Talk:Taiwan News

There are some serious POV issues in this article. It seems to be criticising the Taiwan News and trumping up the Taipei Times. Davidreid 13:49, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

I edited this article, removing some irrelevant content and for POV. Davidreid 10:03, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Availability

Isn't it now only available in Taipei? I think that it changed to being available only in Taipei instead of island wide at about the same time that it changed to tabloid size.Simon Peter Hughes (talk) 17:11, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Well, it's not important now because, as the article clearly says, it isn't available on paper at all now.--Simon Peter Hughes (talk) 12:50, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Content removed

I removed the following content. The first paragraph is totally unsourced and seems to have a basis in favor of the paper. The second is of questionable relevance, is unsourced, and the last sentence feels like an advertisement.

The reputation and prestige of the print edition of Taiwan News was instrumental in helping the Taiwan News Online achieve the distinction of being the most widely visited English-language portal for news about Taiwan, with an average of more than a million visits monthly. More than 80 percent of those visits come from overseas, with users from a total of 176 nations around the world. Taiwan News Online is also one of the most frequently searched-for sites for English-language news on Taiwan.

Taiwan News works closely with Internet Securities (Hong Kong) Ltd. and Wisers Information Ltd. (慧科訊業) of Hong Kong to make news reports, stories and editorials from Taiwan News available to subscribers through the databases of the two services. At the same time, Taiwan News continues to seek cooperative agreements with other news sources around the globe.

128.84.124.81 (talk) 13:56, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Controversy

Hi Newslack, you mentioned that you wanted to discuss your edits on the talk page but you never opened a section here. Per WP:ONUS please justify your edits and the sources used, none of the independent sources even mention Taiwan News... Well actually one does but not in the article, PolitiFact uses Taiwan News as a source about the misinformation not as a group which spread the misinformation. Putting two sources together to make a point that neither of them even comes close to making on their own is in fact WP:SYNTH even if you’ve somewhat accurately summarized each source. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 16:17, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

Horse Eye Jack, I was typing this. Had a conflict of edit and it seems that you responded faster than what I typed.

there was no OR because every sentence was referenced. There is not a single statement made that wasn't based entirely on the source.

If the debunking of an unreliable news item from a reliable third party factcheck organization didn't directly mention every single news organization that spread the disinformation, it is the standard practice in other wiki articles to quote them as relevant information, without violating WP:SYNTH. See WP:SYNTHNOT.

If the debunking fact checkers need to reference the exact specific news org before we can use it in an wiki article, then there are so many articles on misinformation and controversy that needs to be chopped down.

Lastly, even if you feel "sulfur dioxide" or "live cremation" controversy needs to be taken down, there is no reason to edit "death toll fabrication" section in any way. Hope we can have a peaceful resolution.Newslack (talk) 16:21, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

The Taiwan News articles you linked report on allegations and make that explicit, they are not saying they’re facts. Even the criticism of Taiwan News is that they gave those allegations more credibility than was due not that they explicitly endorsed them. None of the sources you have are "explicitly debunking” Taiwan News. Also please be specific, what part of Wikipedia:What SYNTH is not are you citing? You appear to be explicitly violating (by your own admission) basic WP:NOR "This includes any analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to reach or imply a conclusion not stated by the sources.” Wikipedia doesn't actively do debunking btw, we only report on debunking done by others. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 16:30, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

That seems to be personal interpretations of "what taiwannews is trying to do". As I said, fact checker don't need to explicitly reference every single news organization that carried the fake news. There is no original research because the fact checker is debunking specific information, not an exhaustive list of offending platform. I haven't "reach or imply a conclusion not stated by the source", as I only directly repeated what is stated in the source.

See WP:SYNTHNOT "Wikipedia doesn't have them, supposedly. But if a policy gets enforced zealously, it can be hard to tell the difference. The solution is to not enforce policies zealously. Never use a policy in such a way that the net effect will be to stop people from improving an article." or "SYNTH is not presumed ... But in any disagreement, the initial burden of proof is on the person making the claim, and the claim that something is SYNTH is no exception.".

SYNTH is "two or more reliably-sourced statements are combined to produce a new thesis that isn't verifiable from the sources", there was no combination involved, because the debunking only takes one source.Newslack (talk) 16:45, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

On "live cremation" section, you said "PolitiFact uses Taiwan News as a reputable source about the misinformation not as a group which spread the misinformation". Just to be clear, this is not true. Their source section included multiple facebook posts and youtube video that were referenced as examples of misinformation which they explicitly debunked. I see no implication from Politifact that Taiwannews is treated as "a reputable source". In fact, I think this is evidence that Politifact is explicitly debunking Taiwannews, which means your removal of that section is unwarranted even by your own arguments. Newslack (talk) 17:01, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

So your argument is that you are in fact violating Wikipedia policy but because in your opinion you’re making the article better we should ignore it? We haven’t even touched on whether the volume of information you’ve introduced is WP:DUE because it doesn’t pass the most basic of WP:OR sniff tests. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 17:03, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

Now you are just being disruptive and not participating in good faith. You have responded to NONE of my arguments. I see on your talk page that there are many other users accusing you of mass blanking and being disruptive. Please don't edit war and push your agenda.Newslack (talk) 17:08, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

Please be aware of WP:ASPERSIONS and WP:NPA, focus on edits not editors. I have refuted every single one of your arguments, WP:OR is very clear about this and there is no getting around that face. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 20:49, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

Also please don’t introduce uncited text into the article as you have done under history, that also violates WP:OR. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 20:55, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

I think I responded to every one of your arguments adequately, while you keep looping back to the same accusations, so now we are at a standstill. A explicit debunking of fake news most of which directly linked taiwannews is not WP:OR nor WP:SYNTH, when no debunking is synthesized by two or more sources... And it's not personal attack to say you followed me over multiple wiki articles to revert my edits, which is a big wiki violation IIRC, and engage in edit war in the last few days, especially on misinformation about covid-19. Looking at your talk page, you have engaged with many other users to purge any edit that is perceived as "anti-US" or "pro-China".

And the page is a clear work in progress, which I will create those citations as time goes on. It doesn't seem to be good faith when you add tags to attack my edits in the middle of my process of filling out the article, which clearly violates WP:DISRUPT for "disruptive editing". Newslack (talk) 21:07, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

Adding citation needed tags to unsourced information is not disruptive. Reporting on allegation that are later proven to be false as allegations is not the same thing as spreading misinformation, you are in fact doing synth if you combine two articles to make a point neither makes individually as you’re doing here. Also what edit war are you referring to? Again please focus on edits not editors. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 15:44, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

Since you started another thread on the Original Research noticeboard, let's shift this conversation there [1].Newslack (talk) 17:32, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

Please don't proceed with your massive deletion when the concensus on OR noticeboard was to keep the section with minor modifications, which I carried out according to discussion. Your edit was a complete misrepresentation of the concensus.Newslack (talk) 04:43, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

Your edits failed to remove even the OR/Synth noted on the OR noticeboard. Also there is no consensus yet so your claim is false, please don’t continue to claim consensus where none exists. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 16:18, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

Your most recent edit also uses a guide book to cite the claim "Taiwan News has been called "often sensationalist”" without attribution which is entirely inappropriate. Heck even if attributed its probably still inappropriate. The line you added it to was also one of the ones explicitly flagged on the noticeboard and yet you have not addressed those flagged concerns. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 16:20, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

It's not standard practice to explicitly attribute each source in each sentence. If it is, then every wiki sentence would start with "according to" or "based on". It's adequate as it is, without cluttering up the page. I have already corrected both of the minor concerns raised. That editor someguy1221 on the noticeboard did not say to remove the source for the "sulfur dioxide hoax" piece. It has been more than a week since that editor responded after my edits, so it is fine as it is.Newslack (talk) 17:16, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

If its not a WP:RS then yes actually it is standard practice to explicitly attribute. Its not fine as it is, I say it still has massive OR/Synth issues, since even by your own admission you were not able to identify two clear pieces of synth why are you at all confident that you now know what you’re doing? Its not a disputable fact that you added OR/Synth to this page, the only thing in dispute is how much. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 18:56, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

It's more of an indisputable fact that when you didn't get your way on the OR noticeboard to whitewash the whole controversy and essentially delete the whole section, you begin to unilaterally edit this page contrary to consensus, which makes this whole editing process excessively difficult.

If Bradt Travel Guides isn't WP:RS, then might as well delete this entire page... Read its wikipedia page. "Bradt has won or been shortlisted for many awards, including: Sunday Times Small Publisher of the Year in 1997; Gold Award in the Wanderlust Best Guidebook Awards in 2009, 2011, 2015, 2016, 2018 and 2019; Which? magazine's Top Recommended Travel Guide Publisher in 2011 and 2012; and a shortlisting for Independent Publisher of the Year at the British Book Awards, 2017.[5] In 2008 Hilary Bradt was appointed an MBE for services to the Tourist Industry and to Charity.[6]" It had been recognized enough that the publisher received a Order of the British Empire... How much more official recognition do you need? You can't biased the judgment of a source's reliability with how closely it fits the POV you wish to push. Why do you want to defend taiwannews against the quite common perception that it is sensationalist? Newslack (talk) 23:59, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

Thats a WP:PA, focus on edits not editors. While Bradt Travel Guides may be reliable for travel advice using them as the sole source for a contentious claim about the reliability of a media organization is a stretch *even if they are entirely correct in the assertion they are making.* If the NYT or a similar source says they’re unreliable, biased, sensationalist, whatever we should include it, but for now we don’t have a WP:RS that says it. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 02:44, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

How about you don't WP:PA first? And I called it as it is, a unilateral edit which goes contrary to consensus and very obviously misrepresents the discussion on the OR noticeboard. It's a very intentional misrepresentation that does not show good faith. And you are moving the goalpost. Of course, no source like NYT would describe taiwannews, because it's not very notable and respectable news org. Why would nytimes talk about it? If this was any other wiki page, this would have been a valid citation. As I said, the only reason there is extra scrutiny is because you want to defend taiwannews against the quite common perception that it is sensationalist. Personal conflict of interests? Newslack (talk) 04:14, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

What PA against you? If you’re suggesting that I have a COI then read WP:COI and WP:ASPERSIONS before either providing evidence or apologizing. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 05:28, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

Uhh.. "why are you at all confident that you now know what you’re doing?"

It's "reasonable cause" to call into question your COI, because you go across multiple wiki articles to erase items that criticized inaccurate reporting by taiwannews and very intentionally misrepresent the discussion on OR noticeboard to erase passages unfavorable to the credibility of taiwannews. When the discussion on OR noticeboard didn't call for the removal of passages to the extreme degree that you wanted, you still carried it out and insist on continuing this argument. Newslack (talk) 16:08, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

Thats not a WP:PA its an honest question, if you could not accurately identify OR/Synth just a few days ago why are you *sure* you can now? You may make a post about me at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard but per WP:ASPERSIONS you are not allowed to keep repeating such assertions here without providing actual evidence, not just "reasonable cause” (I think you mean probable cause btw). Horse Eye Jack (talk) 16:33, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

No, that's PA. Out of the entire passage, the OR noticeboard only ended up deciding 2 minor places where there could be OR, while most were left in tact. It seems like I am more in agreement with the noticeboard resolution than you are, so the question should be reflected to you "How are you confident about your ability to know what you're doing?" And no, I mean "reasonable cause" as the term was used on the pages you linked me to...Newslack (talk) 16:47, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

Its not, its true... You inserted OR/Synth into this article, if I WP:AGF the only possible reason for that would be ignorance of Wikipedia Policy and Guidelines. Its not a personal attack to ask if an editor has a new appreciation of the relevant Wikipedia Policy and Guidelines after they have clearly demonstrated that they didn't understand them. The comment on the OR noticeboard identified two clear cases of OR and left it at that, they didn’t say that those were the only instances. You also don’t appear to have edited the article to adequately address those two concerns. Also there has been no "noticeboard resolution", I've warned you before about false claims of resolution/consensus so you need to stop doing it. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 17:02, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

There wasn't OR when every sentence is sourced. The only potential OR/SYNTH was 2 minor locations after enormous amount of scrutiny, which I reinforced with sources. The 3rd party editor was fine except those 2 places. You are stretching a wild interpretation of the discussion on noticeboard. There is a resolution because the 3rd party editor did not respond after a week after my fixes. You really need to stop with the false claim of the resolution/consensus. Are we doing post-truth wiki editing now? If you repeat false statements and disregard all factual rebuttals, we are going to continue type at each other for months...Newslack (talk) 17:12, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

Theres a way to do this whole thing without the WP:PA, knock it off. I’m engaging in good faith to reach a consensus (none has yet been reached) and I expect the same of you. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 21:54, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

Controversy section

Just a note, the text in the Controversy section is mine [2] and is the result of the above discussion as well as a third opinion on a board. If anyone didn't know this before they now do. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:56, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

There's multiple issues here with the section and I'm not seeing anything on the relevant 3O/ANI that actually addresses any of the issues that I brought up in my edit summary. First, the allegations are coming from a source that's partisan and therefore potentially unreliable (verifiability issues). Second, even if the source was reliable, there is a DUE issue as I am not seeing this reported in any mainstream publications. And third, the whole section itself isn't necessary - WP:NOCRIT makes it clear that "separate sections devoted to criticism, controversies, or the like should be avoided in an article because these sections call undue attention to negative viewpoints" and there there is no reason why that should not apply in this case when the section which barely has any content in it can simply be moved into the "history" section. In addition, there are others policies that I can bring up which the material violates, like its lack of an Impartial tone and any attribution but I think it's best to address the three major ones first.

That said, I can see from the relevant information that you've also had issues with the editor who initiated this edit warring, so it should be fairly easy to come to a consensus concerning these issues. I'll give this discussion a day or two to develop but if things stay as they do now, then the material will at the end of the grace period have to go. Flickotown (talk) 05:56, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

Yes issues, but more importantly an i-ban hence my inability to address the issue directly. I think theres room to tone down the language and I would gladly be willing to work on a consensus text like we did last time, we probably do have to remove the mention of the specific author because while I would say New Bloom is good enough for criticism of Taiwan News I question whether they’re the sort of source we need vis-a-vis BLP. In general though I think Taiwan News did mess up here, they jumped the gun and published when others wouldn’t but they are far from the only WP:RS which has made COVID related errors. We also should be clear that we’re talking about misinformation not disinformation, there was no ill intent on Taiwan News’ part. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:11, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

My gut is that if the sources are going to be The Tyee and New Bloom Magazine, the section should simply be deleted. I can't find a corrections policy on the site of either source, for example. Furthermore, printing information that is later disproven is not a mortal sin. Adoring nanny (talk) 02:50, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

I think that New Bloom Magazine is a better source here than The Tyee, not really sure why we would find a local online paper in British Columbia, Canada to be a reliable source for Taiwan’s media landscape. New Bloom Magazine at least is from the same market and has an understanding of whats going on, but with them we run into the issue that Taiwan News and New Bloom are rather fierce competitors and so I’m not sure they meet the bar for the BLP statement but they’re probably reliable otherwise. On your point that misinformation is not disinformation I agree wholeheartedly, all sources make bad calls occasionally. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 03:01, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

It's important to note that the New Bloom article merely disputes the total amount of deaths and focuses elsewhere so this reads as original research. Article also features an AI-generated co-author, Lars Wooster, who is not a human and the portrait and online search indicates its an obvious AI generated character. The article also to neglects to mention that Taiwan News was simply reporting what was already widely reported in Taiwan media. As Taiwan News was not the originator, therefore we should not partake in feuds on Wikipedia. --AnalogBiped (talk) 16:26, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

::@Adoring nanny: I see that you have removed the section and want to state it officially that I support your move. Flickotown (talk) 11:05, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

There is a significant issue with the controversies section being based solely on New Bloom's article. First and foremost, the entire article is co-authored by a fictitious AI-generated entity named Lars Wooster. Not only is the profile photo clearly generated by AI, but Lars Wooster does not exist anywhere else and is a bad mash-up of a Scandinavian given name and a British surname.

Second, Wikipedia should not be used to settle feuds. Brian Hioe, the other co-author, has long run a public campaign against Taiwan News and has been posting about it for years, including today.

Third, Taiwan News did not make the Tencent error, and their article appears to be focused on the controversy over whether China understated their numbers, which the New Bloom article claims is likely. If anything, the concern appears to imply that Taiwan News created this story, which it did not, as there are stories that predate Taiwan News by days.

Suggestion: remove it for the time being; I'd imagine there are far more legitimate controversies to post that don't involve AI-generated people and someone with an axe to grind.

Finally, if this section didn't stick to Bloomberg or other papers that reported on Tencent's error, there's no reason to believe an AI-generated person who admits that China likely downplayed the impact of COVID and is nitpicking over whether Tencent's numbers are true or not at the start of the pandemic. AnalogBiped (talk) 09:07, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

RfC misreporting incidents

Should there be a section on incidents of misreporting related to the Dalai Lama and COVID-19? Vacosea (talk) 18:48, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

As an example, refer to this version [3] which was removed by AnalogBiped. They have not produced evidence for the claims in their edit summary. While New Bloom has not been widely discussed as a source, in this instance, its reporting has been substantiated by the Taiwan Ministry of Foreign Affairs and the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. Below is a list of sources and summaries for each. Vacosea (talk) 19:00, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

• Taiwan News article (2020/02/05) reporting that the company Tencent displayed "real" data from Wuhan on Jan 26 and Feb 1 before changing them back to "official" numbers.
• New Bloom article (2020/02/12) debunking the report and pointing out a previous incident where Taiwan News claimed that the Ministry of Foreign Affairs had reached out to the 14th Dalai Lama about not visiting the island.
• Statement by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs (2019/06/04) basically saying "Taiwan News reported on June 4 that the Ministry had tried to send representatives to Dharamshala in May and explain to the Dalai Lama why he could not visit Taiwan, but they were turned away. The Ministry hereby declares that it never had any plans to dispatch personnel to Dharamshala. The report was made without verifying with relevant departments, and the information was not true. The Ministry asks the public not to believe misinformation or spread it." 「台灣英文新聞」於本（6月4）日在未向外交部查證的情形下，即以獨家報導方式引述不明消息來源宣稱，「外交部曾在5月20日當週試圖派員前往達蘭薩拉，向達賴喇嘛解釋無法入台原因，由於達賴喇嘛知情蔡政府拒絕態度，5月下旬隨即婉謝外交人員入達蘭薩拉」，外交部特此澄清說明自始即未考量派人或請駐印度代表處人員前往達蘭薩拉的規劃。上則報導，該報事前均未聯繫外交部或相關駐外館處進行必要查證，即刊登不實資訊，對這種不負責任的媒體報導，外交部深表遺憾，並呼籲外界切勿誤信錯假訊息，甚至以訛傳訛。
• CBC article (2020/02/06) debunking the COVID-19 story and wrote, "It then made its way onto the Taiwan News website in English — where it was described as the accidental release of the real numbers — before exploding on Western social media. On Thursday morning, British tabloid The Daily Mail ran a story on the screenshot, garnering some 8,000 shares on Facebook in a few hours."

The sources are not the strongest, but they can support a short section. It should not leave the impression that Taiwan News was the originator of the dubious death toll, however. Senorangel (talk) 02:02, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

This is what I have in mind.

Taiwan News has been criticized for misreporting information. In June 2019, it claimed that personnel from the foreign ministry of Taiwan had tried to explain to the 14th Dalai Lama why he could not visit the island, but its representatives were turned away by Dharamshala. The ministry later said the report was not true and asked the public not to spread the misinformation. In February 2020, Taiwan News reported a screenshot that claimed a Tencent webpage had displayed the real death toll from COVID-19 in Wuhan before changing it to lower official numbers. The same claim had been picked up by NTDTV and was later reported by Western media as well, such as The Daily Mail. According to health officials, however, it was unlikely to be true. The CBC reported that neither different copies of the screenshot nor archived versions of the popular Tencent webpage could be found to verify the claim. It also demonstrated that the numbers could have been altered in a screenshot without affecting the actual website. When interviewed by WION, however, the author of the Taiwan News article questioned the hoax explanation, saying he had interviewed people who "testified to it" and that, on both January 26 and February 1, the number showed up briefly before going back to the government version. Vacosea (talk) 21:46, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

"The CBC could not verify the claim or screenshot and demonstrated how to alter the numbers without affecting ..." would suffice. Senorangel (talk) 00:57, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

Seeing WP:SYNTH issues with the proposed, also note that WION is not a RS. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 01:33, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

I don't see any SYNTH. The quotes are verbatim from what Keoni Everington said about the hoax explanation. Would shortening the final sentence to the author of the Taiwan News article questioned the hoax explanation, saying he had interviewed people who "testified to it" help? Vacosea (talk) 16:55, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose – devoting a full paragraph to incidents that got very limited coverage principally from low-quality sources (WION, New Bloom, etc.) is a due weight problem. I could probably live with a single sentence sourced to the CBC article, but even that's a stretch. If you want to write about the Taiwan News's reliability, I'd suggest finding high-quality sources that speak specifically to that issue rather than stitching together various minor controversies into a WP:CRITICISM-esque section. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 00:54, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

The editor of New Bloom has an established track record. His article should not be dismissed just because of limited familiarity with the source. WION was added so that Everington's defense can be quoted. Those were his own words, not WION's. Vacosea (talk) 23:19, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

• Include information. I see it as incidents where it deserved criticism, not necessarily about reliability in general. There is sufficient support to include all the information. Where to place it can be tricky. Senorangel (talk) 02:56, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

Support reporting – in its own section or under History. Wikipedia rules are meant to improve not censor information.Newsback (talk) 06:15, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

References