This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the The Epoch Times article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5Auto-archiving period: 90 days

view ·  Frequently asked questions Q1: Should this article describe The Epoch Times as far-right? A1: Yes, the "far-right" descriptor is amply and reliably sourced.

The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.

This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.

Religion: Falun Gong / New religious movements Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, a project to improve Wikipedia's articles on Religion-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.ReligionWikipedia:WikiProject ReligionTemplate:WikiProject ReligionReligion articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is within the scope of Falun Gong work group, a work group which is currently considered to be inactive. This article is supported by New religious movements work group (assessed as Mid-importance). Newspapers Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Newspapers, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Newspapers on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.NewspapersWikipedia:WikiProject NewspapersTemplate:WikiProject NewspapersNewspapers articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Journalism Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Journalism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of journalism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.JournalismWikipedia:WikiProject JournalismTemplate:WikiProject JournalismJournalism articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. China Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject China, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of China related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChinaWikipedia:WikiProject ChinaTemplate:WikiProject ChinaChina-related articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. United States: Asian Americans Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Asian Americans. New York City Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject New York City, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of New York City-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.New York CityWikipedia:WikiProject New York CityTemplate:WikiProject New York CityNew York City articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Conservatism Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Conservatism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of conservatism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ConservatismWikipedia:WikiProject ConservatismTemplate:WikiProject ConservatismConservatism articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to Falun Gong, which has been designated as a contentious topic. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.

The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people, which is a contentious topic. Please consult the procedures and edit carefully.

Daily pageviews of this article A graph should have been displayed here but graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at pageviews.wmcloud.org

First hyperlink shows neo-nazis marching. This is a highly misleading entry. If ET is far-right then NY Times is far-left, but of course they're painted as mainstream. ET is conservative, you could even say 'ultra conservative,' but what you've posted is a lie. Neither is it authoritarian--quite the opposite, if you've ever bothered to read its articles. Taking sides with the Chinese Communist Party, which actually is authoritarian, makes me wonder who runs this site and who they're placating to. This and other skewed articles is why I've quit contributing to Wikipedia, although I used to every year. Martyrw ( talk) 16:35, 26 December 2023 (UTC) reply

Did you see the two dozen references saying that the Epoch Times is far right? It's because of the outright falsehoods and conspiracy theories they peddle. They got even crazier in 2020: "...by 2020, it became a megaphone for the U.S.’s most extreme right-wing stories." Binksternet ( talk) 20:00, 26 December 2023 (UTC) reply

That's a subjective response. I can cite just as many references stating how the NY Times gives falsehoods and is far left. Wikipedia should rise to a level of objectivity not catering to preferred opinions. I've followed ET for several years, and although I don't even come close to agreeing with everything they publish, the ET simply isn't 'far right' -- certainly not by Wikipedia's definition of far right, and they should at least be consistent with their own definitions. The stance W takes on stuff like this alienates them from maybe 30-50% of the US population by labeling and name-calling, contributing to the ongoing polarization in this country. Martyrw ( talk) 21:59, 26 December 2023 (UTC) reply

Your 30 percent of the US population voted for Trump, who is a charlatan. These people are Fox zombies—not worth the trouble. Nobody has a solution for convincing this bloc of people who don't care about facts or logic. The polarization in the US has deepened because of Trump, Fox and Epoch Times, not because Wikipedia is skeptical and rigorously factual. In fact, the polarization started in 1994 with Newt Gringrich. [1] [2] The polarization has been driven by right-wing elements, especially the Christian right. This campaign has also eroded education in the US, making people more prone to believe nonsense such as what they read in the Epoch Times or see on Fox. Binksternet ( talk) 22:24, 26 December 2023 (UTC) reply

Yet you believe all the quotes from far left sources. Just like the writer of this hit piece on ET. Chrshale ( talk) 14:34, 12 April 2024 (UTC) reply

This article is about The Epoch Times, not The New York Times; if you have constructive changes to propose to the Wikipedia article about The New York Times that are supported by reliable sources, feel free to suggest them at Talk:The New York Times. As mentioned in the FAQ at the top of this page, the far-right descriptor for The Epoch Times is amply and reliably sourced; see Special:Permalink/1183093559 § cite note-far-right-1 for the current list. Your suggestion that the article is "Taking sides with the Chinese Communist Party" because you do not like the fact that reliable sources describe The Epoch Times as far-right is a false dilemma; there are more than two "sides" in geopolitics, and moreover, this article reflects content published in reliable sources – it does not "take sides". This article does not mention authoritarianism, so it is unclear why your comment implies that the article is describing The Epoch Times as such. —  Newslinger  talk 03:08, 27 December 2023 (UTC) reply

How much is Falun Gong paying y'all to keep opening the same complaint on this talk page over and over again? Brusquedandelion ( talk) 11:11, 23 January 2024 (UTC) reply

Well said. This entire entry is a hit piece and reads like it was written either by Beijing or the NYT. Take your pick. Chrshale ( talk) 14:31, 12 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Ah yes, known collaborators the Beijing government and the New York Times. Please provide us with reliable sources that dispute referring to this... publication... as not far-right. Please note that far-right publications are conservative so sources calling it conservative don't actually conflict sources calling it far-right. Simonm223 ( talk) 14:34, 12 April 2024 (UTC) reply

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

I object to the opening line of the Epoch Times being a "The Epoch Times is a far-right[1] international multi-language newspaper". I object to the term "far-right" and the circular reasoning link.

No reference was provided to support this claim rather a link to a "Far Right" wikipedia page was provided and included in that link was "radically conservative, ultra-nationalist, and authoritarian".

A "Far Right" paper can't then be international, multi-lingual, and complain endlessly about authoritarian regimes like the one in China.

Rather Epoch times is simply a "Right Wing" paper. Real non circular independant references are:

Weak: https://adfontesmedia.com/interactive-media-bias-chart/ Better: https://www.allsides.com/news-source/epoch-times-media-bias

Please. Such entries just undermine the neutral objectivity of the entire platform. Ijeffsc ( talk) 00:34, 30 December 2023 (UTC) reply

please hover your mouse over reference #1 and examine the many external sources that support "far right" soibangla ( talk) 00:54, 30 December 2023 (UTC) reply

 Not done: ( edit conflict) The references are provided. The references are in the numbered bracket which looks like this: ^[1] There are currently 21 sources attached to the term "far-right". Neither adfontes nor allsides are reliable sources. Grayfell ( talk) 00:57, 30 December 2023 (UTC) reply

The statement at issue here is:

"The Epoch Times is a far-right international multi-language newspaper"

Based on the definition provided in that link to “far-right” then: the paper must support these terms and ideologies:

radically conservative, ultra-nationalist, authoritarian, nativist, fascism, Nazism, Falangism, neo-fascism, neo-Nazism, Third Position, alt-right, racial supremacism, chauvinist, xenophobic, theocratic, racist, homophobic, transphobic, reactionary

I can’t see the logic in this statement since international conflicts with nationalist, and nativist for example and multi-language conflicts with xenophobic and racist.

Further not a single one of the 21 sources supports or even discussed these factors let alone indicates the paper supports even a simple majority of them.

The statement is self contradictory and false by simple reasoning and logic. Ijeffsc ( talk) 15:35, 31 December 2023 (UTC) reply

Once again, we will not be litigating the definition of "far right" on this page. It's quite sufficient that reliable sources use the term to describe ET. Binksternet ( talk) 16:23, 31 December 2023 (UTC) reply

and yet you wrote below that the link to "far-right" in the prose is there for reader guidance ergo the references need to be consistent with this definition and I submit they are not nor is there any way to verify they are since the references are not about the topic at hand.

Therefore the statement is unsupported not matter how many (a kind of bandwagon logical fallacy). Ijeffsc ( talk) 00:11, 10 January 2024 (UTC) reply

And for that matter, being an "international, multi-language" newspaper just means it covers stories from around the world in multiple languages, it can still have a far-right perspective in its reporting. Harryhenry1 ( talk) 03:06, 1 January 2024 (UTC) reply

Note that AllSides has a business partnership with The Epoch Times, which makes AllSides non- independent with regard to The Epoch Times: "We have entered into an agreement with the Epoch Times in which AllSides readers who click on Epoch Times content from our website will not hit ET’s paywall. The Epoch Times also recently published our writeup about our latest Blind Bias Survey and may publish op-eds from us in the future. We are hoping to replicate this partnership with other news outlets so that our users can more often access content or try new publishers without encountering paywalls." —  Newslinger  talk 01:18, 30 December 2023 (UTC) reply

All the sources listed AFAICT mention Epoch Times as being Far Right in passing but without the definition provided in the link with that statement in this article. There are no sources suggesting the Epoch Times supports authoritarianism for example.

Also none of the articles is about the Epoch Time per say AFAICT they are general left or left leaning publications that often throw that term around. The publishers may be "generally reliable" per Wikipedia but that doesn't mean these particular articles support or refute the "far-right" statement.

Your quote regarding Allsides is out of context. It is part of an overall transparency statement they make listing several news agencies and connections they have with various institutions. That only strengthens refuting the sources listed.

I refer you to Platt's logic regarding the scientific method. Pilling up many examples to support a hypothesis (in this case "The Epoch Times is Far Right" is weak inference. Strong inference is reliable (wikipedia or other definition) tests of this assertion designed to test or disprove the assertion.

https://bio.research.ucsc.edu/~barrylab/classes/bio183w/PlattSci1964_Strong_Inference.pdf

I suggest other wording. For example: "The Epoch Times is a right/right leaning publication... that has published articles that like any news organization have variable reliability." This would require a different set of references that demonstrated when Epoch times got it right or wrong however.

This kind of statement holds true for any media organization however I think we could some references that note that statements of facts can be less reliable in some organizations than in others. False narratives through innuendo and omissions or out of context quotes (nudge) are nearly universal AFAICT. Ijeffsc ( talk) 15:02, 30 December 2023 (UTC) reply

You are in the wrong place. This page is for suggestions to improve the article "The Epoch Times", based on reliable sources. The determination which sources are reliable is done somewhere else: Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources/Perennial sources. But with that poor reasoning, you do not have a chance. Fact is, what you call "left" in the US is called "center" or "center-right" in other countries that do not have as many lying shit right-wing nutcase politicians. Can you please stop it? -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 15:32, 30 December 2023 (UTC) reply

Also, reliability is determined based on reliability, not on left-right spectra. -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 15:34, 30 December 2023 (UTC) reply

I suggest you are using inappropriate language.

However there are at least two parts to "reliable sources". In the link you provide which I have at least scanned there are at best "generally reliable" sources. That doesn't mean that a given article from any source is particularly good, correct, or reliable.

AFAICT non of the sources listed to support "far-right" actually define nor explain their rational for using such a term. They simply use it in passing so they do not support it's use in this article. Furthermore the Wikipedia definition of far-right doesn't match the subject in this article.

I agree however that left and right are ill defined terms. As noted by others in this talk modifier words like Radical, Far, Extreme applied to left or right are pejoratives and don't have a place here. Ijeffsc ( talk) 17:23, 30 December 2023 (UTC) reply

We don't require our reliable sources to explain themselves. But certainly NBC News gave adequate context for its assessment "...by 2020, it became a megaphone for the U.S.’s most extreme right-wing stories." NBC News described ET as pivoting to support Trump with "right-wing slant and conspiracy theories." And the 2020 timing of this was very revealing: during the period NBC News was describing The Epoch Times as shifting further to the right, AllSides was re-evaluating its stance on ET which was "right" (all-the-way right or far right) from August 2019 to August 2020. After getting swarmed by 7,000 online comments, AllSides changed its rating in August 2020 to "lean right", softening their stance on ET. Astonishingly, they ignored the warning signs from mainstream news outlets, and instead they embraced the 7,000 Falun Gong supporters who were rallied. AllSides was clearly prioritizing their business arrangement with ET over actual facts about ET. In cases like this one, AllSides plummets in reliability per WP:CONTEXTMATTERS. Binksternet ( talk) 17:58, 30 December 2023 (UTC) reply

The quote from AllSides is not "out of context". That AllSides disclosed its business partnership with The Epoch Times does not negate the fact that the business partnership exists and renders AllSides non-independent with regard to The Epoch Times. Your suggestion to disregard multiple independent reliable sources, including high-quality academic sources, in favor of an assessment from a company who has a business partnership with The Epoch Times is not compliant with the WP:BESTSOURCES policy. —  Newslinger  talk 17:02, 30 December 2023 (UTC) reply

@ Newslinger

You have not addressed the issue of the wikipedia definition of far-right wing being unsupported by the sources listed.

Yes out of context is correct since unless one carefully follows the link and reads the whole page a very different impression is given. Also you are using misleading language. AFAIK there is no "business relationship" per the allsides site but there is a transparent relationship to allow readers to judge articles for themselves. "Business relationship" implies some financial remuneration. AFAICT there is no financial relationship between these two entities.

Please try to put your personal biases aside and be objective. Ijeffsc ( talk) 17:16, 30 December 2023 (UTC) reply

The entire page consists of AllSides disclosing "the relationships AllSides has with different media outlets and organizations". A business "partnership" (the word used by AllSides to describe its relationship with The Epoch Times) does not need to involve a monetary transfer to constitute a conflict of interest that makes the involved entities non-independent. The fact that the partnership is publicly disclosed (what AllSides describes as "transparent") does not justify pretending that it does not exist.

Your initial suggestion that The Epoch Times is not far-right because it tends to "complain endlessly about authoritarian regimes like the one in China" is not logically sound, since there are many far-right media outlets (e.g. Breitbart News) that take anti-China stances. As noted in this article, The Epoch Times takes favorable stances on far-right politicians and political parties, particularly in Europe.

The bottom line is that much stronger sources are needed than AllSides (a company with a self-described business partnership with The Epoch Times) to support the claims you are making. —  Newslinger  talk 17:44, 30 December 2023 (UTC) reply

It remains that based on the definition provided by wikipedia in the link in the contested statement does not match Epoch times.

The statement is factually incorrect unless there is some source that demonstrates Epoch Times is "radically conservative, ultra-nationalist, and authoritarian". Ijeffsc ( talk) 21:14, 30 December 2023 (UTC) reply

Your statement "Your initial suggestion that The Epoch Times is not far-right because it tends to "complain endlessly about authoritarian regimes like the one in China" is not logically sound, since there are many far-right media outlets (e.g. Breitbart News) that take anti-China stances." is a logical fallacy - a straw man. Breitbart is not in this discussion as I think you stated earlier neither is the NYT's.

If you take time to read carefully I'm using a significant part of the Wikipedia definition of "far-right" and saying the epoch time is not "radically conservative, ultra-nationalist, and authoritarian". That seems to be the core definition. Ijeffsc ( talk) 21:26, 30 December 2023 (UTC) reply

The mistake here is in the attempt to litigate the far-right label. Wikipedia's purpose is to summarize the reliable sources, which are definitely using the label and also descriptive terms meaning the same thing (extreme right, etc.) The sources have already examined the evidence to arrive at their conclusion. We will not be doing that here. Binksternet ( talk) 21:41, 30 December 2023 (UTC) reply

This is not a logical argument. As noted above by more than just me the terms left and right are ill defined. So in order to use them and the modifier words like "far" one has to have a common definition.

Can any of the authors if this factually incorrect statement show that a) the sources are using a common definition and b) that they were in fact actually evaluating the Epoch Times according to that definition.

If not then the statement is not supported by these sources. Ijeffsc ( talk) 22:57, 30 December 2023 (UTC) reply

We follow the reliable sources, we do not require them to show their work or follow arbitrary 'common definitions' that we come up with. MrOllie ( talk) 23:07, 30 December 2023 (UTC) reply

So you are saying that factually incorrect statements using pejorative terms are perfectly OK? Sorry I find that very difficult to believe nor do I expect such an experience with Wikipedia.

That just sounds like ideology clutching at straws having been caught in a falsehood. Ijeffsc ( talk) 23:13, 30 December 2023 (UTC) reply

I am saying that we rely on sourcing to determine what is factually incorrect or correct, we do not substitute our own judgment for theirs. MrOllie ( talk) 23:15, 30 December 2023 (UTC) reply

(EC) Wikipedia is not logical in that way, we don't aim for internal consistency we aim for consistency with reliable sources. Horse Eye's Back ( talk) 23:08, 30 December 2023 (UTC) reply

Wikipedia doesn't use itself as a source, so the definition on Wikipedia's far-right article is allowed to be inconsistent with other articles. What is important is that this article cite its sources properly, and it does do so - the label is one of the most well-cited statements on Wikipedia. MrOllie ( talk) 22:03, 30 December 2023 (UTC) reply

What is important is that when you have a statement of fact that that statement is supported by the references given.

Simply using the same term without definition does not support this statement (i.e. Far Right). The papers cited are not discussing the Epoch Times per say they are discussing other topics and only mention. No definition other than the Wikipedia definition, which is acceptable to me, has been otherwise provided.

Citing nonsense correctly does not make for logical support of such a statement of fact.

OTOH some of these references discuss accuracy of articles. A challenging topic but I think Epoch Times could be fairly criticized in that regard as can just about every news organization.

So again "Far Right" is not supported properly and is in fact from a more objective perspective a false statement if one accepts the Wikipedia Definition.

Offer a different definition and demonstrate the papers using the term are using the same one and there is a logical conclusion. Otherwise you are in ideological and not logical territory. Ijeffsc ( talk) 23:08, 30 December 2023 (UTC) reply

We don't do logical support, we don't make arguments we just summarize them. If you think that a given source is nonsense the way to address that is to directly challenge the source (the best way to do so is to provide another reliable source). There is no "Wikipedia Definition" of anything, we don't define we just summarize. Horse Eye's Back ( talk) 23:13, 30 December 2023 (UTC) reply

And if you would bother to read above I did just that. However the only available sources are allsides which refutes the statement but also has a methodology for actually rating news organizations.

@ Newslinger claims they are in conflict of interest (my paraphrasing) however and has I think misrepresented the relationship between Epoch Times and Allsides as a business relationship. Since there is no indication of a financial relationship, so far I don't accept the term business relationship nor to I accept conflict of interest. Ijeffsc ( talk) 23:17, 30 December 2023 (UTC) reply

However the only available sources are allsides And the 21 sources currently cited in the article. MrOllie ( talk) 23:22, 30 December 2023 (UTC) reply

Actually there are only 4 sources I counted that are articles about the Epoch Times. The rest only mention the Epoch Times in passing.

Of these 4 sources (but check my count) two are duplicate prose referring to the Epoch Times as "Far-Right".

The statement is not supported period.

However check my counts. Ijeffsc ( talk) 23:33, 30 December 2023 (UTC) reply

I see no policy-based grounds to rule out any of the presently cited sources. MrOllie ( talk) 23:35, 30 December 2023 (UTC) reply

Agreed. If the only available source is an unreliable outlet like Allsides, then this is nothing at all. Most of these media bias outlets purport to provide a methodology of some sort, but that is basically meaningless. Allsides is unreliable in general, and also specifically biased for The Epoch Times due to their relationship with that outlet, and yes, that is very clearly describing a friendly business relationship. In that link, Allsides is bragging about how Epoch republishes their content! Both sites have provided monetarily valuable services to each other. Grayfell ( talk) 23:42, 30 December 2023 (UTC) reply

The fact remains that the statement is false. If you are falling back to arguing "policy" to support a non-factual statement then you have lost. When caught using a definition you then dismiss the definition or wish to change it.

Here's from the Wikipedia Mission:

Wikipedia's purpose is to benefit readers by acting as a widely accessible and free encyclopedia; a comprehensive written compendium that contains information on all branches of knowledge. The goal of a Wikipedia article is to present a neutrally written summary of existing mainstream knowledge in a fair and accurate manner with a straightforward, "just-the-facts style". Articles should have an encyclopedic style with a formal tone instead of essay-like, argumentative, promotional or opinionated writing.

I see nothing here saying false statement backed up by off hand remarks in documents that meet some arbitrary policy while ignoring organizations that actually attempt to evaluate and provide data is in that mission statement.

Folks you have failed in your mission.

A better solution would be to cite a variety of sources evaluations of the paper and represent those. Again I could only find 3 + 1 duplicate in those references.

Another variation would be to remove the definition of far right and note that it is an ill defined term. Ijeffsc ( talk) 23:57, 30 December 2023 (UTC) reply

It isn't a false statement, and it is well supported by the existing citations. We're not going to rule out sources based on criteria you make up on the spot, nor are we going to accept that a well-sourced statement is 'false' simply because you assert that it is. MrOllie ( talk) 00:03, 31 December 2023 (UTC) reply

The statement including the wikipedia link is falsified by the definition provided combined with the text in the article. I've already articulated this above. The author logically falsified their own statements by including a definition which was later refuted.

I had heard that Wikipedia was undergoing culture wars and here it is in spades.

I've withdrawn financial support as of now. I mourn the loss of such a great resource but I'll remain engaged.

I'll once again encourage you folks to return to objectivity as best you can.

Be well. Ijeffsc ( talk) 00:13, 31 December 2023 (UTC) reply

They are remaining objective, it's just clear you're pushing your own biased views by moving the goalposts as much as possible. Harryhenry1 ( talk) 04:36, 31 December 2023 (UTC) reply

On the question of available sources. What I mean here is:

There are only a handful of media rating organizations that do quantifiable ratings of news outlets to determine bias and or reliability. Bias is easier to get at than reliability because we have no absolute gold standard of truth.

This looking like a major credibility issue for Wikipedia because on such articles the most rigorous source Ad Fontes Media is deprecated.

I'm not talking about the Ad Fontes info graphic but rather their published detail data and interactive chart. The later is publicly available.

Since I find Ad Fontes to be somewhat left leaning in terms of bias it is quite concerning that it is not considered a reliable source. I'd also submit that quantitative methods trump qualitative methods and arguments. That's for another forum though. Ijeffsc ( talk) 23:34, 9 January 2024 (UTC) reply

When you say that "Breitbart is not in this discussion", you are missing the point. Your initial comment asserted that The Epoch Times's anti-China stance prevents The Epoch Times from being far-right, which is an argument based on a false premise, since taking anti-China stances and being far-right are not mutually exclusive. Breitbart News, a far-right publication that tends to take anti-China stances, serves as a counterexample that refutes your argument.

Neutrality on Wikipedia entails "representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic", and 22 21 cited reliable sources agree that The Epoch Times is a far-right publication. That you personally disagree with the cited sources, and that you believe that AllSides (a company with an active business "partnership" with The Epoch Times, despite your request for us to overlook it) should reign over all 22 21 of the independent reliable sources listed in Special:Permalink/1192394892#cite_note-far-right-1, does not justify censoring the far-right descriptor from the article; such a change would not be compliant with the neutrality policy (see WP:DUE and WP:BESTSOURCES).

If you read past the first sentence of the Far-right politics article, you would understand that contemporary definitions of far-right politics encompass a more diverse set of ideologies than what you are claiming, including the radical right – see Radical right (United States) and Radical right (Europe) for the relevant articles – and as the present article explains, The Epoch Times has supported far-right parties and politicians that behave in a way that is consistent with the descriptions in the article Far-right politics.

Whether you donate to the Wikimedia Foundation is your prerogative. Either way, the article is not going to be whitewashed to fit your opinion because the arguments you have presented do not meet the requirements established in Wikipedia's policies. —  Newslinger  talk 08:27, 31 December 2023 (UTC) Corrected count 04:14, 10 January 2024 (UTC) reply

@ Newslinger you wrote above:

"This article is about The Epoch Times, not The New York Times; if you have constructive changes to propose to the Wikipedia article about The New York Times that are supported by reliable sources, feel free to suggest them at Talk:The New York Times"

Then you use a similar argument to the one you claim to have refuted by introducing Breitbart. That's a sign of ideological locked in thinking in my books. In addition to your misrepresenting or misunderstanding my statement.

I did not say "Your initial comment asserted that The Epoch Times's anti-China stance prevents The Epoch Times from being far-right". Rather I provided that as one of several examples where the provided definition of "far right" in the form of a link is simply unsupported by any of the references.

Again:

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

Clearly there are a group of ideologically motivated editors clinging to this opening phrase. I'm reasonably certain that if minds would open up a bit we can rephrase things to start moving this thing towards a neutral tone. Ijeffsc ( talk) 00:24, 10 January 2024 (UTC) reply

As far as I can see, every single one of the twenty-one citations for this statement directly describe this outlet as far-right. Getting pedantic over whether or not this supports the term is non-productive. Euphemistically avoiding what reliable sources say in plain terms is not "a more neutral tone". Grayfell ( talk) 00:50, 10 January 2024 (UTC) reply

Your original argument in Special:Diff/1192553522 claimed: "A 'Far Right' paper can't then be international, multi-lingual, and complain endlessly about authoritarian regimes like the one in China." Your argument is incorrect because:

1. Being published in multiple countries and languages has absolutely no bearing on the political orientation of a news outlet.
2. There are many far-right news outlets, such as Breitbart News, that complain about China.

My previous comment "This article is about The Epoch Times, not The New York Times" was in response to Martyrw's unevidenced claim in Special:Diff/1191922992, which stated "If ET is far-right then NY Times is far-left, but of course they're painted as mainstream." The Wikipedia article about The Epoch Times does not describe the political orientation of The New York Times at all; if Martyrw wants to propose a change to how the The New York Times is described on Wikipedia, then they should of course go to Talk:The New York Times to propose that change and provide reliable sources that support their claim. On the other hand, I am not proposing any changes to how Breitbart News is described on Wikipedia in my responses to your comments here, so there is no reason for me to avoid explaining on this page how the existence of Breitbart News invalidates your defense of The Epoch Times.

Wikipedia:Verifiability#cite_note-directly_supports-2 states, "A source 'directly supports' a given piece of material if the information is present explicitly in the source so that using this source to support the material is not a violation of Wikipedia:No original research." Every single one of the 21 independent reliable sources in Special:Permalink/1192394892#cite_note-far-right-1 explicitly states that The Epoch Times is "far-right", so these sources do indeed directly support the far-right descriptor. —  Newslinger  talk 03:49, 10 January 2024 (UTC) reply

Two points:

1)

@ Newslinger you are a master of the straw man argument and out of context quotes. I'll paraphrase again:

The opening statement reads to some of us "The Epoch Times is a fascist international multi-language newspaper and media company affiliated with the Falun Gong new religious movement."

You can substitute the underlined word for any of the terms provided in the link to far right. Do you believe this statement or any other of the combinations of the 16 terms noted above?

Do you really believe that the references provided show that the Epoch Times is a fascist newspaper?

2)

Another question. If a referenced article from a reliable source is actually about the Epoch Times do you not think this is stronger reference than one that is about a different topic but mentions the Epoch Times?

This gets to how we interpret the word "direct". There are gradations though. For example there might be a section in a reference where significant prose are devoted to an analysis of the Epoch times.

Otherwise one could say something like "Epoch times is often referred to as a "far-right" paper but it is unclear what definition is being used in these cases". That is a perfectly factual and correct statement AFAICT. Ijeffsc ( talk) 13:44, 16 January 2024 (UTC) reply

Your comment is strange, because you are invoking a straw man argument while accusing others of doing the same thing, and seemingly not realizing it. Nobody in this discussion is claiming that The Epoch Times is a fascist newspaper, yet that is the straw man argument that you are attacking to push for the removal of the far-right descriptor.

Fascism is a subset of far-right politics. It is incorrect to claim that all far-right entities are fascist because fascist entities only constitute a portion of far-right entities. Let me use an example to illustrate. Dogs are a subset of animals. Grumpy Cat is an animal. However, it would be incorrect to claim that saying "Grumpy Cat is an animal" is equivalent to calling Grumpy Cat a dog, because not all animals are dogs. Likewise, it is incorrect to claim that the article describing The Epoch Times as a far-right publication is equivalent to the article calling The Epoch Times fascist, because not all far-right publications are fascist. —  Newslinger  talk 03:21, 17 January 2024 (UTC) reply

Well. That's not really what I wrote. You took an example and suggest that is my main thrust. It is not.

I said: "

The opening statement reads to some of us "The Epoch Times is a fascist international multi-language newspaper and media company affiliated with the Falun Gong new religious movement."

You can substitute the underlined word for any of the terms provided in the link to far right. Do you believe this statement or any other of the combinations of the 16 terms noted above?

Do you really believe that the references provided show that the Epoch Times is a fascist newspaper?

"

The 16 or so terms in that definition are:

radically conservative, ultra-nationalist, authoritarian, nativist, fascism, Nazism, Falangism, neo-fascism, neo-Nazism, Third Position, alt-right, racial supremacism, chauvinist, xenophobic, theocratic, racist, homophobic, transphobic, reactionary

So which term or terms adequately describe the Epoch Times here? Ijeffsc ( talk) 13:19, 30 January 2024 (UTC) reply

The opening statement reads to some of us "The Epoch Times is a fascist We can only control what the article says, not what folks with poor reading comprehension might think it says. Do you really believe that the references provided show that the Epoch Times is a fascist newspaper?. No. That's why the article does not say that. The 16 or so terms in that definition are: Once again, it doesn't matter what your definition is, only that the reliable sources consistently call it 'far-right'. MrOllie ( talk) 13:33, 30 January 2024 (UTC) reply

I'm sorry but this is simply not true *and* it's not my definition. The definitions of the words in a statement of fact matter. The definition of "far right" is provided in the link. If that definition doesn't match the meaning intended then the statement contradicts itself.

In other words if you or someone can't paraphrase that opening statement using one of the definitions or terms provided then the statement is just false.

@ MrOllie I have suggested alternative wording above. What is your reaction to that? Are you so uncompromising?

The objective here should be to drive to some consensus or compromise. Ijeffsc ( talk) 16:27, 30 January 2024 (UTC) reply

I've gone ahead and indeffed Ijeffsc as NOTHERE. ScottishFinnishRadish ( talk) 16:54, 30 January 2024 (UTC) reply

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

OK thanks @ Binksternet and @ MrOllie.

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

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

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

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

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

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

@ Binksternet wrote:

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

well close enough. I'd paraphrase that

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

@ Hob Gadling @ Firefangledfeathers

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This discussion has been disrupted by block evasion, ban evasion, or sockpuppetry from the following users: 104.232.117.132 ( talk ·  contribs ·  block log ·  spi) 204.131.217.130 ( talk ·  contribs ·  block log ·  spi) ClifV ( talk ·  contribs ·  block log ·  spi) Comments from these users should be excluded from assessments of consensus.

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

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

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

Take [4] as an example:

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

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

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

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

Epoch has a substantial web presence.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

1. Epoch Times is a main subject of the article

2. Reporting on factual occurrences

3. Unambiguous wording

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This discussion has been disrupted by block evasion, ban evasion, or sockpuppetry from the following user: ClifV ( talk ·  contribs ·  block log ·  spi) Comments from this user should be excluded from assessments of consensus.

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

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

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

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

[12]https://foreignpolicy.com/2020/11/02/guo-wengui-steve-bannon-hunter-biden-conspiracies-disinformation/: wording--"Many of the most potent claims have roots with anti-CCP and far-right actors, including the Falun Gong-backed Epoch Times"--open to interpretation whether TET is anti-CCP, far-right, or both.

[15] https://www.theverge.com/2020/5/12/21254184/how-plandemic-went-viral-facebook-youtube: The Verge is not what you would call a political heavy-hitter-- "There is broad consensus that The Verge is a reliable source for use in articles relating to technology, science, and automobiles"

Oddly similar wording between [4]https://www.degruyter.com/document/doi/10.1515/9781503630611-003/html and [10] https://www.nytimes.com/2020/05/09/technology/plandemic-judy-mikovitz-coronavirus-disinformation.html: "she has become a darling of far-right publications like The Epoch Times and The Gateway Pundit" vs. "she became the darling of far-right publications like The Epoch Times and Gateway Pundit". Recommend keeping one or the other. ClifV ( talk) 20:54, 27 February 2024 (UTC) reply

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This discussion has been disrupted by block evasion, ban evasion, or sockpuppetry from the following user: ClifV ( talk ·  contribs ·  block log ·  spi) Comments from this user should be excluded from assessments of consensus.

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This discussion has been disrupted by block evasion, ban evasion, or sockpuppetry from the following user: ClifV ( talk ·  contribs ·  block log ·  spi) Comments from this user should be excluded from assessments of consensus.

Based on the previous discussion of trimming sources and input from the protected edit request, I'd like to re-present the following sources as candidates for removal:

[16]https://fortune.com/2020/08/07/this-moon-landing-video-is-fake/: newsletter summarizes another article which does not apply the label "far-right"; additionally, Fortune magazine not listed as a perennial source for politics, reliability unknown

[7]https://doi.org/10.1515%2Ffjsb-2020-0040: specific to German publication and should be attributed as such

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

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

[12]https://foreignpolicy.com/2020/11/02/guo-wengui-steve-bannon-hunter-biden-conspiracies-disinformation/: wording--"Many of the most potent claims have roots with anti-CCP and far-right actors, including the Falun Gong-backed Epoch Times"--open to interpretation whether TET is anti-CCP, far-right, or both.

[15] https://www.theverge.com/2020/5/12/21254184/how-plandemic-went-viral-facebook-youtube: The Verge is not what you would call a political heavy-hitter-- "There is broad consensus that The Verge is a reliable source for use in articles relating to technology, science, and automobiles"

Oddly similar wording between [4]https://www.degruyter.com/document/doi/10.1515/9781503630611-003/html and [10] https://www.nytimes.com/2020/05/09/technology/plandemic-judy-mikovitz-coronavirus-disinformation.html: "she has become a darling of far-right publications like The Epoch Times and The Gateway Pundit" vs. "she became the darling of far-right publications like The Epoch Times and Gateway Pundit". Recommend keeping one or the other. ClifV ( talk) 20:54, 27 February 2024 (UTC) reply

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

You have some fundamental misunderstandings of sourcing policy on display here. Lack of mention at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources does not mean 'reliability unknown' - read the whole page there for details, particularly the section 'What if my source is not here?'. I am also not convinced that hair-splitting different languages editions would invalidate sources, or that 'similar wording' is some sort of problem to be corrected. MrOllie ( talk) 12:31, 28 February 2024 (UTC) reply

This discussion has been disrupted by block evasion, ban evasion, or sockpuppetry from the following user: ClifV ( talk ·  contribs ·  block log ·  spi) Comments from this user should be excluded from assessments of consensus.

In regards to previous protected edit request and associated list of sources--

First, some established points:

• Reliable sources are cited on the page that describe The Epoch Times as both conservative or far-right
• Far-right is a subclass of conservative; that an entity is labeled as conservative does not preclude it from also being far-right

Second, some points on which I'd like to establish consensus:

ClifV ( talk) 05:30, 28 February 2024 (UTC) reply

Consensus doesn't exist in a vacuum. All sources are judged in context, and you've already made it clear that your goal is to undermine consensus to call this outlet far-right. Wikipedia isn't a platform for PR or advocacy, and similarly (as I suspect you have already been told) Wikipedia isn't for righting great wrongs. These transparent debate-class tactics are not persuasive, to put it mildly. Grayfell ( talk) 06:20, 28 February 2024 (UTC) reply

I don't feel like doing all the sock striking, but FYI: ClifV was blocked as sock of Ijeffsc. The IPs are almost certainly the same person, and Bbb23 has asked to be pinged if they return to editing. Firefangledfeathers ( talk / contribs) 17:19, 28 February 2024 (UTC) reply