Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Binksternet (talk | contribs) at 06:12, 26 December 2020 (→Article about this article: two things). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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.

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

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

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

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

NBC investigative piece on epoch times

This could have useful information for this page. Takes a deep dive into how their Falun Gong philosophy has motivated the paper to take a more explicitly pro-Trump editorial stance recently. Could help expand our descriptions of their English language news coverage. GeauxDevils (talk) 17:26, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

NBC should be taken with a grain of salt as with all other mainstream medias. Creepercast888 (talk) 11:25, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

As per NBC News Fails CRC Fact Check: The Epoch Times Is No Pro-Trump Dark Money Operation, NBC's accusations against Epochtimes are false. Scarlett 04:13, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

You mean the Capital Research Center, the libertarian think tank? The one that once claimed ACORN paid its volunteers in crack cocaine? That one? That's a big fat "no", then. --Calton | Talk 05:35, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

The article largely relied on the NBC’s report on The Epoch Times (ET), but NBC is not an RS on the subject of ET because of WP:COI and WP:REPUTABLE “Articles should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. “

1 Being obsessed with the conspiracy theory that Trump works for Russia, in recent years NBC was caught for reporting fake news many times in this regard. Here are 2 examples: A, B

The Epoch Times (ET) has been reporting Spygate events where the pro-Hillary US Intelligence Community (IC) set up traps to spy and to destroy their enemy Trump and his supporters. Recently many other media echoed ET’s Spygate report.Here is one recent Yahoo news

NBC and ET have been reporting two competing theories and therefore being competitors to each other, so it is clear that NBC is not a third party on the subject of ET. To cite NBC for introducing ET is against WP:COI and WP:REPUTABLE.

2 NBC Universe has a joint venture in Beijing with CCP

CCP riots in Hong Kong tried to burn down ET’s printing house. NBC’s economic ties with CCP made its report on ET appear not following WP:COI.Scarlett 02:09, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

Scarlett if you are so sure about this, take it to WP:RSN. But I don't think you'll like the response. But please, either drop this or go to RSN. Doug Weller talk 10:06, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

@Doug Weller: - it was taken to RSN, and I have closed the discussion . The consensus is that the NBC News is a generally reliable source for the Epoch Times article, while some editors feel that the CRC is unreliable. starship.paint (talk) 02:43, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

This line from the introduction: "The Epoch Media Group's news sites and YouTube channels have spread conspiracy theories such as QAnon and anti-vaccination propaganda." Seems to be based on a paragraph in the NBC source that claims that ET is a "powerful conduit for QAnon to reach the mainstream.". It then links to an article published by ET here: https://www.theepochtimes.com/the-q-phenomenon_2581642.html I read the article, but didn't get a sense that it was promoting the QAnon theory. My sense from the article was that it was just explaining what it was, and interviewed someone associated with the theory. With that I think the bit about ET promoting the QAnon conspiracy theory should be removed, because it doesn't appear to be true. 98.14.254.37 (talk) 00:33, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

Down in the article body you will find the proper link: https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/tech-news/trump-qanon-impending-judgment-day-behind-facebook-fueled-rise-epoch-n1044121

The NBC article is a very reliable source, and it will remain. Binksternet (talk) 01:05, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

@98.14.254.37: also see the "Edge of Wonder" descriptions at the end of the NBC article. Llll5032 (talk) 01:17, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

The second Epoch Times article referenced further down in the NBC piece is this one: https://www.theepochtimes.com/media-attacks-do-little-to-sway-q-supporters_2617778.html which largely matches the neutral tone of the first article. It seems that the line in question in the Misplaced Pages article is mostly referring to the "Edge of Wonder" show, which is produced by New Tang Dynasty, a subsidiary of Epoch Media Group. I wonder if it would be relevant to mention on Misplaced Pages's ABC News article that Walt Disney Media's television networks push alien conspiracy theories (History Network). 98.14.254.37 (talk) 01:58, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

@98.14.254.37: Also "The Epoch Times has promoted "Edge of Wonder" content in dozens of Facebook posts" and the show's two hosts worked for the Epoch Times "as the company’s creative director and chief photo editor". Llll5032 (talk) 02:16, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

These are weak and indirect links, which cannot claim The Epoch Times promotes QAnon. The paragraphs in the document explain that and are fine. But this does not merit this line in the header. I removed it. I do not believe we should step too deep into the publication wars between NYTimes, NBC and Epoch.Itaj Sherman (talk) 01:06, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

You are setting up a false balance. There is no war between the huge NBC and NYT mainstream news centers and fringe-right Epoch. Binksternet (talk) 01:30, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages is lost. NYT used to be mainstream, now it is just far left propaganda. I've seen the NYT hit pieces against Epoch. They imply they are involved with QAnon without actually saying it, because they would be sued for libel. Epoch is conservative and largly supports Trump. They have no connection to Qanon apart from mentioning its existance. And mentioning a dozen times out of a million publications doesn't merit being put in the header of the doc. This is a political edit war. Have fun supporting CCP or w/e it is you support. And I will make sure Misplaced Pages is known to be biased. Itaj Sherman (talk) 10:44, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

I totally agree with Itaj. Due to influence from Chinese Communism Party government around the world, many mainstream media have financial ties with CCP. https://thefederalist.com/2020/05/04/has-china-compromised-every-major-mainstream-media-entity/ These media will probably be biased when reporting topic that CCP government does not like. Therefore, we should be careful when using sources from "mainstream" and "reliable" media.LoftusCH (talk) 21:52, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

You're seriously suggesting that NBC are CCP shills or something? Or is it just any source you disagree with that are CCP shills? That's the sort of conspiracy theorist bullshit a Falun Gong shill who's would say, not someone actually interested in neutrally summarizing reliable sources (which, btw, would not include a site that considers The Daily Wire to be equivalent to CBS News, or The Daily Caller equivalent to the NYT). Ian.thomson (talk) 22:13, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

@TorLiu: LoftusCH, please look at Starship.paint's link above. Llll5032 (talk) 22:31, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

Who's editing this article?

The "Reception" section reads like it was written by the government of China. There is no mention at all of the quality of the performance. Every statement is written in the context of Shen Yun as propaganda. I attended one performance, and it has artistic merit worth reviewing. Upon leaving the performance, I was approached by an ethnic Chinese reporter and cameraman. They were visibly disappointed when I said I enjoyed the performance, and immediately left to sample someone else's opinion. They were clearly seeking a negative review. The "Reception" section mirrors this one-sided approach. Digger1234 (talk) 16:07, 19 April 2020 (UTC) Digger1234 09:05, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

Just today, it appears someone without an account (editing from an IP address) changed the phrasing of the first paragraph so that instead of referring to Qanon and the anti-vaccination movement as "conspiracy theories," the article now reads "The group's news sites and YouTube channels are known for telling truthes such as QAnon and anti-vaccination stories." My guess is that someone involved with the newspaper or Falun Gong made that edit, but regardless, it's flagrantly biased, and flagrantly biased towards some belief systems that are absolutely gonzo. I'm going to reverse the edit, but I doubt it's the only example of pro-ET bias in the article, or the last one we'll see. Flyest nihilist (talk) 17:47, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

Well, they are creating and concealing several dozen Facebook pages. I would be very, very surprised if Misplaced Pages isn't being used as a covert battleground for not only these guys but several other groups that typically can be found under rocks. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 17:42, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

Citing NBC word for word as fact is not very appropriate. Should be more along the lines of "...Accused by NBC News of..." Creepercast888 (talk) 11:27, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages considers NBC reliable. Binksternet (talk) 15:27, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

I can't find that NBC is a reliable source on Wiki Misplaced Pages:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources. Besides that, reliable doesn't mean "no error". As long as a source has biased or inaccurate points, we should avoid being influenced by that. LoftusCH (talk) 01:13, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

RSP is not exhaustive. NBC News has a positive reputation for accuracy and fact-checking. It is not a flawless reputation, but it is enough that the outlet is considered generally reliable. We would need a specific, policy-based reason to claim this has inaccurate points. Saying a source is biased is too broad to be helpful. Calling a source biased doesn't make it biased, and it's not always clear if being biased matters. Grayfell (talk) 00:35, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

NBCNews does not have a positive reputation and are hardly If at all, they can not be used as fact SurgeonRT (talk) 20:29, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

Using New York Times articles as sources is beyond me. Misplaced Pages should be about proven neutral sources and trusted content. How Epoch times is considered far right, where the sources are from left wing outlets should be enough to remove such information SurgeonRT (talk) 20:32, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

Your opinion shows you to have a WP:FRINGE stance. NBC News and The New York Times are about as mainstream center as you can get. You just gave yourself two black eyes with those two remarks. Binksternet (talk) 20:43, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

Snopes article

Snopes usually just debunks untruths, but this time they wrote an article exposing the closest connection yet to Falun Gong, and some of their shadier practices. The story is linked here. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 17:44, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

Snopes is not a reliable source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.37.22.110 (talk) 02:01, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources/Perennial sources#Snopes —PaleoNeonate – 07:01, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

Why not? 2A00:23C3:E284:900:B949:98B1:98CC:1ED7 (talk) 09:42, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

Controversies/bias

By main stream media (and some popular political scientist -- see above), the Epoch Times is seen as a journalistic arm of the Falun Gong. The Falun Gong, however, have regularly been treated poorly by the Chinese Communist Party. It is known to have suffered many human rights abuses and, in response, to have held passive meditations and sit-ins (see Amnesty International reports here https://faluninfo.net/amnesty-international/ or United Nations report here: http://www.falunhr.org/reports/2010/2010UN-Reports.pdf). Understandably then, Falun Gong followers have been less sympathetic or forgiving of China's human rights abuses than the international community. This is their bias; it is based on real persecution. That being said, it is a bias that counters otherwise friendly-bias in coverage on and relations between China and the U.S. and China and Europe in terms of trade (see example here: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2018/08/07/why-republicans-dont-push-back-on-trumps-china-tariffs-in-one-map/). While China remains a major human rights violator, much of the main stream media supports continued friendly trade relations with them. This is a bias as well. The Epoch Times counters that bias. -- Written by a Ph.D. in Political Science — Preceding unsigned comment added by Albgd4 (talk • contribs) 15:24, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

The bias is not because of religious issues, but because of its problematic relationship to factuality. Any source which "has become known for its support of U.S. President Donald Trump and favorable coverage of far-right politicians in Europe; a 2019 report showed it to be the second-largest funder of pro-Trump Facebook advertising after the Trump campaign." has to deny facts and push conspiracy theories to hold such positions. -- Valjean (talk) 15:39, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

Good points, Valjean. It's important to remember that the newspaper was observed to be counterfactual long before Trump was elected. The Epoch Times would be more respected by impartial observers if they printed the truth instead of their viewpoint. It doesn't matter how much they have suffered at the hands of the Communists. Binksternet (talk) 15:50, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

It is statements such as these (from all sides) that are practically the definition of bias and hinders the finding of truth:

"Any source which "has become known for its support of U.S. President Donald Trump and favorable coverage of far-right politicians in Europe...has to deny facts and push conspiracy theories to hold such positions."

This is no way to find or promote truth, regardless of being painted extreme left, extreme right, or anything above it or below. Godsfunambulator (talk) 21:24, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

You may find Misplaced Pages:Verifiability, not truth to be a helpful read. As talk pages are not intended to be general discussion forums, let's also try to focus on the article content, instead of our personal opinions on The Epoch Times or the Falun Gong. — Newslinger talk 01:51, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

Absolutely agree with it. We should focus more on whether the content of Misplaced Pages is reliable, rather than expose personal opinion on it. There are different newspaper and other media founded by different groups, among which are groups with special missions and belief. It doesn't matter what their background is, but the reliability that really matters.LoftusCH (talk) 00:29, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

I wanted to touch on the section specifically titled "Controveries" where I added a tag, as this section needs some work to represent varying perspectives in order to represent a NPOV. In general, much of the section is reliable, but there is much written "between the lines" that leans extraordinarily left. I think moving much of the content that has already been written should be moved out of the "Controversies" section. Eg. Supporting Trump is a factual, not a controversial stance (or is it?  ;) Happy to help clean this up a bit. Shinerite (talk) 22:49, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

You'll need to provide specific examples. The section looks objective to me. :bloodofox: (talk) 23:14, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

Shinerite, backing Trump because you agree with his policies is one thing, but backing Trump because you think he will hasten the divine final battle is another. The Falun Gong is in the latter group. The controversy section is not explicit enough, in my opinion. It should be telling the reader more about the crazy ideas of Falun Gong (aliens invented airplanes and computers... people can levitate) and tying them into their real-world political practices. Binksternet (talk) 00:09, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

Wikiproject: Propaganda?

"A WikiProject, or Wikiproject, is the organization of a group of participants in a wiki established in order to achieve specific editing goals, or to achieve goals relating to a specific field of knowledge." The article's weakest point is media organizations that charge each other as propaganda. The evidence usually doesn't exceed name calling but the affect can be dramatic with readers who are easily fooled. Moreover most readers can be fooled.

Good information is difficult to obtain. The public can use[REDACTED] to gain a basic understanding of a steam locomotive but when national strategies include the use of weaponized propaganda information is tightly limited. There is a need for a group "dedicated to achieve goals relating to understanding media and propaganda". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.221.42.186 (talk) 14:11, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

If you want to create a WikiProject, you would need to:

1. Register a user account.
2. Spend some time (e.g. months) getting familiar with Misplaced Pages editing. This step is optional, but advisable if you want to be taken seriously when proposing a new WikiProject.
3. Seek advice at Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Council.
4. Then read Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Council/Guide#Creating a WikiProject to learn how to make a formal proposal.

Best, --MarioGom (talk) 14:27, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 May 2020

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

I am physician working in Boston, MA, working in a COVID19 surge ward. I think the entire "COVID 19 misinformation campaign" section should be deleted. There is not a single legitimate source cited in that entire section. Only opinion news articles. I have not read everything that the Epoch Times has posted about coronavirus, and some of the things could certainly be considered conspiracy theories, but that hardly makes it a "COVID 19 misinformation campaign". In fact, if you read the Epoch Times COVID timeline, it is by my assessment, 100% accurate. China DID cover up the origins of the virus and China DID detain and question doctors for simply warning their colleagues about the virus. There is published data out there that suggests that China could have reduced infections by 95% if not for their intentional and unintentional delays. Anyone who contests that fact simply doesn't know what they are talking about. The news articles cited slam the Epoch Times for pushing the narrative that the virus could have been created in a lab as a misinformation campaign, while in the same breath noting that we have no idea where the virus came from, and, in fact, there are high-level national intelligence reports that note that this is a source of active investigation. Jdking182 (talk) 05:08, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template.

Misplaced Pages goes by reliable sources, and the sources cited in that section appear to be reliable. Further, Misplaced Pages strongly favors independent sources, which in this case means independent of The Epoch Times. Your individual experiences cannot be used as sources here, because Misplaced Pages doesn't publish original research. Please stick to reliable, independent sources, instead. Grayfell (talk) 05:26, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

If you're looking for consensus for deletion of this section, since you posted, there have been a few sources added specifically referring to the Epoch times, but it is presented in a very one-sided way without any validation on the opinion you've expressed, which is that there is no misinformation. At the very least, it is obvious this section is not written in a NPOV representing a widely held opposing POV. There is no healthy tension here. I vote not for deletion, but a scrub to represent the opinion you have supported with articles would be a very welcome addition. Shinerite (talk) 22:35, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. - FlightTime (open channel) 22:39, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

"Miss Information Campaign"

This section is patently false I have read the article regarding the CCP Virus/COVID-19 in question from the Epoch Times, and the claims made on this page are completely false. Misplaced Pages is engaged in misinformation by continuing to host this false information as facts.

Please review this section and read the articles that are talked about as they are not cited which makes the information on the page opinion and not worthy therefore of being on wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dylan abel (talk • contribs) 19:18, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages articles should mainly cite reliable, independent sources, so an article on Epich Times will use sources about Epoch Times more than the Epoch Times itself. The misinformation campaign section has eight independent sources, which appear to be reliable. You will need to propose a specific issue for this to be actionable. Grayfell (talk) 20:04, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

The article reads like an opinion piece, not an encyclopedia entry

The article should be rewritten, it contains personal opinions of its writers which is not what encyclopedias are for. JanBielawski (talk) 21:47, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

You will need to be much, much more specific than that. Grayfell (talk) 23:42, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

Grayfell, I agree that this request should be much more specific, I also tend to agree with JanBielawski that this article in its current state, does a good job of representing a single perspective on a handful of issues which deserve other perspectives in order to reach the ideal NPOV. I'm going to dive into a few specific sections/comments as I have time to see if I can help putting some meat on the bones of what JanBielawski is referring to. Shinerite (talk) 22:42, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

I would just like to second this. This article contains a number of factual inaccuracies which appear designed to discredit it (such as claiming continued qanon support or repeated use of the phrase far-right), and it generally reads like the Chinese government or a competing paper is intentionally trying to discredit them. It's a center-right paper that reports on a lot of international issues, similar to the NYT but smaller and leaning right instead of left. It reflects poorly on Misplaced Pages when articles are so blatantly biased. 50.204.125.186 (talk) 17:33, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages summarizes reliable and independent sources, not original research. Your personal opinions about this paper are original research, and are not relevant to improving this article. Grayfell (talk) 21:13, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

JanBielawski and 50.204.125.186, Grayfell is correct. You may not understand how Misplaced Pages works. The basic premise of Misplaced Pages is to give "free access to the sum of all human knowledge." Jimmy Wales (bold added). That literally does mean "ALL" information, not just facts. That includes opinions, beliefs, lies, conspiracy theories, pseudoscientific nonsense, etc. We are inclusionist by nature and try to document as much as possible. If something has been said or written in a RS, it becomes potential (note that word) content here. While we definitely do not treat different types of "human knowledge" in the same way, we do try to document its existence. There is an exception. If a topic is never mentioned in any RS, then it's not notable enough for an article or mention. "What we won't do is pretend that the work of lunatic charlatans is the equivalent of "true scientific discourse." It isn't." Jimbo Wales To learn more about our NPOV policy, feel free to read my essay here: NPOV means neutral editing, not neutral content . -- Valjean (talk) 22:52, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

CBC editors notes

This is regarding this revert

@Liketheory: Hello.

In order for this content to be encyclopedically significant (WP:DUE), it should be contextualized by reliable, independent sources. Using one opinion column as an example introduces WP:OR into the article. Additionally, opinion columns should not typically be used for disputed factual claims without a specific reason, and even then it's rare. This source is arguably not reliable for this detail, and is also undue weight. If a reliable sources explains that this opinion column lead to the these notes, use that source. Otherwise, this is not directly supported by the cited source.

As for the editorial notes, the significance of this is also not established. This is common practice for breaking news, and is often seen as a good thing, since it indicates editorial oversight and fact checking is in place. It is not up to editors to tell readers which sources are significant, or what to make of them. We need to summarize reliable, independent sources without adding inadvertent editorializing. To put it another way, if in doubt, explain what sources directly say, not what you think they imply. Thanks. Grayfell (talk) 23:40, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

Edit semi-protected

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

Edit suggestion for "Notable Coverage" > "Misinformation on COVID-19":

Unsolicited "Special Editions" with the same title have now been sent to UK addresses as well in the month of May.

https://www.heraldseries.co.uk/news/18429293.epoch-times-conspiracy-news-sent-oxfordshire-councillors/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stevestevestevebobjane (talk • contribs) 17:19, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: "Special Editions" was not verified. Please provide another source if possible. Thank you. {{replyto|Can I Log In}}'s talk page! 19:31, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 June 2020

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

In the Notable Coverage section there is a spelling error. Change minisformation to misinformation 2601:645:4300:11B6:5436:4BE0:A255:BCDB (talk) 03:12, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

 Done. Thanks. Grayfell (talk) 03:30, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

Rollback?

Some good-faith edits to the article by a user on June 10 deleted info from RS, introduced grammatical errors and WP:OR, and reorganized the article without an explanation. Other editors have since fixed some of the new errors but there have been no substantive additions. Rollback? -- Llll5032 —Preceding undated comment added 20:24, June 12, 2020‎

Yes, rollback sounds good. I noticed that the edits also changed "COVID-19 misinformation" to "COVID-19". --Hob Gadling (talk) 13:30, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

I do not support Rollback.　 (1)I did not introduce "WP:OR" but tried to make article systematic and neat.　If you found there is anything wrong, would you please remind me to fix it? (2)about Covid-19, I placed the issue under "llegations and criticisms".(changed into "Reception" by another user) . (3) Besides, China's Communist Party conducted COVID-19 cover-up and misinformation campaign. I live in Taiwan Asia. I'd like to say that many Epochtimes's reports on Covid-19 issue were　also reported by many other media outlets including mainstream media. Because CCP covered up the virus truth and blocked info, so Taiwan media tried to dig out as much information as possible, including the leaks form China or discussions on internet, sometimes there was inaccurate or wrong info. Epochtimes published many exclusive reports that disclosed Covid-19 situation in China covered up by CCP.(4)and why Taiwan Government can do right ting earlier? because a CDC Officer surf internet and read a netizen's post info, then suspected CCP Regime covering the human-to-human infection epidemic. Wetrace (talk) 13:53, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

about misinfomation, I'd like to share my reading experience, for example, this case in Article.

"A story in The Epoch Times on February 17, 2020, shared a map from the internet that falsely alleged massive sulfur dioxide releases from crematoriums during the COVID-19 pandemic in China, speculating that 14,000 bodies may have been burned. A fact check by AFP reported that the map was a NASA forecast taken out of context."

1. Epochtimes indeed shared the map, while many Taiwan Media reported it too, I think it's because many people shared and discussed it on internet.
2. this Epochtimes’s report,
   1. quoted that many People discussed on interenet that the map “perhaps” meaning so many bodies burned.
   2. quoted the opinion(misinformation) by "Taiwan FactCheck center “ .
   3. ask opinions about the map from a professor of the best university in Taiwan.
   4. also reported that funeral parlours and crematoriums in Wuhan that had launched "24-hour service" and had been operating 24/7. as there were so many bodies to burn.
3. many other Taiwan media also reportd this map,like , ,,…
4. Many madia outside China reported this map, because media doubted the death toll in Wuhan. and then China Government's reply about the data.Wetrace (talk) 15:17, 13 June 2020 (UTC)— Wetrace (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Thank you for that explanation, Wetrace. I am editing some of my original note above because I see that your new paraphrases came from the articles cited, and I apologize for my initial error. Can you explain why your reorganization is more systemic and neat than the original? There was already an "assessments" section; the info you moved was recent history from the past few years. -- Llll5032 —Preceding undated comment added 16:41, June 13, 2020‎

Thank you Llll, I try to wrote my thoughts as follows:

1. ”Assessments”, I think this section can be used for (abstract) evaluations from scholars or organizations. And “Allegations and criticisms” section maybe more related to events , process or others. I think such sections more clear to readers.

1. The topics of ”Ad ban on Facebook”, “Removal of The BL on Facebook”, “ YouTube ads”, each issue range is not equal to “Trump administration” topic , some are wider and some not related to “Trump administration”. So the title “Trump administration” somehow confused, was not clear.
2. About the content of Covid-19 issue, so many details and debates. So I think it is more suitable and clear to be placed under the section ”Allegations and criticisms/Reception”.Wetrace (talk) 07:17, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for your response, Wetrace. Often sections like this are labeled Controversy or Controversies, so I edited it to Controversies (WP:BRD). Llll5032 (talk) 05:34, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

To Llll5032, Hello,about your this edit「The Epoch Times is known for promoting far-right politicians in Europe,」 maybe misleading.

1. I suggest that We should follow WP:Neutral point of view#Attributing and specifying biased statements.

1. inside 4 source, 1st sourse Buzzfeed, used the word right-wing, not far-right. The 2nd and 4th not mention.Wetrace (talk) 06:10, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

"The German Edition of the Falun Gong-Affiliated ‘Epoch Times’ Aligns with the Far Right" and "The Obscure Newspaper Fueling the Far-Right in Europe" — ChinaFile and the New Republic, not Buzzfeed. It's a description, not a "best" or "worst" value judgement like the example you cited. Llll5032 (talk) 11:11, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

Hello, (1)Two media report that's German Edition, not Europe, and 2 media not mean"known in Europe".(2)I do not use "best or worst" values.Wetrace (talk) 11:23, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

Germany and France are in Europe. The WP example you linked to said that "John Doe is the best baseball player" should be attributed in-text. Llll5032 (talk) 12:08, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

Hello,Llll5032, Could a media's opinion represents all? I think you know what WP:Neutral point of view#Attributing and specifying biased statements means. It take a "most" example, but "most" is not only one applicable condition.Wetrace (talk) 03:17, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

From MOS:LEADCITE: "Material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, and direct quotations, should be supported by an inline citation." Look at ideological descriptions in other Misplaced Pages articles and you will see the same style. Llll5032 (talk) 07:07, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

Discussion about Remove

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

Kindly stop misrepresenting their reports. Epoch Times did more than claiming that COVID19 originated in Wuhan. They made several unsubstantiated claims, including that the coronavirus is a Chinese made bioweapon.--PatCheng (talk) 08:24, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

Hello, PatCheng, Epochtimes's report did not say Covid-19 "a Chinese made bioweapon", but maybe possibilities like leaking from China laboratory. and indeed, many mainstream media international or of Taiwan , also reported several possibilities. Besides, I read some media reported that Frence expert or China ex-officer concerned about wheather ChineseCommunistParty use the P4-laboratory for what? for bioweapon? Many assumptions and doubts are because CCP's deny international and WHO expert a field investigation in china. Wetrace (talk) 08:36, 15 June 2020 (UTC)— Wetrace (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Just a reminder, PatCheng

1. your reason for romove is WP:OR. But the quote is really from the report source(EDITOR's NOTE), not OR
2. Why revove all this?Wetrace (talk) 08:52, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

Oh, so you're saying that they can't "confirm" whether it's a possible bioweapon or escaped virus. Regardless of what you personally think, the claims fail WP:VERIFY. Furthermore, the sources cited are all opinion columnists which also fail WP:RS, and the article is about Epoch Times, not CBC's views on Epoch Times--PatCheng (talk) 08:56, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

To PatCheng, You misunderstood or twisted my words, I said Epochtimes's report did not say Covid-19 "a Chinese made bioweapon". Besides many mainstream media reported about Covid-19 and Wuhan laboratory, and if CCP have military biotech project.for example:

1. 2020-6-14 Canadian scientist sent deadly viruses to Wuhan lab months before RCMP asked to investigate:Amir Attaran, a law professor and epidemiologist at the University of Ottawa said "It is suspicious. It is alarming. It is potentially life-threatening," said "We have a researcher who was removed by the RCMP from the highest security laboratory that Canada has for reasons that government is unwilling to disclose. The intelligence remains secret. But what we know is that before she was removed, she sent one of the deadliest viruses on Earth, and multiple varieties of it to maximize the genetic diversity and maximize what experimenters in China could do with it, to a laboratory in China that does dangerous gain of function experiments. And that has links to the Chinese military."
2. 2020-06-04_Ex-head of MI6 Sir Richard Dearlove says coronavirus 'is man-made' and was 'released by accident' - after seeing 'important' scientific report
3. Taiwan'sCentral News Agency:2020-04-25_俄專家支持病毒人造論 稱中國科學家做了瘋狂事

1. Hong Kong's pro-Beijing Media report:2020-06-09_挪威研究稱新冠病毒部分人工製造 獲前英情報主管撐

1. more example can be listed, also many chinese-language media reported, even pro-Beijing media in Taiwan also reported some. Many expert keep the possibilities,also the USA and UK Government.Wetrace (talk) 17:10, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

I removed them because they're given undue weight upon one news article from CBC, the three opinion articles cited are from right-wing political columnists and are not not reliable sources, and the bio-engineering claims are still cited by other sources . Epoch Times in fact did create a video where they shared misleading claims that COVID-19 came from a biolab .--PatCheng (talk) 09:18, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

You removed a lot more than that, and I've raised the issue in your thread at RSN. Doug Weller talk 09:34, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

To PatChang:

"if COVID-19 came from a biolab". I saw so many expert keep the possibilities,also the USA Government. I also saw so many media reported it, even pro-beijing Media in Taiwan also reported. while I know Media controlled by CCP not.Wetrace (talk) 17:20, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

What the Taiwanese tabloid media speculate about COVID19 is irrelevant, especially considering the ongoing political disputes between the two governments. To suggest that Taiwanese media is automatically reliable fails WP:RS. WP's article Misinformation related to the COVID-19 pandemic already highlighted plenty of misinformation regarding China being circulated among Western media, including ones claiming that it was leaked from a lab , that cancelled cell phone subscriptions equates to covered up deaths (which was later retracted) , and discrepancies regarding number of urns . These are simply speculation, and just because some of ET's claims are shared by tabloid media doesn't hide the fact they're inserting religious posturing into the mix to promote an agenda of overthrowing the CCP, including claiming that sharing the debunked video about the virus being engineered, and claiming denouncing the CCP would somehow cure COVID19.--PatCheng (talk) 10:37, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

To PatCheng. (1)You have not rely me. Among my examples, the media not"Taiwanese tabloid media", and also Taiwan "pro-beijing Media" and also Hong kong mainstream media reported that kind of news.And also many important scientists, also Governments have similar doubt about how virus came and spread. The core reason is CCP Regime cover the epidemic. Media and many Counrty tried to find the truth Wetrace (talk) 11:15, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

It's also worth noting that Wetrace is likely to be a single purpose account who is engaged in POV pushing at the Chinese Misplaced Pages.--PatCheng (talk) 10:50, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

To Patcheng, your accusation is not proper and not true. And it's reasonable edit relative issue both in Chinese-Wiki and English-wiki.Wetrace (talk) 11:15, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

I don't care. Your conduct on Chinese WP demonstrated that you have a very low knowledge of WP:RS and WP:V. The low quality speculation you presented fail WP:RS. Full stop.--PatCheng (talk) 11:17, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

The fact that some people have SPECULATED that it might came from a lab is irrelevant, since it fails WP:RS. There are also plenty of sources that disputed the leakage claims.. ET has a habit of completely twisting the words of others to suit its anti-PRC agenda, and is a deprecated source on WP for its fake news such as claiming Rothschilds are behind the German refugee crisis .--PatCheng (talk) 11:03, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

Isn't it only misinformation if it isn't true. Seems like a lot of evidence to support the notion that the virus was create in a Chinese lab https://www.forbes.com/sites/coronavirusfrontlines/2020/06/19/did-covid-19-come-from-a-lab-was-it-deliberate-bioterrorism-a-biodefense-expert-explores-the-clues/#4521e465356d — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.159.10.246 (talk) 13:14, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

See WP:FORBESCON. Username 13:19, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 June 2020

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

The April/May 2020 edition of Epoch Times was being distributed in the UK in June 2020 Mikeyfreed (talk) 11:35, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. — Newslinger talk 12:05, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

Question : Why Deleted Chinese Communist Party-related? and other puzzling edits/ deletion

To @PatCheng:, Hello, some questions about your edits, would you please reply your reason ?

1. why PatCheng deleted the core infomation of International Federation of Journalists’s article, and oringinal research to twist IFJ’s wording. for example:
   1. Content about Communist Party all deleted
      1. IFJ called for the international community to speak out against the “dirty war” campaign against Epoch Times.
      2. IFJ condemned Communist China government “Brutal Vendetta” against independent newspaper, IFJ accused CCP manipulated 2006 incident,
      3. "Since the end of 2004, Chinese Communist Party officials have hunted down the Epoch Times staff inside and outside mainland China, …
      4. Why deleted “systematically confiscating newspapers”, “threatening the families of staff members.”
   2. PatCheng change its title “Attacked and Suppressed” to “Censorship” , you wrote edit reason that “NPOV headline”.———BUT You did not explain why it’s NPOV? The events of IFJ and RSF’s concern are attack and suppress concerning Chinese Communist Party.
2. Why PatCheng edit, not in accordance with source.
   1. 【Content of the source 】.“Lian also said The Epoch Times has an abundance of informants in China, some at high-levels. It gets many leaks from China, he said, and when it comes to big issues, Epoch’s predictions are always accurate.”
   2. 【After Patcheng deletion and Change its meaning 】 “it often receives high level leaks from informants inside mainland China” ( meaning different,This might be Oringinal Research.)
3. About Nine Commentaries and Quitting Chinese Communist Party movement.
   1. Why PatCheng deleted all content of CS Monitor’s article? You wrote edit reason that “This is an opinion article from a contributor, not by CS Monitor”.———BUT even if it’s a opinion, why you not modify but choose to delete it all ?
   2. Why? You deleted the content “Voice of America 2005 reported that it caused a movement of quitting from the Chinese Communist Party rise globally .” you wrote edit reason that “VOA article simply quoted the organizers”———BUT what you said seems not correct. Indeed (1)VOA’s report used a title “quitting from the Chinese Communist Party rise globally” (2) VOA’s article said (not quoted) that”《大纪元时报》刊登了九篇批判中共的文章，这些文章透过网络和其他渠道传播到中国，推动了退党的活动。Epoch Times nine article criticizing CCP, spread into China via internet and other ways, push the Quitting Movement“
   3. Why this Change edit  ? you wrote edit reason that “More clarification.” However, it seems not.
      1. According to source’s content , It(Quitting CCP Movement) selected as the Top 3 Global events in 2011 by former economic policy advisor to the President of Russia,Andrey Illarionov and his research institute.
      2. PatCheng change into: It was selected as the one of the top global events in 2011 by Russian economist, Andrey Illarionov, citing the paper's claims that…

(1)Why one of “Top 3” changed to “one of Top “?

(2)Why “and his research institute” , “economic policy advisor to the President of Russia”be deleted?

(3)What’s reason that these all be move to the back?

(4)Why (Oringinal Research) add Andrey Illarionov “citing the paper's claims”——the source not say that.

Wetrace (talk) 12:48, 21 June 2020 (UTC)— Wetrace (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Helle, @PatCheng:, three days passed, Would you please reply question above? I Noted that you are still editing on June22.Wetrace (talk) 06:38, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

@PatCheng's account was suspended due to using multiple sock puppet accounts, please keep an eye out on malicious edits.

Question: some edits and maybe Original Research

To @Llll5032:, Hello, I have some questions about some your edits . Would you please reply discussion? Thank you.

1. You rollback my modification(according to the source content), and you wrote reason “MOS:LEADCITE”
   1. your version, “In Europe The Epoch Times is known for promoting far-right politicians”—Would you plsase point out Which content in sources say that? Or it seems a Original Research.——According No original research: “Articles may not contain any new analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to reach or imply a conclusion not clearly stated by the sources themselves.”….”【Synthesis of published material】Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. Similarly, do not combine different parts of one source to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by the source. “
2. You move some to Assessments section. （【 Moved Content】 Hong Kong Economic Journal’s former editor-in-chief and Scholar Lian Yi-zheng  wrote on New York Times that Epoch Times has often proved correct in its analysis of power plays in Beijing.Lian also said Epoch Times has an abundance of informants in China, some are even high-leveled.It gets large amount of leaks(leaked info from China) ,and when it comes to big issues, Epoch’s predictions are always accurate.） ----Why not? It's a supplement to EPOCH's China content.
   1. ——Let's compare the same section---- why several assessment or others(especially negative) in “Editorial_stance” Section ? Shall we moved them to other?
3. About this content ( “accusing World Journal of being a "megaphone for the evil Chinese Communist Party”)
   1. Question : Why this related to “Editorial_stance” ? ——That seems Original Research. According to the source, It's not a stance of EpochTimes itself.— (【inside Source】“When the World Journal quoted a Chinese-born academic insinuating links between Falun Gong protesters and the consulate fire, the Falun Gong community and its media backers were outraged. Members of Falun Gong demonstrated in front of the World Journal’s building, demanding the story be retracted.“The article reflected the reporter or the editorial department’s bias and thus caused the World Journal to become a megaphone for the evil Chinese Communist Party,” read an open letter presented to the World Journal by the local Falun Gong organization and printed on The Epoch Times’ website.”)
   2. You delete the 2 report about “World Journal.” (【Removed content】RSF said "Beijing’s influence reaches especially far in the Chinese-language media outside China."World Journal has also toned down its coverage of China.)——you wrote reason “subtracted info that belongs in the World Journal's Misplaced Pages article, not the ET’s;PRC's influence is already mentioned in History section”)
   3. ——But, the 2 report also mention EpochTimes. Why not 2 reports’ view to compare with article.
4. You delete this （【Deleted Content】 RSF's 2019 Report said Epoch Times is of the few independent Chinese-language media outlets in the United States.）, Your reason is “Relevant in the article, but needs more WP:CONSENSUS that this assessment ("one of the few") is crucial enough for the lead paragraph”
   1. I think this sentence is important info. Why should not be placed in lead?
   2. Let’s compare with the following content…why the following should be place in lead?

In Europe The Epoch Times is known for promoting far-right politicians, and in the United States it backs President Donald Trump; a 2019 report showed it to be the second-largest funder of pro-Trump Facebook advertising after the Trump campaign. The group's news sites and YouTube channels have spread conspiracy theories such as QAnon and anti-vaccination propaganda. The organization frequently promotes other Falun Gong extensions, such as its performing arts company, Shen Yun.

Wetrace (talk) 18:23, 21 June 2020 (UTC)— Wetrace (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Hello Wetrace,

1. MOS:INTRO: "The lead section should briefly summarize the most important points covered in an article in such a way that it can stand on its own as a concise version of the article." Not all sources are cited in the lead paragraph (because of WP:OVERCITE), so you can also look in the "Editorial stance" section for more citations on Germany and France. Three RS are cited there. Two of them have "far right" in their headlines. Are they wrong? Find a WP:RS that says so.
2. "Editorial stance" describes the ET's own viewpoints and judgement. "Assessments" describe what others think of the ET. There is some overlap but the information should go where it fits best.
   1. WP:WIP
3. 1. I did not edit that.
   2. I think my edit summary explains this.
4. MOS:LEADREL: "Emphasis given to material should reflect its relative importance to the subject, according to published reliable sources." Multiple WP:RS have written about the ET on the topics in the lead paragraph. The reports you cited don't have the ET as their main focus.

Llll5032 (talk) 20:31, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

Hello @Llll5032: , Thanks for your reply. My opinion as follows:

1. About Q1, You’ve not substantially reply me. —— WP:No original research: 【Synthesis of published material】———your version, “In Europe The Epoch Times is known for promoting far-right politicians”—It seems a Original Research, you’ve not point out Which content in sources say that. .
2. About Q2, It seems you think that other contents also shall not be in “Editorial_stance” Section.
3. About Q3, So the source content about World Journal, not Editorial_stance. OK, Let’s remove it.
4. About Q4, I think maybe you misunderstood. These 2 important Reports are although not a monograph on EPOCHTIMES , but these are very important, neutral and authoritative Research related to Media issue. And Reports listed and comment these media.

(1)Hoover’s 2018 Report wroted by dozens of important china-studies scholars, on Chinese Communist Party’s comprehensive influence inisde US.

(2) Reporters without Borders’s 2019 Report title is “China's Pursuit of a New World Media Order”.

——These 2 Reports said EPOCHTIMES is one of few true independent Chinese-Language Media is US, not controlled by PRC/CCP Communist. —This is a important and authoritative statement according rigorous research.

Wetrace (talk) 07:15, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

Llll5032, new questions about your edit on 6/23.

1. one example, (1)Why you deleted  : advertisers and distributors have been regularly threatened not to support The Epoch Times in any way?Besides, IFEX's Source is good. ----That's not related your reason "copy edits".Wetrace (talk) 07:34, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

@Wetrace: You’ve rendered the name as a single word “Epochtimes” or some variation of that almost a dozen times. Is there a reason for this? Horse Eye Jack (talk) 07:26, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

Hello Horse Eye Jack. Hope I understood what your question. I konw it called "Epoch Times", I just think "EpochTimes" maybe more clear to read between lines. Because I Used to reading Chinese. I sometimes also write NYTimes/NewYorkTimes.Wetrace (talk) 07:34, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

Hello @Wetrace:, about your questions,

1. Two RS cited next to this statement support it, one verbatim in its headline (The Epoch Times#cite note-Allen-Ebrahimian-12, The Epoch Times#cite note-:3-13). More are referenced elsewhere in the article (The Epoch Times#cite note-:12-50, https://www.isdglobal.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/12/Make-Germany-Great-Again-ENG-061217.pdf). Why do you ask?
2. Do you agree that the "Editorial stance" section should be about the editorial stance?
3. OK (WP:RELEVANCE)
4. These long reports are relevant to the article, but refer to The Epoch Times only in passing (MOS:LEADREL, WP:DUE), and also say that China Digital Times and Vision Times in Chinese are independent, and refer to many independent American publications that write about China predominantly in English and sometimes in Chinese. Why is it so important to be in the lead?
5. WP:TERSE says, "Articles should use only necessary words. This does not mean using fewer words is always better; rather, when considering equivalent expressions, choose the more concise."

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Llll5032 (talk • contribs) 10:31, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

Hi,Llll5032, Thanks for your reply above. These days I’m too busy to editing wiki. I will keep discuessing when available.Wetrace (talk) 07:01, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

The Yan Report and ;Letterbox promotions

Epoch times have been heavily promoting the Yan report. I see it on their website and Facebook all the time and they have been sending pamphlets and newspapers to the public via post. Telling all that the virus was lab made by the CCP. I have never seen a media group so vested in promoting the Yan report and it was very convincing in that they claim a real scientist from China, became a whistleblower, and fled china, to tell the truth to the world about the virus being lab-made. Some scientists dispute that story however this is worthy of a Misplaced Pages entry since it's unprecedented for any private media group to actually deliver a singular and controversial and likely misinfo to other people letter boxes enmmasse. https://www.abc.net.au/news/science/2020-10-09/anti-beijing-group-with-links-to-steve-bannon-misinformation/12735638 49.180.129.245 (talk) 04:12, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

New York Times publishes in-depth story about Epoch

I haven't read it yet, but I bet this will be a super useful post for improving this article: https://www.nytimes.com/2020/10/24/technology/epoch-times-influence-falun-gong.html -Pete Forsyth (talk) 18:00, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

Excellent find. Thanks for the link. Binksternet (talk) 18:42, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

It's a very biased article, with many factual errors. It seems to have been generated based on personal vendetta by the reporter. There are a number of factual errors, for example, Roose writes that “perhaps the most audacious experiment was a new right-wing politics site called America Daily.”

The Epoch Times has no connection with this media organization, and Roose provides not justification for connecting them, other than a single employee of Epoch Times went to work for America Daily after leaving Epoch Times.

Roose also writes in his article that The Epoch Times has “been one of the most prominent promoters of ‘Spygate,’ a baseless conspiracy theory involving claims that Obama administration officials illegally spied on Mr. Trump’s 2016 campaign.” This is an intentional misrepresentation of The Epoch Times’ reporting on the topic of the FBI’s 2016 Crossfire Hurricane probe. The Epoch Times has indeed been a leader in its reporting on the topic, which has been cited by other media—including the NY Times. Furthermore, the topic remains under investigation by U.S. Attorney John Durham. Squ1rr3l - Talk to me! 18:19, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

You're kidding, right? America Daily runs COVID-hoax right-wing pro-Trump anti-China articles and is published by Falun Gong–run Sound of Hope. America Daily reprints a lot of far-right articles from the John Birch Society organ The New American. It's about as obvious as it can get. Roose is doing good reporting. You did not provide any proof otherwise.

Regarding Durham's investigation, it's politically motivated. Top prosecutor Nora Dannehy quit the investigation becaus of interference from Barr. Barr controls the investigation's reports, not Durham. Durham has been working at it for two years and still has nothing against Biden. Yesterday, CNN cited The New York Times to say that Durham has nothing.

Being a "leader" in reporting on a trumped-up investigation is not something to brag about. Binksternet (talk) 19:28, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

Please read before commenting, your comment embarrasses yourself. The point is that the Epoch Times has no connection to America Daily, any more than Kevin Bacon. It's irrelevant. You're accepting that the connection exists, when it does not. Roose deleted the Tweets exposing his own pro-communist and anti-Epoch Times bias, but the Internet is forever and

Regardless of the results of the investigation, it's a valid investigation. Your sources are simply "he said-she said" Barr is the Attorney General of the United States. Nora Dannehy's comments are politically motivated comments from a disgruntled former employee. You're criticizing Epoch Times for covering information about the investigation by citing other newspapers covering information about the investigation. Durham's investigation has resulted in one indictment and the agent plead guilty The Durham investigation was not about Biden, he was not a target. Barr has mentioned several times that neither Biden nor Trump are targets of the probe. His only involvement in the scandal was to suggest using the Logan Act to go after General Flynn — Preceding unsigned comment added by Squ1rr3l (talk • contribs) 12:40, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

Squ1rr3l, the critique in America Daily is in practice a ringing endorsement of the NYT. Guy (help! - typo?) 12:42, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

I read the content of that article. That simply cannot tell the difference between anti-CCP and anti-China. There is nothing wrong with anti-China, but factually The Epoch Times is supporting traditional China (and also traditional values of many cultures) and insisting China should be united rather than anti-China. They always have a kind of illusion that democracy could work under a united China. Their stance is not anti-China. That article at NY Times is simply crazy and completely unreliable. --Kittyhawk2 (talk) 03:26, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

I cannot place your comment in the same world we all live in. The Falun Gong has made no effort to unite China, not through The Epoch Times or anywhere else. The Falun Gong believe that aliens gave us aircraft and computers... how is that traditional? Perhaps your view is because the situation near you in Hong Kong isn't like the USA where the Epoch Times has jumped on the Trump Train, and has pushed Spygate and COVID-19 hoaxes. Binksternet (talk) 04:03, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

Useful New York Times article

Doug Weller talk 19:11, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

Far-right descriptor

Bhoke2081, please stop removing the "far-right" descriptor without providing reliable sources of similar quality and quantity showing that The Epoch Times is not far-right. There are currently four cited reliable sources showing that The Epoch Times is far-right, including Kaiser's 2019 analysis of online media published in Routledge. If needed, there are even more reliable sources available that I have not yet added. — Newslinger talk 06:40, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

The source is reliable enough Bhoke2081 (talk) 06:41, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

Neither of the sources you have mentioned so far – Ad Fontes Media (RSP entry) and AllSides (discussed on the reliable sources noticeboard in 2017, 2019, and 2020) – is able to match the quality of even the Routledge source on its own. — Newslinger talk 06:46, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

Bhoke2081, WP:DUE says for assessments like this we need to balance "all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources" (see WP:RS and WP:RSP for what a reliable source is) Llll5032 (talk) 06:52, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

There are (at least somewhat) credible sources from both sides of the argument, therefore it is not a fact to say either person is correct. Why don't we remove the descriptor from the first paragraph and put all the sources in the media bias section? Faxmachinechecker (talk) 02:04, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages has specific guidelines for determining if sources are reliable or not. We do not assume that there are only two sides, and we do not assume that both sides are equal. Reliable sources describe Epoch as far-right. Misplaced Pages articles generally should not confine important information to criticism sections. Grayfell (talk) 04:56, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

https://www.allsides.com/news-source/epoch-times-media-bias This article seems to indicate that most people do not consider The Epoch Times to be far-right. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.98.64.80 (talk) 12:21, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

It's not a reliable source and the site doesn't give them that option in any case. Doug Weller talk 16:06, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

I'm not sure in what way All Sides is not a "reliable source". They are a bipartisan organization dedicated to "exposing people to information and ideas from all sides of the political spectrum so they can better understand the world — and each other." They provide the political leanings of their founders and editorial staff. They provide, in detail, their methodology for evaluating media sources. They use multiple methods for evaluating bias including blind bias surveys of people from across the political spectrum, editorial reviews, third party analysis, independent review, and community feedback. They have received press coverage from many media outlets including the New York Times, USA Today, NPR, BBC, CBS, Huffpost, Time, and Newsweek.

All Sides had rated The Epoch Times as "Right" (i.e. far-right). However, in their latest blind bias survey, the majority of 2,000 respondents, distributed evenly across the political spectrum, rated The Epoch Times as "Center". All Sides conducted a new editorial review and changed the rating of The Epoch Times to "Leans Right". They explain their methodology and reasoning.

I do not know of any other source for media bias ratings that is more thorough, bipartisan, balanced, and transparent. So I am interested in what makes All Sides an unreliable source. — Auctoris (talk) 18:28, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Allsides was capitalized in 2011, and went live online in late 2012/early 2013. Their founder/CEO John Gable was previously with Microsoft, AOL and Netscape. Their bias rating algorithm includes crowd-sourced elements, which could allow gaming of the system. They are not at all transparent with regard to payments received from targeted media outlets to change the rating results. I would expect Epoch Times to have paid money for the privilege of getting a better score. Binksternet (talk) 19:17, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Do you have evidence that their approach (blind bias surveys of people from across the political spectrum, editorial reviews, third party analysis, independent review, and community feedback) has been gamed? The system was created to minimize gaming.

There is no perfect system for rating media bias. It is not a hard science. There will always be the *possibility* for error or manipulation in any rating system. For example, even voting is not perfect. There *could* be fraud, but we do not assume there is fraud simply because it is possible. We look for evidence. If there is no evidence, then even though the system is not perfect and fraud is *possible*, we accept it as reliable.

Even in science, we work to maximize the internal and external validity and reliability of our methodology, but it will never be perfect.

Do you have evidence that All Sides have received payments to change media bias ratings? Are you suggesting that they promote a particular political bias and/or operate as a fraudulent for-profit business? If so, I would appreciate seeing the evidence so I can evaluate it. — Auctoris (talk) 21:49, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Another problem with Allsides is that they re-assessed Epoch Times in August 2020, the same month that Facebook banned Epoch Times for posting conspiracy theories, and the same month NBC News and Business Insider were revealing the Q-Anon hoax stories coming from Epoch Times. Allsides just says "August 2020" for chronology, so we don't know whether they factored in the breaking news. It's hardly likely they did so, or they would have retained the far-right assessment. Nobody who "leans right" would be promoting conspiracy theories. Binksternet (talk) 21:02, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

That is a fair critique that should be followed up. As you say, "we don't know whether they factored in breaking news". Perhaps they understand the timing issue and that is why they made the decision to only move it to Lean Right rather than changing it to Center as the blind-bias survey respondents suggested. However, this critique does not make All Sides—as an organization—an unreliable source. We need a critique demonstrating how there system is of inferior reliability to other systems for rating media bias.

BTW, I do not read The Epoch Times so I have no personal opinion on its bias rating. And I do not always agree with All Sides' ratings. — Auctoris (talk) 21:49, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

@Auctoris:, Binksternet is definitely twisting the dates around and spreading untruthful information here.

The Epoch Times (ET) received attacks from the NBC, followed by Business Insider in August 2019 (not 2020 !), saying that their sister media, NTD TV, has an entertainment Youtube channel, “Edge of Wonders”, that "promotes the QAnon conspiracy theory". This is already quite a far stretch in an attempt to discredit ET, not to mention that both the ET and Edge of Wonder had already made it clear that they have no connections with each other .

In addition, ET has also made it clear here that it has never “promoted the QAnon conspiracy theory”. So, just a few things to clarify here. Best, Thomas Meng (talk) 03:47, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

"Received attacks" – very funny. Epoch Times was investigated by good faith reporters from NBC News who reported what they found. It was not an "attack"; it was regular mainstream news. The whole Falun Gong media net is connected to the Edge of Wonders channel on YouTube, the channel spreading Q-Anon hoax nonsense, despite any disavowal by one or another of the media arms. Daily Dot looked into it further and confirmed. Binksternet (talk) 06:54, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

Allsides is assessed here on the Reliable Sources Noticeboard, as not a reliable source for citations. Llll5032 (talk) 13:59, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

Newslinger The Epoch Times is not a "far-right" newspaper. Misplaced Pages should not allow such biased language. It is indeed possible to describe a publication in a factual, professional, and encyclopedic way, which means avoiding sweeping categorizations. The article should present enough information to lead the reader to this conclusion without stating it, if it is indeed true. The Epoch Times' own motto is "Truth and Tradition". That is a noteworthy fact, which also suggests its ideological leanings. Why is that not in the first paragraph? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.44.27.250 (talk • contribs)

Misplaced Pages is based on WP:SECONDARY sources. We summarize for the reader what has been published about a topic. It's absolutely true that some very major sources have investigated The Epoch Times and determined that they are part of the Falun Gong media net and that all of these media outlets have been pushing far-right conspiracy theories. They hitched their wagon to the Trump train, turning their back on science and truth. Binksternet (talk) 17:33, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Circulation

The infobox currently states that The Epoch Times had a circulation of 1,314,375 in 2012, but that the figure was unaudited. The "Awards" section also claims that The Epoch Times received an award in 2012 for newspapers with a circulation under 50,000, and another award in 2013 for newspapers with a circulation of less than 100,000. This doesn't look consistent. Since the 1,314,375 figure is uncited, I think it should be removed unless there are more details on this claim. — Newslinger talk 00:36, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

Anything that lacks a reference in this article should definitely be removed immediately. Any aged reference placed on material presented as contemporary should also be removed without a second thought. :bloodofox: (talk) 05:12, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

I found the original edit that added this exact figure in 2014: Special:Diff/596245047. The source is the publication's own claim on its marketing site for advertising sales, now offline. However, even the claimed US-only figure of 435,100 copies exceeds the 50,000 and 100,000 limits on the awards. Narrowing it down even further, The Epoch Times still claimed to have circulated 105,100 English-language US-only copies in 2012. I've checked the timeline, but have yet to find any date on which the publication claimed a circulation under 100,000, no matter how the number is sliced.

Since there are conflicts between the primary sources cited in this article, I've removed the claimed circulation of 1,314,375 in Special:Diff/987460475. — Newslinger talk 05:33, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for checking! :bloodofox: (talk) 19:07, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 November 2020

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

The[REDACTED] article on The Epoch Times is extremely left leaning and serves to discredit/undermine the publication. The sources referenced in footnotes 1 - 12 are all left leaning sources that have an inherent bias against any non-left leaning media. I would request that the introductory paragraph is edited to remove inflammatory language around promotion of conspiracy theories and "far right ideology". The Epoch Times is not a far right newspaper just because NBC says so. {ip} 14:53, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Seagull123 Φ 16:15, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

Accusations of Publication being "Far-right"

I had a recent edit removed with a warning regarding The Epoch Times. I did not change anything except reverting the first paragraph back to a version from merely 2 weeks ago. Misplaced Pages was once a neutral platform for exploring information regarding certain topics, but it has recently transfigured into a hit-piece machine under the guise of some nebulous concept of "consensus" thanks to people who pretend to be "neutral" or sometimes have the literal username "neutrality."

It goes to show that this platform gives preference to people who spend the whole lives editing articles (for the edit counts) than to people who actually have knowledge or desire to remain unbiased regarding a topic.

How come the old "consensus" is different from the new "consensus" without any indication of actual discussion? How come The Epoch Times suddenly become "far-right" overnight with the old version enough to get you a warning? This is evidence of blatant bias of the highest degree.

Funny enough, none of the sources you cited described The Epoch Times as "far-right" per se. Only that the "German edition has aligned with the far-right." Hence the "consensus" interpretation thereof is rooted in deep seated bias against the publication and is not even derived from any of the (already biased) sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Creepercast888 (talk • contribs)

Propose a change, and support your proposal with reasoned arguments based on published sources.

If you don't do that, your post here is trolling, a useless rant about supposed Misplaced Pages bias. I almost removed it for that reason.

Please read WP:TALK#OBJECTIVE, and stick to objective facts. Binksternet (talk) 05:34, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

@Creepercast888: Please read the sources that Newslinger cited here: https://en.wikipedia.org/The_Epoch_Times#cite_note-12 Llll5032 (talk) 16:28, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 November 2020

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

Epoch Tines is not a far right media outlet it's conservative.Stop spreading this disinformation.Misplaced Pages is supposed to be neutral.Please learn the difference between conservative and far right Patriotjohn74 (talk) 10:07, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

•  Not done. You have not provided any argument against the extensive list of solid and reliable publications describing The Epoch Times as far right, and you have not provided sources that say "conservative". Binksternet (talk) 15:27, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 14 November 2020

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

Please replace the tag from (pp-small-yes) to (pp-move-indef) in order to stat that this article was highly visible page so i needs to be move protected. If any editors or administrators decline to it, i want to request it at RFPP in order to get the article move protected by admin only. 110.137.162.247 (talk) 07:53, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

This article has not seen any disruptive moves, why would it be move-protected? – Thjarkur (talk) 09:28, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 20 November 2020

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

The Epoch Times is a right wing media company, but it does not fall under the common definition of far-right. The points of view expressed in its articles are far from what is defined as "far-right politics" in this Wiki article: https://en.wikipedia.org/Far-right_politics. I suggest removing the mention of "far-right" and replacing it with simply "right". VanCoover (talk) 01:44, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

•  Not done. We don't change the assessments in published sources to fit our notions of precision. The published assessments stand on their own merits. If you wanted to change the article from far-right to simply right wing, you would have to show that a greater weight of published sources use the term right than the term far-right. Even then, we would acknowledge the sources that say far-right. Binksternet (talk) 02:19, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 28 November 2020

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

Change "far-right newspaper" to "newspaper." Labeling this publication as "Far-right" is not impartial because it does not consider legitimate differences in viewing the political spectrum, and the term "Far-right" often carries a negative connotation. As an encyclopedia, Misplaced Pages should be as free as possible from biased language.

Change "Pro-Trump Conspiracy Theories and Misinformation" to "Controversial Pro-Trump Political Stances." The original heading is not impartial because it uses biased language. In addition, calling the newspaper's claims "debunked" is biased because what constitutes "debunked" varied based on personal opinion.

Change "Covid-19 Misinformation" to "Covid-19 Coverage." Labeling the newspaper's coverage as "misinformation" instead of giving readers the opportunity to make up their own minds is biased against freedom of press. FakeNewsPress2020 (talk) 15:47, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

 Not done; Please provide reliable sources in support of your changes. Zoozaz1 talk 16:57, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 2 December 2020

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

Please remove "far-right" from the leading sentence describing Epoch Times. While one may disagree with the angle they approach news items from, they are not "far" to the right of what would be generally understood as "right" or conservative ideas in American politics. In other words, if you obtained a random sample of Americans who identified as right-wing and asked them if they agreed with the angle that the ET takes in investigating and reporting, the overwhelming consensus would be that ET is representative of their viewpoints -- thus right, but not far right. 174.131.88.166 (talk) 02:04, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Hello, 174.131.88.166. Per WP:DUE, we go by what the preponderance of reliable sources (WP:RS) say. If hypothetically we did our own random-sample survey of Americans, it would be considered original research (WP:OR), which is not allowed in Misplaced Pages articles. Llll5032 (talk) 02:22, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Wow, never in my life would know Epoch Times did so much depictable stuff. Since CCP is a real issue in my country and many chinese-speaking communities, their wiki page in chinese still looks alright. Who knows they would be the one that helps CCP to cause chaos in the world? Puetsua (talk) 06:10, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 3 December 2020

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

For: According to sociologist Yuezhi Zhao, "While mainstream newspapers typically treat Web versions as an extension of the already-existing print version, The Epoch Times website serves as the master for all its worldwide papers." Add link to Yuezhi Zhao's name.

Also, is it necessary to have ECP until November 2021? Swil999 (talk) 06:04, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit extended-protected}} template. This person's name is already linked in the article. – Jonesey95 (talk) 14:25, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

The person's name is not linked in that section, which given the length of the article would not be obvious that the individual has a page on WP unless the reader read the whole article. Doesn't the requirement to establish consensus only apply to edits that are likely to be controversial? How is a link controversial? Swil999 (talk) 06:08, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

Linking to Yuezhi Zhao one time in the article body is sufficient. I added an authorlink in the referenced paper. Binksternet (talk) 08:46, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 10 December 2020

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

PLEASE CHANGE THE WIKI TEXT FROM: The Epoch Times is a far-right international multi-language newspaper and media company TO: The Epoch Times is a right-of-centre international multi-language newspaper and media company

MY JUSTIFICATION: It is incorrect to describe The Epoch Times (ET) as a "far right" organisation. Read their articles and you will see this description is inaccurate. While ET does have include more articles of interest to Republican voters and is less dismissive of President Trump's actions and statements than the Mainstream Media (MSM) - which now insist on including their opinions when reporting the news - this does NOT make the ET a "far right" news site.

In the current election controversy Republicans are requesting a "free and fair election" and this is NOT a "far right" ideal. The ET reports such requests from Republicans and reports on State Hearings without giving an opinion. Republicans are usually described as "right of centre" and I request that you change the Wiki text to say this as it is a more accurate description.

The ET often has news items that might embarrass or question the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) actions, so it is interesting that the main attribution behind the description of "far right" comes from a journalist who spent 4 years in China. Is she acting for the CCP and trying to make the ET seem more extreme than their articles show them to be?

There is also an attribution stating the ET is linked to a German "far right" group. Can you please let me know who this group is, as I have never seen an ET article about any such group or a similar group, and the ET reports on European and World news appear balanced, factual and open, not "far right" in their attitude.

Thank you for your consideration of my request above.. Peterg52 (talk) 00:30, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

To editor Peterg52:  Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Sources already in this article refer to The Epoch Times as "far-right". If you would rather see terms like "right-of-centre", then sources must be produced that use that term. Thank you for your input! P.I. Ellsworth  ed.  01:11, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

Note that the mainstream media have taken the unusual step of declaring outright falsehood when it is known; they are not "including their opinions". Binksternet (talk) 01:39, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

Printed in Hong Kong?

Saw one of their advertisements which looked highly fake! It claims their Hong Kong (printing facility) does it even exist? (I can find no record of it or them selling news papers in Hong Kong!) 4 "communist agents" came in when they where working (not afterhours) and set fire to a small part instead of burning down the whole place for some reason! Is this claim BS or did it really happen? Should be in the article (they did not say when it happened .......)--Cynthia BrownSmyth (talk) 02:56, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 20 December 2020

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

The Epoch Media Group's news sites and YouTube channels have spread conspiracy theories such as QAnon and anti-vaccination propaganda.- “This has to go, The Epoch Times are not spreading conspiracy theories nor are they far right in which one could compare them with the German Nazi far right!” Unbelievable how Misplaced Pages can state such nonsense!!! 101.100.129.224 (talk) 09:36, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. These statements are well sourced. If you wish for it to be changed then please identify sources which support that view and establish a consensus on this talkpage before using the edit request template. Jack Frost (talk) 12:05, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

I'd like to know which part they are anti-vaccination. Though I understand they're extremely pro-Trump, I don't think they are anti-vax. It seems NBC news article doesn't give a clear link to specific Epoch article but only accuse The Epoch Times anti-vax for typical far-right stereotype. Chinese version of The Epoch times never claim that too, that will be criticized in Taiwan if they dare claim that. Puetsua (talk) 05:50, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

Article about this article

I don't endorse this editorial, but it might be useful to people frequenting this talk page: https://www. breitbart.com/tech/2019/08/27/wikipedia-editors-attack-china-critic-epoch-times-after-nbc-hit-piece/ "Misplaced Pages Editors Attack China Critic ‘Epoch Times’ After NBC Hit Piece" by T. D. Adler--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 04:13, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

First thing is that Breitbart is on the spam blacklist, which is why you had to break the URL in half to post this message. Breitbart is a terrible source and cannot be used for anything but statements about its own views.

Second thing is that the article's author is banned from Misplaced Pages, indefinitely blocked five years ago as User:The Devil's Advocate. He was a tendentious editor, always making trouble for trouble's sake. He was also a right-wing goose-stepper, which is why Breitbart is publishing him. Binksternet (talk) 06:12, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages controversial topics
• All unassessed articles
• B-Class Religion articles
• Low-importance Religion articles
• B-Class New religious movements articles
• Mid-importance New religious movements articles
• New religious movements articles
• WikiProject Religion articles
• B-Class Newspapers articles
• Low-importance Newspapers articles
• B-Class China-related articles
• Low-importance China-related articles
• B-Class China-related articles of Low-importance
• WikiProject China articles
• B-Class United States articles
• Low-importance United States articles
• B-Class United States articles of Low-importance
• B-Class Asian Americans articles
• Unknown-importance Asian Americans articles
• WikiProject Asian Americans articles
• WikiProject United States articles
• B-Class New York City articles
• Low-importance New York City articles
• WikiProject New York City articles
• B-Class Conservatism articles
• Low-importance Conservatism articles
• WikiProject Conservatism articles