternet wrote:

"Reader unfamiliar with the term can click and learn what it is."

well close enough. I'd paraphrase that

"the link provides a working definition of far-right for to aid the reader who might be unfamiliar with the term"

Is that correct? Ijeffsc (talk) 23:42, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

Much emphasis has been put on the "21 sources". So if I find 21 sources from say the perennial sources that contradict "far right" what would be your reaction?

In Wikipedia vernacular, not only does a source have to be "reliable" but it has to directly support the information presented in the article. . The references violate this direct support condition. The articles that are on topic for the Epoch Times by a majority (2/3) do not support this term "far right". Ijeffsc (talk) 00:00, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

Repeating yourself across multiple sections is not helpful, and gives the impression that you're attempting to bludgeon the process. If you insist on dragging this out, please respond to what other people are actually saying, not merely what you assume they are saying. Grayfell (talk) 00:56, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

I'd appreciate the same as well as a few clarifying questions instead of a rather constant stream of straw man arguments.

I'd like an answer to the question also. "So if I find 21 sources from say the perennial sources that contradict "far right" what would be your reaction?"

A more open version of the question would be "what would change minds here on that opening statement?". If the answer is "nothing" then we know we have an ideological group of editors unmotivated by truth or rational dialogue. Ijeffsc (talk) 13:25, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

Like most hypothetical questions, the answer is 'it depends'. If you look at the perennial sources list, you will note that many of them have are listed there because they have been determined to be unreliable. If you find us 21 articles from the Daily Mail obviously no one will care. If you found 21 instances of the BBC calling them left-wing, we'd have a very different conversation. MrOllie (talk) 13:32, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

Read carefully @MrOllie I mentioned sources from the perennial sourceslist. I should have added the word "reliable" to that question however. Hopefully that is clear. Ijeffsc (talk) 13:53, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

You should read my own reply, as well as the perennial sources list carefully. MrOllie (talk) 13:55, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

Ijeffsc, if you know of generally reliable sources that contradict any article text, you should absolutely bring them here for discussion. I'm not sure if you're asking hypothetically, or if you're trying to get guarantees before doing so, but neither would be as helpful as just bringing out the sources as you find them. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 14:02, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

if I find 21 sources from say the perennial sources that contradict "far right" what would be your reaction?" The answer also depends on what you mean by "contradict". If the contradiction consists of the sources saying "ET is not far-right", you get one answer, and if the contradiction is a concoction in the style of "the Wikipedia article says that far-right means X, but the Wikipedia article on X says X means Y, and the source Z says that ET is not Y", then you get a totally different answer because it would be WP:OR.

How about you actually, really, give us one single such source. Then nobody needs to speculate which hypothetical case you might mean exactly, and less time is wasted. --Hob Gadling (talk) 14:13, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

@Hob Gadling @Firefangledfeathers

I suppose that is fair enough. If it isn't clear there are a large number of editors objecting to this article. I'm just a bit more persistent.  :-)

The NYT's will refer to the Epoch Times as "Right wing" sometimes and "Far right" other times. A lot depends on one's definition of these terms which is the crux of the issue. Given the ideological bent of the editors in control of this article though I'm not sure it's worth the effort to produce such references.

Please see my recent reply to @Newslinger above also relating to this statement.

Another question. Does it not trouble you that even though a large number of editors have disputed the accuracy of this article that there has been absolutely stubborn resistance to those in control to any wording changes to improve the article? Ijeffsc (talk) 13:36, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

Does it not trouble you No. It is very usual that a huge number of people are clearly wrong about something (a high percentage of US citizens are Creationists; Holocaust denial is very popular in Arab countries; climate change denialists had a lot of success worldwide). The large number of editors means absolutely nothing if their reasoning is crap. See WP:!VOTE. --Hob Gadling (talk) 14:08, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

Holocaust denial is very popular in Arab countries Please don't shoehorn random racist, Orientalist talking points into your comments. It does not in any way help improve the level of the discourse. Brusquedandelion (talk) 10:35, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

That example of popular stupid ideas has nothing to do with race; it is religion and culture, just like the Creationist Americans. Leave me alone with that sort of arrant nonsense. --Hob Gadling (talk) 13:07, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

That doesn't really answer the question you were asked... The far right is within the right wing so there's no contradiction there... You would need a source which said that they were left wing or something like that. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:38, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

So if I find 21 sources from say the perennial sources that contradict "far right" what would be your reaction? Why threaten? Why not do it? Come on, what's stopping you? Those who actually have evidence in favor of a view, and are truly interested in Wikipedia's goal of building a fair and truthful encyclopedia, do not threaten to provide evidence, they simply bring it to the table. On the other hand, those interested in pushing the agenda of a far-right, homophobic, misogynistic, disinformation-pushing, QAnon-peddling cult known to actively try and distort Wikipedia articles to be more favorable to them- these are precisely the sorts of people who will resort to such time-wasting demagoguery. Brusquedandelion (talk) 11:02, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for educating us about these "logical fallacies." I am quite sure no one besides you in this thread is familiar with the "strawman." It truly speaks to your scholarly zeal that you- singularly you, amongst all those party to this discussion- have mastered this arcane topic, equipping you with the eminently utilitarian ability to dismiss any and all criticisms of your beliefs as strawmen. Brusquedandelion (talk) 11:09, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

"Far-Right" Sources

The citations for the "far-right" claim should be trimmed down to one per type, per Wikipedia:Citation overkill guidelines. The current number of sources serves little purpose other than (intentionally, one suspects) providing a wiki-procedural barrier to contradicting material. 104.232.117.132 (talk) 03:29, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

The current lead has one citation-bundle which includes many additional citations. This is not citation overkill. This has been extensively discussed before, and any "contradicting material" would need to be discussed on this talk page, so if this is a barrier, it isn't necessarily an inappropriate barrier. Grayfell (talk) 04:14, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

Given the results, the quality of that extensive discussion has obviously been poor.

Take [4] as an example:

1. article is about a different topic entirely, phrasing in question shows up in a "Newsworthy" bin at the bottom

2. offhand remark, provides no sources or evidence for why the "far-right" label applies

3. refers to The Epoch Times as a website, sloppy phrasing for a media organization with a non-web presence

Bundling doesn't absolve all citation overkill sins. Without additional information to warrant its inclusion, it's bloat. 104.232.117.132 (talk) 08:01, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

Epoch has a substantial web presence.

The Fortune source does support its description. It doesn't, strictly speaking, have to in order to be a reliable source, but in this case, it does anyway. The Fortune article provides a link to a NBC News source which connects Epoch to a "troll operation" among other things. Fortune is summarizing a source in succinct language, which is convenient for us, since that is also Wikipedia's goal.

So calling this a "sin" is neither accurate nor persuasive. Grayfell (talk) 08:22, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

That NBC News source describes the Epoch Times as a "conservative media outlet". The term "far-right" does not appear in the article. 104.232.117.132 (talk) 09:11, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

This NBC News source says that the Epoch Times is "a megaphone for the U.S.’s most extreme right-wing stories." Binksternet (talk) 14:20, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

That article also very clearly refers to TET as "one of the country's most successful and influential conservative news organizations". 104.232.117.132 (talk) 15:53, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

What is the contradiction? Far-right is contained within conservative, every far-right group is also a conservative group. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:39, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

You've made a basic logical error here, and I'll take it as a token of good faith if you can identify it on your own. 104.232.117.132 (talk) 16:52, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

Mocking derision is not generally seen as good faith. If you think there is an error say it, no need to be a jerk about it. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:56, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

I'm not mocking anyone. Eye's Back made a basic logical error which renders their comment inapplicable to the conversation. In the interest of all of our time and effort, and with the goal of preventing this from turning into the thunderdome, I think it would be good if they identified said error instead of me making it clear to them. I'd rather not belabor this tangent further for the same reason. 104.232.117.132 (talk) 17:01, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

(And you are Horse Eye's Back, excuse me--the "Horse" got cut off and I was confused for a second)

Well, since you've asked--the question is not whether TET is conservative, it's whether it's its far-right. Your comment would apply if TET had been identified as far-right, and there was a need to determine if it was conservative. 104.232.117.132 (talk) 17:05, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

"a megaphone for the U.S.’s most extreme right-wing stories" clearly supports "far-right", and is not contradicted by the quote you posted here. MrOllie (talk) 17:24, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

How clearly it supports the application of that label is for the source to decide and communicate. 104.232.117.132 (talk) 17:27, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

Then perhaps I don't understand your point, how does the characterization as conservative refute the characterization as far-right? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:25, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

I'm not here to refute or prove anything. The relevant parts of the Fortune piece are a footnote, on an unrelated topic, referencing another piece of journalism, without any other supporting structure for the label it applies. It's not a high-quality reference.

A reasonable approach would be to go to the source it references, as Grayfell did, but the specific characterization doesn't appear there.

We could attribute the application of the label "far-right" in this case to Aaron Pressman, but it seems questionable that he even wrote the segment in question, given that it comes after his sign off. 104.232.117.132 (talk) 18:18, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

Then what are you here to do? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:32, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

I didn't have a plan. 21 sources reeks, and the barrel of weasels I found protecting them on the talk page didn't lessen the smell. My disdain for that is untempered, but turns out I came to bury The Epoch Times, not to praise it. 104.232.117.132 (talk) 18:39, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

Perhaps try doing neither, undue denigration is as problematic as undue promotion. You might also get more out of this if you were less aggressive and insulting, see WP:NPA. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:10, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

Please keep article talk pages clear of interpersonal comments and suggestions. 204.131.217.130 (talk) 01:27, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

I agree with Grayfell. WP:Citation overkill is not a guideline but an essay. I like the essay a lot, and I trust it's advice to bundle citations, which this article does. I don't think this is a situation where less than four sources will be sufficient, and if a bundle is needed, quantity is not a major issue. The Forbes source explicitly support the content, so it can stay. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 15:20, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

If four is sufficient, is it simple to agree that twenty one is too many? What purpose do the extra sources serve? 104.232.117.132 (talk) 16:01, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

They demonstrate that the article hasn't cherry picked a few outliers to cite, which has proved necessary given the history of this talk page. MrOllie (talk) 16:04, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

By what method can we the assess the aggregate quality of such a relatively large number of sources? 104.232.117.132 (talk) 16:29, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

As an aside, here's an example of a much better source: [5]https://www.businessinsider.com/gop-candidate-larry-elder-paid-millions-by-far-right-newspaper-2023-8

1. Epoch Times is a main subject of the article

2. Reporting on factual occurrences

3. Unambiguous wording

Business insider is yellow on the reliable sources matrix, but this is a straightforward article by a named journalist in a major publishing organization. 104.232.117.132 (talk) 16:44, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

We'll stick to the sourcing policies we have rather than ones you make up on the spot, thanks. MrOllie (talk) 17:22, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

Let's take a step back, take a deep breath, and be a little nicer shall we?

1. What sourcing policies would you apply in this case that contradict the ones stated above?

2. I'll ask again--by what method can we the assess the aggregate quality of such a relatively large number of sources? 104.232.117.132 (talk) 17:36, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

On further review: given that this isn't the first time you dropped the "made up on the spot" line, I have a suspicion that you didn't read the BI piece, didn't see that it confirmed your pre-existing bias, and would have reacted differently if you had.

For you, and other editors, I'd like to highlight this as an example of the low quality of discussion typical to this talk page.

MrOllie is free to say the above speculation is wildly off base and explain why he responded in the way he did. 104.232.117.132 (talk) 17:37, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

I have a suspicion that filling this talk page up with personal attacks isn't going to help you make changes to the article. MrOllie (talk) 17:52, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

Please keep article talk pages clear of interpersonal suggestions. ClifV (talk) 18:11, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

Good advice, I hope that 104.232.117.132 takes it. MrOllie (talk) 18:53, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

I would be fine with adding the BI source. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 17:32, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

Maybe you can mention that to MrOllie? But I digress.

My overall question is not "how can we add more citations", but "how can the overall quality of the citation be condensed and improved". The sources should provide a structured conclusion that supports the usage of the term in question (definitely possible in this case), rather than ~15 people repeating the same line (not a big number, in the scheme of things). 104.232.117.132 (talk) 17:59, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

Look at me, carrying so much water despite being treated with such disdain: The dark side of entertainment? How viral entertaining media build an attention base for the far-right politics of The Epoch Times

"Using indexes from Ad Fontes,2 we can see from Figure 1 that The Epoch Times is classified as a typical far-right news outlet"

"We retrieved the entire Facebook newsfeed of The Epoch Times... to identify posts related to far-right ideologies and China issues, we employed topic modeling. Meanwhile, we characterized viral entertaining videos by manually checking video sources (for details, see below)"

Sage Journals, Oct. 27 2023. This one source could carry the citation by itself, and would be far less of a magnet for criticism than the current garbage pile. 104.232.117.132 (talk) 18:32, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

At a glance, that's a great find. Can look into it more and add later today. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 20:03, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

Ad Fontes is not credible and should not be taken seriously. Their methodology is basically pseudoscience. See WP:ADFONTES. Since it's come up recently, I will also mention that Allsides has its own issues specifically with Epoch. Grayfell (talk) 21:05, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

Sorry, I should have specified that I was referring to the New Media and Society journal article. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 21:28, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

Sure, got it. That study looks promising, and it cites multiple sources which may be relevant to this discussion.

For Ad Fontes, a similar example came up at Talk:Ad Fontes Media#New proposed section: "Use in Academic Research" a few weeks ago. In that case, academics conducting a study needed a way to measure left/right position for multiple outlets. From that source: Multiple teams raised concerns about the reliability of [AllSides] and about making our findings dependent on the validity of a single underlying dataset. We have therefore obtained a license for a second media bias dataset (Ad Fontes Media). We present both sets of results in our paper with no normative judgment on the validity of either of these underlying sources of data.[6]

I think what is happening is that academics need something to cite for ideology, and getting a license for these opaque, commercial services is sometimes viewed as better than nothing. Sometimes, though, that's still not good enough so they have to use several and hope they somehow balance out. I understand why they might do this, but 'better than nothing' isn't a ringing endorsement. Grayfell (talk) 22:06, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

I don't know what discussions happened previously that put Ad Fontes on the naughty list, but in this case it's used in reproducible research (paired with machine analysis of text) in a reputable, peer-reviewed journal. What's the basis for editor discretion contradicting the conclusions it supports?

Better than nothing isn't a ringing endorsement, but it's certainly better than the original-research-in-a-hat-and-trench-coat of "here are a bunch of links to people saying the same thing, ergo the term is an accurate assessment of the nature of the subject". To call the former pseudoscience while accepting the latter as good sourcing raises questions about uneven standards for reliability. 204.131.217.130 (talk) 01:01, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

The study also A. presents a short rundown on what constitutes far-right ideas, B. identifies and groups the entirety of TET's Facebook output in a specific timeframe with topic modeling in respect to said rundown, and C. measures audience engagement in response to said Facebook posts, all independent of the information received from Ad Fontes.

If defining and measuring the entirety of the political output of a media organization doesn't lend credibility to a researcher's assessment of the political alignment of that organization, what does? 204.131.217.130 (talk) 01:10, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

I added the new journal article. There's much more to be added than "far-right", so anyone with time and interest should mine it for more useful info. I didn't want to worsen the length of the bundle so I removed a Daily Beast piece. In case it's useful for something else—though it only briefly mentions Epoch—the citation info is:

Sommer, Will (October 19, 2019). "Bannon Teams Up With Chinese Group That Thinks Trump Will Bring on End-Times". The Daily Beast. Archived from the original on January 7, 2021. Retrieved November 6, 2020. New Tang Dynasty is part of the Epoch Media Group, a collection of far-right media outlets linked to Falun Gong. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 02:10, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

I would also recommend (at least) removing the Fortune piece, and a further review of all the sources cited with the aim of proving usage.

Even if the plural of anecdote were data--it isn't--the synthesis of data ("many people use the term") to support a conclusion ("the term is an accurate descriptor of the subject") is original research. It's research when presented in a journal paper, it's research when Ad Fontes does it, and it's inappropriate for a wiki citation.

The presence of this strategy in the cited sources and the defense of it in the talk page is a weakness of the article and likely contributor to the "extensive discussion" people appear to be so weary of. 104.232.117.132 (talk) 17:48, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

I agree in general that a shorter bundle would be better, but I can't agree with your arguments. Citing multiple sources that explicitly support content is not original research. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 17:52, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

MrOllie stated that the number of citations "demonstrate that the article hasn't cherry picked a few outliers to cite". Would you agree with that statement? If not, can you give an alternative reason for the number of sources? ClifV (talk) 18:01, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

I wouldn't give any reason for the number of sources. I would prefer fewer sources. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 18:06, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

I respect your agnostic mindset, and agree with moving forward on whittling down the unnecessary citations. ClifV (talk) 18:17, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request 28 February 2024

Per my conversation with Firefangledfeathers above, the following sources do not support the use of the term "far-right" as applied, or have other fundamental problems. I cordially suggest them as candidates for removal.

[16]https://fortune.com/2020/08/07/this-moon-landing-video-is-fake/: unrelated article, segment in question appears in the margins/not written by listed authors

[11]https://newrepublic.com/article/155076/obscure-newspaper-fueling-far-right-europe: does not apply far-right label to TET

[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)

Additionally, these two sources are concerned specifically with the German version of the newspaper and should not be applied to the leader:

[7]https://doi.org/10.1515%2Ffjsb-2020-0040

[8]http://www.chinafile.com/reporting-opinion/media/german-edition-of-falun-gong-affiliated-epoch-times-aligns-far-right

[9]https://newrepublic.com/article/155076/obscure-newspaper-fueling-far-right-europe (already mentioned above) ClifV (talk) 21:40, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

No, because at least one part of your request was based on a false premise. You said the Fortune magazine source had no author for the part that said TET was far-right ("Accounts associated with far-right website The Epoch Times were also banned...") but the author is named as curator David Z. Morris who put together the addendum paragraphs. Binksternet (talk) 02:15, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

You got me there. Should I recreate the Semi-protected edit request without it or would you like to discuss the broader reliability of Fortune on this topic? ClifV (talk) 03:17, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

An edit request is answered yes or no. You can discuss finer points in a regular discussion thread. Binksternet (talk) 04:30, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request 28 February 2024 (2)

A separate topic from above, this concerns the actual the wording of the article. On further review of the available sources, I propose the following changes:

1. Removal of "far-right" from the leader, result: "The Epoch Times is an international multi-language newspaper and media company affiliated..."

2. Addition of a descriptor to the beginning of the second paragraph, result: "Described alternately as conservative, right-wing, or far-right, The Epoch Times opposes the Chinese Communist Party, platforms..."

The following sources (of which I believe most/all are already linked on the page) describe TET as conservative or right-wing in various contexts:

How The Epoch Times Created a Giant Influence Machine, 2021: "Today, The Epoch Times and its affiliates are a force in right-wing media"

Epoch Media Casts Wider Net to Spread Its Message Online, 2021: "[The Epoch Times] has tens of millions of social media followers and has become a true rival of successful conservative outlets like The Daily Caller and Breitbart News."

Facebook Bans Ads From The Epoch Times, 2019: "Facebook has banned advertising from The Epoch Times, the Falun Gong-related publication and conservative news outlet"

Facebook bans ads from the Epoch Times for violating transparency policies with pro-Trump ads, 2019: "The Epoch Times, a conservative publication that has become a key promoter of President Trump and been criticized for spreading conspiracy theories, has been barred from advertising on Facebook."

NewsGuard, 2020: "The Epoch Times, a conservative newspaper"

How the conspiracy-fueled Epoch Times went mainstream and made millions, 2023: "Today, The Epoch Times is one of the country’s most successful and influential conservative news organizations"

Facebook bans ads from The Epoch Times after huge pro-Trump buy, 2019: "Facebook has banned The Epoch Times, a conservative news outlet that spent more money on pro-Trump Facebook advertisements than any group other than the Trump campaign"

The Hedge Fund Man Behind Pro-Trump Media’s New War on China, 2020: "A tax document not intended for public disclosure reveals that a branch of the Epoch Media Group — a conservative media empire"

The above examples include multiple leads from major publications in articles where The Epoch Times is the main subject. This contrasts significantly from many of the sources where "far-right" is used to describe the organization, where it is generally mentioned once in passing.

Some sources describe TET as far-right, some as conservative, some as right-wing. Given that those terms are not interchangeable, the page should reflect what the sources say, not focus on one to the exclusion of the others. ClifV (talk) 23:44, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

 Not done. You have assumed that "conservative" is somehow contradictory to "far-right", which is false. Far right positions can also be considered conservative which is a broad catchall term. Binksternet (talk) 02:18, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

> You have assumed that "conservative" is somehow contradictory to "far-right"

No I didn't, I said sources described used different words to describe the subject. The page should reflect what the sources say. ClifV (talk) 02:58, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

We can still write 'The sky is blue' even if the source says 'The sky is azure.' MrOllie (talk) 03:04, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

Probably best to do so here. ClifV (talk) 03:25, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

Further Discussion of Far-Right Label Source Removal Candidates

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)

Tried to keep the formatting/numbering accurate as it corresponds to the article, apologies for any misnumbers. ClifV (talk) 04:50, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

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)

Political Alignment Labeling Edit Request Followup

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:

1. Given that far-right is a subclass of conservative, the application of the conservative label does not automatically imply the applicability of far-right
2. 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)

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)

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)