| Revision as of 03:44, 22 December 2010 editAsdfg12345 (talk | contribs)Pending changes reviewers6,640 edits →Recent edits: unbelievable.← Previous edit |
Latest revision as of 00:16, 2 August 2024 edit undoIsi96 (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users16,129 edits →protected: ReplyTag: Reply |
| (91 intermediate revisions by 56 users not shown) |
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
|
{{WikiProject China|class=Start}} |
|
{{WikiProject banner shell|collapsed=yes|class=Start|1= |
|
{{WikiProject Religion|class=Start|importance=|FalunGong=yes|FalunGongImp=}} |
|
{{WikiProject China|importance=Low}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Religion|importance=Low|NRM=yes|NRMImp=mid|FalunGong=yes}} |
|
== Citation == |
|
|
|
{{WikiProject Television |importance=Low |television-stations-importance=low |television-stations=yes}} |
|
"According to the LA Times, the news station promotes ] and receives large sums of donations from the organization each year. NTDTV has aired some of the most ridiculous events hosted by their supporters, especially when ] claimed that he could fly into the sky near his home in Chicago, Illinois. However, he did not succeed and blaimed the failure on the poor weather. (], Mar.19,2004)" |
|
|
|
}} |
|
|
{{Annual readership}} |
|
|
{{Contentious topics/talk notice|fg|long}} |
|
|
{{merged from|New Tang Dynasty Television (Canada)|28 September 2019}} |
|
|
{{archives}} |
|
|
{{archive basics|counter=2}} |
|
|
|
|
|
|
== protected == |
|
I added "according to" a few days ago when I first saw this because I was rather incredulous. I also could not find this in the LA Times when I searched. I have several reasons for disbelieving the accuracy of this citation. |
|
|
: First, NTDTV may be run largely by practitioners, but Falun Gong and NTDTV are institutionally separate. Funding sources I know of for NTDTV are ads and its yearly gala. If any Falun Gong association really gave NTDTV money, I find it difficult to believe there was not a business reason for it, as practitioners also know the Epoch group media to be separate (financially and organizationally) from Falun Gong, and would know to treat them as such. This citation does not address any such reasoning, or explain alternate reasoning. |
|
|
: Second, Li Hongzhi lives in New York, not Chicago. |
|
|
: Third, according to the principles Li teaches, supernormal abilities are not to be displayed in public. In teaching Falun Dafa, I know of no exceptions made for his own except for a few conventions and fairs and such where he and some practitioners had a booth for qigong healing in order to promote Falun Dafa. Attempts like this one to displaying a supernormal ability make no sense. |
|
|
<small><span class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 21:30, 9 December 2006</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
{{yo|Isi96}} and {{yo|DanMan3395}} please discuss the issues in dispute here, if edit warring resumes whent the current protection expires, blocks are the likely response. ] ] 00:36, 31 July 2024 (UTC) |
|
== AAP article == |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
:I placed a warning template on their talk page, but they didn't respond. ] (]) 00:41, 31 July 2024 (UTC) |
|
http://www.clearwisdom.net/emh/articles/2007/3/28/83983.html --just keeping useful references.--<font style="bold">]</font><font color="black" style="bold">]</font> 19:41, 28 March 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
::https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view - the content removed violates the neutral point of view policy. Misplaced Pages is not a venue for personal opinion based bias. The content is opinion based and the citation sources are themselves opinion based. There is no value in putting personal political perspectives on here as it will just lead to edit warring on any subject that has any political underpinning at all. If you want to claim that Tim Pool is a right wing activist you need to cite a quote from him to that affect. Anything else is just opinion and/or conjecture. ] (]) 18:08, 1 August 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::Correction - "That NTD News is a right wing activism outlet". Confused 2 vandalism removals with each other. ] (]) 22:35, 1 August 2024 (UTC) |
|
== Warning to Asdfg to not undo other's edit == |
|
|
|
:::As previously mentioned, see ], ] and ]. ] (]) 00:16, 2 August 2024 (UTC) |
|
Asdfg, you have undone many of my edit, only to fail in defending your reason. If you unilatterally make undo/archive/move my edit without good reason, I will lodge a complaint agains you. |
|
|
|
|
|
The edit I'm about to make in this page pertains to NTDTV's affaliation with Falun Gong. This fact is documented by the US Congress (ref: Thomas Lum's CRS report, page CRS-8.) |
|
|
|
|
|
If you touch my edit I will file a complaint against you!!! |
|
|
] (]) 09:18, 8 January 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
I am really sorry to have caused you grief, I have only undone your edits when they violated wikipedia policies. What you did there is fine--that is a sourced statement. I am just against you breaking wikipedia policies, and spamming talk pages, but I think apart from that you are bringing a unique contribution to wikipedia, and I will not criticise you for that.--<font style="bold">]</font><font color="black" style="bold">]</font> 11:12, 8 January 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Disputing Asdfg's baseless accusation of "breaking Misplaced Pages policies", "spamming talk pages" == |
|
|
I deny your accusations and demand you produce evidence to support your accusation. |
|
|
] (]) 19:15, 8 January 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Suspect Bad Faith Editing, seeking RfC == |
|
|
|
|
|
Asdfg, why did you, once again, blank out the fact NTDTV is affiliated with Falun Gong. Now this article is, again like your other blaking, void of this fact. This is not the first time you have done this. If you don't like the wording there are better ways to fix it than blanking out relevant fact for the article. |
|
|
|
|
|
Why are you, as a Falun Gong disciple, so ASHAMED of this fact??? |
|
|
] (]) 07:17, 30 January 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
I didn't blank it. I moved it from the first sentence to a more appropriate place. I actually don't have a problem here. I just thought it looked clumsy the way it was, so I changed it. I thought saying it was founded by practitioners was sufficient to establish the link. I just incorporated both points in that sentence now to make it flow better.--<font style="bold">]</font><font color="black" style="bold">]</font> 20:27, 30 January 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
: Yes you did blank it out. Here's the proof: |
|
|
: http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=New_Tang_Dynasty_TV&diff=187836173&oldid=187181277 |
|
|
: As you can see, after your blanking, the article is void of the fact. This is against ]. Please stop ] (]) 05:10, 31 January 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
Oh sorry, it was already there. My mistake. I did blank it from the top sentence. The idea was that it was mentioned already and it just looked odd to mention it three times. As I say, I am treating this as any other kind of editorial thing, I´m not concerned about the Falun Gong link. It´s like if I was editing an article on a soccer team, and it mentioned that the lead goalkicker in the team was Bobby Fletcher three times in the introduction. I would just make it mention it once, in context, like this time. Hope you know what I mean.--<font style="bold">]</font><font color="black" style="bold">]</font> 11:21, 31 January 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
: No, the diff link provided above show you blanked not only the first line, but also the sourced citation to Lum CRS report. Your other blanking have consistently demonstrated your ] in trying to hide this fact in relevant articles. Why are you looking for a fight and attacking other editor? You have repeatedly blanked my edit and call me names like "nortorious", "callous". This is not what wikipedia is about. |
|
|
: I have so far edited in good faith, provided well researched neutural(non CCP) sources, stayed on-topic in Talk. Yet you accuse me of ]? Please look at your own behavior as comparison. |
|
|
:] (]) 18:21, 31 January 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
Thanks. I will look within more. Now it mentions all the necessary information. I haven´t meant to do anything wrong and I don´t want to hide anything. I appreciate your correcting my mistakes and pointing out my shortcomings.--<font style="bold">]</font><font color="black" style="bold">]</font> 23:17, 31 January 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
==resources to add to page== |
|
|
|
|
|
this is an article about CCP interference: http://www.theage.com.au/news/national/china-pressured-state-mps-to-skip-show/2008/03/30/1206850707183.html |
|
|
|
|
|
== Controversy vs. Opposition == |
|
|
|
|
|
Hello Kupredu, please don't delete sourced information as you did here . If you wish to let us know which part of the sourced information you disagree this is the place to do it. Thank you! --] (]) 22:22, 27 March 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
: Here are the objections that I have with your edit, also see references to Misplaced Pages policies. Hope this will help. |
|
|
:# You said that: “According to observers in China, ...“ but you gave the Chinese Embassy’s web site as a source. In this case this statement falls under the ], it’s better to clarify the source which in this case is the ] |
|
|
:# You said that: “... NTDTV spreads slanderous rumors against China and broadcasts anti-China programs such as the the so-called ...” but you did not provide any context, this is why I inserted the why is the Chinese Embassy saying that. See ]. Also I think that you agree that NTDTV is critical toward the Chinese Communist Party and not toward the Chinese Citizens, and so saying that NTDTV is against China is a big distortion of the truth, it is more accurate to say that NTDTV is critical toward the ruling party. |
|
|
:# Your latest edit added this: “... and of insulting and distorting Chinese culture.”, who said that? If this is only your opinion then I would recommend reading the following Misplaced Pages policies ] and ]. |
|
|
:# So far you only reverted but did not engage in discussion. See ]. Please be advised that only reverting without discussion can get you banned. |
|
|
: I understand that you might not have lots of experience editing Misplaced Pages, this is why I would recommend checking out ] which will help you understand what is Misplaced Pages and how you may become a valuable contributor to Misplaced Pages the 💕. |
|
|
--] (]) 00:52, 28 March 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Balancing article. == |
|
|
|
|
|
I ] to balance out the article in accordance with ]. Too many mainstream sources were not given due attention and the intro was more or less worded like an advertisement. If there are any issues arising from this edit I respectfully ask that it would be discussed here first. ]+<small>(])</small> 06:33, 8 August 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
I think some of the changes are improvements, while some of them aren't. I'll be back with more later.--<font style="bold">]</font><font color="black" style="bold">]</font> 15:40, 8 August 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== I have serious doubts regarding this source == |
|
|
|
|
|
Hello, could you please point me on your source on ? I looked for the and for the but no real source came up. --] (]) 21:39, 6 November 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
*It happens from time to time that sources don't show up. shows at least that such a source exists, and it looks very much like the article I read. I seem to recall I didn't put the link into the ref because it was a third party link (thus not fully WP compliant) but I'm confident it wasn't a hoax, possibly CESNUR or Rickross, although I can't find it again right now. I've reinstated the text for the moment but with a {{tl|verify source}} tag. I trust that at least takes care of your most immediate concern. There is no requirement anywhere that sources cited are online — Indeed, many sources are unavailable online. The only requirement is for the information to be ]. Another suggestion: go to a library and check out the microfilm. ] ] 03:40, 7 November 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
*Also, () seems to suggest the 'Universal Communications Network' is indeed linked to NTDTV. ] ] 04:07, 7 November 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
==Recent edits== |
|
|
Can PCPP please explain why Shen Yun deserves a section on this page? Seems absolutely bizarre. Olaf removed it, but PCPP put it back? Do not understand. Try discussing before pulling the trigger. --<font style="bold">]</font><font color="black" style="bold">]</font> 15:12, 20 December 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
:Simple. There is no consensus to remove the material on the page whatsever, especially since it's there from the beginning. The sources mentioned NTDTV and its links with airing of "Chinese New Year Spectacular", with particular incidences such as airing of the program in South Korea, and the Chinese embassy report which specifically mentioned NTDTV. Your edits seems like a knee-jerk attempt to revert everything I change, which is why you deliberately reverted to the Emikoking's vandalized version.--] (]) 18:23, 20 December 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
:And here are several Epoch Times articles that specifically mentioned the show was produced by NTDTV, with absolutely no mention of Shen Yun.--] (]) 18:41, 20 December 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
::Those reports are from 2007, so how are they relevant? It would probably be a good idea to mention that NTDTV used to host the Chinese New Year Spectacular, and I will amend the article to say that now. Please actually talk about why the material is relevant and requires a section, and how it is related to Shen Yun? It says CNYS, but links to Shen Yun? Isn't that a bit odd? I would indeed be interested to hear what other editors thought of all this. I am pretty confident that I'm not the one who is misbehaving. --<font style="bold">]</font><font color="black" style="bold">]</font> 00:49, 21 December 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
::Another thing is this paragraph: ''The ''Wall Street Journal'' reported in 2004 that the journal is registered as Universal Communications Network, which names top FLG spokesman Gail Rachlin as one of its three directors. It said "Where and are controversial is in their unwillingness to identify themselves as having any association with the group, despite ample evidence to the contrary."<ref>{{cite news |author=Susan V. Lawrence |title= Falun Gong Adds Media Weapons In Struggle With China's Rulers |work=Wall Street Journal (Eastern edition)|date=April 14, 2004 |page=B.2I }}</ref>'' -- I would suggest this does not make much sense, given that on their website they state ''"In 2001, a group of professionals and businessmen connected through their common practice of Falun Gong conceived the idea of an independent Chinese TV network and took the lead"''. Interested in other editors thoughts on how it is now relevant? -- <font style="bold">]</font><font color="black" style="bold">]</font> 00:58, 21 December 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
:::The articles on Chinese New Year, in particular the incident in South Korea, are relevant because NTDTV is mentioned directly as being involved, from both the Chinese embassy source and the Epoch Times. I have no idea why Shen Yun is added though. And the NTDTV page mentioned that the founders are ideologically linked to FLG, whereas in the WSJ article, the founders denied being a sub-organization of FLG, and insisted on their financial independence. That's quite a difference.--] (]) 11:04, 21 December 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
::::The purpose is to show the relationship between FLG and NTDTV, is it not? Then let us just quote what NTD says on its website--no? I can see the sense in mentioning NTDTV and the Chinese new year thing, but it has nothing to do with Shen Yun, and doesn't need to be a whole section in the article. A few lines should be fine. Explain if you disagree. --<font style="bold">]</font><font color="black" style="bold">]</font> 18:18, 21 December 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
*Also, I have some questions regarding your recent edit. Allow me to enumerate them, and please be sure to give a sensible response to each point: |
|
|
#Why did you remove the info about HR in the lede? Is that not relevant? You deleted that. Why? |
|
|
#Why did you say that it is the "anti-CCP" stance that characterises the station, and not its emphasis on human rights? Do you think these are the same? Why would you change the wording like that? What source do you rely on for that change? |
|
|
#Why did you change it from ''NTDTV used to host...'' to saying that they "produce and televise" the Chinese New Year show? The second is not true, and you know that. Furthermore, the link you gave is to Shen Yun, the NYT review. Why? And why is the Chinese Embassy quoted on that topic? Are they a reliable source on the show? Why should their view be registered on the NTD page? |
|
|
#Why did you change the section to de-emphasise the Eutelsat issue? Why did you make it say "anti-CCP stance" again? Why did you word it like "''which RSF used to claim"'' about the voice recording, as though that discredits it? Why not just state what RSF's claims were, rather than using such language to discredit them in the same breath? |
|
|
#Why did you make those language changes in the paragraph beginning "On 20 August, 2008..." -- like remove "increasingly bogus", etc. Why? --<font style="bold">]</font><font color="black" style="bold">]</font> 18:32, 21 December 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::*#Why do you want to remove the WSJ article? The WSJ is a reliable source, and it demonstrated that NTDTV is financially registered to another organization, not FLG. |
|
|
#Because directly calling it "pro-human rights" is a POV opinion, just as it is to call it an "anti-China propaganda station". It's well known for it's anti-CCP stance, so lets leave it at that. I've changed the phrasing so it reads that it focuses on issues such as human rights in China. |
|
|
#You have no evidence that NTDTV "used" to host the Chinese New Year show. It still does - the Epoch Times articles mentioned that NTDTV is the producer of the show, and NTDTV's own website mentioned that they televise it as well. |
|
|
#The Chinese Embassy source is directly attributed to them - there's no more reliable sources on the views of the Chinese government than that. It contrasts with NTDTV's accusations of interference. |
|
|
#There is no need to dedicate three large paragraphs and a separate section to an old issue. The claims by RSF etc were never actually proven, and Eutelsat specifically denied the charges. Merging it with the paragraphs about Chinese interference in South Korea well illustrates the censorship issues that NTDTV faces. I've rephrased the RSF sentence nevertheless.--] (]) 02:32, 22 December 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
:#I do not want to remove the WSJ article, nor did I suggest doing that. I asked why the relationship to Falun Gong is not expressed simply and clearly using the NTD source. I will put that in now. |
|
|
:#How is it a point of view opinion to say that the station is "pro human rights"? Where did you get the source that it is "anti-CCP"? |
|
|
:#There is evidence all over the place that it used to host the show; the point is that the Chinese New Year Show is different to Shen Yun; as long as that is clear, I'm fine. Just don't link out, and just make the situation clear, rather than muddying it. Their broadcasting it is different from their hosting it, I'm sure you will agree. |
|
|
:#I asked you why the Chinese Embassy view is relevant, not whether it is reliable for its own views. My question is: why is the CCP's view a view that shoudl be stated on the matter? I'm removing it. |
|
|
:#This is fine; it is one incident of interference/censorship--fine to put it in a section that deals with the several incidences of censorship etc. --<font style="bold">]</font><font color="black" style="bold">]</font> 02:50, 22 December 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::This is getting confusing, but I think we are making some progress (that is rare!), please answer me these questions three: |
|
|
::*Why remove the "pro human rights" language--is this in dispute? |
|
|
::*Why include the NYT ref when that talks of Shen Yun, which is different from Chinese New Year thing? |
|
|
::*Why is the CCP a relevant source? Do you see Falun Gong spokespeople quoted when the CCP wheels out its propaganda troupes around the world? So why should CCP be quoted here? --<font style="bold">]</font><font color="black" style="bold">]</font> 03:33, 22 December 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::*Yes, "pro-human rights" is an opinion which the station uses to advertise itself. In contrast, it a factual statement that NTDTV is anti-CCP. |
|
|
*So are you saying Shen Yun's CNY show is completely different from NTDTV's? |
|
|
*The Chinese government is a notable source, whether you like it or not. The fact that Chinese embassy bothered to comment on NTDTV only showed NTDTV's notability.--] (]) 03:39, 22 December 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
Shen Yun doesn't have a Chinese New Year show. This is obviously ridiculous. You are not interested in discussion, because you are not responding to my arguments. You say pro-human rights is an opinion used as advertisement, but anti-CCP is a fact? Your last point makes the least sense of all, and in no way responds to the relevance of the CCP's views to the show--is the CCP an appraiser of Chinese dance? Is it a reliable source on Falun Gong topics? This is simply dumb. --<font style="bold">]</font><font color="black" style="bold">]</font> 03:44, 22 December 2010 (UTC) |
|
