Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 22:49, 18 July 2012

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. 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. 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). Journalism This article is within the scope of WikiProject Journalism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of journalism 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.JournalismWikipedia:WikiProject JournalismTemplate:WikiProject JournalismJournalism ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. New York City 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 ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

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.

Political views?

Previously I stated my view that being "pro-Falun Gong" (whatever that means) is not a political view, because Falun Gong is a spiritual practice. Someone recently added this as part of the political views of The Epoch Times. One question is: any source? Second question is: does this claim make sense to begin with? Discuss. --Asdfg12345 20:48, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Absolutely it does. Today's paper, for example, features as its #1 story on the front page an analogy between Schindler's List (The Holocaust) and, according to the publication, millions of Chinese disappearing into concentration camps. 66.108.223.179 (talk) 02:56, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

The Malaysia edition image

There is no hard rule about how many fair-use images can be included in an article. The Malaysia edition image adds much to the article because it clarifies the fact that the U.S. is only one of the 30 countries in which the paper is published. Before my changes the article had included two high-resolution images from the New York edition. I've been reverted two or three times without a notice or explanation in the edit summary. Imagine Reason (talk) 23:07, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Clarifying that there are international editions does not require an image. -- Whpq (talk) 00:41, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

At a glance any reader would see that the different editions worldwide bear similarities as well as differences. Conveyance of this via text would be difficult and incomplete. Imagine Reason (talk) 05:02, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

That's a rather weak assertion. -- Whpq (talk) 10:35, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Do we have sources that discuss the differences and similarities? If so, an image illustrating it would be consistent with NFCC IMO. If not, I don't think more than one image can be easily justified. Hobit (talk) 01:05, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

I am not aware of any. But more importantly, the current article has no such discussion so the Malaysian image doesn't belong in the current article. If there was sourced commentary on the differences in the article, then we would be in a different situation. -- Whpq (talk) 15:29, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

I've asked at WT:Non-free content for other opinions. -- Whpq (talk) 13:13, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

• I concur with Whpq's assessment. The image is not discussed in the context of sourced commentary regarding the image. It's decorative. That it is emblematic of international editions is original research. It's superfluous to the article, and with the image absent the article reads the same and the reader's understanding is not sacrificed. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:08, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Multiple language pages?

I caught a French edition of this recently and it appeared rather different than the English one. It occurred to me that we may want to have separate pages for the different language editions of this newspaper; this page would be for the English, but another would be for French and another Chinese. Comparing the content of them they are obviously editorially distinct. I may have read that somewhere else, but it may be a sensible move for this page. Thoughts? The Sound and the Fury (talk) 17:30, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

A similar thought occurred to me the other day when I updated the logo on the page. That is, I wasn't sure whether to use an English or Chinese logo, but seeing as the page is about a paper called the Epoch Times (as opposed to the Chinese version Dajiyuan), I opted for english. I don't know about the French, but the English and Chinese are radically different in terms of tone, editorial content, history, distribution, etc. One potential challenge is that we would still need to describe the news organization as a whole somewhere. If each article is named for its own language edition, and there is no parent company (to my knowledge), where would that go? Homunculus (duihua) 17:50, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

I made some changes just now, including moving information around, defining the sections more clearly, and generally tidying up. I think this idea is still viable as long as the sources are present. I haven't made an effort to discover relevant sources. TheSoundAndTheFury (talk) 23:05, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

The only way we could have multiple articles on separate editions is if those editions individually each meet notability guidelines. Considering that we have even deleted pages on non-English language editions of wikipedia itself based on their lack of independent notability, which I think gets a great deal more attention in the independent press than The Epoch Times does, I am very, very dubious that any such spinout articles would meet survive. From what I can tell, doing a quick overview of the articles discussing the "Epoch Times" available on Highbeam Research, some 188 total, the only individual edition which looks to me like it might qualify at all based on notability would be the Hong Kong edition, and that one just barely. And, honestly, that material would probably be better included in Falun Gong in Hong Kong, as there probably isn't enough encyclopedic content available on it to merit a separate article. I tend to think that any material about "local" editions of any edition of The Epoch Times are probably best included in similar articles, given the fact that the amount of material in any spinout articles would very likely be minimal. John Carter (talk) 14:48, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Yep, that's a key consideration. The untapped part is Chinese language RS content that may inform the Chinese version of Epoch Times page, and French-language content that might inform the French Epoch Times page. But whether there is sufficient content to justify separate pages is not yet known. We'd have to do research on those other languages and see what was available, to see if it warranted this idea. TheSoundAndTheFury (talk) 18:29, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Well, I think we have just recently more or less ensured a lot of the potentially interested editors who have access to Chinese language RS won't be editing for a while. Of course, any editor is perfectly free to develop a few articles to the exclusion of others, some of which might be just as if not more relevant to the topic, but, personally, I would have to seriously wonder whether the possible results in this particular case would merit the high degree of effort for the, quite possibly, small degree of return. John Carter (talk) 20:02, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

There is good reason to believe the Chinese edition could merit its own page. As to the other language and national editions, an interim solution at least would be to create distinct listings within this page describing their basic features (ie. history, circulation, sections, etc). Should sufficient material be found to meet notability guidelines, some of these could then be broken out into distinct articles. Homunculus (duihua) 00:34, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

We've now come full circle on the image.

Please see File_talk:Epoch_Times_LA.jpg. Thank you. Imagine Reason (talk) 05:25, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Fundings?

I realize it's rather rhetorical to ask where funding for free weekly newspaper comes from. And if you didn't know, for most of them, funding comes from ads and so on; for others there is a parent company, usually a much larger media corporation. However, for an international newspaper covering most non third world countries; with a circulation rivaling those of the New York times; and one that is clearly politically motivated with its consistent PRC bashing on its every issue, this funding issue deserves a critical look. Thoughts?

In the talk section's archive 1 and 2, a search (ctrl+f) for "funding" yields interesting documents with quite revealing information. Nothing comes of it since as discussion goes nowhere and presence of a "funding issue" section in the article either by itself or within the "criticism" section.

Also I'd just like to point out there won't be a neutral position for this topic, and if there seems to be one, it's not or it's already biased, as all information on this topic lean heavily in one direction or another. If this article as with all articles relating to FLG, whenever a seemingly neutral description is given without a just as expensive opposing view presented, the article is biased and needs to be augmented.

So, funding. Sources, issues, criticism, etc. Thoughts? Gw2005 (talk) 04:07, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

• From the versions I have read/seen, there are usually a handful of small classified; larger ads are principally those announcing group (ie Falun Gong) meetings, so it seems likely to me that revenues from advertising are not the principal source. But as it is a private organisation, I wonder how far this investigation will get. --Ohconfucius 02:38, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

fyi here in nyc it has ads. see http://epoch-archive.com/a1/en/edition.php?dir=us/nyc/2012/05-May/30Happy monsoon day (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 21:50, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

There are public records of Falun Gong associations providing funds to Epoch Times, found in non-profit declarations (Guidestar is a clearing house for non-profit disclosures):

Southern USA Falun Dafa Association. $10,350 were given to Epoch Times in 2002, $22,700 in 2003, $14,750 in 2004:

http://www.guidestar.org/FinDocuments/2002/760/692/2002-760692185-1-9.pdf

http://www.guidestar.org/FinDocuments/2003/760/692/2003-760692185-1-9.pdf

http://www.guidestar.org/FinDocuments/2004/760/692/2004-760692185-1-9.pdf

Falun Dafa Association of New England. $57,609 were spent on computer and print media, $97,755 in 2003, $116,823 in 2004:

http://www.guidestar.org/FinDocuments/2002/043/576/2002-043576893-1-9.pdf

http://www.guidestar.org/FinDocuments/2003/043/576/2003-043576893-1-Z.pdf

http://www.guidestar.org/FinDocuments/2004/043/576/2004-043576893-02038ba1-9.pdf

This fact was originally in the wiki, but were removed by Falun Gong disciples who came here to push POV Bobby fletcher (talk) 22:40, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

• All unassessed articles
• C-Class China-related articles
• Low-importance China-related articles
• C-Class China-related articles of Low-importance
• WikiProject China articles
• C-Class Religion articles
• Low-importance Religion articles
• C-Class New religious movements articles
• Mid-importance New religious movements articles
• New religious movements articles
• WikiProject Religion articles
• Unassessed Journalism articles
• Unknown-importance Journalism articles
• WikiProject Journalism articles
• Unassessed New York City articles
• Unknown-importance New York City articles
• WikiProject New York City articles
• Misplaced Pages controversial topics