Revision as of 03:41, 25 May 2006 editKungfuadam (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users21,772 editsm Reverted edits by Web spy killer (talk) to last version by HappyInGeneral← Previous edit |
Latest revision as of 17:14, 26 October 2024 edit undoThebiguglyalien (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, New page reviewers19,542 edits →Semi-protected edit request on 22 October 2024: not doneTag: 2017 wikitext editor |
Line 1: |
Line 1: |
|
|
{{Talk page header}} |
|
|
{{FAQ|collapsed=no}} |
|
{{controversial}} |
|
{{controversial}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject banner shell|collapsed=yes|class=B| |
|
|
{{WikiProject Religion|importance=Low |NRM=yes |NRMImp=mid |FalunGong=yes}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Newspapers |importance=Low}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Journalism |importance=Low}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject China |importance=low}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject United States |importance=Low |AsianAmericans=yes}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject New York City |importance=Low}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Conservatism |importance=Low}} |
|
|
}} |
|
|
{{Contentious topics/talk notice|fg}} |
|
|
{{Contentious topics/talk notice|ap|brief}} |
|
|
{{Annual readership}} |
|
|
{{Blank and redirect notice|Weidong Guan|<span class="bday dtstart updated">2024-06-05</span>|talk=no}} |
|
|
{{User:MiszaBot/config |
|
|
|algo = old(90d) |
|
|
|archive = Talk:The Epoch Times/Archive %(counter)d |
|
|
|counter = 5 |
|
|
|maxarchivesize = 250K |
|
|
|archiveheader = {{tan}} |
|
|
|minthreadstoarchive = 1 |
|
|
|minthreadsleft = 4 |
|
|
}} |
|
|
|
|
|
|
== ET is conservative, not 'far-right' == |
|
==Employing Falun Gong people?== |
|
|
Is there any truth in the allegations that ''The Epoch Times'' employs a disproportionate number of Falun Gong practitioners? That might warrant an mention, if true... |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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 Misplaced Pages, although I used to every year. ] (]) 16:35, 26 December 2023 (UTC) |
|
Wall Street Journal once ran an investigation on Epoch Times's tax records, and found that XU Kangang, a FLG speaker, is the chairman of the paper's board. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
: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: ] (]) 20:00, 26 December 2023 (UTC) |
|
:Hello!? It's the "Epoch" Times, isn't it transparent from the name what it's all about? Don't people know what Falun Gong is about any more? |
|
|
|
::That's a subjective response. I can cite just as many references stating how the NY Times gives falsehoods and is far left. Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages'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. ] (]) 21:59, 26 December 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
:::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 Misplaced Pages is skeptical and rigorously factual. In fact, the polarization started in 1994 with Newt Gringrich. The polarization has been driven by right-wing elements, especially the ]. 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. ] (]) 22:24, 26 December 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
::Yet you believe all the quotes from far left sources. Just like the writer of this hit piece on ET. ] (]) 14:34, 12 April 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
::. I would point out that 2 dozen left-leaning journalists from other news organizations, who are generally in lock-step when it comes to spinning narratives, might be seen to have a vested interest in labeling ET as "far-right." That is a clear conflict of interest, and should call their characterization immediately into question for the average reasonable person, but no analysis was done here in that regard; like so many, the author has accepted their labeling without question or critique. |
|
|
::. Bit of a dodge, that: "I didn't call them far right; 'reliable sources' called them far-right (and never mind that the only 'reliable sources' allowed to be cited on Misplaced Pages are all left-leaning)." |
|
|
::. The exact same thing is happening in the political spectrum: people of one party accept without question their party's characterizations of those in the other party, and no one questions if they might have self-serving motives for doing so. |
|
|
::. Imagine two competing ambulance-chasing lawyers put out a series of ads, each one attacking the other with name-calling and half-truths. Why would you believe either one of them implicitly? Why wouldn't you investigate for yourself and make up your own mind? |
|
|
::. I understand, of course; NBC, CBS, NYT, WaPo, and their ilk can't have their regular viewers and readers popping over there and getting a perspective that may differ significantly from the "sacred narrative." |
|
|
::. But I expected more from Misplaced Pages. Looks like Larry Sanger is right despite my initial skepticism, and Misplaced Pages really has become just another mouthpiece for establishment orthodoxy narratives, rather than "a collaborative encyclopedia of opinion." There are some legitimate news sources that you can no longer cite on Misplaced Pages. |
|
|
::. To paraphrase The Onion, it appears that Misplaced Pages is now dedicated to the free exchange of idea. ] (]) 13:01, 7 August 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
::::Misplaced Pages exists to summarize the literature on a topic. When we observe a consensus in the literature, we relay that fact to the reader. We don't try to conduct "analysis" to investigate why they are in agreement. |
|
|
::::Your ambulance-chaser analogy is an example of both-sidesism, a form of ] in which two parties are depicted as equally bad when one is orders of magnitude worse. ] (]) 15:13, 7 August 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
: This article is about ''The Epoch Times'', not ''The New York Times''; if you have constructive changes to propose to the Misplaced Pages article about '']'' that are supported by ], feel free to suggest them at ]. 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 {{slink|Special:Permalink/1183093559#cite_note-far-right-1}} for the current list. Your suggestion that the article is {{!xt|"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 ]; 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 ], so it is unclear why your comment implies that the article is describing ''The Epoch Times'' as such. — ''''']''' <small>]</small>'' 03:08, 27 December 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
::Article calls TET "far-right" and links the to the WP article that describes far-right as authoritarian.] (]) 13:27, 10 September 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
:How much is Falun Gong paying y'all to keep opening the same complaint on this talk page over and over again? ] (]) 11:11, 23 January 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
:Well said. This entire entry is a hit piece and reads like it was written either by Beijing or the NYT. Take your pick. ] (]) 14:31, 12 April 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
::Ah yes, known collaborators the Beijing government and the ]. 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. ] (]) 14:34, 12 April 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
:The Epoch Times has a different political position depending on the region. In the United States, it is a Trumpist far-right media, but in Hong Kong, it is a pro-democracy camp, or radical liberal. In China, the pro-Chinese Communist Party is a far-right stance. ] (]) 10:27, 30 April 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
::You got any reliable sources we can use? ] (]) 10:45, 30 April 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
:::I doubt it. ] (]) 10:57, 30 April 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
::::Same, but it is important to emphasize that, because Misplaced Pages is based on reliable sources, it is pointless to complain here. Email or call reliable sources and complain there, make sure they write what you want them to. Misplaced Pages will follow the reliable sources. ] (]) 11:01, 30 April 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::In the United States, the Epoch Times speaks for far-right populism, but in Hong Kong, it speaks for 民主派. (see ]). ] is never far-right. ] (]) 11:59, 30 April 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::Nonsense. Also Misplaced Pages is not a ]. ] (]) 12:08, 30 April 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::Per ] we '''need''' reliable sources to report something before we can decide to include it on Misplaced Pages. You can contact them by phone or email. Please let us know when a ] reports on this (e.g. the BBC, The Guardian et cetera). Thank you, ] (]) 12:22, 30 April 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
::It is interesting to see how the Chinese edition of The Epoch Times is discussed in the 2019 Andrew Junker's book '','' at page 186: "The Chinese edition of The Epoch Times, which is often free and easily available in many major cities, stands out among overseas Chinese-language newspapers for its commitment to publishing watchdog, critical news from mainland China. For example, it claims to have been the first media source to report the SARS cover-up in China in 2003. Over the years, the incentives of being supported through advertising and increasing readership have pushed the newspaper toward greater professionalization and to increasingly orient itself toward the needs and interests of its widest readership. {{Tq|Simply by increasing the plurality of voices in the diaspora Chinese-language public sphere, The Epoch Times is playing a progressive role, even though the community’s pariah status limits its impact.}} It is also conceivable that an organization like The Epoch Times could evolve into a more mainstream publication while retaining its critical independence and moral watchdog mission." Thank you. ] (]) 23:46, 30 April 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
:::That is certainly not sufficient to change the lede though Junker's book might be due brief mention in the body of the article if it is not already there. ] (]) 00:29, 1 May 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
::::BTW, that source appears out of date compared to later research and reeks of early 2010s Western scholarship on Falun which frames it entirely on its conflict with the CCP. It was written before the big expose on Epoch's connection with far-right sources in 2019, and there are zero results in the book about its Trump connections. As for the claim of "professionalization", this is contradicted by Roose's 2020 NYT source which noted that ET's attempts to establish itself as a respectable source changed after Trump's election, in order to chase the conspiracy theorists' money. <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 00:27, 6 May 2024 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:Xsign --> |
|
|
:Agreed, it’s not far-right at all, especially when the Misplaced Pages entry for “far-right” features Nazis. Supporting Donald Trump does not make a person or publication a Nazi. Misplaced Pages, you are ridiculous. ] (]) 16:09, 1 September 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
::We go by what reliable sources say. –] <small>(])</small> 16:13, 1 September 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
:::According to , TET leans right, not far right. They rate it with "high confidence" based on independent review, editorial reviews, community feedback, and blind surveys making it vastly more credible than the opinions of individual journalists. agrees: "the high-confidence ratings are generally reliable". ] (]) 13:30, 3 October 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
::::Allsides cannot be considered a reliable source with regard to Epoch Times, because the two organizations have entered into a business agreement: {{xt|}} |
|
|
::::NBC News wrote about ET: 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 ]. ] (]) 13:51, 3 October 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::If context mattered you wouldn't be quoting assertions from liberal competitors of TET as authoritative. Blind surveys don't care about business deals. ] (]) 03:56, 4 October 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::NBC News is mainstream, and they are perfectly reliable as a source. See ]. Allsides did not really run blind polls. Instead, they bent under the human wave of 7,000 Falun Gong shock troops. Allsides will never be a good source for Falun Gong topics. ] (]) 04:06, 4 October 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Semi-protected edit request on 23 July 2024 == |
|
:: What should we be able to tell from the English name? It doesn't tell me anything. The Chinese title 大纪元, however, may mean something. My dictionary gives me the translation "The Great Beginning of an Era". ] 08:18, 22 April 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
{{edit semi-protected|The Epoch Times|answered=yes}} |
|
::: Falun Gong claims there are "epochs" of repeated universe histories, from creation to destruction. "Epoch" Times is pretty much equivalent to the Chinese title of "The Grand Epoch." It refers to Falun Gong. Most of the many Falun Gong media have names transparently linked to Falun Gong or, self-referentially, to Falun Gong media discourse. |
|
|
|
It is not a far right newspaper. This is wrong!!! ] (]) 15:29, 23 July 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
:See the FAQ at the top of the page. - ] (]) 16:23, 23 July 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
:I agree with this comment. The Epoch times is right of center, however it presents less covered views including of Kennedy Jr. The sources used to justify the far right position are viewed by the majority of citizens as untrustworthy and publications that gloss over facts in favor of sensationalism or progressivism. I believe Misplaced Pages is teetering on the edge of becoming a far, far left source. ] (]) 15:48, 15 August 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
::You should look at the FAQ at the top of the page as well. ] (]) 15:51, 15 August 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Semi-protected edit request on 20 September 2024 == |
|
== RE: allegations regarding Falun Gong and Epoch Times == |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
{{edit semi-protected|The Epoch Times|answered=yes}} |
|
==History== |
|
|
|
Epoch times is not a "FAR RIGHT" NEWs source but is more center->center-right. Please state your source that posted this erroneous error and correct as soon as possible. Thank you. ] (]) 13:26, 20 September 2024 (UTC) |
|
I've been updating the languages some, which are sometimes still switched back. Korean and Ukrainian editions are in fact apparently in print. To verify the lanugages listed, go to http://english.epochtimes.com/language.html. I think it best if the article stays consistent and lists the same number of languages stated in the introduction (which should at this point be 9), until that number gets too long to be practical. (Of course, if someone thinks it's already too long of a list, let me know how long you think it should be so I won't keep updating!) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
:See the FAQ at the top of the page. - ] (]) 13:53, 20 September 2024 (UTC) |
|
== RE: allegations regarding Falun Gong and Epoch Times == |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Semi-protected edit request on 22 October 2024 == |
|
The Epoch Times from what I can tell is largely put together by Falun Gong practitioners at present, who as I understand were instrumental in its founding. However, contributions to the paper do not consist solely of practitioners' contributions, nor is it by any means intended to be that way. I don't think the large practitioner contribution is something that people who work on the paper generally deny when asked. It just isn't necessarily something that they shout to the rooftops because the paper is not intended to be judged by the spiritual inclinations of its writers; it is intended to be judged by its content. If you need my source, it is my own experience helping with the paper. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
{{edit semi-protected|The Epoch Times|answered=yes}} |
|
:It says, "The paper rarely publishes letters and opinions that do not suit its cause, such as pro-communist and anti-Falun Gong comments, which the paper deems unnecessary. The Times argues that most, if not all government-censored Chinese news sources already contain opinions in agreement with Chinese governmental policies." |
|
|
|
Epoch Times is clearly not far right. Leans right in what they choose to cover, but their style of reporting is very old school unbiased, avoiding connotation loaded words in their articles. ] (]) 17:16, 22 October 2024 (UTC) |
|
:Where is the news in this paper? Why do they need to masquerade as a newspaper if their objective is to cast Falun Gong in a sympathetic light by propagandizing "the other side," whatever that is... |
|
|
|
:{{not done}} We do not conduct our own analysis of what's "far-right". The cited sources call it far-right, so Misplaced Pages reflects that. ] (]) 17:14, 26 October 2024 (UTC) |
|
:It says "The Epoch Times is a conservative Chinese newspaper, " It's not a newspaper and it's not conservative (conservative in what?) It's an anti-CCP pamphlet with a mix of editorialized news and shrill opinions, printed in a newspaper form factor and left out in Chinatowns everywhere for free and picked up by people for entertainment or to wrap fish. |
|
|
::Even if there are more articles about Falun Gong in the paper than in others, its mission is not to cast Falun Gong in a sympathetic light. If you want to see the paper's goal, go to http://english.epochtimes.com/aboutus.html. |
|
|
:::Yeah, whatever. They didn't start out as the English version. Their reputation precedes them. |
|
|
|
|
|
== RE: allegations regarding Falun Gong and Epoch Times == |
|
|
|
|
|
If my personal experience is any guide, The Epoch Times definitely is connected to the Falun Gong organization. I was given a copy by someone who was proselytizing for them. She was distributing the paper together with other pieces of literature promoting Falun Gong and their web site. And she told me that by reading these things I would understand better who the Falun Gong were. |
|
|
:Falun Gong practitioners do not normally distribute the Epoch Times with their flyers. This inaccuracy has been up as fact several times in the article, despite its subsequent removal by different parties. Also, although the Epoch Times is most definitely not meant to be a newspaper on Falun Gong and reports mostly on other topics, it does contain more articles than most other media sources to update people on the difficulties facing the practice in China today. Letting people know about this is actually more important to most practitioners than trying to convince people to start practicing, which they aren't supposed to push or force onto anyone anyway. This leads me to wonder whether "proselytize" is actually an accurate word for what they are attempting to do, although I agree that the reality of it might often seem otherwise. Regardless of any connection to Falun Gong, the greater number of Falun Gong articles may have been her actual reason for distributing it along with the flyers. |
|
|
::The number of people associated with Epoch Times is few compared to the total number of Falun Gong believers. Without commenting on my strong suspicion of the strong link as originally stated, it still seems quite conceivable that a few individuals with anti-CCP political agendas may take advantage of Falun Gong as a haven.--] 03:51, 13 August 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
With regards to the accusation of Epoch Times as the mouthpiece of Falun Gong, it seems there are already at least one or two publications out there through which Falun Gong represents itself openly. Compassion magazine is one of them. I think I remember someone mentioning another to me, although I can't remember what it was called. |
|
|
|
|
|
The Chicago Reader recently published about the Epoch Times, and mentions some of the connections with Falun Gong. One section in particular says, "In 2000 a group of practitioners retaliated , choosing a name evocative of the new millennium and launching the Epoch Times as a Chinese-language newspaper distributed in expatriate communities. The paper's representatives insist the Epoch Times isn't controlled by Falun Gong and doesn't speak for Falun Gong -- though contributions from individual Falun Gong practioners help keep it afloat. What's certain is that if China hadn't put its foot on Falun Gong's neck the Epoch Times wouldn't exist." The link to the article is http://www.chicagoreader.com/hottype/2005/051014_1.html. |
|
|
|
|
|
This article essentially states that Falun Gong is not affiliated with the Epoch Times. My personal opinion is that it is -- I suspected as much the first time I ever picked it up, and it seems like way too big a coincidence that it popped up in New York at about the same time as Falun Gong demonstrations and literature handouts; the party line of the two is identical; distribution techniques are very similar; and an inordinate amount of space is devoted to the subject. I believe the argument that Falun Gong already has official organs, so why would it need the Epoch Times, to be extraordinarily weak. It has always been in any organization's interest to make people believe that it is supported by unbiased sources. In fact, nobody denies that the Epoch Times is a Chinese newspaper, but if you read the newspaper itself, the Chinese connection isn't apparent at all until you notice the strategically placed articles about China. I believe this obfuscation is probably intentional. Of course, this is all my personal opinion, which has no place in Misplaced Pages. But the opinion that the two are unrelated is just that, an opinion, and it has no place in Misplaced Pages, either. So I'm removing it from the article. --] 21:38, 25 January 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
==Criticism== |
|
|
A previous version of this article stated that with regards to the Epoch Times' penchant for negative reporting on China, "It should be noted that although a concentration of these articles may be published in the Epoch Times, many of these negative reports can also be found in neutral overseas Chinese newspapers." Does anyone know if other overseas Chinese papers do carry these articles? A lot of US papers do carry some of them. Should something about this be added back in? |
|
|
|
|
|
:That depends on how you define "neutral newspaper". It is a fact that most papers in almost any language take one stance or another to some degree. In the US, for example, ] and ] are left leaning newspapers, while ] and ] are conservative. In my opinion, there are hardly any newspapers that are neutral. So to answer the question, you can find plenty of these negative-China stories in anti-PRC overseas Chinese papers, such as those Taiwan affilaited ones like the ] and ]. However, I would hardly call these papers "neutral". ] 06:07, 21 May 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
==CCP renunciations== |
|
|
The number of CCP renunciations reported by the Epoch Times is constantly revised on their site. This number recently broke 4 million, so it would be more current to keep this number in the article than to change it back to 3.5 million. If you want to check revisions to this number, go to their English website at http://english.epochtimes.com. It's not too hard to find their updates on this subject. Thanks. |
|
|
:The number of CCP renunciations reported by the Epoch Times is still going up. It is now over 4.6 million. |
|
|
:Their so called 'renunciations' are a joke, and should be put onto petitiononline.com. There's no confirmation of identity or membership, and even non-members, babies, dead people, and non-existant people can be signed into, and each IP can be signed more than once. They recently held an anti-China rally on October 1 in Sydney, and I saw local Australians signing, 'renouncing' their CCP membership. Since when did CCP employ foreigners as members? These 'renunciations' means nothing and are not legally recognised, unless done through the proper channels (US immigration forms I-400 & I-485, and . |
|
|
|
|
|
The current article says that "no major CCP official in either the central or regional governments had ever resigned because of the 'Commentaries.'" I'm not entirely convinced that this is not at least a little misleading. There was a case this summer of two diplomats in Australia, Chen Yonglin and Hao Fengjun, who resigned within about a month of each other. I don't know what you'd count as a major officials, but the cases were widely publicized in Australia, and Chen Yonglin received some attention from the New York Times. It seems the Chinese government was (naturally) a bit worried about the publicity the defections were receiving, in any case. It seems also that they may both have been influenced by the Nine Commentaries in their renunciations. Although most reports mentioning this specific point are associated with the Epoch Times, there seem to be a few mentions elsewhere, too. |
|
|
:Diplomats hold little power in or outside China, and it's more likely that these two left the embassy (not resigned) for personal reasons (such as wanting to betray China because its poor) rather than the 'Nine Commentaries'. These two never quoted from 'Nine Commentaries' and are, according to themselves, free from outside influences. Since then these two has disappeared off the media, and faced wrath from the general Chinese community in Australia. |
|
|
|
|
|
This comes from http://www.theepochtimes.com/news/5-7-7/30101.html, which is a statement of the Chinese defector Han Guangsheng (http://en.wikipedia.org/Han_Guangsheng): |
|
|
"After carefully reading the “Nine Commentaries on the Communist Party,” I feel even stronger that the CCP’s rule that is forced upon the Chinese people is a tragedy for the Chinese nation. Therefore, I admire very much the courage in of former CCP diplomat in Sydney Chen Yonglin and former “6-10 Office” officer Hao Fengjun, who came out publicly to resign from the CCP and to expose its crimes. I would like to come out to support them so that they know they are not alone." |
|
|
|
|
|
It seems in here that he claims that he and others including Chen Yonglin resigned as a result of reading the 9 Commentaries. I knew about Chen Yonglin's defection and assumed it was because of the 9 Commentaries since he gave exclusive interviews to the Epoch Times. So when I read: "Regardless, the commentaries have had no discernible effect on Chinese politics, and no CCP official in either the central or regional governments is known to have resigned on account of the "Commentaries"." I thought that that wasn't right. I would say that the 9 Commentaries has had some effect on Chinese politics since having diplomats defect and give speeches against a government must have some impact. And if Chen Yonglin resigned after reading the 9 Commentaries, that means at least 1 official resigned because of them. |
|
|
|
|
|
What that text said was "major, influential officials inside China". FLG and Epoch Times claimed that over 10 million people resigned because of the "9 commentaries", yet only two minor embassy workers has came forward. Both Chen and Hao has now disappeared from the media, and influenced little inside China. --] 14:50, 9 May 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
==Reversions== |
|
|
When making reversions, please make sure you check all the reversions you make to be sure the edits you are cutting aren't actually based on anything. Among the last few reversions, there was a mention of a second recent award won by the Epoch Times in Canada during Ethnomedia Week 2005 earlier this month (September). The Epoch Times did receive recognition in this ceremony, and it is worth note regardless of Misplaced Pages writers' opinions of the newspaper itself. The mention of the Epoch Times itself can be found at http://www.nepmcc.ca/articles/awards03.htm (the paper's publisher was recognized), which can be reached from Ethnomedia Week website at http://www.nepmcc.ca/frnt.htm. Thanks. |
|
|
:I find it rather ironic that this cut was made by the editor who seems to want to cut out any seemingly negative parts of the article, and limit the views presented on this page. One of the other editors accused you of "Falun Gong vandalism" in his reversion because of this, as the significant number of Falun Gong practitioners involved in the paper was discussed above. I don't know if you're a practitioner trying to defend the paper or not, but if you really consider yourself to be one, I am rather surprised that you would go about engaging in edit wars when there is a perfectly decent discussion page on which to explain your edits, and perhaps reach some resolution might be reached. (I would appreciate your using the discussion page a little more regardless. Having the page change so often makes it more difficult for the article to stay stable, gain any reliability, and eventually be updated and improved.) I'm sorry for my impatience with this, as I realize I haven't been much of a help taking a stance in or stopping the edit wars up to now. |
|
|
|
|
|
== CCP members resigning == |
|
|
|
|
|
:''has caused over 5.2 million CCP members to resign. The number is somewhat disputed, as anyone regardless of Chinese citizenship or CCP membership can sign more than once.'' |
|
|
|
|
|
Can sign ''what'' more than once? Or should it read "can resign more than once"? ] 22:29, 1 November 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Biblical ? == |
|
|
|
|
|
''The paper's Chinese editions tend to carry a large number of articles promoting traditional Chinese mythology and Biblical stories'' |
|
|
|
|
|
I don't think the Chinese edition contains a significant amount of ''Biblical stories'' in any sence. Maybe ''Falun Gong stories'' is a better term.--] 16:10, 2 February 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
Actually they refered to the CCP as the anti-Christ and that the CCP will be destroyed by "God". I didn't know Falun Gong worshipped a god.--] 00:10, 9 February 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:maybe they were refer to ], but I am not sure because they have their own definition of Christianity.--] 01:34, 9 February 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::Falun Gong practitioners don't worship anybody, Li Hongzhi included (or at least they're definitely not supposed to, or they're not following the teachings of Falun Gong!). |
|
|
|
|
|
::Based on what I've read and heard from practitioners' perspectives, I don't think that practitioners mean that Li Hongzhi will destroy the CCP as "God," although he certainly seems to play that role in many regards. I think in general practitioners believe that given the nature/laws of the universe, heaven, earth, today's society, etc, or however you wish to express everything that is relevant to us currently, put together with the past and present of the CCP, the CCP cannot survive and will (and is) destroying itself. |
|
|
|
|
|
Why even give them credit by discussing all their claims like they are real? ] 06:14, 21 May 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
:You don't have to give Falun Gong credit, you can always wait and see. But in the mean time why not get informed and judge for yourself. |
|
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 Misplaced Pages, although I used to every year. Martyrw (talk) 16:35, 26 December 2023 (UTC)
Epoch times is not a "FAR RIGHT" NEWs source but is more center->center-right. Please state your source that posted this erroneous error and correct as soon as possible. Thank you. 141.255.129.134 (talk) 13:26, 20 September 2024 (UTC)