Talk:The Epoch Times

1. Redirect Template:Dated maintenance category

ET is conservative, not 'far-right'

First hyperlink shows neo-nazis marching. This is a highly misleading entry. If ET is far-right then NY Times is far-left, but of course they're painted as mainstream. ET is conservative, you could even say 'ultra conservative,' but what you've posted is a lie. Neither is it authoritarian--quite the opposite, if you've ever bothered to read its articles. Taking sides with the Chinese Communist Party, which actually is authoritarian, makes me wonder who runs this site and who they're placating to. This and other skewed articles is why I've quit contributing to Wikipedia, although I used to every year. Martyrw (talk) 16:35, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

Did you see the two dozen references saying that the Epoch Times is far right? It's because of the outright falsehoods and conspiracy theories they peddle. They got even crazier in 2020: "...by 2020, it became a megaphone for the U.S.’s most extreme right-wing stories." Binksternet (talk) 20:00, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

That's a subjective response. I can cite just as many references stating how the NY Times gives falsehoods and is far left. Wikipedia should rise to a level of objectivity not catering to preferred opinions. I've followed ET for several years, and although I don't even come close to agreeing with everything they publish, the ET simply isn't 'far right' -- certainly not by Wikipedia's definition of far right, and they should at least be consistent with their own definitions. The stance W takes on stuff like this alienates them from maybe 30-50% of the US population by labeling and name-calling, contributing to the ongoing polarization in this country. Martyrw (talk) 21:59, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

Your 30 percent of the US population voted for Trump, who is a charlatan. These people are Fox zombies—not worth the trouble. Nobody has a solution for convincing this bloc of people who don't care about facts or logic. The polarization in the US has deepened because of Trump, Fox and Epoch Times, not because Wikipedia is skeptical and rigorously factual. In fact, the polarization started in 1994 with Newt Gringrich.[1][2] The polarization has been driven by right-wing elements, especially the Christian right. This campaign has also eroded education in the US, making people more prone to believe nonsense such as what they read in the Epoch Times or see on Fox. Binksternet (talk) 22:24, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

Template:Ping "Template:Tq" violates Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons. JacktheBrown (talk) 00:54, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

ABC News: Trump is a charlatan according to Reggie Walton. The New York Times: Trump is a charlatan according to L. Brent Bozell III. Project Syndicate: Trump is a charlatan according to Nina Khrushcheva (professor). The Guardian: Trump is a charlatan according to John Bolton. Binksternet (talk) 02:35, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

You're not making any real, cogent points. 2603:6011:7E01:1DAA:1D31:E7DE:E56C:5E12 (talk) 23:38, 29 March 2025 (UTC)

Yes he does. The point is that far-right positions do not stop being far-right just because the number of far-right people in a specific country rises. Terms such as this one are not defined relative to a sort of "center of gravity" of the population of one random country. Especially not one that has recently voted to be ruled by a lying fraud and his incompetent minions who are currently running it into the ground economically, educationally, morally and medically while alienating all its allies, just the way far-right regimes do.

But of course the actual reason to keep the "far-right" is that reliable sources use it. Suck it up. --Hob Gadling (talk) 09:41, 30 March 2025 (UTC)

Yet you believe all the quotes from far left sources. Just like the writer of this hit piece on ET. Chrshale (talk) 14:34, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

. I would point out that 2 dozen left-leaning journalists from other news organizations, who are generally in lock-step when it comes to spinning narratives, might be seen to have a vested interest in labeling ET as "far-right." That is a clear conflict of interest, and should call their characterization immediately into question for the average reasonable person, but no analysis was done here in that regard; like so many, the author has accepted their labeling without question or critique.

. Bit of a dodge, that: "I didn't call them far right; 'reliable sources' called them far-right (and never mind that the only 'reliable sources' allowed to be cited on Wikipedia are all left-leaning)."

. The exact same thing is happening in the political spectrum: people of one party accept without question their party's characterizations of those in the other party, and no one questions if they might have self-serving motives for doing so.

. Imagine two competing ambulance-chasing lawyers put out a series of ads, each one attacking the other with name-calling and half-truths. Why would you believe either one of them implicitly? Why wouldn't you investigate for yourself and make up your own mind?

. I understand, of course; NBC, CBS, NYT, WaPo, and their ilk can't have their regular viewers and readers popping over there and getting a perspective that may differ significantly from the "sacred narrative."

. But I expected more from Wikipedia. Looks like Larry Sanger is right despite my initial skepticism, and Wikipedia really has become just another mouthpiece for establishment orthodoxy narratives, rather than "a collaborative encyclopedia of opinion." There are some legitimate news sources that you can no longer cite on Wikipedia.

. To paraphrase The Onion, it appears that Wikipedia is now dedicated to the free exchange of idea. Ylandrum (talk) 13:01, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia exists to summarize the literature on a topic. When we observe a consensus in the literature, we relay that fact to the reader. We don't try to conduct "analysis" to investigate why they are in agreement.

Your ambulance-chaser analogy is an example of both-sidesism, a form of false balance in which two parties are depicted as equally bad when one is orders of magnitude worse. Binksternet (talk) 15:13, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

The dozen references from far-left sources? Scottca075 (talk) 02:22, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

This article is about The Epoch Times, not The New York Times; if you have constructive changes to propose to the Wikipedia article about The New York Times that are supported by reliable sources, feel free to suggest them at Talk:The New York Times. As mentioned in the FAQ at the top of this page, the far-right descriptor for The Epoch Times is amply and reliably sourced; see Template:Slink for the current list. Your suggestion that the article is Template:!xt because you do not like the fact that reliable sources describe The Epoch Times as far-right is a false dilemma; there are more than two "sides" in geopolitics, and moreover, this article reflects content published in reliable sources – it does not "take sides". This article does not mention authoritarianism, so it is unclear why your comment implies that the article is describing The Epoch Times as such. — Newslinger talk 03:08, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

Article calls TET "far-right" and links the to the WP article that describes far-right as authoritarian.216.195.49.33 (talk) 13:27, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

How much is Falun Gong paying y'all to keep opening the same complaint on this talk page over and over again? Brusquedandelion (talk) 11:11, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

Well said. This entire entry is a hit piece and reads like it was written either by Beijing or the NYT. Take your pick. Chrshale (talk) 14:31, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

Ah yes, known collaborators the Beijing government and the New York Times. Please provide us with reliable sources that dispute referring to this... publication... as not far-right. Please note that far-right publications are conservative so sources calling it conservative don't actually conflict sources calling it far-right. Simonm223 (talk) 14:34, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

The Epoch Times has a different political position depending on the region. In the United States, it is a Trumpist far-right media, but in Hong Kong, it is a pro-democracy camp, or radical liberal. In China, the pro-Chinese Communist Party is a far-right stance. ProKMT (talk) 10:27, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

You got any reliable sources we can use? Polygnotus (talk) 10:45, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

I doubt it. Simonm223 (talk) 10:57, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

Same, but it is important to emphasize that, because Wikipedia is based on reliable sources, it is pointless to complain here. Email or call reliable sources and complain there, make sure they write what you want them to. Wikipedia will follow the reliable sources. Polygnotus (talk) 11:01, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

In the United States, the Epoch Times speaks for far-right populism, but in Hong Kong, it speaks for 民主派. (see List of newspapers in Hong Kong#Daily newspaper). Pro-democracy camp (Hong Kong) is never far-right. ProKMT (talk) 11:59, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

Nonsense. Also Wikipedia is not a WP:RS. Simonm223 (talk) 12:08, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

Per WP:TRUTH we need reliable sources to report something before we can decide to include it on Wikipedia. You can contact them by phone or email. Please let us know when a reliable source reports on this (e.g. the BBC, The Guardian et cetera). Thank you, Polygnotus (talk) 12:22, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

It is interesting to see how the Chinese edition of The Epoch Times is discussed in the 2019 Andrew Junker's book Becoming Activists in Global China, at page 186: "The Chinese edition of The Epoch Times, which is often free and easily available in many major cities, stands out among overseas Chinese-language newspapers for its commitment to publishing watchdog, critical news from mainland China. For example, it claims to have been the first media source to report the SARS cover-up in China in 2003. Over the years, the incentives of being supported through advertising and increasing readership have pushed the newspaper toward greater professionalization and to increasingly orient itself toward the needs and interests of its widest readership. Template:Tq It is also conceivable that an organization like The Epoch Times could evolve into a more mainstream publication while retaining its critical independence and moral watchdog mission." Thank you. Path2space (talk) 23:46, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

That is certainly not sufficient to change the lede though Junker's book might be due brief mention in the body of the article if it is not already there. Simonm223 (talk) 00:29, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

BTW, that source appears out of date compared to later research and reeks of early 2010s Western scholarship on Falun which frames it entirely on its conflict with the CCP. It was written before the big expose on Epoch's connection with far-right sources in 2019, and there are zero results in the book about its Trump connections. As for the claim of "professionalization", this is contradicted by Roose's 2020 NYT source which noted that ET's attempts to establish itself as a respectable source changed after Trump's election, in order to chase the conspiracy theorists' money. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 120.18.157.7 (talk) 00:27, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

Agreed, it’s not far-right at all, especially when the Wikipedia entry for “far-right” features Nazis. Supporting Donald Trump does not make a person or publication a Nazi. Wikipedia, you are ridiculous. 2601:8C:C302:FE50:9115:7F94:CDFC:FDBD (talk) 16:09, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

"Template:Tq" Exactly. JacktheBrown (talk) 01:11, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

One thing that frustrates me is this reverse argumentum ad hitlerum I see popping up on articles about the far-right lately. The argument goes: Nazis are far-right. X is not a Nazi. Therefore X is not far-right. However this is deeply flawed logic. Yes Nazis are far-right. As are Christian dominionists, neo-monarchists, freemen of the land, and ultranationalists of all stripes. The far-right, as defined in academic sources, encompasses a broad range of conservative, nationalistic and exterminist ideologies. So, no, one can be far-right without being a Nazi. I cannot speak on Wikipedia to how people might feel about ideologies they have sympathies to being associated with Nazis. All I can say is that Wikipedia will continue to cleave to reliable sources and not the flawed logic of people whose feelings are hurt because somebody pointed out Trump's exterminism. Simonm223 (talk) 12:42, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

We go by what reliable sources say. –Novem Linguae (talk) 16:13, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

According to allsides.com, TET leans right, not far right. They rate it with "high confidence" based on independent review, editorial reviews, community feedback, and blind surveys making it vastly more credible than the opinions of individual journalists. WP:RSP agrees: "the high-confidence ratings are generally reliable". 216.195.49.33 (talk) 13:30, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

Allsides cannot be considered a reliable source with regard to Epoch Times, because the two organizations have entered into a business agreement: Template:Xt

NBC News wrote about ET: "...by 2020, it became a megaphone for the U.S.’s most extreme right-wing stories." NBC News described ET as pivoting to support Trump with "right-wing slant and conspiracy theories." And the 2020 timing of this was very revealing: during the period NBC News was describing The Epoch Times as shifting further to the right, AllSides was re-evaluating its stance on ET which was "right" (all-the-way right or far right) from August 2019 to August 2020. After getting swarmed by 7,000 online comments, AllSides changed its rating in August 2020 to "lean right", softening their stance on ET. Astonishingly, they ignored the warning signs from mainstream news outlets, and instead they embraced the 7,000 Falun Gong supporters who were rallied. AllSides was clearly prioritizing their business arrangement with ET over actual facts about ET. In cases like this one, AllSides plummets in reliability per WP:CONTEXTMATTERS. Binksternet (talk) 13:51, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

If context mattered you wouldn't be quoting assertions from liberal competitors of TET as authoritative. Blind surveys don't care about business deals. 216.195.49.33 (talk) 03:56, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

NBC News is mainstream, and they are perfectly reliable as a source. See Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources. Allsides did not really run blind polls. Instead, they bent under the human wave of 7,000 Falun Gong shock troops. Allsides will never be a good source for Falun Gong topics. Binksternet (talk) 04:06, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

As a source for what? 2603:6011:7E01:1DAA:1D31:E7DE:E56C:5E12 (talk) 23:37, 29 March 2025 (UTC)

The context that Binksternet used it in. Doesn't seem hard to follow. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:02, 31 March 2025 (UTC)

You know saying epoch Times is far right is at least hyperbole, i f not outright ountruth, so you attack the purported connection of the source. 2603:6011:7E01:1DAA:1D31:E7DE:E56C:5E12 (talk) 23:35, 29 March 2025 (UTC)

What is the difference you see between "far-right" and "ultra conservative"? From what I can see political scientists seem to treat those terms as more or less interchangeable in a contemporary sense and I don't see anything at ultraconservative which strongly suggests otherwise. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:14, 30 March 2025 (UTC)

Template:Ping the "ultra-conservatism" is only more conservative than conservatism itself, while the "far right" (a term often misused in the U.S.) can lead to extremism, such as fascism. JacktheBrown (talk) 16:23, 30 March 2025 (UTC)

How are more conservative than conservatism itself and more right than right itself not synonyms? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:46, 30 March 2025 (UTC)

Template:Ping conservatism and far right are different things, but I understand that users of the opposite ideology believe they're synonymous. JacktheBrown (talk) 16:50, 30 March 2025 (UTC)

You misunderstand, conservatism and right are synonyms... and ultra conservative, far right, and right wing extremism are synonyms. But conservatism is not a synonym for far right. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:53, 30 March 2025 (UTC)

This is your personal interpretation. Reliable sources correctly call Epoch Times far-right. Simonm223 (talk) 16:47, 30 March 2025 (UTC)

Lumping all of your enemies under the label weakens it. It's why people shrug now at being called a Nazi. It's been a terrible and self-defeating strategy. 206.211.153.208 (talk) 20:32, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

Reliable source (BBC News) that refers to what the previous IP rightly said: [3]. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.124.15.82 (talk)

IP that article doesn't mention Epoch Times at all nor does it mention Falun Gong. Also this looks like an opinion piece. This seems entirely off-topic for this discussion. Simonm223 (talk) 18:28, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

It tends to be a mix between conservative, right-wing, and far-right. ClifV (talk) 22:11, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

Controversy

Shouldn't there be - as in many other articles - a "Controversy" section? 69.59.210.198 (talk) 23:38, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

While it is not always possible, in general, such sections should be avoided. When you see such sections in active and well-developed articles it's usually a compromise because editors couldn't agree on a better way to include such content. Having material on controversies organically integrated into the article, as it is here, is generally a much better approach. Grayfell (talk) 00:05, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 May 2025

Template:HAT I request that the publisher remove the label that Epoch Times is a "far-right" publication. There is no evidence to assert this let alone publish it to the world. Epoch Times are NOT "Far Right" and I have contacted them to highlight this false and detrimental label so they can take legal action. 2A00:23EE:12C0:51DC:B865:EE0D:1E5C:15D6 (talk) 07:32, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

File:X mark.svg Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. The far-right descriptor is amply and reliably sourced. Additionally, legal threats are prohibited on Wikipedia. — Newslinger talk 09:47, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

The Epoch Times Article needs improvement

WP:NOTFORUM, WP:NOTPROMO
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I would like to tell you something about The Epoch Times, that you may not know. As America’s fastest-growing independent news media, The Epoch Times does not promote or endorse any specific political party. The paper was founded in 2000 by Chinese Americans who wanted to spread the truth and speak up for the voiceless—including Falun Gong practitioners that faced brutal persecution in China due to their spiritual beliefs. Their story was largely ignored by major Western media. The Epoch Times has been at the forefront of countering all the misinformation and exposing the facts about the Chinese Communist Party, and how they have been persecuting the political dissidents, and people of Christian faith, and other spiritual groups, despite constant attacks and sabotage against us. It was not too many years ago that CCP sent thugs to burn our office in Hong Kong. Our reporters were jailed and tortured in China in the early days. The Epoch Times mission is to bring you a truthful view of the world free from the influence of any government, corporation, or political party. We have always been working for the freedom of speech, freedom of press and freedom of belief. In Wiki - Epoch Times is falsely labeled as far-right paper. We have never been far-right, we aim to be neutral, and tell the truth. Our journalists come from different political backgrounds, and also from different faiths. ET has never been a supporter of any president. We are an independent media, while many MSM has been getting money from CCP. Please read, from the links below. https://www.theepochtimes.com/opinion/our-response-to-nbc-news-inappropriate-questions-2971493 https://capitalresearch.org/article/nbc-news-fails-crc-fact-check-the-epoch-times-is-no-pro-trump-dark-money-operation/ Kind Regards, Pia Svensson 2A02:AA1:116F:925D:FCCE:50B9:EC21:657D (talk) 14:59, 17 June 2025 (UTC)