Talk:New Tang Dynasty Television

History

Under History it mentions that NTD is now broadcast on Sky UK channel 190 and then goes on to almost suggest that this has been done because CGTN was banned by Ofcom. Surely this is unlikely since NTD is very anti the Chinese communist party. --BrianDGregory (talk) 02:53, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

Propaganda=

How is there no mention that NTD is purely used for Propaganda? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.126.226.124 (talk) 21:45, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

Happening on this Wikipedia page after tuning in to the cable channel NTD news, it does seem as though virtually all news is presented from a right-wing, and often ultra-right-wing, perspective, and stories are chosen that chime with stories on, say, rightwing and Christian (or Christian nationalist) talk radio.

I turned to the Talk section of this article precisely because the article itself made no mention of the very clear political 'slant' of New Tang Dynasty, and I was curious to see what conversation there was about this here. Actio (talk) 03:22, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

Citation

"According to the LA Times, the news station promotes Falun Gong and receives large sums of donations from the organization each year. NTDTV has aired some of the most ridiculous events hosted by their supporters, especially when Li Hongzhi claimed that he could fly into the sky near his home in Chicago, Illinois. However, he did not succeed and blaimed the failure on the poor weather. (The Los Angeles Times, Mar.19,2004)"

I added "according to" a few days ago when I first saw this because I was rather incredulous. I also could not find this in the LA Times when I searched. I have several reasons for disbelieving the accuracy of this citation.

First, NTDTV may be run largely by practitioners, but Falun Gong and NTDTV are institutionally separate. Funding sources I know of for NTDTV are ads and its yearly gala. If any Falun Gong association really gave NTDTV money, I find it difficult to believe there was not a business reason for it, as practitioners also know the Epoch group media to be separate (financially and organizationally) from Falun Gong, and would know to treat them as such. This citation does not address any such reasoning, or explain alternate reasoning.

Second, Li Hongzhi lives in New York, not Chicago.

Third, according to the principles Li teaches, supernormal abilities are not to be displayed in public. In teaching Falun Dafa, I know of no exceptions made for his own except for a few conventions and fairs and such where he and some practitioners had a booth for qigong healing in order to promote Falun Dafa. Attempts like this one to displaying a supernormal ability make no sense.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.75.247.239 (talk • contribs) 21:30, 9 December 2006

AAP article

http://www.clearwisdom.net/emh/articles/2007/3/28/83983.html --just keeping useful references.--Asdfg12345 19:41, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Warning to Asdfg to not undo other's edit

Asdfg, you have undone many of my edit, only to fail in defending your reason. If you unilatterally make undo/archive/move my edit without good reason, I will lodge a complaint agains you.

The edit I'm about to make in this page pertains to NTDTV's affaliation with Falun Gong. This fact is documented by the US Congress (ref: Thomas Lum's CRS report, page CRS-8.)

If you touch my edit I will file a complaint against you!!! Bobby fletcher (talk) 09:18, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

I am really sorry to have caused you grief, I have only undone your edits when they violated wikipedia policies. What you did there is fine--that is a sourced statement. I am just against you breaking wikipedia policies, and spamming talk pages, but I think apart from that you are bringing a unique contribution to wikipedia, and I will not criticise you for that.--Asdfg12345 11:12, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Disputing Asdfg's baseless accusation of "breaking Wikipedia policies", "spamming talk pages"

I deny your accusations and demand you produce evidence to support your accusation. Bobby fletcher (talk) 19:15, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Suspect Bad Faith Editing, seeking RfC

Asdfg, why did you, once again, blank out the fact NTDTV is affiliated with Falun Gong. Now this article is, again like your other blaking, void of this fact. This is not the first time you have done this. If you don't like the wording there are better ways to fix it than blanking out relevant fact for the article.

Why are you, as a Falun Gong disciple, so ASHAMED of this fact??? Bobby fletcher (talk) 07:17, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I didn't blank it. I moved it from the first sentence to a more appropriate place. I actually don't have a problem here. I just thought it looked clumsy the way it was, so I changed it. I thought saying it was founded by practitioners was sufficient to establish the link. I just incorporated both points in that sentence now to make it flow better.--Asdfg12345 20:27, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes you did blank it out. Here's the proof:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=New_Tang_Dynasty_TV&diff=187836173&oldid=187181277

As you can see, after your blanking, the article is void of the fact. This is against WP:DE. Please stop Bobby fletcher (talk) 05:10, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Oh sorry, it was already there. My mistake. I did blank it from the top sentence. The idea was that it was mentioned already and it just looked odd to mention it three times. As I say, I am treating this as any other kind of editorial thing, I´m not concerned about the Falun Gong link. It´s like if I was editing an article on a soccer team, and it mentioned that the lead goalkicker in the team was Bobby Fletcher three times in the introduction. I would just make it mention it once, in context, like this time. Hope you know what I mean.--Asdfg12345 11:21, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

No, the diff link provided above show you blanked not only the first line, but also the sourced citation to Lum CRS report. Your other blanking have consistently demonstrated your WP:DE in trying to hide this fact in relevant articles. Why are you looking for a fight and attacking other editor? You have repeatedly blanked my edit and call me names like "nortorious", "callous". This is not what wikipedia is about.

I have so far edited in good faith, provided well researched neutural(non CCP) sources, stayed on-topic in Talk. Yet you accuse me of WP:DE? Please look at your own behavior as comparison.

Bobby fletcher (talk) 18:21, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I will look within more. Now it mentions all the necessary information. I haven´t meant to do anything wrong and I don´t want to hide anything. I appreciate your correcting my mistakes and pointing out my shortcomings.--Asdfg12345 23:17, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

resources to add to page

this is an article about CCP interference: http://www.theage.com.au/news/national/china-pressured-state-mps-to-skip-show/2008/03/30/1206850707183.html

Controversy vs. Opposition

Hello Kupredu, please don't delete sourced information as you did here [1]. If you wish to let us know which part of the sourced information you disagree this is the place to do it. Thank you! --HappyInGeneral (talk) 22:22, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Here are the objections that I have with your edit, also see references to Wikipedia policies. Hope this will help.

1. You said that: “According to observers in China, ...“ but you gave the Chinese Embassy’s web site as a source. In this case this statement falls under the WP:WEASEL, it’s better to clarify the source which in this case is the Chinese Communist Party
2. You said that: “... NTDTV spreads slanderous rumors against China and broadcasts anti-China programs such as the the so-called ...” but you did not provide any context, this is why I inserted the why is the Chinese Embassy saying that. See WP:NPOV. Also I think that you agree that NTDTV is critical toward the Chinese Communist Party and not toward the Chinese Citizens, and so saying that NTDTV is against China is a big distortion of the truth, it is more accurate to say that NTDTV is critical toward the ruling party.
3. Your latest edit [2] added this: “... and of insulting and distorting Chinese culture.”, who said that? If this is only your opinion then I would recommend reading the following Wikipedia policies WP:POV and WP:SOAP.
4. So far you only reverted but did not engage in discussion. See WP:3RR. Please be advised that only reverting without discussion can get you banned.

I understand that you might not have lots of experience editing Wikipedia, this is why I would recommend checking out Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines which will help you understand what is Wikipedia and how you may become a valuable contributor to Wikipedia the free encyclopedia.

--HappyInGeneral (talk) 00:52, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Balancing article.

I recently made this edit to balance out the article in accordance with WP:NPOV. Too many mainstream sources were not given due attention and the intro was more or less worded like an advertisement. If there are any issues arising from this edit I respectfully ask that it would be discussed here first. Colipon+(Talk) 06:33, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

I think some of the changes are improvements, while some of them aren't. I'll be back with more later.--Asdfg12345 15:40, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree there are balance problems, such as referring to the Chinese Communist Party as the "Chinese government", when the democratically elected Republic of China government in Taiwan has a more legitimate claim to be called "the Chinese government" in the eyes of many. 50.247.253.194 (talk) 21:22, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

I have serious doubts regarding this source

Hello, could you please point me on your source on this? I looked for the content and for the title but no real source came up. --HappyInGeneral (talk) 21:39, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

• It happens from time to time that sources don't show up. This link shows at least that such a source exists, and it looks very much like the article I read. I seem to recall I didn't put the link into the ref because it was a third party link (thus not fully WP compliant) but I'm confident it wasn't a hoax, possibly CESNUR or Rickross, although I can't find it again right now. I've reinstated the text for the moment but with a {{verify source}} tag. I trust that at least takes care of your most immediate concern. There is no requirement anywhere that sources cited are online — Indeed, many sources are unavailable online. The only requirement is for the information to be verifiable. Another suggestion: go to a library and check out the microfilm. Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 03:40, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

• Also, this source (Gsearch link) seems to suggest the 'Universal Communications Network' is indeed linked to NTDTV. Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 04:07, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Recent edits

Can PCPP please explain why Shen Yun deserves a section on this page? Seems absolutely bizarre. Olaf removed it, but PCPP put it back? Do not understand. Try discussing before pulling the trigger. --Asdfg12345 15:12, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Simple. There is no consensus to remove the material on the page whatsever, especially since it's there from the beginning. The sources mentioned NTDTV and its links with airing of "Chinese New Year Spectacular", with particular incidences such as airing of the program in South Korea, and the Chinese embassy report which specifically mentioned NTDTV. Your edits seems like a knee-jerk attempt to revert everything I change, which is why you deliberately reverted to the Emikoking's vandalized version.--PCPP (talk) 18:23, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

And here are several Epoch Times articles [3] [4] that specifically mentioned the show was produced by NTDTV, with absolutely no mention of Shen Yun.--PCPP (talk) 18:41, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Those reports are from 2007, so how are they relevant? It would probably be a good idea to mention that NTDTV used to host the Chinese New Year Spectacular, and I will amend the article to say that now. Please actually talk about why the material is relevant and requires a section, and how it is related to Shen Yun? It says CNYS, but links to Shen Yun? Isn't that a bit odd? I would indeed be interested to hear what other editors thought of all this. I am pretty confident that I'm not the one who is misbehaving. --Asdfg12345 00:49, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Another thing is this paragraph: The Wall Street Journal reported in 2004 that the journal is registered as Universal Communications Network, which names top FLG spokesman Gail Rachlin as one of its three directors. It said "Where [The Epoch Times] and [NTDTV] are controversial is in their unwillingness to identify themselves as having any association with the group, despite ample evidence to the contrary." -- I would suggest this does not make much sense, given that on their website they state "In 2001, a group of professionals and businessmen connected through their common practice of Falun Gong conceived the idea of an independent Chinese TV network and took the lead". Interested in other editors thoughts on how it is now relevant? -- Asdfg12345 00:58, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

The articles on Chinese New Year, in particular the incident in South Korea, are relevant because NTDTV is mentioned directly as being involved, from both the Chinese embassy source and the Epoch Times. I have no idea why Shen Yun is added though. And the NTDTV page mentioned that the founders are ideologically linked to FLG, whereas in the WSJ article, the founders denied being a sub-organization of FLG, and insisted on their financial independence. That's quite a difference.--PCPP (talk) 11:04, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

The purpose is to show the relationship between FLG and NTDTV, is it not? Then let us just quote what NTD says on its website--no? I can see the sense in mentioning NTDTV and the Chinese new year thing, but it has nothing to do with Shen Yun, and doesn't need to be a whole section in the article. A few lines should be fine. Explain if you disagree. --Asdfg12345 18:18, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

• Also, I have some questions regarding your recent edit. Allow me to enumerate them, and please be sure to give a sensible response to each point:

1. Why did you remove the info about HR in the lede? Is that not relevant? You deleted that. Why?
2. Why did you say that it is the "anti-CCP" stance that characterises the station, and not its emphasis on human rights? Do you think these are the same? Why would you change the wording like that? What source do you rely on for that change?
3. Why did you change it from NTDTV used to host... to saying that they "produce and televise" the Chinese New Year show? The second is not true, and you know that. Furthermore, the link you gave is to Shen Yun, the NYT review. Why? And why is the Chinese Embassy quoted on that topic? Are they a reliable source on the show? Why should their view be registered on the NTD page?
4. Why did you change the section to de-emphasise the Eutelsat issue? Why did you make it say "anti-CCP stance" again? Why did you word it like "which RSF used to claim" about the voice recording, as though that discredits it? Why not just state what RSF's claims were, rather than using such language to discredit them in the same breath?
5. Why did you make those language changes in the paragraph beginning "On 20 August, 2008..." -- like remove "increasingly bogus", etc. Why? --Asdfg12345 18:32, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

• 1. Why do you want to remove the WSJ article? The WSJ is a reliable source, and it demonstrated that NTDTV is financially registered to another organization, not FLG.

1. Because directly calling it "pro-human rights" is a POV opinion, just as it is to call it an "anti-China propaganda station". It's well known for it's anti-CCP stance, so lets leave it at that. I've changed the phrasing so it reads that it focuses on issues such as human rights in China.
2. You have no evidence that NTDTV "used" to host the Chinese New Year show. It still does - the Epoch Times articles mentioned that NTDTV is the producer of the show, and NTDTV's own website mentioned that they televise it as well.
3. The Chinese Embassy source is directly attributed to them - there's no more reliable sources on the views of the Chinese government than that. It contrasts with NTDTV's accusations of interference.
4. There is no need to dedicate three large paragraphs and a separate section to an old issue. The claims by RSF etc were never actually proven, and Eutelsat specifically denied the charges. Merging it with the paragraphs about Chinese interference in South Korea well illustrates the censorship issues that NTDTV faces. I've rephrased the RSF sentence nevertheless.--PCPP (talk) 02:32, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

1. I do not want to remove the WSJ article, nor did I suggest doing that. I asked why the relationship to Falun Gong is not expressed simply and clearly using the NTD source. I will put that in now.
2. How is it a point of view opinion to say that the station is "pro human rights"? Where did you get the source that it is "anti-CCP"?
3. There is evidence all over the place that it used to host the show; the point is that the Chinese New Year Show is different to Shen Yun; as long as that is clear, I'm fine. Just don't link out, and just make the situation clear, rather than muddying it. Their broadcasting it is different from their hosting it, I'm sure you will agree.
4. I asked you why the Chinese Embassy view is relevant, not whether it is reliable for its own views. My question is: why is the CCP's view a view that shoudl be stated on the matter? I'm removing it.
5. This is fine; it is one incident of interference/censorship--fine to put it in a section that deals with the several incidences of censorship etc. --Asdfg12345 02:50, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

This is getting confusing, but I think we are making some progress (that is rare!), please answer me these questions three:

• Why remove the "pro human rights" language--is this in dispute?
• Why include the NYT ref when that talks of Shen Yun, which is different from Chinese New Year thing?
• Why is the CCP a relevant source? Do you see Falun Gong spokespeople quoted when the CCP wheels out its propaganda troupes around the world? So why should CCP be quoted here? --Asdfg12345 03:33, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

• Yes, "pro-human rights" is an opinion which the station uses to advertise itself. In contrast, it a factual statement that NTDTV is anti-CCP.

• So are you saying Shen Yun's CNY show is completely different from NTDTV's?
• The Chinese government is a notable source, whether you like it or not. The fact that Chinese embassy bothered to comment on NTDTV only showed NTDTV's notability.--PCPP (talk) 03:39, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Shen Yun doesn't have a Chinese New Year show. This is obviously ridiculous. You are not interested in discussion, because you are not responding to my arguments. You say pro-human rights is an opinion used as advertisement, but anti-CCP is a fact? Your last point makes the least sense of all, and in no way responds to the relevance of the CCP's views to the show--is the CCP an appraiser of Chinese dance? Is it a reliable source on Falun Gong topics? This is simply dumb. --Asdfg12345 03:44, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

NTDTV is noted for its anti-CCP stance, is this not a fact? And calling it "pro-human rights" is a misnomer and a POV statement, and by that logic we can also call the CCP "anti-human rights" - not even articles on HR organizations like Amnesty described them selvesas "pro-human rights". On the other hand, putting the statement in NPOV terms would be "NTDTV is noted for its coverage on human rights issues in China"

And your argument about the Chinese government piece is fallacious. You assumed that somehow the Chinese government and a TV station like NTDTV would be equal in its notability, but its not - a national government's views would hold much more weight and significance than a TV station. The PRC government is a involved party in the FLG dispute, and was accused by NTDTV of disrupting its shows, so its appropriate according to NPOV to address opposing views from the PRC government. You have a serious double standard here to think that a random media commentator that never read the Epoch Times before warrants inclusion, but the Chinese government, responsible for causing the mess by banning FLG, does not.--PCPP (talk) 09:46, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

For what it is worth, here is my input:
PCPP is right about the biased-sounding phrasing of "pro-human rights"; it should be properly said that "NTDTV is noted for its coverage..."
I agree with Asdfg on the irrelevance for quoting the CCP's views on the matter of the Tang Dynasty cultural show--loudly imposing anti-Falungong propaganda where it doesn't belong will be strange to readers and makes no sense. Where it is appropriate to state the Party Line, such as, in a section listing the Party Line, then that is sensible, but when all that is provided is a minor mention that there is such a show, to then add on a large dollop of the Communist Party view is, to me, very odd. Just mention that there is such a show. In the section about how the Party attempts to disrupt the show, then definitely their views shall be noted (and I notice that Asdfg did not do this in his otherwise good additions that were recently removed from the suppression page).
Finally, I am glad to see you both developing a common language. I will mostly stand by, but am happy to give my view where it may be useful.—Zujine|talk 01:00, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

I tried to broker a compromise on these, see how you find it. The Falun Gong link is now clearly stipulated; the irrelevant criticism of the New Year show (some of it referenced to what, Shen Yun?) removed. —Zujine|talk 05:23, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

PCPP, could you please explain yourself? I have been away for a few days. I have some more information to add to the page, and I believe the trend is against this sort of senseless and aggressive behaviour. —Zujine|talk 03:00, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

• I have made a series of changes, all, I believe, very simple and reasonable. They include adding sourced information, and removing information that was repeated or irrelevant. If you would like to discuss the information that I removed, please do so here. I do not expect any edit warring or other ill behaviour. It seems that PCPP has edited this way for a long time, and because his aggression often gets his way, he has found it successful. But that really must stop. Discuss, do not revert, and present your case nicely and sensibly. —Zujine|talk 03:40, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

I added some quotation marks to the mention that NTDTV promotes peace and multiculturalism, or whatever it said. I'll take another look for other ways to improve the article, but Zujine, I agree with your edits for the most part—thanks for making the FLG connection clear, in particular. I also share the sentiment that the partisan bickering on these topics has gone on too long. It's especially out of place in this article. There is no denying that NTDTV began as and still is a media arm for Falun Gong members to offer a counterpoint to the official Chinese line, but certainly it's more than that. They offer pretty diverse programming, and in several languages. This article makes no mention of the English (or other non-Chinese) versions of the channel, does not describe its content offerings, its main markets, or any other information that would seem relevant. Moreover, while NTDTV may no longer put on a Chinese New Year show, they do produce other Chinese cultural events. I'm not in a position to write up this information, at least not for a while, but I would encourage others to add quality research on these subjects. Homunculus (duihua) 04:44, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Let me just sum your view up to its simplest conclusion, for the benefit of smooth discussion here and in the interests of not letting PCPP get into trouble, and please tell me if I have misunderstood: there is a consensus that all my edits should not be deleted by PCPP as he did previously, that the way Falun Gong is now illustrated on the page is appropriate, and an improvement over what it was being reverted to, and that if PCPP did another blanket revert, he would be violating consensus and behaving unreasonably. Yes? Please clarify. Sorry to dull your sophistication down, but I'm learning that PCPP does not play softball. Thank you. —Zujine|talk 05:16, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

I am satisfied that your edits are an improvement. The article can be further improved, but I suggest that the path to a better article in this case is in the inclusion of good research and in our collective extrication from endless debates on FLG and edit warring. Homunculus (duihua) 05:31, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

I must contest Zujine's edits - he removed much sourced material critical of the station under the guise of "improvement", including sourced material from WSJ clarifying NTDTV's connections with FLG, [5], instead changed it to praise of the station using the same sourc[6] He also removed material from the Chinese embassy - it is notable in presenting the PRC government's position on FLG media, especially considering its crackdown of FLG that caused the station's founding, and the allegations of censorship. This is not an improvement at all - he's up to his old tricks again.--PCPP (talk) 11:18, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Ad hominem attacks on both sides are unnecessary. PCPP, the reason I acquiesced to these edits is because this is a television station, which produces diverse content in many languages, and yet the article is mired in debates over how much Falun Gong disclosure is necessary. It's silly. The article now clearly states that the station was founded by Falun Gong adherents. It is not necessary to try to further illustrate the connection by citing the WSJ's research on Rachlin. Moreover, the WSJ quote that NTD hides it affiliations is belied by the fact that the Falun Gong connection is openly stated on NTDTV's website. One prominent and clear mention is sufficient. I'm not optimistic that my explanation will be satisfactory to you, as I am apparently not the first to make these points. I hope you can trust, however, that most of the editors here are working in good faith. If your interest is in improving the article, I'll reiterate my suggestion that new sections be created describing the station's programming, market, non-Chinese languages, and cultural events. Homunculus (duihua) 14:42, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

I am here writing a point-by-point justification of Zujine's edits, why they are useful and better than other options. I submit this for discussion. To know what I am talking about (because it seems a bit out of the blue), you should open this diff in another window, and compare the changes to the list below. I have basically gone through every change. I have made the changes outlined below, and thus explained every single change I have made. I did not revert nor will I edit war. But I made a series of careful, considered changes, and I have explained them and why they are better than the other option. I should think that if PCPP continues this aggressive conduct, he will soon find himself in big trouble. I am now leaving a note on his talk page warning him about edit warring. Action will be taken if he continues this. My greatest concern is that other editors--not stalwarts like myself--will be too inconvenienced by PCPP's high-pressure, aggressive style. It has happened before. I do not want to see the new editors be cowed, so I am making a careful attempt to justify the changes.

1. and businessmen -- what's wrong with mentioning that?
2. "FLG" is not a standard term, let's not use it; "support their views in regard to..." -- what's the source? This is biased language. It is to report on those subjects, at a minimum. If you have a high quality source which uses that language, we can add that as well as "report on"
3. I moved the stuff about Zhao Ziyang and SARS to the paragraph underneath, where there is a bit more space to explain them. I do not mind where they go, but they should be presented properly, not in such a clipped manner.
4. Left in the part about the "media empire"--this seems relevant to me. The Falun Gong connection is already made explicit, but including the "controversy", PCPP is clearly pursuing an agenda. Instead of providing neutral information, he wants to push this point and make a fuss of it. It is established previously, several times, that the station was founded by Falun Gong practitioners. But he puts in this paragraph to make it appear that it is some big secret that has been uncovered. This is dishonest and untruthful. They state their Falun Gong affiliations clearly on their website. There is no need to fake the idea that it's some secret that journalists uncovered, some big controversy, when it is a commonplace and well known fact that none deny.
5. Now for the "Chinese New Year Spectacular": The text that PCPP seeks to include says that NTDTV "produces and televises" this event. This is simply not true. This event does not even exist anymore, so it is impossible for this to be in the present tense. Further, why should a few select critics be noted here, about an event that NTD used to produce? You can imagine me wanting to put in the phrase "Fans called it "the best show in the world," and "an amazing testament to beauty of Chinese culture, everyone should see it." -- can anyone even imagine that? Clearly it is sufficient to note the show was done by NTD and move on. What do other people think?
6. "NTD's anti-Communist Party stance and reportage on human rights issues in China has led to interference and political pressure from the Chinese Communist Party and its overseas embassies" -- One key difference in this version is that the "interference and political pressure" are not merely couched as accusations from NTD. They really exist, and newspapers and scholars acknowledge this fact. It is so stupid that we are even arguing on this. Zujine was right to make this change. It is not disputed that the CCP exerts political pressure and harasses Falun Gong-related performances and activities. These are things that independent groups have verified. Secondly, I deleted the line about the Embassy. Wikipedia is not a platform for the Communist Party's anti-Falun Gong propaganda. In the section on Falun Gong outside China, on that page, it would be relevant to state the Communist Party's propaganda, but when there is no space for analysis or explanation or independent views on just what they mean when they say those things, it is simply misleading and propagandistic to put that stuff here. The CCP is not a reliable source on Falun Gong or NTDTV, furthermore, this is an article about NTD, and the CCP's views are not the focus. Take the counterfactual: let's go to the CCTV article and put the words of Li Hongzhi there. Would that make sense? That's the equivalent.
7. "An RSF employee had called the company's Beijing office posing as an official in the Central Propaganda Department, and had elicited an admission from Chinese Eutelsat staff that taking NTD off its satellite was politically motivated, according to an RSF transcript." -- really, I must ask what was wrong with this. It states more clearly what happened and still attributes it to an RSF transcript, not stating it as a fact.
8. "The statement accused Europe’s Eutelsat company of bowing to pressure..." -- I also preferred this in quotes, to get precisely what WSJ says. And I also think the line at the end of this paragraph is important. But I am not going to argue about everything. Just leave it as it is, if it makes PCPP happy.
9. "In June of 2010 the Canadian Prime Minister's Office..." -- likewise. I thought it clearer as it was, but I also think it is not worth arguing about everything. Asdfg12345 16:52, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Appreciate the work you have put into this, Asdfg. Let's hope that strong research and sources will carry the day, rather than this internecine fighting. I am not going anywhere, by the way. —Zujine|talk 23:03, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

1. What's the point of repeating "businessmen", considering that professionals can mean the same thing?
2. How is it biased? [7] did mention this as well
4. The WSJ is a reliable source that tells the explicit connections between Epoch Times, its parent company, founders etc than any FLG propaganda
5. Prove it. First of all you don't have any source for that, and second of all, NTDTV continues to advertise similar shows [8]
6. The interferences should be determined by a case-by-case basis. The Korea incident's claims comes directly from NTDTV, while the Eutelsat claims were reported by RSF but explicitedly denied by Eutelsat management. Seocondly, the Chinese rhetorics are not presented as facts, but merely their own views - which falls in line with WP:RS and WP:NPOV. As a government, the PRC's views hold more weight than any individual like Li Hongzhi.
7. The line is already confirmed in "they were in procession possession of a purported conversation recording with a Beijing employee of Eutelsat confirming the allegations". This article is not about RSF's claims, and a long analysis is unnecessary.
8. Why the need for quotes? It can be summarized without the necessity
9. I simply rephrased the sentence. The fact here is that you're simply trying to make a WP:POINT.--PCPP (talk) 06:13, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

1. Professionals refers to doctors, lawyers, etc.; businessmen refers to people who have started businesses or entrepeneurs. In some cases there may be a crossover, but they are sufficiently distinct vocations.
2. Because it does not say they want to "support their views" on Chinese culture and human rights. It is simply the case that they are reporting on those topics. Keep it simple. Don't try to insert language that skews the debate. Just state things plainly. But saying "support their views" it makes it seem like they are pushing an agenda about Chinese culture or human rights, when they are simply reporting them. Further assertions would need reliable sources.
4. Just because something is a reliable source does not make it relevant or warrant its inclusion. That is to be decided by a process of discussion and consensus. You have yet to answer why this information is relevant given that the Falun Gong/NTDTV connection is already explained. Please do not try to skirt around honest discussion on some commonsense points. The information appears superseded and irrelevant, given the connection is already stated very clearly.
5. Prove it? You just proved it with that link you gave. It was from two years ago!
6. Indeed interference should be dealt with in a case by case manner, but that does not mean a general assertion about the existence of interference cannot be made. Let's not play games on this. It may be appropriate to briefly state the CCP's propganda on this point--I can see what you mean, but it should be paraphrased, and the reader can know broadly what they say, but Wikipedia should not be a platform for their propaganda.
7. The difference is that the recording was made by an RSF employee; and the circumstances under which it was made greatly add to its credibility (I hope that is not why you wish to diminish this part). Those two facts should be mentioned to enable the reader to reach an objective assessment of the veracity of the call. Using "purported" unfairly casts doubt on the recording. Do you have evidence of any reliable source casting doubt on it? Then why should such language be used? It should be phrased more directly, as I have, unless you provide a source which diminishes the credibility of the RSF call/transcript.
8. Yes. I agreed. I said I preferred the quotes, but was happy to go your way on this, just to compromise and try to not make a fight for no reason.
9. No, I thought it was better and clearer as it appeared, but I am not going to argue over every little thing. I am trying to work with you, but you don't make it easy. --Asdfg12345 17:16, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

• Note that I will not revert PCPP again. His edits have now been challenged by two editors, whose work he has unilaterally reverted with specious explanation. I will not edit war, but I must assert the proper discussion and consensus process. --Asdfg12345 17:23, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

References

RFC: Validity of two disputed sources

Does the two disputed sources from the Wall Street Journal and Chinese embassy press release warrant inclusion in the article?--PCPP (talk) 12:20, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

These are the two sources in question:

1) Material from the Wall Street Journal which details NTDTV's connections with Epoch Times and the Falun Gong movement[9]

According to the Wall Street Journal, NTDTV is, along with The Epoch Times and Sound of Hope radio station, part of a "media empire" founded by and affiliated with Falun Gong practitioners. The Wall Street Journal reported in 2004 that the journal is registered as Universal Communications Network, which names top FLG spokesman Gail Rachlin as one of its three directors. It said "Where [The Epoch Times] and [NTDTV] are controversial is in their unwillingness to identify themselves as having any association with the group, despite ample evidence to the contrary."

2) Material sourced from press release by the PRC embassy in the US, outlining its position on NTDTV and FLG media.[10]

In turn, the Chinese embassy in the United States accused NTDTV of being used to "spread anti-China propaganda" and "distorting Chinese culture".

The sources themselves, or at least the first one (WSJ), is a fine source: the point is that it's belaboring a point that has already been made. You have not actually responded to the simple argument against 1: why is it necessary to include this information when Falun Gong's affiliation with NTDTV is already clearly stated? Please give an honest answer on that. On 2, you have also not answered why Li Hongzhi's view should not appear on the CCTV article, if the CCP's views should appear on this article. Please explain those two. --Asdfg12345 17:04, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Note that I think the CCP's views are relevant in the sense that they have done a great many things to interfere with the performances, so that their statements are interesting only inasmuch as they illuminate the public rhetoric that overlays those activities. If there was no big campaign and they simply spread this propaganda, I don't think it would be relevant, but I think it is relevant when they have put in so much effort overseas. In fact, I will take the comment down by one notch, so rather than two phrases, they just make one. This would probably be more balanced. Goodness knows they've said hundreds of things against the show and Falun Gong. --Asdfg12345 17:31, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Li Hongzhi's views don't appear in the CCTV article because he and his views are obviously less important and less notable than the views of the Chinese government, on any matter. Also, he is not mainstream, and the oneway principle applies: legitimate astronomers should be allowed comment on astrology, but astrologers should not receive a hearing on a respectable astronomy article. Quigley (talk) 00:20, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Include It would be better to see a diff of the two proposed versions to evaluate whether their inclusion causes redundancy; however, if redundancy isn't really an issue, then their inclusion is preferred for completeness. Ngchen (talk) 07:55, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

The compromise that's been made here (mostly on the part of Asdfg) seems to me reasonable and sensible. The bit about Beijing's contempt for NTD is mentioned, and the Falun Gong connection is made clear but not in a redundant way (as Ngchen warns against). It would probably be appropriate to note that there was controversy on the issue, after stating that NTD comes clean on its Falungong link; that gets the 'completeness' done, but doesn't belabor the point. Asdfg may not like that solution, but it's another compromise to smooth things over. —Zujine|talk 23:45, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Include What was already stated in the article apart from these two sources: that NTDTV was founded by people who "practice Falun Gong", is not the same as what the WSJ article says, which is that NTDTV and its executives have an active and secret affiliation with Falun Gong that motivates its content coverage and presentation. Also, the Chinese embassy material does not simply express "contempt for NTD", but is actually criticism of NTDTV's content. It could actually be expanded, with corroborating information from the WSJ article that NTDTV and its sister organizations "report frequently on Falun Gong-related news and often focus on negative news out of China" and that they have "played up stories discredited by Western media and human-rights groups, such as China's alleged systemic harvesting of the organs of detained Falun Gong practitioners for use in transplants". In fact, this sort of material would be much more useful and relevant to the reader than the whining about censorship that dominates this article at present. Quigley (talk) 00:20, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

My vote is a highly qualified one to include. Qualifications are described here:

• First, the WSJ article is a good source. I am embarrassed to admit that I only just read the article carefully—something I had not done previously. I favor its inclusion on the condition that the content of the article be honestly represented; cherry-picking content that disparages or discredits the station, as PCPP is proposing, does not accurately represent the content of the article. For instance, the article notes at some length the value that Chinese scholars and citizens ascribe to NTDTV. It provides examples of its work in covering democracy in Taiwan, SARS, in providing a unified voice for Chinese dissidents, and so forth.
• The information that PCPP requested comment on ("The Wall Street Journal reported in 2004 that the journal is registered as Universal Communications Network, which names top FLG spokesman Gail Rachlin as one of its three directors.") is not actually contained in the WSJ article in question.
• I have yet to see evidence, in this WSJ article or elsewhere, that "NTDTV and its executives have an active and secret affiliation with Falun Gong" (emphasis added), as Quigley suggests. The WSJ article in question does nothing to suggest that the staff of NTDTV are anything but open in their affiliation to Falun Gong.
• As a side note on the quotation about organ harvesting, while I think the reporter did solid work on researching NTDTV, I do not believe they should be regarded as an authority on the credibility of organ harvesting claims. Western media and human rights groups have not discredited these allegations, as the reporter alleges. We can certainly make note of the fact that NTDTV has devoted extensive coverage to this topic, but it is not the place to comment on the veracity of these allegations.
• In am in agreement with the emerging consensus on the inclusion of the PRC's statements on NTDTV, though I have not yet come to a conclusion on where this information should appear in the article.
• I'm reiterating again my suggestion that the article would better serve readers if it actually described on the diversity of programing and languages that NTDTV offers. Homunculus (duihua) 17:48, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

I managed to find a repost of the original WSJ article here on a Chinese government website. The original article did note the existance of the "Universal Communications Network".--PCPP (talk) 06:07, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

PCPP's changes are again many and disruptive. He deleted good information without cause, and added in more bogus information. I don't have time to deal with this now, but I can't tell you how frustrating it is to see this. 1) See the massive changes here. Many of these are not good. 2) "According to the Wall Street Journal, NTDTV is, along with The Epoch Times and Sound of Hope radio station, part of a "media empire" founded by and affiliated with Falun Gong practitioners." Chen, Kathy SB119; Chinese Dissidents Take On Beijing Via Media Empire -- that quote is not in this article. That was already pointed out, how could PCPP put it in again?

• Please answer this: "NTDTV also produces and televises an annual Chinese New Year Spectacular, a Falun Gong-affiliated celebration of Chinese culture." -- please prove that this is the case. The last reference to this we have was from 2009, so what evidence is there that it's ongoing?
• Please discuss anything else and don't blindly revert. Thx. --Asdfg12345 16:48, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

The changes look good to me. —Zujine|talk 16:35, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Note on edits

In our December discussions on this page, I frequently implored other editors to improve the article by adding content on the station's programing, market, cultural events, etc. Needless to say, this was never done, so I will now take my own advice and give it a go. My familiarity with the topic does not extend terribly far, so I welcome others to get involved, if they are so inclined. Homunculus (duihua) 16:48, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

A moment ago I reverted an edit which reintroduced information from a previous version of the article. The editor noted that they were doing this because I had removed sourced material. I did not. I edited the article, and in the process rearranged some content, but it was (and is) all still in the article. I recommend carefully reading the page before adding redundant content (or accusing other editors of removing sourced material).

The only thing I removed was the reference to the Jan 2008 LA Times article, which was used as a citation for this: "The station has a regular focus on the promotion of traditional Chinese culture, and devotes extensive news coverage to Chinese human rights issues, taking a critical stance on the Communist Party of China." I removed the citation because this observation about NTDTV's coverage is not found in the LA Times article. Homunculus (duihua) 22:23, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Updating the Logo

I updated the logo per this[11] recent press release. The press release also says that they are changing the acronym to NTD, but I am not sure how to change the page redirection from NTDTV. Can anyone help? Cirrus 03:48, 9 March 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheWisdomGate (talk • contribs)

Another Falun Gong Endorsement.

Why does every FLG article read like an endorsement of the practice?

"Its stated mission is to bring truthful and uncensored information into and out of China; to restore and promote traditional Chinese culture; and to facilitate mutual understanding between the East and West."

Already, in the opening paragraph, we are essentially told that the information provided via NTDTV is "truthful" and "uncensored". This is POV at it's worst. This station has a political agenda. I'm editing this advertising out of the page. AnAimlessRoad (talk) 19:29, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

I restored this. It's sourced to the company's about us page. http://english.ntdtv.com/ntdtv_en/aboutus.html It's entirely normal to provide a media company's self-description in Wikipedia. The Sound and the Fury (talk) 20:21, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Stop the lies! How can people who are not allowed to enter China do neutral journalism? Most of their stuff is fake and biased as hell. It's just disgusting and laughable to watch their stuff. --94.217.191.110 (talk) 18:22, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

China Uncensored & NTD

I note that the article mentions the YouTube channel known as China Uncensored, hosted by Chris Chappell, as a part of NTD. There was a sentence after this claim questioning it (which I am about to remove, as it is not properly a part of the article), which I believe is a valid question. I found that the NTD site itself hosts episodes of China Uncensored. See [12]. China Uncensored's YouTube channel name contains the letters NTD (https://www.youtube.com/user/NTDChinaUncensored). Taking both details together, this implies a relationship of some kind. I am trying to find more explicit evidence. Cyberherbalist (talk) 20:43, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

China Uncensored, Its sister programs such as China Unscripted and America Uncovered are independant of NTDTV and they recieve ZERO funding from NTDTV; All that NTDTV does is give them a space to make and edit their videos and in return they combine multiple videos off their YouTube channels into a 30-minuet format which is hosted on their website chinauncensored.tv and is broadcast on NTDTV however their YouTube URL still refrences NTDTV in line with all the other NTD shows which have YouTube channels. Wclifton968 (talk) 00:35, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

Falun Gong Association

I noticed that the article says that NTD is associated with Falun Gong, however the source doesn't seem to work anymore and I cannot find it to be actually associated to NTD's website. Furthermore, I checked on NTD's actual website's "About" section, and it says nothing about being associated in any way with Falun Gong. Could anyone clarify this? --88.97.24.5 (talk) 04:39, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

External links modified (February 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on New Tang Dynasty Television. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://archive.is/20130415111748/http://ntdtv.org/en/pressrls/2012-04-30/new-tang-dynasty-multi-language-channel-launched-on-shaw-cablesystems-in-western-canada.html to http://ntdtv.org/en/pressrls/2012-04-30/new-tang-dynasty-multi-language-channel-launched-on-shaw-cablesystems-in-western-canada.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:47, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

Proposed merge with New Tang Dynasty Television (Canada)

Because New Tang Dynasty Television already has the content of New Tang Dynasty Television (Canada), New Tang Dynasty Television (Canada) may not be needed. But I am not sure the correctness of my thoughts, so start the merge program. Witotiwo (talk) 23:41, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

Support: Per Witotiwo. —Wei4Green | 唯绿远大 (talk) 20:51, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

  Y Merger complete. Klbrain (talk) 20:48, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

Their youtube cruft

A couple of youtube videos with crowdsourced content existing is not instantly WP:DUE just because an editor thinks they're interesting. We need some evidence that they're relevant to the world in some way. Ideally that would mean mention in WP:SECONDARY reliable sources but even an independent WP:PRIMARY source would be better than WP:ABOUTSELF for establishing significance. Simonm223 (talk) 12:25, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

Confusing statement about NTDV ban in China

The wording of this sentence is confusing, while the idea is obvious: "NTDTV's YouTube channel and its extensions are blocked as a result of China's ban on the video sharing website, though the site and NTD's channels can still be accessed if one bypasses the Firewall". Is there any need to mention that the site still can be accessed if one circumvents the GFW? That just seems redundant and unnecessary. Svagrad (talk) 08:20, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

Add mention about how NTD online has become a propaganda network for right wing conspiracies?

Hi,

I'm new to Wikipedia and editing, but I was wondering whether anyone here would be willing to add a blurb to the online section, and to the introductory paragraph about how NTD online has essentially become a propaganda channel for right-wing conspiracy theories concerning the recent election? When you visit the Wiki page for Epoch times, its actually one of the lead sentences and helps to make the viewer/reader aware of this important fact. I feel we need something simila for NTD. Their youtube channel boasts approximately 1.1 million subscribers which is pretty significant for that platform, and they basically push voter fraud conspiracy theories nonstop, every day through their extremely one-sided reporting. If you have any doubt please visit their youtube channel below. If no one has any objections and is too busy to do this, I can also give editing the main article a try!

https://www.youtube.com/user/NTDTV

Thank you, TheGreatMind1 (talk) 00:37, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

"Far-right" descriptor?

Hi Binksternet, your edit here reverts 4.59.197.248's edit without any edit summary, changing NTD's descriptor to "far-right". May I know which source says NTD is "far-right", thanks. Regards, Thomas Meng (talk) 03:06, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

You might want to ask MarkF99999 who inserted the term one week ago. Certainly The Epoch Times and the Falun Gong have been connected to far-right extremism by New Republic, The New York Times and Vice.com in Germany. Of course, New Tang Dynasty shares the same basic leadership as Epoch Times and Falun Gong. And NBC News said that some shows on NTD "cross the line completely" to the far right, going beyond ultraconservative right and into the realm of conspiracy hoaxing. Binksternet (talk) 04:16, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

Again, as I've said before, I'd strongly recommend judging the Epoch Times and NTD by using neutral media's evaluations such as those by Allsides, instead of biased ones above that have an intention to smear. As Allsides noted: "The Epoch Times bias rating is Lean Right, though perhaps close to Center. Much of The Epoch Times’ reporting is balanced; a slight right-wing bias is mostly displayed via story choice.. So, honestly speaking, I think the "right-wing extremist" label is really unfair for them. Thomas Meng (talk) 14:46, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

I look forward to Mark's reply Thomas Meng (talk) 14:48, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

Thomas, you are well aware that Allsides is not WP:RS compliant. Enough. :bloodofox: (talk) 04:22, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

AllSides has been rejected as unreliable in Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 278 § Is Allsides.com a reliable source? and Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 290 § Ad Fontes Media and AllSides. However, unlike The Epoch Times, I don't think the sourcing in this article is sufficient to use the far-right descriptor to describe NTDTV in the first sentence, and from a quick search, I did not find any sources that would directly support the descriptor for NTDTV. While NTDTV is a sister organization of The Epoch Times, which is far-right, available reliable sources do not directly describe NTDTV as far-right. Feel free to present more sources if you have found something that I missed. — Newslinger talk 04:39, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

Proposed merge of China Uncensored into New Tang Dynasty Television

barely notable, but deserves mention, just not it's own article. Heyallkatehere (talk) 03:20, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

Oppose: despite they are both Falun Gong propaganda, but they are different two of them - Jjpachano (talk) 14:27, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

Oppose: Besides the supposition that NTD broadcasts China Uncensored's episodes in a compiled version, there are no correlations sufficient between the two for there to be a merge of articles. China Uncensored is its own show, broadcasted in a separate platform, owned by an independent company that is not a subsidiary of NTD or The Epoch Media Group, even though the latter appears to help with some of China Uncensored's funding. And although Chris Chappell does have articles on his name on the Epoch Times website, it is still unclear to me whether he did it as an independent editor seeking greater reach or rather as a participation of the China Uncensored show as a whole. This is from my own independent investigation and look on the matter, although i disagree with the merge in this current moment, I do agree they deserve a mention on New Tang Dynasty Television's article, and there might have enough evidence to make a merge plausible in the future, but i have not found it yet at the present moment. 2804:1680:1127:4517:A002:EF7C:3A38:D6BC (talk) 22:44, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

Closing, given the uncontested objections and no support with stale discussion. Klbrain (talk) 12:55, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

Covid 19 origination

Has it not been proven to general consensus that covid-19 did originate inthe Wuhan China lab? Why is NTD reporting this regarded as propaganda? 2601:199:4180:FCD0:4C0D:E904:5ACA:2DD (talk) 02:05, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

No, the "lab leak" theory has not been proven. Jarble (talk) 18:11, 1 October 2023 (UTC)