Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 12:54, 11 September 2010

China C‑class

This article is within the scope of WikiProject China, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of China related articles on Misplaced Pages. 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 C This article has been rated as C-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

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.

Anyone knows who funds this newspaper?

I'm seeing a lot of Christian ads and articles on its pages, and the day after Obama got his Nobel, they ran a front-page headline proclaiming an 80% opposition rate in the U.S. to the award. The text of the article stated that the figure came from a WSJ.com online poll. Imagine Reason (talk) 15:49, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

note about Epoch Press

I'm not sure how this got in, but it's not relevant to the subject. The Epoch Times is a company. The Epoch Press is another company. The only connection between them is that the latter prints the newspapers of the former. It also prints a lot of other stuff. They're separate businesses, however, with a similar name. The inclusion here doesn't make sense, so I removed it.--Asdfg12345 23:11, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

I remember bringing this up several months ago: Talk:The Epoch Times/Archive 2#Stuff shortened. I thought we had a pretty long discussion, but actually it looks pretty brief. It might be useful to have another, wider discussion now. rʨanaɢ /_contribs 02:39, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

The Epoch Press is inextricably linked to the Epoch Times. There is no need to deny this. The fact that it operates other publications is simply part of a wider Falun Gong public relations scheme to make all of their organizations and companies look as "normal" and "non-Falun Gong related" as possible. I refuse to play another protracted, unproductive game with Falun Gong SPAs. It's extremely ironic that what is being censored from the article is a segment about censorship. Colipon+(Talk) 02:46, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

The Falun Gong are very good at playing the "plausible deniability" game when it suits them, just like they tried for so long to deny the links between NTDTV, Sound of Hope, The Epoch Times. Those denials were smashed when someone incontrovertibly identified leading Falun Gong members, er, practitioners on those boards. Ohconfucius 02:53, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Would you guys mind substantiating those claims? You need a source to claim a connection between Epoch Press and The Epoch Times; prima facie they are unrelated companies. Unless you have something saying they're the same company, it doesn't belong on this page. The onus is on the people wanting to introduce the material. And you don't need to bring out an anti-Falun Gong screed every time these questions come up. Just deal with policy and sources, please.--Asdfg12345 23:17, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

again removed this. No one challenged what I say above. Please do not reinstate the material unless you can give a credible response. (by that I mean, with a source!)--Asdfg12345 02:27, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

oh and about Falun Gong denying the NTD/Epoch Times connection--I don't get it either. I don't see how it's particularly related to this, though. I think the censorship controversy is on the "outside mainland" China page anyway.--Asdfg12345 02:29, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Since nobody is willing to discuss this any further and explain how the section is not an original synthesis of material, I have removed it from the article. As I see it, claiming that the Epoch Press equals to the Epoch Times is just another association fallacy. ✔ Olaf Stephanos ✍ 23:08, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Free no more?

A couple of places in the article it is stated that The Epoch Times is distributed free of charge. That used to be true here (in Seattle) and may still be true elsewhere, but currently in Seattle it is mostly distributed through newspaper sales boxes that charge 50 cents. fwiw --Haruo (talk) 22:27, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Changes by User:PCPP

PCPP, you are editing against consensus again. The business in the text in question has no connection to ET; including it here is an original synthesis. You need to show how they are the same company according to reliable sources. I will not revert because I refuse to edit war, but you need to produce an RS showing how they're the same company, or the text can be removed by anyone. ✔ Olaf Stephanos ✍ 22:43, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Adding back content that is known to be controversial, with no explanation, is disruptive and clear edit-warring behavior. Perhaps PCPP thinks he can keep on trying every couple months without breaking 3RR, but trying to avoid discussion like that is not going to help anyone. I have removed the content; if anyone wants, they can discuss it. rʨanaɢ (talk) 23:09, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Rjanag, please add your voice to the RfC. This individual has been doing this for years. I have learnt to live with it, but there are some outsiders newly taking an interest in the Falun Gong pages, and I do not want them to be deterred by such bad behaviour. PCPP needs to be forced to stop editing any CCP or Falun Gong related pages. Please take a look at the evidence, and at least, you could document this instance. But it's only one part of a disturbing trend. Falun Gong SPAs were banned for far, far less.

Regarding the material itself, it's obviously original research. No source connects the two companies. PCPP knows it, so he doesn't discuss but just reverts. --Asdfg12345 23:16, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Since you were the one who initiated the RfC, I don't think it would be appropriate for me to comment there just now—it might be seen as canvassing. You are free to use the diff of my message above as evidence, though, if you want. rʨanaɢ (talk) 23:19, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Did you click through and look? I thought the point of an RfC is to open up discussion. If everyone is worried about being politically correct, there's no point doing it. It's basically just for an open debate, and I just suggested you add your voice, according to your discretion and experience. A number of outside editors have already done that (some of them completely off topic but that's another issue). I wouldn't worry about someone trying to mar you with a pro-Falun Gong brush or something--that wouldn't happen. --Asdfg12345 23:26, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

This article is a mess of bias and original research. I'm taking a large scythe to it now. Homunculus (duihua) 00:36, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

That's done. I deleted whatever I found that had no source, or whose sole or primary source for substantiating some point was Epoch Times articles themselves (or other Falungong journals). Misplaced Pages isn't a place for original research. I also altered some of the language per NPOV. I would imagine that there could be more balance in the opinions section, but I'm not about to spend time following that up. Homunculus (duihua) 00:43, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

There was a whole section on John Liu that was sourced and none of it considered OR. I noticed parts of it were deleted, but the final sentence was maintained... I think you might have to go back to your surgery of the article and make it a bit more fluid and readable. Colipon+(Talk) 01:11, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

I believe that for the most part Epoch Times is not a reliable source on what is notable about itself. The John Liu information is only notable because other sources have reported it. I only left the last line because that's the only thing I'm aware of traceable to another source. I'm fine with your change to the lead. Better to keep it simple. I agree with your final sentence, and will do that. Homunculus (duihua) 01:17, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Well done for stepping in, Homunculus. the article has been at the mercy of anti-Falun Gong activists for quite a while, and they don't follow wikipedia policy unless they are forced to. It's understandable that you don't want to go searching for other sources, but here are some recommendations. See this link: http://www.straightgoods.ca/2010/ViewArticle.cfm?Ref=554&Cookies=yes, secondly, there is some material from Jiao Guobiao on the main page that is relevant. If I come up with anything else I'll let you know. My six month ban will be up soon, too, so I look forward to helping out directly. --Asdfg12345 12:50, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Asdfg12345, I cannot access that link. Note that I removed the promotional remarks from the top of the page, because they were unrelated to improving the article and unrelated to Misplaced Pages. Advocating for the subject of the articles is OK on blogs, but that should not form an important part of the discussion here. I'm unsure if this was an appropriate step. If someone thinks that was wrong, please restore them. Homunculus (duihua) 01:52, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

I recently read through this page and was moved to make a number of changes. I've become quite familiar with this whole situation over the last several months, and I cannot believe the inaccuracies and outright biases that were and are extant on this page. I have done something to fix some of them, but I will continue researching this topic and make changes accordingly. The removals I made were of outdated material; most revisions were in the direction of removing the anti-Falungong and anti-Epochtimes bias.—Zujine|talk 03:57, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm moving Chang's remark to the Falungong article because it is mainly about Falungong and only a bit about Epochtimes. —Zujine|talk 05:24, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree that it belongs to Falun Gong outside Mainland China. Just took care of it. ✔ Olaf Stephanos ✍ 17:49, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Generally I think these changes are welcome, but I intend to make some modifications; I'm not such a fan of this newspaper. The article did have significant issues though, which you're at least addressing. The Sound and the Fury (talk) 06:35, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

What is going on here? Why are people edit warring? I made a series of edits last week, which were the beginning of my trying to make this page respectable. I find that they were first attacked, then an edit war ensued. I find this conduct highly unprofessional and rather off-putting. Is it that both anti-FLG and pro-FLG people do not want outsiders contributing to the pages? I simply won't work on pages that are being battled over like this. I find PCPP most at fault, however, for using specious claims to reject edits that he didn't like, not engaging in discussion, and reverting against whatever consensus there was. Poor form indeed. —Zujine|talk 17:08, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

I've made my reasons in the edit summaries I've provided. If you disagree with them you're certainly welcome to leave me a message asking for explaination. What I do not like is to have all of my edits blindly reverted by two FLG single purpose accounts, who were previously given 6-month blocks, and suddenly show up at the same time to engage in edit warring.

While I do not disagree with all of your additions, I reverted some of your changes because I disagree with them, and I do not think it's a good idea to balance perceived bias with more bias from the other side. Some of my issues include:

• Michael Savage. Savage is a talking head, not a respectable academic source. Making a passing judgement of Epoch Times does not automatically warrant his inclusion per WP:RS, especially in the same statement Savage admitted that he never read the paper before.

• John Miller. Again, I removed several sentences because they're pure opinions from Miller's editorialization. The paragraph reads much better if it stuck to the actual case Miller mentioned.

• I moved awards section up to the coverage and focus section because they're out of place in the assessment section.

• Rob Anders. From viewing the provided sources, the story has little to do with the Epoch Times, and more about accusations of links between the Chinese government and the local Chinese community.

• Maria Chang. I disagree with your removal of her views, especially considering that it wasn't move to another article as you claimed. I've moved her commentary to the political stance section, as I feel that it has more relevancy there.

So there you go. I'm more than happy to discuss further changes and enquiries.PCPP (talk) 17:44, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

HappyInGeneral has responded below, but here are my responses to your points: 1) Savage seems fine to comment here; he's a well-known commentator that a lot of people listen to, he is influential, and has had a long New Yorker profile about him, etc.; clearly an influential fellow; 2) Miller's editorialisation is itself significant, given his stature in the Canadian media sphere; look him up. 3) The awards are part of this newspaper's 'assessment'; 4) The point is that the Epoch got quoted by a number of other media, which indicates their credibility and influence on the topic; 4) Maria Chang's comments are more relevant to Falungong itself, rather than this media group. I originally meant to move them, but forgot. It seems one of the "FLG single purpose accounts", as you so eloquently label Olaf_Stephanos and HappyInGeneral, moved it to another page, which I agree with. Thank you for your time. —Zujine|talk 18:10, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

1)Sorry, but how does this fit WP:RS? Notability and reliability are two separate issues, and we aren't discussing the notability of the paper here. My previous point still stands.

2)Same with my previous point. The sentence opened with "Epoch Times has been vindicated", which is clearly part of Miller's editorial, yet the paragraph does not clearly state this.

3)Assessments are critical analysis of the paper. The awards paragraph didn't even mention this, so why am I not allowed to move it elsewhere?

4)Again, the problem here is not the notability of the newspaper. There's thousands of news reports out there that mentions activities the Epoch Times, but that doesn't pass for critical analysis.

5)There you go dodging my questions again. And it's funny that Olaf immediately moved the section right after I posted my previous discussion, disregarding my objections to the move.

Sorry but I strongly disagree with your changes. And I certainly don't need my EDITS REVERTED IMMEDIATELY BY THE SAME PEOPLE THAT WERE BLOCKED 6 MONTHS FOR SUCH BEHAVIORPCPP (talk) 18:31, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps you are too invested in this topic, then. Regarding 1), if you are claiming that Savage is not an RS for his views on Epoch, that would have to be taken up elsewhere; we disagree. 2) Miller, broadly, makes the case that "the Epoch was vindicated", though you are right that he does not say that. That is called a "précis". If you can think of a better précis, we could use it. 3) I don't see why assessments are only critical analysis and not also simply remarks about how it has been received; the reception of awards would appear to be part of how the publication has been 'assessed' by the public. However, if you really want to move them, fine. 4) I believe the important point here is that it was only after Anders' interview with Epoch that that story was widely publicised in Canadian media, and it came on the tail-end of a series of publicity coups for the Canadian editors of Epoch, so it warrants a mention; failing to note how the publication is influencing other media would be remiss of us, especially when the evidence in this case is quite clear. 5) Is this the Maria Chang dispute? It relates to Falungong, more than to Epoch itself. That's my view. I'm concerned with how personal things seem to be getting in editing this page. This is an intellectual exercise, not a yelling match or chance to exercise dominance.—Zujine|talk 18:39, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

How so? I'm tired of having every of my edits scrutinized and blindly reverted by the same group of people.

1) As I said, Savage is not an expert on FLG or even the paper, and the problem here is not notability but reliability. His passing commentry has no place in the critical analysis section. Per WP:SPS, "Questionable sources are those with a poor reputation for checking the facts, or with no editorial oversight. Such sources include websites and publications expressing views that are widely acknowledged as extremist, or promotional in nature, or which rely heavily on rumors and personal opinions"

2) That statement borderlines on WP:SYN. Miller's views are those of himself's, and has nowhere "won it credibility among other media groups and in the legal system" as you claimed.

3) As I stated, the awards paragraph only noted the paper receiving such awards, not how or why. It follows on better on the reporting styles section.

4) How so? According to the two sources you provided, neither mentioned the Epoch Times until the very end. The Vancouver Sun article is largely about disputes between the two Canadian parties over alleged spying by foreign governments, and The Vancoucer Courier's report covers criticism of the allegations by the local Chinese community. Ander's comments were only mentioned as "adding fuel to the fire" - neither Anders or the Epoch Times instigated the reports, as you claimed.

5) And Maria Chang details Epoch Times as one of the various branches of FLG used to survive in a Western society. This is highly relevant to the foundings section, perhaps more so that some of your additions. I'm planning to add it back.-PCPP (talk) 19:15, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

I think we may be going around in circles, and it's clear that you're not someone who is about to be convinced (having now checked your contributions, the previous RfC, etc.); you may be used to battling head-to-head with people who have the opposite agenda to you, but I'm really not used to it, and do not want to do that. So I don't have more to add. Although, just on your point 4), Anders' interview with Epoch led to several other articles in other publications, some of them mentioned above; the CBC also did an interview. All that news with Anders only happened after Epoch did their interview, so they set off that chain of media attention, and it shows their influence, in Canada, on that issue (their interview ws cleverly timed, one might notice, given how Hu had recently visited Canada, and given Fadden's comments). But I'm not going to argue around in circles. You obviously brook no compromise, so I will let you and the Falungong editors fight it out. When you're all banned I might start editing again. Have fun! —Zujine|talk 01:41, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Changes by User:PCPP - blind revert, why?

Hello PCPP, please let me explain my edits:

19:30, 24 August 2010 HappyInGeneral (25,525 bytes) (change wording per source)

• Epoch Times does not ask for people to 'renounce' CCP, it asks them to quit and I provided a source for that. Do you find this edit objectionable?

19:31, 24 August 2010 HappyInGeneral m (25,524 bytes) (fix it's name not group)

• Minor edit, fixed the reference. Do you find this edit objectionable?

19:33, 24 August 2010 HappyInGeneral m (25,523 bytes) (technical, fix link)

• minor edit, here the link had an extra space making it look wrong in the reference list. Do you find this edit objectionable?

19:39, 24 August 2010 HappyInGeneral (25,453 bytes) (›Reporting style: the source does not mention how often Epoch Times is mentioned in the media)

• I checked the source and the source makes no mention of how often Epoch Times is mentioned in the media. Do you find this edit objectionable?

19:42, 24 August 2010 HappyInGeneral (25,943 bytes) (›Reporting style: about Canadian MP Rob Anders)

• This source explains how the Canadian government was influenced to grant limited access to Epoch Times. Do you find this edit objectionable?

19:48, 24 August 2010 HappyInGeneral (30,327 bytes) (›Assessments: add back sourced assessments)

• Since this is the assessment section I think John Gordon Miller has a say here. Also Michael Savage (who is commentator not politician, and I'll fix that shortly) who has an 8 million audience, is prominent enough to be mentioned, with his opinion which is attributed correctly to him. Do you find this edit objectionable?

19:49, 24 August 2010 HappyInGeneral (28,860 bytes) (›Coverage and focus: remove redundant paragraph)

• This paragraph was already present bellow so I removed it. I think this paragraph belongs to the assessment section. Do you find this edit objectionable?

19:50, 24 August 2010 PCPP (25,943 bytes) (Undid unexplained reverts) (rollback | undo)

• As you see above the edits where already explained somewhat in the edit summaries. I asked at each edit above "Do you find this edit objectionable?", which is perhaps repetitive and annoying but actually you did do a blind revert and now I'm actually giving you a room to explain which edit you feel is out of place and why.

PS: sorry for the last revert, I did not actually mean it. You see, I selected in firefox several links and I wanted to open them in separate tabs, but one of them was the rollback link, and that is the one that did it. Anyway since it is already done, before reverting back, would you please explain which edit you find objectionable? Thank you very much. Best Regards, --HappyInGeneral (talk) 17:24, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Care to explain why you slowly reverted all of my previous changes (without discussion) , and have Olaf coincidentally show up to assist you in further reverts? You're engaging in the same behavior that got your 6-month ban, I might add.-PCPP (talk) 19:19, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

You have my reasons and attempt of discussion above. For the rest of your comment I'll be candid enough to observe WP:NPA. My best to you --HappyInGeneral (talk) 15:08, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Please point out where I issued personal attacks? I've already had several discussions with Zujine above. You're simply repeating all of his arguments and repeating ad nauseum.--PCPP (talk) 11:21, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

My guess is that refers to "You're engaging in the same behavior that got your 6-month ban," which pretty much does violated WP:TPG, if nothing else. I would appreciate a clear indication on this page of exactly what material is being questioned, on the basis of what sources, and what the proposed changes are and how they would fix the problems. John Carter (talk) 15:08, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

PCPP, your recent edit is this: . I can see that some of it adds value, but I don't understand the reason for the several deletions of important details. I have painstakingly picked through them and reinstored a few details each time, pending a detailed explanation from yourself as to why those details should be deleted, and how their deletion enhances the article. You may find it useful to look at that diff above to see all your changes. Perhaps because you made them one by one, you did not notice how much you removed. Thank you. —Zujine|talk 19:43, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

I have examined the competing edits. I think it's clear that Zujine is being patient and responsible. PCPP's edits seem like an attempt to keep away information he does not like, or to remove important and relevant details that speak favourably of The Epoch Times. ✔ Olaf Stephanos ✍ 22:39, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Zujine: I've already answered most of your questions in the previous section - you're going around in circles here. I've even left much of your material in there, and yet you still haven't answered my previous questions. I find it hypocritical that you can just walk in and change/remove large sections under the guise of "clean-up", yet that I have to explain myself to you whenever edit. I had enough.--PCPP (talk) 07:15, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

And this is getting more ridiculous - I'm not even allowed to summarize a damn quote?

From:

"When Hu Jintao visited Canada in June 2010, the Toronto Star noted that the Epoch Times had: "been publishing some hard-hitting stories in advance of Hu’s visit, including a report on how the Chinese embassy in Ottawa was orchestrating demonstrations in support of the president while he was here." The article went on to note how the Times had obtained a recording of a speech given by Liu Shaohua, the first secretary of the education section at the Chinese embassy in Ottawa, while speaking to a crowd of about 40-50 students receiving Chinese state-scholarships to study in Canada. "In the Epoch Times story, Liu is quoted as saying the embassy is covering the cost of hotel, travel and food for what was estimated to be 3,000 people who were expected to welcome Hu," the Star reported."

to: "During Hu Jintao's visit to Canada in June 2010, the Toronto Star noted that the Epoch Times had published several critical stories, such as allegations of the local Chinese embassy's orchestration of welcome demonstrations, as well as an alleged recording of a speech by the first secretary of education Liu Shaohua, proving accommodation for participants in the welcome parade."

And your addition on Anders is complete OR:

"The CBC and other Canadian media also carried interviews with outspoken Canadian MP Rob Anders, after an exclusive interview with Epoch Times wherein Anders alleged that the CCP uses gifts, business deals and women to influence Canadian political decisions."

vs

"The paper also carried an exclusive interview with outspoken Canadian MP Rob Anders, wherein Anders alleged that the Chinese government used gifts and business deals in attempts to influence Canadian political decisions."

And Michael Savage isn't even a expert on politics - he a talking head that never read an issue of the Epoch Times until 2010. By your logic, we should also add Rick Ross and James Randi's opinions on Falun Gong, right?--PCPP (talk) 07:26, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for the analysis. My question is why it is helpful to reduce the detail in the first example you cite? I do not know these other two people you mentioned, but Michael Savage is a noted conservative political commentator. Of course, he's not popular in my circle, and I find much of what he says downright repulsive. I first heard of him from a piece in the New Yorker. His jingoistic views on many issues are popular among Americans. He is relevant here because he is a political commentator, and as far as I'm concerned The Epoch is primarily a political newspaper. Michael Savage's views on Falun Gong would not be useful for Misplaced Pages, however. Regarding Chang, you are saying that a consensus has not been reached, but could you explain how that differs from simply saying "I disagree"? To me the quote doesn't make sense to begin with: what does it mean to say "for FLG to survive..."? Secondly, it seems more related to Falungong in the first place, so it should go on some regular FLG page. Maybe you can explain your view.—Zujine|talk 19:47, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Here is the fully quote by Chang from the source:

"Political scientist Maria Hsia Chang of the University of Nevada, Reno, author of a book on Falun Gong, says the movement "seems to be treating organisations it has created, such as The Epoch Times, as front organisations to influence public opinion via a concerted information-PR-propaganda campaign".

The most charitable explanation she is able to offer for this strategy "is that Falun Gong's decision-makers are products of the political-social environment in China", where to survive, the movement has to create organisations that are publicly unaffiliated with it.

Such strategies are counterproductive in democratic societies. "Being secretive and deceptive will just play into the image they're a kooky group with something to hide," Chang says."--PCPP (talk) 17:50, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

I am concerned about using Chang as a source here, because a) it is mostly about Falun Gong and thus does not belong here, b) Chang's view on Falun Gong as an "organisation" that has to "survive" by establishing "organisations that are publicly unaffiliated with it" is a minority viewpoint, or at least very strongly disputed by other scholars. Many researchers have pointed out that there is no central Falun Gong organisation, aside from a network of voluntary coordinators and other volunteers. Using Chang as a source here – separated from the larger academic struggle on how Falun Gong practitioners are perceived and actually operate in society – would be highly misleading. And since we cannot turn this page into a Falun Gong article, such major disputes should be kept on their respective pages where all relevant points of view can be described in detail. ✔ Olaf Stephanos ✍ 23:53, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Got any proof that Chang's views are "of a minority"? Your claims borderlines WP:SYN. And Chang's views here are solely presented as her opinions as an academic, not as fact. There is a serious double standard here to dismiss her views yet let a media commentator's views stay.--PCPP (talk) 17:43, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes. Ownby, Porter, Palmer.... none of them characterise Falun Gong as an "organisation". Chang's position is not supported by any fieldwork. Saying that some kind of "Falun Gong organisation" has set up a "publicly unaffiliated" newspaper to "survive" is truly an extreme point of view, and giving it such prominence outside the relevant dispute is certainly a case of WP:UNDUE. It belongs to Falun Gong outside mainland China. ✔ Olaf Stephanos ✍ 00:07, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, your claims are completely synthesised original research. Ownby's statements are of his personal position - they are not facts. Chang's statement's simply points out her different position on the matter - and it's up to the reader to decide. Considering Chang's position as a political scientist and an author of a Falun Gong research paper, her views indeed carry weight as per WP:NPOV. This seems to be another case of your habit of deleting anything critical of Falun Gong.--PCPP (talk) 19:02, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Olaf_Stephanos's argument was that Chang's view is a minority view, I believe; I think you ought to attempt to refute that. You are right that Ownby's statements are his view, and Chang's are her view, but you fail to note the complexity and depth of the dispute (of how Falungong is to be conceived: as an 'organization', or as a 'group of people and set of teachings'). Olaf seems to be arguing that the former is the mainstream, common view, held by most academics and by those who have done field work. The latter is held by Chang.
I find his argument convincing, simply because it is obviously true that Falungong is not an organization, and is, in fact, primarily a set of practices and religious teachings that people study/do. You are not engaging in the substance of that dispute, merely asserting that Chang's view should be included. But is her statement accurate? Does it make sense? And what about the rest of the literature on the topic?
On all of these points you have not engaged. I won't say too much more, merely that from my perspective, one could just as easily observe of PCPP that "This seems to be another case of your habit of adding anything critical of Falun gong." —Zujine|talk 01:07, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Riiiight, first you claim that Ownby's statements are his personal views, and now the claim that "FLG is not an organization" is "true". Sorry, the inclusion criteria on Misplaced Pages is verifiability, not truth - regardless of the personal views, and it's up to the reader to decide on what is "true". Coming from you, there is serious double standard to allow the views of Savage, a person that has absolutely no qualifications on FLG, and a reader's letter from a self proclaimed expert, yet disqualify the views of a political scientist who wrote about FLG. What happened to "addressing all viewpoints" as you proclaimed on the Shenyun page, or does it only apply to pro-FLG views? I am questioning Olaf's statements as being synthesized original research and a case of trying to discrediting the source. Consider the points raised in the previous arbitration case, I am within rights to question Olaf's arguments. Furthermore, if you want to play the game, I can further add that your so called "improvements" to this article consists of nothing but adding pro-FLG bias.--PCPP (talk) 04:45, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Oh dear... I simply meant that in the view of the authoritative sources, FLG is a spiritual practice/group rather than a formal organization; Chang's viewpoint is not the mainstream in this regard, and her comments implicate a whole separate dispute about the nature of FLG. That's the primary complaint, as far as I can tell. If you can show that Savage's views contain a series of presuppositions about the nature of The Epoch that are contradicted by majority sources, then I would have the same problem with him. Do you see the point? On your last comment, I'm not here to play games... and this is getting a little too confrontational for my tastes. —Zujine|talk 15:29, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Not to forget: the other primary problem was that what Chang says mostly related to Falun Gong, not The Epoch Times. Savage does not suffer that problem, either. For those interested in engaging in this, I would prefer that they looked at these points of dispute and analysed them, rather than simply throwing their hat in the pro or anti-FLG ring. —Zujine|talk 16:46, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

There is no rule (and it is not common practice) that a source has to be primarily about the topic of an article to be cited in it. Indeed, many of the sources in this article mention The Epoch Times only in passing. For example, a BBC story, "Bush presses China over currency", gives only a paragraph or two to an Epoch Times reporter. I would only understand this argument if Falun Gong had nothing to do with the Epoch Times, which it seems that only the Epoch Times denies. Quigley (talk) 21:39, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

RFC: Validity of sources used in the article

Please consider joining the feedback request service. An editor has requested comments from other editors for this discussion. Within 24 hours, this page will be added to the following list: Politics, government, and law When discussion has ended, remove this tag and it will be removed from the list. If this page is on additional lists, they will be noted below.

Should two disputed sources, by Maria Chang and Michael Savage respectively, warrant inclusion in this article?--PCPP (talk) 12:44, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

In my opinion, statements by a scholar like Chang carry far greater weight than those of a columnist like Savage. Martin Rundkvist (talk) 20:31, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Comment, Michael Savage is well known as an extremist demagogue in the United States (and in the United Kingdom, from where he is banned for hate speech); his statements should be carefully qualified if they appear in the article. But I don't think his comments, as empty praise/condemnation of the newspaper, are as necessary as, say, the scholarly analysis of Maria Chang. Include Chang, ditch Savage: if editors want to find praise for Epoch Times, they can find much better commentators than Savage.

Sidenote: in the current revision, Savage is included while Chang is excluded. Readers can see the text attributed to Chang in this old version of the page. It should say political scientist instead of "politician scientist"; Maria Chang is not a politician. Quigley (talk) 22:05, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Comment - Not at all an expert in this field, but after cursory review I think I largely agree with the two comments above (i.e. Chang good. Savage bad). NickCT (talk) 22:23, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Comment - The argument is solely about giving undue weight to a heavily disputed and controversial viewpoint in this article. See WP:UNDUE: "In articles specifically about a minority viewpoint, the views may receive more attention and space. However, such pages should make appropriate reference to the majority viewpoint wherever relevant, and must not reflect an attempt to rewrite content strictly from the perspective of the minority view. Specifically, it should always be clear which parts of the text describe the minority view, and that it is in fact a minority view. The majority view should be explained in sufficient detail that the reader may understand how the minority view differs from it, and controversies regarding parts of the minority view should be clearly identified and explained." If someone insist on including Chang's words, they must be properly contextualised per WP:NPOV, so that everyone will see that Chang is by no means representing an academic consensus. At the same time, it would mean that the focus is further shifted from The Epoch Times to academic controversies on the nature of Falun Gong. There are separate articles for that; the apparent reason for avoiding this crucial point is merely ideological struggle. (I take no stance on Savage.) ✔ Olaf Stephanos ✍ 00:02, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

You've repeatedly asserted that Chang's view is a "minority viewpoint", but haven't substantiated it. Before, you have said that Chang refers to Falun Gong as a "group" rather than your preferred "set of beliefs", but that red herring controversy is not part of the text that goes into this article. Her comment is directly relevant to The Epoch Times because it explicates the newspaper's well-known connections to Falun Gong, and its denials of that; it would be a disservice to our readers to hide or bury it. Quigley (talk) 00:16, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

I'll comment some more on this later. For now, I'd like to point out that Chang's argument is disputed precisely in its portrayal of Falun Gong; just take a look at the Falun Gong articles and their controversies. The Epoch Times has not denied that a large number of its founders and employees practice Falun Gong. But they're not members of any Falun Gong organisation, because no such formal organisation exists and therefore cannot create any sub-organisations. In other words, The Epoch Times has no parent organisation. "The Epoch Times was founded in 2000 by a group of Falun Gong practitioners who understood the vital need in the Chinese community for an honest media outlet. Soon dissidents and others who simply wanted a chance to express their true views on the important questions of the day began appearing in the pages of The Epoch Times, and the Chinese community realized it had a trusted source of information." ✔ Olaf Stephanos ✍ 01:24, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Chang did not say that Falun Gong was an organization, or that the Epoch Times had a parent organization. Quoted from the source, " says the movement 'seems to be treating organisations it has created, such as The Epoch Times, as front organisations to influence public opinion". Front organizations need not be controlled by another organization; they need only serve a party or interest (e.g. documenting persecution of Falun Gong, deriding the CPC), while purporting to serve another interest (e.g. objectivity). Quigley (talk) 02:40, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

I can see Olaf's point; I checked their marketing page and they are almost boastful on the FLG link. Generally I find Chang to be something of a dilettantish observer of FLG, always more prepared to provide a slogan (what does “concerted information-PR-propaganda campaign” mean, exactly?) than present a sensitive and well thought-out argument. The implications of Chang's views are the dispute, because this way of looking at Falun Gong practitioners is a minority viewpoint; it is first of all inaccurate, in how it posits an organization rather than individuals, and secondly it is stigmatizing and irrelevant to the Epoch Times. Turning her rhetoric into plain English would be a summary simply saying that “Maria Chang believes The Epoch Times was set up to represent Falun Gong’s viewpoint in the public sphere.” Delete Savage, too. The Sound and the Fury (talk) 01:33, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Think what you wish, but Ms. Chang's book on Falun Gong is generally found to be well-researched and authoritative. Public relations and propaganda means exactly what it means in English. As I said to Olaf above, Chang does not "posit an organization rather than individuals", she was speaking of a "movement". The Falun Gong connection is relevant to the Epoch Times as much as the Chinese Communist Party connection is relevant to the Global Times.

Your proposed summary misrepresents her analysis (which is hardly 'rhetoric'): she does not only say that the Epoch Times represents Falun Gong, but that it was established to appear unconnected to Falun Gong but to propagate pro-Falun Gong PR. And that obscure unmanaged link buried deep inside the Epoch Times website didn't establish any "connection" between it and Falun Gong. It simply portrayed the founders as group of concerned "Chinese-Americans" who saw media not report on persecution of Falun Gong and thus decided to create this wonderful newspaper that would "truly people stay informed about the issues that affect their neighborhoods, their country and their world". The naked denial of an agenda (despite having one) is consistent with Chang's analysis. Quigley (talk) 02:40, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Agree with Quigley. Colipon+(Talk) 05:17, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Endorse the poignant observations of Quigley. --Ohconfucius 12:54, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

• C-Class China-related articles
• Unknown-importance China-related articles
• C-Class China-related articles of Unknown-importance
• WikiProject China articles
• Misplaced Pages controversial topics
• Misplaced Pages requests for comment