Talk:The Epoch Times

Far Right label is inaccurate, and 'reply' comments are not responsive.

The description in the first few sentences of the Wiki on Epoch Times, which says the Epoch Times is 'far right,' is unsupported and appears inaccurate. Worse, the responses to questions about this label come off as sanctimonious rather than balanced. Articles like this are what give Wikipedia a bad name. AristosAchaion243 (talk) 16:38, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

Sorry you feel that way. Binksternet (talk) 17:04, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

Me: Good afternoon, sir. I'm searching for knowledge.

Wikipedia: Oh, good. You've come to the right place. It's been said that I am the greatest historian in history.

Me: That's wonderful, sir. Who said this?

Wikipedia: I said it. I wrote it. I read it. It's printed. Consequently, it's fact. It's history!

~ The Little Prince (1974 film)

.

I think this perfectly sums up the attitude of the Wikipedia admins on this page and their poor attempt to veil their bias by hiding behind sources that "prove" their own world view. Just because a "source" says something, it does not make it true. This is why quality news and information outlets will try to write in an unbiased way, letting the reader decide for themselves. Starting the article with the statement "The Epoch Times is a far-right international multi-language newspaper ..." is highly biased. At the very least in order to show even a tiny bit of effort in being unbiased, the article should start more like, "The Epoch Times is a international multi-language newspaper generally considered to be far-right...". But based on previous responses from the admins, I doubt they will humor dulling their bias even slightly. 199.46.249.141 (talk) 18:44, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

Just because a "source" says something, it does not make it true. You seem to have issues with Wikipedia's foundational policies, for example WP:V and WP:NOR. This encyclopedia is built on summarizing other sources. We cannot decide to simply ignore policy for this one page. Wikipedia is exactly as biased as the sources it draws on, by design. MrOllie (talk) 19:00, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

Cool, since some sources say New York Times is far left we can characterize that newspaper as having a far left political slant. Thanks! 2600:8801:1000:A:CD02:289E:8D35:8B6F (talk) 01:23, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

See WP:OTHERCONTENT. Isi96 (talk) 02:32, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

That certainly needs to happen. There are *many* sources that make that same claim. So based on the abusive "far-right" label here (because some other articles say so); that is the proper thing to do. Dr UNIX (talk) 05:36, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

Again: See WP:OTHERCONTENT. Also, only reliable souces count. --Hob Gadling (talk) 11:27, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

Not far-right

Epoch Times is absolutely not "far-right", as so many people point out. Please, stop this idiotic politicization of Wikipedia! It is abhorrent to see, and profoundly unserious. 2A02:AA1:162F:8B96:A916:E464:438C:3D0E (talk) 13:43, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

See the FAQ section, this has been discussed many times before. Isi96 (talk) 23:55, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

How is it not far-right? 2600:6C67:4B3F:397:B8FC:A6EE:B45A:3DA0 (talk) 18:22, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

Far right would be characterized as being a totalitarian or authoritarian ethno/nationalistic collectivism. Epoch times does not promote collectivism or authoritarianism of any kind. 2600:8801:1000:A:6424:8FF:2D65:CB6 (talk) 17:48, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

far right is a pejorative and not how the organization would characterize their work.

Epoch times is most accurately characterized as a news organization that provides articles tailored to people who oppose leftism and collectivism or people who value individualism and liberty over statism.

To characterize anything as far right requires an underlying pro-collectivist ideology. Opposition to far left policies is not intrinsically far right. Therefor epoch times is not far right.

Wikipedia, to have any semblance of neutrality, should characterize how the person, organization or group “identifies” itself and isolate pejorative language to the criticism section of an entry. 2600:8801:1000:A:6424:8FF:2D65:CB6 (talk) 18:00, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

Please refer to the FAQ. Simonm223 (talk) 18:02, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

We follow what the reliable sources say (see the many, many cites in the article), not your personal opinion about what far-right might mean. MrOllie (talk) 18:03, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

But what if the passing use of the phrase "far right" in reliable sources conflicts with Wikipedia's own article on what Far Right means? Here is an example, from a reliable source, of real-life "far right" violent, anti-democratic bigotry: https://www.thenation.com/article/politics/neo-nazis-far-right-ukraine/

Other Choices (talk) 23:52, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

We follow what the reliable sources say. Wikipedia articles aren't required to be (and usually aren't supposed to be) consistent with each other - this is because Wikipedia isn't used as a source for itself, and because we don't engage in synthesis of sources. The definition of the term at Far Right does not affect the use of the term on other articles at all. MrOllie (talk) 23:55, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

That leads to confusion, because readers will naturally assume that Wikipedia strives to be internally consistent. Perhaps a third opinion is in order.

Another issue with the article is the sheer number of sources that say "far right" in passing with no discussion. That doesn't seem helpful. Is the phrase "far right" being commonly misused as a bigoted smear against an ethnic Chinese publication? If so, does Wikipedia have a policy for such a situation?Other Choices (talk) 01:00, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

This comes up often enough that this talk page has a FAQ section about it. If you look in the talk page archives you will find many more than 3 opinions supporting 'far right' as a descriptor. As to your hypothetical about bigoted smears, it's not really worth discussing since there is no evidence of that happening. MrOllie (talk) 01:09, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

The sources cited include high-quality academic publications. Also, as previously mentioned, The Epoch Times has promoted the white supremacist Great Replacement conspiracy theory, so the far-right descriptor is well-justified. Isi96 (talk) 01:01, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

The sources should be trimmed, as I did, but it was reverted. The "great replacement" conspiracy theory is not in and of itself white supremacist, although white supremacists are naturally attracted to it. Other Choices (talk) 07:04, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

The paper is known for promoting the French far-right politician Jean-Marie Le Pen, the Alternative for Germany party and the Pegida movement, and pushing far-right conspiracy theories like the Great Replacement: [1][2]. The descriptor is justified. Isi96 (talk) 02:38, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

All of your examples falsely conflate "far right" with anti-immigrant (and nothing else). "Far right" generally means anti-democratic. Other Choices (talk) 06:59, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

In addition, the two reliable sources that actually say anything (as opposed to the passing label "right wing" falsely conflate a German newspaper with the English-language Epoch Times. These two publications are different.

I understand that an excption to a Wikipedia guideline must preserve the underlying rule. In this particular case, perhaps a slavish adherence to reliable sources perpetuates a rather blatant factual error (conflating the two different publications). Are there any reliable sources that discuss or describe the English-language Epoch Times as promoting the views of far-right ideologues? I suspect that there aren't, but I don't mind standing corrected. Other Choices (talk) 09:37, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

Not Far-Right

It is inappropriate and inaccurate to apply the opinion that Epoch Times is far-right. 2600:1001:B113:5825:855E:CDC8:1962:63E9 (talk) 11:31, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

Refer to the FAQ section at the top of this talk page. - Nick Thorne ^talk 12:30, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

It's far right. the Falungong who founded the Epoch Times literally believe that interracial marriage is a crime. They also believe that alien aliens introduced science into the world with the ill intention to use human bodies... Truly a news source worth believing 118.200.37.42 (talk) 10:47, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

An absolutely terrible sentence

I realize this was written under duress, but this is just not good:

"The Epoch Media Group's news sites and YouTube channels have spread misinformation and conspiracy theories, such as QAnon and anti-vaccine misinformation"

First of all, it says "misinformation" twice. It has spread misinformation such as anti-vaccine misinformation? Second of all, "Qanon" is not a factual claim, it is a political movement and loose term for a group of conspiracy theories. It is not grammatically correct to say that someone "spread QAnon". By analogy, we would not say that someone "spread misinformation such as Billy Butthead", we would say something like "spread misinformation such as repeating Billy Butthead's claim that pigs can fly", or hopefully something less clunky than that.

I say "something less clunky" because I have not thought of it myself, and have instead taken the cowardly option of tagging this bad grammar with {{clarify}}, but I hope someone finds themselves up to the task. jp×g 11:13, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

"have spread misinformation and conspiracy theories about subjects such as QAnon and vaccination"? --Hob Gadling (talk) 11:35, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

Wow, that was embarrassingly simple. Beautiful. I will put it in. jp×g 12:08, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

The [1] reference for far-right claim is missing

i wanted to find out who claims this organization to be far-right but the reference was missing. is this normal? Bogomoletsilizarov (talk) 12:57, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

The first reference has bundled a number of other references within it: when you click on it, it should show you the bundled references, which are labelled [2]–[22].

Hope that made sense / was helpful, let me know if you need any more help. GnocchiFan (talk) 13:02, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

It's working. That is a grouping of 21 references, in fact. MrOllie (talk) 13:03, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

Evidence for why the Epoch Times is not "far-right"

allsides.com is a bipartisan news website that specializes in bipartisan media. They make efforts to hire employees from across the political spectrum and provide news sources from across the political spectrum. To do this, they employ a method for determining the left-right orientation of various news outlets. The following are selections from their analyses of the left-right bias of The Epoch Times.

"During a Blind Bias Survey, people from all sides of the political spectrum and a diverse array of ages and geographic locations rate the bias of content from a media outlet blindly, meaning all identifying branding information is removed.... A total of 881 people from across the political spectrum rated the bias of The Epoch Times. The weighted average was 2.58, which is in the Lean Right category. The middle 50% of responses lied between -0.02 (Center) and 4.13 (Right)....The Epoch Times did several things right in its reporting. Multiple AllSides panelists noted that the publication did a good job of citing multiple sources across the political spectrum and of using full quotes in its reporting — not snippets or phrases taken out of context. The publication did not display common types of media bias such as spin, sensationalism, opinion presented as fact, unsubstantiated claims, flawed logic, or omission of source attribution. In today’s increasingly polarized media landscape, the panel agreed it was good to see Epoch Times journalists presenting full quotes from both sides of the aisle in order to present a fair and balanced story.... One team member noted The Epoch Times always used the word “said” or “told reporters,” and avoided common spin words and phrases that confer judgement upon the speaker, such as, “admitted,” “tirade,” “refused to say,” “conceded,” or “bragged.” Much of The Epoch Times’ reporting was balanced; its right bias was mostly displayed via story choice.... The AllSides panel noted that The Epoch Times had a clear anti-Chinese Communist Party and anti-communist bias. It’s worth noting the anti-Chinese Communist Party bias is linked to The Epoch Times’ history. The publication was founded in 2000 by John Tang, who was affiliated with the Falun Gong religious movement, which has been heavily persecuted in China. Tang founded the website as a response to the persecution of the religious group within mainland China."(allsides.com) Alexander Cloudt (talk) 21:32, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, allsides has come up at WP:RSN plenty of times. It isn't really reliable for anything, certainly not to undercut the many, many sources we have that establish the Epoch Times as far-right. MrOllie (talk) 21:39, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

Articles in the Epoxh Times do not reflect a far right perspective.

Articles in the Epoxh Times do not reflect a far right perspective. 2604:3D08:1B7D:FFE0:C071:7CC8:4EC3:24B3 (talk) 15:51, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

See the FAQ at the top of this page. MrOllie (talk) 15:57, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

Far right is fascism it is a radical claim that epoch times is far right

Clearly this page is biased and is coming from a leftist perspective. Far right claim should be changed to right wing. Mapgrobot (talk) 00:32, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

See the FAQ at the top of this page.

MrOllie (talk) 00:45, 29 August 2023 (UTC)