Talk:The Epoch Times

Inaccurate use of far-right label

The far-right label needs to be removed. What makes the Epoch Times (ET) a far-right media company? 10 of 11 cites to that label all come from media sources, they all seem to be repeating the Daily Beast's characterization which was made from the perspective of a viewpoint, not a fact.

From a quick search of far-right and far-right on the Daily Beast website, you can see that the latter label is thrown around brazenly towards various conservatives. If they are all far-right, what far-right organisations are they from? There is no substance to this claim.

Even under Wikipedia's definition of far-right the label is not accurate. You could say ET comes across as anti-communist at times. But by that token, you would have to affix the label far-right to a lot more people. Martin Luther King Jr, a well-known Christain was anti-communist. “Communism and Christianity are fundamentally incompatible,” he said, adding “cold atheism wrapped in the garments of materialism, communism provides no place for God or Christ.”

I could give many more examples. Wikipedia does not provide the factual basis for the label far-right on the ET page.

If this inaccuracy is the starting point of the page then what else is inaccurate. Aside from taking 'sides' Wikipedia needs to provide evidence of what makes ET far-right since the far-left label is not used for certain media companies that align the communist groups.

If you'd like to provide an accurate representation of ET you could say they emphasize human rights issues predominantly the persecution of Falun Gong pratitioners in China, as well as Uyghurs.

Anon 149.167.130.226 (talk) 01:14, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

 Not done no reliable sources provided to support changes to the description of this publication. Simonm223 (talk) 13:38, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

FAR RIGHT??? The definition of this term when you click on the embedded link is "Extremist". I think you can fairly say the newspaper is "right-leaning" or "right wing" even, but "far right" has slur-like connotations and the onus is most certainly on those who make the claim to prove it. LEst Wikipedia be accused of being "far-left" !! 58.104.248.40 (talk) 09:26, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

Exactly, they're spreading their own misinformation but claim that they're doing the right thing, a little ironic huh! 2602:FE43:1:CF6E:45BD:8E07:F794:FEF7 (talk) 17:37, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

Using "far right" is inaccurate and at its core, a statement of opinion that is not needed.

Superlative statements like this do nothing to help this article (unless there is political agenda with the author that created those words).

Reading through the 17 citations reference, they were all references of other liberal opinions. Blakestheory (talk) 22:17, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

The citations include multiple high-quality academic sources as well as The Times and Fortune. None of the cited sources for the far-right descriptor are opinion pieces. — Newslinger talk 07:17, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

Please provide one citation of "fact" providing that "far right" that is not based on another bias opinion. It seems that popularity of an over run "far left" opinion, is trying impose it's own relative statement here. Popularity, does not make facts and data (citing Flat Earth).

I would be ok to leave it in if we added "from a far left opinion, Epoch Times is a far right" (but this shoots down the main point about the usage of superlative statements in Wikipedia).

To state "high quality" is also a superlative statement of opinion.

The usage of superlative statements by it very nature is a proof of a bias.

Again "far right" is a superlative statement of a bias, and should have no room in Wikipedia.

Perhaps we need to create an Wikipedia entry on "Superlative Statements", explaining what they are and why they are dangerous, polarizing, and divisive (not need in Wikipedia). Blakestheory (talk) 13:57, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

Please provide one citation of "fact" See the many citations already in the article. That you disagree with them does not somehow make them unusable. MrOllie (talk) 14:22, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

Hummm.... I never said I disagreed with the content of the articles that happened to be cited.

Popularity simply does not make facts and data (citing Flat Earth). Blakestheory (talk) 14:34, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

You have not provided any evidence that the reliable sources cited in this article, including the high-quality academic sources, are "far-left". Again, none of the cited sources for the descriptor are opinion pieces. Wikipedia is not censored, and an editor disliking certain parts of the left–right political spectrum is not a policy-based justification for removing this reliably and amply sourced content from the article. — Newslinger talk 05:07, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

As someone who has written for The Epoch Times for three years, I find the Wikipedia characterization of the paper as "far-right" to be comically absurd and yet another indication that Wikipedia has turned away from its original goal of even-handedness. For example, for roughly two years ET wrote quite detailed evidence-based articles on why Trump-Russia collusion was fraudulent while the New York Times and the Washington Post (both of which I have written for, btw) were going on and on as if it were a reality. Who was right? Do you call the NyT and the WaPo "far left?" There is more concrete evidence for that.

I think your view of The Epoch Times (based almost exclusively on envious nonsense that appeared in other publications and not once, that I can ascertain, on anything like serious research) is rather transparent propaganda, shameful for an "encyclopedia.". If you did any research, you would realize the people who started ET were fleeing oppression in Communist China the likes of which most of us have never had to remotely experience. It's time for the people running Wikiedia to straighten up and return to the noble roots of this site. That one of your principle founders left and now criticizes your very ham-handed bias is indicative of something.

The claim that The Epoch Times is far-right is for one purpose only--to cancel it because it tells the truth. Rlsimon (talk) 22:28, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

That founder believes that the US election was stolen and in other right wing conspiracies. I'm glad he's critical of Wikipedia, I'd worry if he supported what we do. Doug Weller talk 14:52, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

I agree it's not far-right. What reliable source can prove a publication is *not* something? Isn't the onus on the claimant to provide proof of the claim? If the article says far-right, it should have a reliable citation, which it does not. "Far-right" should be removed until (and if) it can be proven. Cdnshipsnote (talk) 18:13, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

Apparently you didn't read any of the cited sources yet you offer your unfounded opinion. Binksternet (talk) 19:15, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

No, it's far-right. Any website that promotes Nazism is far right by all standards, except for those who embrace Nazism. 2600:8803:FF08:100:5EE:FA01:5451:A228 (talk) 03:54, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

Name calling without any proof to back up the claim... I see a pattern. 199.46.249.140 (talk) 20:43, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

References

All reference material indicating that the Epoch Times is "Far Right" is editorial opinion from other news organizations and not original source material proving the assertion. The label needs to be removed. The paper has a strong bias against China but I would not consider it "Far Right." The term itself has been widely used, and abused, to immediately discredit any dissenting opinions not following the corporate media narrative. Reference material provided even admits outlets like the CBC have had to issue corrections on misleading articles referencing the Epoch Times. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 35.131.196.68 (talk) 18:42, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

Please see the first three sources in Special:Permalink/1074347906#cite_note-16, which are high-quality academic sources. — Newslinger talk 18:58, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

The academic sources appear to call the Epoch Times far-right in passing instead of focusing specifically on its bias, which may affect the due weight that should be accorded to them. Also, "far right" is a pejorative WP:LABEL and therefore should usually be attributed, even if used in reliable sources. Ipnsaepl28 (talk) 05:03, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

Picking and choosing which academic source is not "true content".

One can equally pick an academic source that will conflict with this position.

Clearly the original author has an bias and political agenda, otherwise such extreme "far" statements would not be necessary in good/fair/unbiased Wiki authoring. Blakestheory (talk) 00:11, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

Which high-quality academic sources state that The Epoch Times is not far-right? Far-right politics is a subset of right-wing politics, and it has a specific meaning in political science. The term far-right is descriptive, not pejorative. — Newslinger talk 06:56, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

Per Wikimedia own entry for "Far Right" it clearly is pejorative. Blakestheory (talk) 14:06, 5 September 2022 (UTC)— Blakestheory (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Far-right politics is simply the rightmost end of the left–right political spectrum. Being far-right is not innately a negative thing, even if some organizations that are associated with far-right politics are ones that you may find distasteful. The Epoch Times being a questionable source is not due to the fact that it is a far-right publication, but due to the fact that it frequently promotes conspiracy theories, as explained in the article. — Newslinger talk 05:13, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

Can anyone show us one of these "far right articles"? Is the hebrew version antisemitic? How can one of the largest world wide published in 23 languages media be far right, which means discriminating, antidemocratic, antisematic, homophob and ultra-nationalist, as well as having nativist ideologies and tendencies? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.43.88.35 (talk) 13:08, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

Being published in multiple languages is not mutually exclusive with being far-right. Responding to your question, while this article does not state that The Epoch Times is antisemitic, antisemitic content that is translated to Hebrew is still antisemitic.

You may have misread the Wikipedia article on Far-right politics. It states that "far-right politics now include neo-fascism, neo-Nazism, the Third Position, the alt-right, racial supremacism, and other ideologies or organizations that feature aspects of authoritarian, ultra-nationalist, chauvinist, xenophobic, theocratic, racist, homophobic, transphobic, and/or reactionary views". It does not say that every far-right publication espouses all (or any) of these views. — Newslinger talk 07:11, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

Racism is exclusively right-political? Since when? You don't need to be right or left to be bigoted. There are, and will always be racists on both sides of the political aisle.EytanMelech (talk) 15:59, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

@109.43.88.35 (me grabbing my popcorn as I watch Falun Gong get swatted down🍿) 45.48.187.23 (talk) 21:55, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

@45.48.187.23 oh my God this page is so awfully biased. Shane04040404 (talk) 06:36, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

Far right label has a blank citation

Far right label has a blank citation and therefore has no citation. This label is unsupported and should be removed or provide a valid citation. 24.10.119.175 (talk) 18:42, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

The citation at Special:Permalink/1111291668#cite_note-far-right-1 is not blank; it is a bundled citation that contains 21 other citations. Please click on each of the 21 citations to view them. — Newslinger talk 22:12, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 October 2022

My suggested change: this article is ENTIRELY one-sided. It does not talk about, in the opening statement/introduction at the top, ANYTHING positive about the organization. Such as: how they attempt to obtain BOTH SIDES of the story (and are often declined because the other party doesn't Want the news to come out). This is the heart of responsible journalism: OTHER outlets make absolutely no attempt to show both sides of the story, yet are completely free to make editorial comments which no doubt their editors push hard upon.

The sources I use as my claim are every article I've read from Epoch Times, combined with every TV news and other kind of news outlet, in contrast that I would like to call Yellow Journalism. While Epoch Times naturally as all humans have bias, they at least ATTEMPT TO show a hearing from both sides, and in that a nod to impartiality. 67.11.187.188 (talk) 14:37, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

•  Not done. Plenty of sources are cited describing the newspaper in negative terms, noting that it is the house organ of Falun Gong, and that it publishes falsehoods that serve the larger goals of Falun Gong. Binksternet (talk) 15:43, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 November 2022

Remove any mention of the political affiliation, no other news papers or stations have this and having it here is absolutely pointless and biased 2604:3D09:AE81:2C00:D0AC:3A23:DCCA:228C (talk) 20:24, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

 Not done. Wikipedia articles summarize what reliable sources say about the topic, and such sources discuss their politics. Cullen328 (talk) 20:33, 20 November 2022 (UTC)